Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Have To Agree With Google, In Part (Score 3, Informative) 13

You need to re-read your agreement. You don't have an implicit agreement that Google will hold your data. Quite the opposite. You have an *explicit* agreement that Google is allowed to share your data anonymised as it sees fit. Anonymised data has been sold by Google since it first realised data was worth something. Your privacy isn't impacted here by this requirement, only Google's wallet is.

Google states explicitly that they do not sell your data. What they sell is targeting. The advertiser specifies what they are looking for, and Google directs the advertising to those who match the profile selected.

"Google will never sell any personal information to third parties; and you get to decide how your information is used." - Sundar Pichai

The EFF has an article about it (from 2020) that goes into some details. Or you can read it straight from Google.

Comment Re:Same answers as before: (Score 4, Informative) 84

1. adjusted for inflation + interest + inconvenience fee (sufficient to allow the customer to purchase the media from another vendor).

Sony should feel a financial pressure (as well as political and social pressure) to do what is necessary to secure the license rights to what they previously promised their customers.

Comment Re: Worthless fucking statistic. (Score 1) 172

Buy some solar panels, dig a water well, invest in a septic field - the choice to subscribe to the corporations you clearly despise for power, water, and sewage treatment is just that, a choice.

It is NOT a choice. In most of America, you are required by law to maintain a (paid) connection to municipal services if they are available in your area. The code requires that the connection be maintained to insure proper habitability (safety and sanitary reasons) and you are required to pay for it even if your usage level is zero.

My cabin up north is fully off grid. There is no public utility service there. My home and business are in metropolitan areas, and are required to use the public utilities.

In exchange for this government mandated monopoly on providing services to citizens in a region, the utilities are regulated and are supposed to provide service for the benefit of the people. They do not do well enough at keeping their side of that bargain.

Comment Re:Worthless fucking statistic. (Score 1) 172

Why is this even being reported? Big countries will have frequent power outages if you add them all up.

Meanwhile, I'm sitting here in the U.S. and haven't experienced a power outage in at least ten years.

You are not wrong. The USA is fucking HUGE, geographically speaking. It also has over 350,000,000 people. Someone, somewhere, is going to be having just about any problem you can name. At the same time, someone else has never had the problem.

But we do have shitty utility services. We have a lot of regional mini-monopolies demanding more profits for their investors in exchange for doing the bare minimum. We do not manage our utility services well because it is more profitable to sell bad service, and then to sell emergency fixes when the bad service predictably fails. Whole industries have grown up around providing emergency service.

It is a failure we choose not to address at the national or local levels because profits are more important than people. Companies use some of their profits to pay politicians to prevent proper regulation. Corruption wins, we lose.

Comment Training is fair use, but... (Score 4, Interesting) 107

Training is "inherently transformative", and thus protected as fair use. BUT... Google should lose this.

The publishers have a contract with Google that spells out the specific purposes for which the materials are to be used. These are not books that Google purchased off-the-shelf. They were provided by the publishers for that specific use. Any other use -even an otherwise legal use is a violation of that contract.

Even if Google argues fair use in training their AI system, they violated the contract. Pay up.

Comment Re:Yes, please! (Score 4, Insightful) 48

Bluntly, PayPal steals money from people.

They freeze accounts: having taken the money from the buyer they refuse to release the money to the seller even though the product was received. They blame it on "irregularities", "potential violations", and "suspicious activity", while refusing to communicate specifics to the seller -they only send a form letter notifying you that your account is frozen. They count on sellers to not pursue arbitration over small amounts of money -and the fact that (when they were part of eBay) you would automatically lose your eBay account if you did.

When PayPal became part of eBay, it was required that sellers accept PayPal as payment. Once that ended, most sellers stopped accepting PayPal.

They may be less scummy now, but they earned their bad reputation.

Slashdot Top Deals

It's later than you think, the joint Russian-American space mission has already begun.

Working...