Slashdot Mirror


PeerTube, the 'Decentralized YouTube,' Succeeds In Crowdfunding (quariety.com)

A crowdfunded project, known as "PeerTube," has blown through its initial goal with 53,100 euros collected in forty-two days. The project aims to be "a fully decentralized version of YouTube, whose computer code is freely accessible and editable, and where videos are shared between users without relying on a central system." The goal is PeerTube to officially launch by October. Quariety reports: PeerTube relies on a decentralized and federative system. In other words, there is no higher authority that manages, broadcasts and moderates the content offered, as is the case with YouTube, but a network of "instances." Created by one or more administrators, these communities are governed according to principles specific to each of them. Anyone can freely watch the videos without registering, but to upload a video, you must choose from the list of existing instances, or create your own if you have the necessary technical knowledge. At the moment, 141 instances are proposed. Most do not have specifics, but one can find communities centered on a theme or open to a particular region of the world. In all, more than 4,000 people are currently registered on PeerTube, for a total of 338,000 views for 11,000 videos. The project does not display ads, unlike YouTube. "In terms of monetization, we wanted to make a neutral tool," says Pouhiou, communication officer for Framasoft, the origin of PeerTube. The site will rely on a "support" button at the start, but "people will be able to code their own monetization system" in the future.

100 comments

  1. Subjects are dumb by TFlan91 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Wouldn't this just be a "youtube" front-end for torrents?

    1. Re:Subjects are dumb by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I'd expect somewhat smarter logic to handle the distribution of the pieces, to ensure maximum availability with minimum storage space wasted globally. Individual torrents don't really know about each other. But it does seem to be aligned with the principle that the more popular a thing is, the more nodes it should be located on.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:Subjects are dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I love Rick and Morty, so I'll give this simplification:

      "Isn't that just copyright violation with fewer steps?" :-D

    3. Re: Subjects are dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Libry? We already have it

    4. Re:Subjects are dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is
      https://github.com/Chocobozzz/PeerTube

      Federated (ActivityPub) video streaming platform using P2P (BitTorrent) directly in the web browser with WebTorrent.

      On the other hand, why invent something new when a well working solution is already available.
      A solution for this kind of thing is mostly in the integration of existing components.
      Every part of the video world already exists. We just need people to put it all together.

    5. Re: Subjects are dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We already have popcorn time and acestream for that.

    6. Re:Subjects are dumb by mark_reh · · Score: 1

      And wouldn't that just be "pirate bay"?

    7. Re: Subjects are dumb by tepples · · Score: 1

      Don't LBRY users have to buy LBC on an exchange in order to publish a video, especially if another member of the same household also uses LBRY?

  2. I'm in... by beheaderaswp · · Score: 1

    I have hosted popular podcasts and have had videos into the high 100,000s of views. Been thinking it might be time to do a new one after a couple of years off.

    I'm in! Registering now....

    --
    Another consultant who stuck it out.

    "We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
    1. Re: I'm in... by Nutria · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Child porn would have millions of views...

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    2. Re: I'm in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but most of them would be coming from the Vatican

    3. Re: I'm in... by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

      Child porn would have millions of views...

      Yeah but most of them would be coming from the Vatican

      So...the remainder would come from a pizza shop in D.C.?

      [ducks]

      Strat :)

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    4. Re: I'm in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Child porn would have millions of views...

      A distributed system with arguably some security and some(ish) optional anonymity in mind? All that without a bullshit EULA? By the users for the users? No Siiiire. Can't have that shit.

      Unless it is approved by corporate or big brother, the only reason you would want that or would want to hang out there is obviously because you are a pedophile.

      Fuck Google, fuck Microsoft, fuck Amazon and most importantly fuck you.

    5. Re: I'm in... by Nutria · · Score: 1

      the only reason you would want that or would want to hang out there is obviously because you are a pedophile.

      That's the fatal flaw in your argument.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  3. prior art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Those guys are going to raise millions for yet another fail to deliver crownfunding scam. But a decentralized, censoship resistant youtube alternative???

    This exists already, it's called dtube.
    https://d.tube/

    You can even get paid for uploading content to it today.
    https://steemit.com/trending/d...

    So why bother to contribute to a kickstarter for yet another one?

    1. Re:prior art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure all ten "DTube" users will jump right on to PeerTube though. People like that tend to hop from around to thing that they think are going to be popular, but never are.

