I used the phrase "thinkers", not "elites". Those groups I "give credit" to are huge. I don't hesitate for a moment that there are members of those groups who have the intelligence at hand and the foresight to see where things are going and to prepare for them. Lumping everyone in those groups as either/or doesn't make sense.
Regardless, you still give them way, way too much credit.
he "thinkers" in govt, business and academia know this. The increasing militarization of the police, the complete disregard for the Constitution, the NSA monitoring everything, etc is getting ready for this.
You give the elites credit for way, way too much foresight, organization and discipline.
When nearly all of your readers block ads, it's tough to make it as an ad-supported site.
(Yes, I have AdBlockPlus installed, too.)
There is a place in the Dalles, Oregon where Google maps will try to make you take a left through a guard rail and off a 30ft tall retaining wall. To be fair the street does continue down there.
Have you submitted a correction?
If not, please post a link to the location, so I can.
By what realistic measure did AEDE expect Google to pay, when it outright stated that it'd shut down in Germany before paying? Did they expect Spain to be different?
Basically, yes, they thought that Spain would be different.
I think their assumption was that the Germans were a bunch of savages squatting in the ruins of a civilization that could safely be ignored, but that SPAIN! was still the center of civilized culture in the world, and therefore the rules were different.
I think they thought that Spain would be different because surely Google couldn't refuse to show snippets for all Spanish publishers. They assumed the German ruling didn't have the same clout because obviously many publishers would opt out.
Alternatively, I've seen it suggested that the Spanish knew exactly what would happen, and it's what they wanted. Or, more precisely, it's what the big, influential publishers wanted, because their size allows them to attract more visitors directly to their home pages, at the expense of smaller publishers. Another Slashdot poster claimed that it was political horse trading between big news organizations who are pro-government and the government to shut out smaller (and anti-government) news organizations, with an understanding that if the change hurt the big orgs too badly, the government would funnel cash to them to prop them up.
I don't know anything about Spanish politics, but those possibilities seem believable, and perhaps more believable than that Spanish lawmakers didn't believe Google would just shut down Google News in Spain.
What that strongly suggests to me is that as a society we place more value on preserving human life regardless of cost, regardless of the fact that this cannot properly be handled in any environment.
FTFY.
Spanish legislation went further than the German ones - The German court decision merely gave the right to charge, but per the article the Spanish one mandated charging.
Keep in mind that wasn't an accidental difference. In Germany, the publishers that opted out of the scheme (and kept their presence in Google News) benefited from absence of those who didn't opt out, which created a motive for all publishers to opt out in a sort of tragedy of the commons situation. The Spanish lawmakers wanted to prevent that.
Everything else has DRM.
Well, if by "everything else" you mean "nothing". Can you show me a seller of digital music that still does DRM, because as far as I can tell they've all abandoned it.
And the other half of this is that students who not only have the pre-requisites but have already learned the course material should be able to test out. Perhaps required to test out, because cocky young know-it-alls can be distracting, and perhaps intimidating, to the rest of the class.
That's fine for APIs that require registration. But I use the Calendar API. It doesn't require registration, and like many people I was caught out on the hop on November 17th when the v2 API was shut down. Like I said I'm not complaining. The v3 API is superior, but I would like to know if there is simple notification system available.
Well, in that case I think the best answer is to pay attention. I mean, the v2 API deprecation was announced at least three years prior to the shutdown. I don't know exactly when, but there are mailing list posts from 2011 telling people that v1 and v2 were deprecated and v3 should be used.
does Google have a single source for announcements like this?
I believe developers who have registered to use a particular API are notified by e-mail of changes to that API.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.ale.openwatch
That plus a phone is not quite the dedicated device you're looking for, but it could be pretty close.
It streams low-quality video to a server in real-time, as well as storing high-quality video locally. Another thing it should do (don't know if it does, but it's open source; I may see if I can add this feature) is that when you activate it, it should lock your phone automatically. You could still be forced to unlock and disable it, but they couldn't do it themselves, and their intimidating you to do it would be on the livestreamed record. Or they could smash it or remove the battery (if your phone has a removable battery); there a purpose-built device would have a big advantage. And I'd think it would support BT external mics and cameras just fine.
I think there's a much simpler and less arbitrary method: Prosecute them for the crimes commit. If I knocked you down, beat you up, took your phone, erased your data and refused to let you go, I'd have committed several serious crimes including assault and battery, theft, vandalism and unlawful imprisonment. Now, if these actions were actually necessary in the pursuit of an arrest, those are justified. But the actions that were not necessary in the execution of their proper duties were not justified and should be prosecuted.
It's simple, and doesn't require any changes to law or policy. It just requires that DAs be willing to do their jobs.
It seems though that it will in this case only give the government more control over your data.
I think this is the deeper reasoning behind most such moves all over the world. We've seen a lot of motion in this direction after Snowden's revelations, but I think it's less about worry that the US government may have too much access to countries' citizens' data than it is about the insight that if the data is within their borders then they can get it. Oh, I suspect that lawmakers in many countries who are citing the former rationale really mean what they say... but that they're being advised and encouraged by their own governments' bureacracies and security services for the latter rationale.
Publishers cannot relent.
Of course they can. They can go back to the same politicians they bamboozled the first time, and say "oops!" and get the law repealed.
True. I suspect it won't happen, though, because the most influential publishers are also the ones who will be least harmed. And, if you believe other commenters with more knowledge of Spanish politics, the ones who will be propped up by government funding should they be hurt too much.
"When the going gets tough, the tough get empirical." -- Jon Carroll
