Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Google

Cost of Pre-Screening All YouTube Content: US$37 Billion 345

Fluffeh writes "The folks that push 'Anti-Piracy' and 'Copying is Stealing' seem to often request that Google pre-screens content going up on YouTube and of course expect Google to cover the costs. No-one ever really asks the question how much it would cost, but some nicely laid out math by a curious mind points to a pretty hefty figure indeed. Starting with who to employ, their salary expectations and how many people it would take to cover the 72 hours of content uploaded every minute, the numbers start to get pretty large, pretty quickly. US$37 billion a year. Now compare that to Google's revenue for last year."

Comment Re:AOL Offices (Score 1) 141

not to defend AOL, but it is really NOT their responsibility to determine whether their service is needed by their customers.. but rather to provide the services the customer subscribes to -- which is what AOL does. similarly, if you subscribe to cable tv but then install a satellite dish, it is YOUR job to cancel the cable if you no longer need or want it - the cable company can't read your mind, YOU have to return their equipment and cancel the service (or pay the bill, or suffer the consequences of doing neither)

Begging your pardon, but that's a sniveling shit-pile of an excuse for a company to hide behind.

The question isn't one of legal responsibility* and consequences. It's one of service and this sort of activity by companies, of charging people who they know are receiving zero services from them, is morally bankrupt If you want to run a business that provides a service, please do, but if you keep billing people for nothing, there's no difference between that and stealing. Even those few idiots still holding AOL stock should agree that never signing on new customers is not a proper business model (doubly so when your existing customer base is dying off).

One of my main objections to automatic payments and paperless billing is exactly this kind of prevalent attitude- that a company will take as much money from me, whether or not I'm actually using their service. Companies I can't trust will just have to keep paying for outdated collection systems. At the moment that's all of them, except for two publicly-owned utilities. You want to know why I might be more than happy to opt for a non-profit Internet service, or (Friedman forbid) government-run? This is why- because the private sector keeps proving it can't resist the temptation to rip people off,

* Yes, legally, the customer is solely responsible for terminating the contract, blah blah blah. But only a soulless lawyer will suggest that has any bearing on the correctness of such an attitude, and even he'll remind you that forgetfulness isn't a contract. One report on Brokaw and your revenue could plummet so fast that no judge could keep your business from falling apart.

Comment Re:There's no starship with just an ion drive (Score 2) 589

Fuck, Minnesota just passed plans to build a new Vikings stadium for a cost of around a billion dollars. What were these 'priorities' you were talking about again?

Michele Bachmann has to prove how American she is somehow. What better way than max out the credit card on football?

Comment Re:Curtail 'free speech' by lying corporations? (Score 1) 488

"Thought"? No. You heard wrong. Israel isn't the "colonial" state the anti-Semites claim, and you should be more careful where you get your information.

Israel benefits from cheap Arab labor in agriculture, but that's pretty much it- only a few percent of the economy. Israel's GDP is heavily based on technology, for which the territories are useless. Tourism yields benefits to both sides depending on tourist site location, but primarily to Israel which controls the better and more secure accommodations in Western Jerusalem, as well as the Sea of Galilee.

Comment Re:Hard in the US (Score 1) 488

Silly is how absolutely naive that was. Lying is the basis of advertising- an industry whose raison d'être is to make you buy something you wouldn't want to otherwise.

False advertising laws don't restrict lies, but only certain types of lies. The kind you suggested is not among those and easily circumvented using the word 'cool people drink X'.

Comment Re:Curtail 'free speech' by lying corporations? (Score 1) 488

Definitely- good point. Campaign finance is definitely an important place where Israel is a way more democratic nation than the US. "Citizens United" (our recent Supreme Court ruling on the matter) was a huge step backwards.

Another is the actual viability of new political parties. People here claim that if we didn't just have two parties, we'd suffer from the problem of minority rule Israel does, but we have that already, courtesy of the filibuster, anonymous hold, and other such undemocratic tricks.

Comment Re:Curtail 'free speech' by lying corporations? (Score 1) 488

Only its defense, not its social policies which are entirely self-funded.

Federal aid is limited to military expenditures, and those must be purchased from the US. So it actually comes down to being yet another handout to the American military-industrial complex

PS- Be a dick if you like, throwing around words like 'utopia' to disparage that which you don't understand.

Comment Re:Curtail 'free speech' by lying corporations? (Score 1, Interesting) 488

Considering this story is about Israel, you sound even sillier than you crazy conservatives usually do. Those aren't just promises. Education is free, healthcare co-pays aren't just cheap but are merely symbolic, and pensions still exist. Oh, and they still maintain a massive military budget, and don't owe China their firstborn.

Your move.

Comment Re:Google's motivation (Score 1) 219

then they can renegotiate the ToS with us.

Because that worked so well for them recently? Truth is this is a no-win situation for them. No matter what they do, a small number of anti-Google fanatics will cry bloody murder, and low-quality editors will help them spread their nonsense.

Now before you go crying about that "fanatics" I used, let's take a look at three points:
1) EPIC's "report" glosses over the fact that the supposed "overbroad" terms are global to the entire collection of Google services, and was not specifically designed for Google Drive. So attributing a bunch of general terms which apply to a comment you post on a public Google+ photo, to your private Google Drive files is naive at best, and intentionally misleading at worst.
2) That was "reported" by MacWorld. Not exactly a clutch of Google fans who are trustworthy in checking the facts.
3) Who are the other so-called "privacy advocates" in the MacWorld story? DropBox users.

On Dropbox’s online forum a user by name of Chen S. wrote...
Another user, Christopher H., said this in the Dropbox forum:...
Still another Dropbox user, Mark Mc.,

Next thing you know, we'll have Linux users coming here and ripping on Microsoft.

Until a decent reporter tells us something substantial, this should be seen as a non-story to all but the tin-foil folks.

Slashdot Top Deals

Remember to say hello to your bank teller.

Working...