      I'll just stick with good old YouTube. That way when I upload a video, at least I know _someone_ will be around to watch it.

    2. Re:prior art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I get the feeling that the dev's sitting at his keyboard yelling "shut up! shut up! man, can't you see I'm try'na be a billionaire here. Shut up, or you're going to ruin it!"

    3. Re:prior art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've tried d.tube and only some of the videos seem to work. Mostly I just get a spinner and the video never plays.

    4. Re:prior art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      D.Tube is not distributed as a platform, it's still a centralised venue, only the distribution of the content is using "distributed" technology ... if the owner of the website d.tube close it it's all gone...

      PeerTube is a distributed platform made of nodes communicating through a protocol, like email servers do. if a certain node/server close, it's video are taken down but not the whole network... you can host your own, and profit from the federation and at some point peer distribution among other nodes too.

      do_you_understand ? ????

      no-one can/want/will become rich just with peertube (as opposed to centralised d.tube) but you can use PeerTube to broadcast and get rewards back (you can customise the "support" button to your payment processor preference)

    5. Re:prior art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've tried it and was impressed how it's fast and lightweight and fully works compared to youtube (when used on an "old" browser like the tor browser). Although I have the theory that youtube degrades its site when you use tor browser and is not working properly on purpose.

  4. Re: crowd funding lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    lol a star citizen backer modded me down

  5. youtube-dl, mpv, smplayer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's so simple.

    youtube-dl is powerful and elegant. Teamed up with mpv or smplayer and it's all gravy.

  6. Authors are dumb. Federal is centralized authority by raymorris · · Score: 1, Informative

    The author is also dumb

    --
    federative system. In other words, there is no higher authority that manages, broadcasts and moderates the content offered, as is the case with YouTube, but a network
    --

    Someone does know what federation is, and therefore contradicts themselves. Apparently they haven't even heard of the federal government, which is the "higher authority", above the states.

    A federal system, or federation, is when previously separate entities establish a centralized authority, for common purposes. Examples would be the United States, which were separate states and then established the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. The EU is following a similar pattern.

    Database federation is when you had separate database servers, but then you establish one server as the central authority all queries go to, and it then delegates parts of those queries to the servers that have the relevant data.

  7. HTML5? by Hentes · · Score: 0

    Nowadays you can embed videos into your site with a single tag and that's a lot more decentralized than relying on a single piece of software that may or may not be developed.

    1. Re: HTML5? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...this is about hosting the video files which can be quite large.

      Get a milliom views and suddenly your server is toast.

    2. Re:HTML5? by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Um, what?

      Where do you think the video that is referenced by the tag is going to come from?

    3. Re:HTML5? by wfj2fd · · Score: 1

      The same place the HTML/JS/CSS and images come from. It's just another asset.

    4. Re: HTML5? by sexconker · · Score: 2

      Get a million views at once, maybe. Get a million views over x time? Who cares.

      Sites should absolutely just provide torrent links for their shit.

    5. Re: HTML5? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on what x is dude.
      Get in a month and the bill will make most uploaders cry.

    6. Re:HTML5? by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      The same place the HTML/JS/CSS and images come from. It's just another asset.

      Dude are you trolling me? If so, great job because you had me riled up my entire drive home.

      HTML5 provides a video playback mechanism? The method of playing the video is completely irrelevant to the technical challenge here. The issue storage and bandwidth.

      Do you think replicating Youtube is just about as easy as plunking the video onto whatever website you want? Do you have any idea what sort of resources it takes to host petabytes of video and have the capacity to stream HD or 4k video to hundreds of thousands of people simultaneously? Do you understand what sort of development and admin it takes to build a system like that?

      Are you aware of what it would cost an individual to host videos from wherever their other web assets are located? You know the difference between a 10k HTML page and a 10GB 4k video clip? Just a factor of 1,000,000x larger that must be transferred at 50+ megabytes / second, to thousands of people at the same time?

    7. Re:HTML5? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude are you trolling me? If so, great job because you had me riled up my entire drive home.

      Don't let slashdot get to you like that; this is a silly place.

    8. Re:HTML5? by Ayanami_R · · Score: 1

      This is my thinking. Who pays for all this? It's a question I ask of any decentralized service. Also another thing that seems messy, usernames.

      --
      "Science is the power of man"
    9. Re:HTML5? by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Who pays for all this? It's a question I ask of any decentralized service.

      The peers pay for it. You pay for it. You pay for it through your ISP bill and the storage space and electricity to run your computer.

  8. So... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    If you’re at a university, and if you’ve got student workers in your IT group, you might want to keep an eye out for any unexplained VMs which might appear.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  9. NOPE! by SirAstral · · Score: 1

    Sesta DMCA and plenty of other laws will run everyone off of the platform once the inevitable legal issues arise.

    It will be relegated to a dark place on the web with a bed reputation where law enforcement will take YOU to jail for accidentally hosting something they don't like.

    Good luck explaining the problem to a jury in such a way that they will not think you are up to no good. We have long since forgotten the principles of innocent until proven guilty and have fallen back to the old day of guilty until proven innocent and just exercising your legal rights is more often then not regarded as a sign of guilt on it's own. I do not expect this to go very far before it implodes due to external forces.

    1. Re: NOPE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Found the pedo

    2. Re: NOPE! by SirAstral · · Score: 1

      And you are now a monument to my post.

      Sesta is not only about children, or are you dumb enough to think adults cannot be trafficked?
      I also brought up DMCA, and even mentioned "other laws" like them. I also brought up people "being consider guilty until proven innocent" which you just participated in.

      You appear to be part and parcel of what is wrong with people these days. More than willing to commit libel without any thought to what could happen to you if someone tried to do anything about it.

      https://www.unilad.co.uk/crime...

      https://www.cnn.com/2013/07/02...

      there are stupid people... and then there is you.

      Just imagine what kind of trouble you might be in if I were a member of law enforcement after making that claim? Just imagine that the next time you say something like that someone is law enforcement and YOU get put on the "guilty until proven innocent" chopping blocked just because they can. Karma is real, I would recommend that you pay heed.

    3. Re: NOPE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, you are definitely a kiddie diddler

    4. Re: NOPE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Karma is real

      No, it isn't.

      The notion that the universe is anything other than entirely indifferent to your plight it utterly preposterous.

    5. Re: NOPE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Karma is real

      No, it isn't.

      The notion that the universe is anything other than entirely indifferent to your plight it utterly preposterous.

      Ah, the certainty of youth!

      After you've lived for a bit longer you'll start to notice things and witness things happen that, by every logical right, should not have been able to happen...you'd swear by everything you hold dear that there's no way...and yet they do anyway.

      Not saying karma is real. Equally saying it's not false. I'm saying there is no possible way for anyone to know with absolute certainty, particularly when it's obvious humanity understands very, very little of the universe plainly evidenced by the frequency of major scientific discoveries that change long-held fundamental scientific theories and hypothesis. It seems like Slashdot publishes an article about some "shocking discovery" that alters the validity of some long held scientific model or that opens up a whole new sub-branch every other week or so. Sure many are vapor, but many are not.

      You might say you believe it's unlikely (karma), but to dismiss it with contempt, especially contempt aimed at both the concept posited and the person, is the act of a closed mind protecting the security of it's set beliefs and biases.

      Stop that. It's ugly and it will lead you to incorrect assumptions regarding the facts, people, and reality.

    6. Re: NOPE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure it is. All people are connected in some way and nobody exists in a vacuum. If you act with kindness, you will be shown kindness. If you act like a dick, you will be treated like a dick.

  10. Typo: doesn't by raymorris · · Score: 2

    That should be "someone doesn't know"

  11. What could possibly go wrong? by PhantomHarlock · · Score: 2

    This will in no way become just a front end for torrent sites. Nah. :D

    It's interesting from the standpoint of disseminating information people want to give out freely and not be at the mercy of a centralized server, but typically the altruistic part will get dwarfed by the pirates pr0n.

    The lack of monetization will keep both very high quality original content away from it as well as bottom-feeder clickbait and top ten lists.

    Speaking as someone who makes part of his living off of YouTube, it doesn't really hold an interest for me, but if I was not concerned with monetizing my videos directly, it sounds interesting.

    It is just so ripe for abuse that it will be interesting to see if legitimate players can even function in that environment. But if one of the 'instances' they speak of can be moderated, people could exist within the instance relatively harmoniously.

    1. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      This will in no way become just a front end for torrent sites. Nah.

      What do you think Youtube is?

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    2. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A front end for BuzzFeed.

    3. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > What do you think Youtube is?

      Yet another advertising medium?

    4. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This.
      In fact, Google Video, which got partially rolled in to Youtube, was actively being used for piracy for many MANY years up until just a couple years ago I believe. Or maybe last year.
      Youtube has much more content than that. Private groups all sharing videos in throw-away one-off accounts, sometimes mirrored through other domains or apps that make it look like totally harmless videos, sometimes educational given the run-times, but end up being the latest hit superhero movie.
      People could go much further to hide illegal content on Youtube.

      This isn't even getting in to abusive-themed content, like (actual) child porn, rape, murder, etc.
      There was plenty of that for years after the unlisted videos feature got added.
      There were groups of these sick fucks sharing videos for years "unnoticed".

      This site will be filled with that.
      When you have a fully decentral system, you have a fully uncensorable system.
      If the only way to censor or remove is by disliking content you don't like, you open it to abuse by botted accounts and many IPs. (which makes IPv6 a worst nightmare for these systems)
      If you let the community unpeer, you open it up to group-think.
      And so on.
      It's not feasible to do properly.

  12. Stallions by RickyShade · · Score: 1

    Each one more magnificent than the last.

  13. Really looking forward to this. by richy+freeway · · Score: 1

    ...?

  14. It's not decentralized by Prien715 · · Score: 2

    If this is "decentralized YouTube" then SVN and CVS are "decentralized version control". Every time people slap the word "decentralized" something (hi Diaspora) they mean something akin to sharding systems common to an MMO where you choose a server to play on and can only interact with other characters on that server -- which was done for performance reasons.

    Git, on the other hand, is truly decentralized. No one's repo is more central than anyone else's by design. Doing social media this way is completely possible, but no one's done it yet...;)

    --
    -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
    1. Re:It's not decentralized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Git is a version control system designed by a retard.

    2. Re:It's not decentralized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Peertube uses ActivityPub, so it's federated, just like email. Users on different sites can communicate with eachother. Videos are delivered over webtorrent.

      I'd rather have something distributed, instead of federated, so my host can't go offline, but either approach is decentralized.

    3. Re: It's not decentralized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you know what else is federated? HTTP (S). So this doesn't solve anything at all.

    4. Re: It's not decentralized by ComputerKarate · · Score: 1

      That retard is my homey...

      --
      "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H.L. Mencken
  15. Re:Video hosting? by farble1670 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Anybody can host videos with a free or cheap web site

    Go ahead and link the free or cheap website where I can host hundreds of gigabytes of 4k content. Make sure the site has the capability to stream that video in 4k to hundreds of thousands of people simultaneously.

    [a href="blah.mp4"]blah video[/a]. I don't understand why this project exists, except that perhaps some (many) people simply don't understand how the web works.

    Lump yourself into that group.

    This isn't about the video player frontend. Obviously there are unlimited choices for playing a video. It's about providing a distributed *backend* (hosting) to store the video data. Which in spite of your claim above is a technically challenging expensive endeavor.

  16. Re:Video hosting? by wfj2fd · · Score: 1

    Search and discovery, channels, subscriptions, playlists, etc.

  17. Awful language choice. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2

    I think we can all agree that a Javascript variant is not something that should be used to make a server and yet, this is exactly what they used to write a server.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:Awful language choice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Javascript is a usable programming language. It's ok to write servers in it. The problem is in running a web engine and embedding your server into a website instead of compiling the code into a traditional server that stands by itself. Stop stacking layers and layers and layers and layers on top of each other.

  18. Still patent encumbered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Still uses h264 and videojs which doesn't play well with browsers.


    VIDEOJS: ERROR: (CODE:4 MEDIA_ERR_SRC_NOT_SUPPORTED) The media could not be loaded, either because the server or network failed or because the format is not supported. xt

  19. Re:Authors are dumb. Federal is centralized author by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's not be so harsh on things, that needs small fix. Federation system of US does not have centralized unified law system. US does not have higher authority over all the different laws, that states and even counties have, and to implement higher authority they still need to organize vote(so technically - higher authority belongs to voters). If some state has legal charges for using marihuana, it does not mean, that resident from California will be safe to use marihuana elsewhere. So, author is right in that central authority is not involved in management, broadcasting and moderation and neither is central authority of federation ;) Wiki also needs some small fixes to explain dumb people some nuances in wider depth ;)

    EU is a bad example of federation and should not be mentioned at all, as it is changing and EU moves toward unified state model and it has tendency to create unified systems for everyone, without even asking people to vote on these things, or even creating precedents, by not using established laws, like Lisbon agreement and even threatening others, if they insist on using established laws. It is sooo confusing when someone calls EU as a federation, as that idea died 20 years ago and now it more and more resembles Soviet Union v2.0., where theoretically everyone was part of Union, bet in practice...

  20. Supremacy clause by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > US does not have higher authority over all the different laws, that states and even counties have

    The Constitution diagrees with you:
    --
    US Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2:
    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
    --

    For more information
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki...

    The other side of that is the enumerated powers and 10th amendment. Federal law is absolutely supreme over state law, and city ordinances subordinate even to state law. However, federal law is only authorized (and therefore valid) on certain specific topics. Federal law is never subordinate to state law - it's supreme. Only if it's not law it at all, if it's null and void by being unconstitutional, does it not override state law.

    1. Re:Supremacy clause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whole wiki disagree with you, but you keep citing it.

      US Constitution does not cover ALL laws - neither state, nor city laws. It does not cover use of canabis, or manage youtube, slashdot titles, rudeness or even stupidity levels of wiki users. It does not regulate shape of pen... cucumber, that EU lawmakers blundered into. Youtube on the other hand does many of those mentioned things, that are not in Peertube.

    2. Re:Supremacy clause by Whibla · · Score: 1

      It does not regulate shape of pen... cucumber, that EU lawmakers blundered into.

      Careful your bias is showing...

      The EU did not, nor did they attempt to, regulate the shape of cucumbers. They legislated on the labeling (or marketing, if you prefer) of cucumbers.

      It should require but a moments thought to differentiate between the two.

      (if you're still unclear on the difference, there's a bloke over there who has a green banana to sell you - just don't put it in a fruit salad!)

    3. Re:Supremacy clause by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      On 29 July 2008, the European Commission held a preliminary vote concerning the repeal of certain regulations related to the quality of specific fruit and vegetables that included provisions related to size and shape. According to the Commission's press release, "In this era of high prices and growing demand, it makes no sense to throw these products away or destroy them." The Agriculture Commissioner stated, "This is a concrete example of our drive to cut red tape and I will continue to push until it goes through. [...] It shouldn't be the EU's job to regulate these things. It is far better to leave it to market operators." Regulation 1221/2008 took effect as of 1 July 2009. Though neither the press release cited above nor Regulation 1221/2008 made any mention of bananas or Regulation 2257/94, some reports of the changes treated them as including the banana quality standards regulation and contained explicit or apparent references to this regulation, using expressions such as "the infamous 'straight banana' ruling". Some sources have claimed this to be an admission that the original regulations did indeed ban "bent bananas", or that it was accepted that it was "a farce".

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    4. Re: Supremacy clause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes... it does. All laws in the United States must past constitutional muster or they may be struck down. That's the point of it...

    5. Re:Supremacy clause by Whibla · · Score: 1

      I'n not sure what you think you've found there.

      Presumably you think this somehow contradicts what I said. Well, it might, but almost certainly doesn't.

      The regulation in question has as one of its first paragraphs:"These provisions state that fruit and vegetables which are intended to be sold fresh to the consumer, may only be marketed if they are sound, fair and of marketable quality and if the country of origin is indicated. In the interest of harmonisation of the implementation of this provision, it is appropriate to define these characteristics in providing for a general marketing standard for all fresh fruits and vegetables."

      Like I said, it was basically about marketing - essentially it's not ok to mislead consumers about your produce.

      As for "Some sources have claimed this to be an admission that the original regulations did indeed ban "bent bananas", or that it was accepted that it was "a farce"", you might not be aware that Boris Johnson was the Brussels correspondent for the Daily Telegraph between 1989 and 1994 (the period of the original legislation quoted in your wikipedia article). His anti-EU sensationalist tripe almost certainly played a large part in shaping public opinion regarding the EU, and, I might go so far as to say, laid the foundations for the ground work that led to the subsequent referendum result two decades later.

      (What price sensationalism for the purposes of, what, self aggrandisement!? Shame!)

    6. Re:Supremacy clause by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      By marketed, the regulation means 'sold'. You can see this because the alternative to being marketed is 'to throw these products away or destroy them'.

      I.e. when the regulation was in place producers had to throw away or destroy fruits and vegetables that didn't meet the standard.

      It's a typical EU common agricultural policy rule that is designed to limit supply of agricultural stuff to push up prices. In this case even the EU decided that it was morally pretty hard to defend and scrapped the regulation.

      But if you've ever spent time in supermarkets in the US and and EU country like the UK or Sweden it's very noticeable that the US prices are much, much lower than EU ones. That's not to say the US is a perfect free market - it has analogous rules designed to push up prices and thus transfer money from consumers to producers. The difference is that the EU is even worse in this respect.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    7. Re:Supremacy clause by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      https://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne...

      A majority of EU member states, including Britain and Ireland, have voted to reform rules like EC Commission Regulation No 2257/94, which caused international ridicule by stating that all bananas must be "free of abnormal curvature" and at least 14 cm in length.

      Imperfectly-shaped fruit and vegetables may now be back on supermarket shelves by 2009.

      France, Italy, Spain and Greece opposed the reforms and were accused by officials of unfairly seeking to protect the interests of their farmers.

      Mariann Fischer Boel, the European agriculture commissioner, has said that she also wants to scrap a swathe of regulations on produce such as onions, garlic, caulifower and spinach.

      Speaking before the vote she said the rules were outdated and especially inappropriate at the time of a world food shortages.

      She said: "In this era of high prices and growing demand, it makes no sense to throw (misshapen fruit and vegetables) away or destroy them. It shouldn't be the EU's job to regulate these things."

      Under the present regulations, Class 1 cucumbers must be "practically straight" and be bent by a gradient of no more than 1/10.

      Produce that does not meet the minimum standards can not at present be sold as second-class, meaning many edible items are thrown away by farmers.

      So France, Italy, Spain and Greece wanted the rules which artificially limited the supply of bananas and pushed up the price. The UK and Ireland - places where its too cold to grow bananas and which import them didn't want them. Still it took from 1995 to 2009 to get rid of the rule.

      Still it's clear the EU has a lot of rules which are designed to benefit EU producers at the cost to EU consumers and to shield those producers from foreign competitors.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    8. Re:Supremacy clause by Whibla · · Score: 1

      Whilst I am generally in favour of the principle of the EU, and would much rather the UK remain part of it, I am one of the first to admit that it is not a perfect institution, and it certainly doesn't always rule as I would wish. I also tend to think that "ever closer union" is not necessarily a good thing, especially when considering the pace of change in relation to 'social inertia', and with consideration for global economics and the wider geopolitical environment.

      That being said, I find that discussions regarding EU legislation, mostly because of the ongoing Brexit farce, still make me rather angry. I'm trying to not be angry...

      So, I've just deleted most of my original response, but I will make a few 'points' before I give up completely:

      Regulation 2257/94 was replaced by Regulation 1333/2011, not Regulation 1221/2008 - despite what the wiki article or various UK newspapers might have you believe.

      Speaking of UK newspapers, the article you link to is an almost perfect example of the genre. The clever conflation of the description of Class 1 cucumbers with the idea of not meeting minimum standards (which are actually more concerned with the food being mouldy, rotten, riddled with pests or otherwise inedible), the implication that the Agriculture Commissioner said more than she did, and the absolute contradiction regarding unfairly protecting (their) farmers yet forcing them to throw good food away ... it's a masterpiece of suggestive manipulation. While almost every statement is technically true the overall impression you're left with is far from the reality.

      When it comes to: "I.e. when the regulation was in place producers had to throw away or destroy fruits and vegetables that didn't meet the standard." this is not true, unless the produce was unfit for consumption. One obvious exception would be (from the regulation) "bananas intended for industrial processing ... are not covered". The regulations are freely available. Perhaps if people actually read them, preferably with an open mind as opposed to having their opinions made for them by an agenda driven media, I would have a lower blood pressure.

      Finally:

      It's a typical EU common agricultural policy rule that is designed to limit supply of agricultural stuff to push up prices. ... the EU has a lot of rules which are designed to benefit EU producers at the cost to EU consumers and to shield those producers from foreign competitors

      You are both right and wrong.

      The CAP, like the CFP, is an abomination. Some of my main objections to the EU are these very policies. However they are not designed or intended to be anti-consumer, merely pro-producer. You are right that the rules (and subsidies) are designed to shield domestic producers from foreign ones, but they are also intended to help consumers (subsidies to famers --> cheaper food to consumers, if we ignore the tax implications for a moment). One of the key pillars of the EU, free movement of goods, also has the direct effect of lowering prices to consumers.

      Ah well, I'm done. What really frustrates me is: there's enough wrong with the EU, as it currently stands, without making shit up. If we'd actually focused on the real problems rather than the manufactured outrage we might have stood a chance of improving things. Now, short of a miracle, we're likely to trigger another 'lost decade' for half a billion people. Genius!

  21. Re: Video hosting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    k here is the address, you already know it so I won't bother with anchor tags on my phone...

    www.youtube.com

  22. oh boy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can access and modify the computer code of it!

    LOL@vword: confuse

  23. The similarities to BitChute are relevant by blind+biker · · Score: 1

    BitChute uses a torrent-like distributed peer hosting mechanism to help with scalability.
    It doesn't work great, even though I really want BitChute to succeed. Sadly, too many videos just stop streaming and you're left waiting an eternity for it to buffer.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  24. The tag does not work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This thing doesn't buffer video properly if your client bandwidth is not enough. It goes into a janky hell of playing half seconds as soon as it can. Terrible if you're listening to the sound (try this with headphones or powerful speakers)
    It works best for playing 3 megabytes of 240p video.

    Browsing file:/// with firefox also works you can watch movies there! (if they're not .avi, .wmv etc.)

  25. Re:Authors are dumb. Federal is centralized author by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lets face it. The governments of the EU member states are just as overbearing, incoherent, corrupt, unresponsive to it's citizens, and ultimately incompetent on so many levels. That's really no different then governments across the entire globe. And of course it is the regular citizens who end up getting screwed no matter how hard they complain or protest. So the citizens of the EU member states already put up with a bunch of shit from their individual national governments but what did they do? They went and created entirely new unelected government level that they have little or no control over. The US government is no more competent than those in Europe but I don't think the Americans think the solution to their governmental woes is to create another governmental layer to handle the problems.

  26. Re: also awful name choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's also an awful name choice, unless they're hoping to be the go-to choice for "water-sports" enthusiasts.

    YouPeer would have been worse though, so at least there's that.

  27. Re:Video hosting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Search and discovery, channels, subscriptions, playlists, etc.

    Search engines exist. RSS exists. ActivityPub (fancy RSS with "follower" type semantics) exists...

  28. 4k content isn't what's in danger at youtube by rsilvergun · · Score: 0

    it's 480p videos of stuff like Secular Talk, Aronra and the Young Turks. Basically anything with a real, anti-corporate slant. Eventually these channels will get enough traction to be noticed and shut down. Already smaller channels who tried to push a pro-worker narrative and agenda found themselves de-monitized as "too contraversial". The 3 I just mentioned were already big enough to survive on Patreon donations but without those they'd all be doing day jobs.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:4k content isn't what's in danger at youtube by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Young Turks fit in fine with Youtube's leftist CEO, Susan Wojcicki.

    2. Re:4k content isn't what's in danger at youtube by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Eventually these channels will get enough traction to be noticed and shut down.

      Yeah, that never happens. The only reason videos get removed is for copyright or sexist, racist content. Nothing has ever been taken down for having a controversial political slant.

      Already smaller channels who tried to push a pro-worker narrative and agenda found themselves de-monitized

      De-monetized != censored. De-monetized videos are still accessible in all the same ways as monetized videos.

      I think you could use a lesson in Youtube's revenue model. Big companies pay Youtube to advertise their products with Youtube content. If those companies say they don't want their products advertised with political, etc. content, that's their prerogative (and yes they did that).

      Despite the fact that Youtube gets zero revenue for those de-monetized videos, they still host them, which is awful nice of them. These creators are free to monetize their videos however they want, on their own.

  29. Useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is not the '90s anymore. It will be legislated out of existence and the mere presence of the source code on your computer will be enough to jail you for aiding and abetting terrorism, child porn and whatever. You should be aware that any accusation of the sort, whether founded or not, is a life-ending sentence.

  30. Re:Authors are dumb. Federal is centralized author by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They're talking federated system architectures, not government.
    There is no centralized authority, each system is autonomous and interacts with other systems based upon agreed standards/exchanges.

  31. Re: Authors are dumb. Federal is centralized autho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In fact, politicians in EU states love relying on the EU to pass laws that they love but would cost them votes.

    "I would not do it, but the EU forced me!!"
    "Everyone in the EU does this!"

  32. Re:Authors are dumb. Federal is centralized author by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What do you mean by "entirely new unelected government"? The EU parliament is elected every 5 years. It has representatives from each country, and they're elected by the citizens of the member states. The European Council is essentially a meeting of the prime ministers or presidents of each member state. I'm so sick of this lie being repeated everywhere.

  33. Re:Video hosting? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    It's not about the bandwidth. Bittorrent solves that. It's about revenue.

    Look at the guys who went on the recent "day of action" free speech march. Carl Benjamin, aka Sargon, has a monetized YouTube channel with 800k subscribers and a Patreon that nets him over $8,000/month. And he complains that he is being "censored" because he keeps getting banned from Twitter for breaking their very permissive rules, which just earns him the freeze peach martyr achievement and unlocks more revenue.

    He might post some stuff on this service but would never just abandon YouTube because he, like most of them, is in it for the money. That's fine, but those looking for marketplace of ideas utopia night be disappointed.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  34. That's peer to peer, not federated by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > There is no centralized authority, each system is autonomous and interacts with other systems based upon agreed standards/exchanges.

    That's called peer to peer.

    Here's the diagram of the federated architecture reference model. Note the MA authority:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

  35. Napster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Holy crap! They're reinventing Napster!

    Seriously. Anyone see how this is any different from the original Napster?

  36. Re:Authors are dumb. Federal is centralized author by HiThere · · Score: 1

    IIRC the original use was the Roman dominated "Federati", which in practice meant allies or associates, but where the policy came from Rome. These were groups that Rome didn't actually conqueror for one reason or another, but dominated. Mainly there were Germanics, but that seems to have been "that's where the situation developed". They were nominally independent of Rome, and would meet together in councils to decide on common policy, when never happened to contradict Roman policy (though they could be quite slow on agreeing to some Roman policies).

    And here I'm elaborating a bit beyond the edge of my knowledge, so I'd better stop. But federated doesn't mean free of outside control, it seems to mean more free of explicit outside control. This makes me wonder about the US federal government which started life in debt to Alexander Hamilton (Chase-Manhattan bank).

    Given that, the choice of words is a bit ominous, but not necessarily incorrect.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  37. Re:Video hosting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fyi <video src="blah.webm"> is how the web works.

  38. Interesting, thanks by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Thanks for that.

    I see the connection there. They had been operating independently, and were *allowed* a degree of autonomy in local issues, but ultimately under the authority of Rome regarding foreign affairs etc. That matches up both with the states who formed a federal government and with IT systems and database usage, where each part is to some degree independent insofar as its internal operation, but disciplined by the central authority in matters of relations with other entities (interstate commerce clause, etc).

    Personally, I think the *idea* of a federal system of government, as outlined in the Constitution, makes sense. It local autonomy to both meet the needs of local people and to try out different ideas, while also getting the benefits of a large, coordinated, stable coalition. In order to maintain that federal approach, wherein both individual states and the united government have their proper place, one must however carefully guard the 10th amendment. The 10th and the enumerated powers clause, which limit the power of DC politicians, have been significantly eroded starting with the wheat cases. I think those were decided that way solely to avoid a power struggle between the court and the Congress and president - there is no reasonable logic which supports the decision. It essentially makes the enumerated powers clause and 10th amendment impotent. That violates a basic legal principle that all laws and parts of laws mean *something*. The 10th was passed for some reason, and has some meaning. The wheat cases essentially ruled that it means nothing, that it has no actual effect.

  39. 4K on Pouët by tepples · · Score: 1

    "4K"? I guess you'll have to ask Pouët where they get the bandwidth to host 4096 byte videos.

  40. Re:Video hosting? by farble1670 · · Score: 1

    You can do it cheaply by basically having a web-app front-end to a torrent and the app streams the data from the torrent.

    Yes, you just restated exactly what's talked about in TFA.

  41. DTube and Steemit Cryptocurrency P2P Video Share ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just search DTube and Steemit.
    And Zcash and IPFS and Tor and I2P, etc, etc.

    If it's a company, or more generally, if you can sue it or shut it down... it's not decentralized.

    Think carefully about what that means for a minute.

    Then do the above searches.

  42. Re: also awful name choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    PeeTube.Org was already taken.