"Government censorship" is not redundant. Anyone with a channel can censor their channel. That's just what the word means. Google has a very important channel, so it matters when they censor it. Your yard signage is less important, but "censorship" nevertheless.
It's not about "when is it censorship", because by definition it's "every time". It's about "what's the balance between the owner's rights and the community's rights". While I'm strongly biased in favor of the former, once enough of the community depends on you that you have some of the power of a government, then you accrue some of the matching obligations.
The part where non-democratic governments are bad. The part where growing centralized power never ends well (75 years ago Britain had a rather different view of a unified Europe). Hey, if you want to trade democracy for slightly cheaper consumer goods, that's your vote. Others voted otherwise. But don't assume your conclusion when making your argument.
Yes, billionaires and investment banks really don't like the Brexit, On that basis alone it must be good.
The simple fact is: all the "remain" arguments are practical, while the "leave" vote was one of principle. The risk of the EU becoming a non-democracy is real (that's half-true today: democratic state governments can block EC rulings, but they can't initiate them). The risk of economic collapse of the EU is real. The cultural values of Britain as something worth holding on to is seen as important by many. National sovereignty and the ability to enforce the borders, to limit immigration to some value lower than infinity, is seen as important by many
Fundamentally, the "remain" camp was arguing money, the "leave" camp was arguing "we want to be British, not European". Which camp will actually work out better for the common man? Brexit will be a cost in the short term; time will tell the long term.
In the early days: because the Bible says it's bad. These days: it's not outright illegal, but it's highly regulated, as it should be given the long history of scamming by gambling houses. Plus, many states want their state lottery to be the only legal betting: no one else gets to milk the gambling addicts.
Looking at the behavior of the average royal, it's easy to see why democracy works better (though I do admit some respect for Charles past middle age).
The UK has a significant trade deficit, and importantly that's mostly with Germany. The EU won't be eager to stifle that net inflow of money. No reason to expect that to suffer.
This hurts the City, because when you do only arbitrage and add no value, an extra 0.01% cost to trade is a big deal. Billionaires are very sad today.
I hadn't thought of the benifit this will have for Netflix. My first take was: Chome "bug" makes it easy to download videos from Google's competitors. This really helps those guys, though, unless it lasts long enough that the content owners start getting pissed at Netflix (not sure how much it matters to Amazon's "purchase" model).
There are plenty of issues on the right (most Obama conspiracies, 6000 year old earth, "creation science") that can't be logically argued.
They very much can be, if you bother to understand them. Take creationism. The wonderful talk.origins FAQ website (along with the many FAQs linked off of it) does just that. Turns out a lot of creationism is based on debunking "evolution as taught in high school", which is in fact often wrong, because the textbook was really bad, or oversimplified too far. Realizing that "oh, yeah, no scientist believes that either, it's just nonsense" can lead to actually resolving the disagreement based on proving new information.
Logical arguments can be based on false premises, and still be logical. (A lot of other arguments makes sense if you know a little, but not if you know a lot, but that should never be assumed to be the case.)
In fact, most topics on which intelligent people disagree (often strongly) are simply based on reasoning logically from different starting points, or having different goals in mind because you have different values, leading to people arguing past one another forever.
The bias doesn't disturb me. It's the intolerance of opposing views.
As I've always said, if you can't argue the opposing view on any contentious topic, you don't understand the topic and shouldn't hold a strong view. It's so damn easy to attribute the opposing view to malice or trolling, as it takes no effort.
This always pissed me off growing up, when some on the religious right would claim that gays were only have same-sex sex out of a desire to be evil, not a sincere desire for the same sex. Total lack of understanding. More recently I've seem the exact same ignorance in reverse, where people on the progressive left would claim that the only reason conservatives could oppose gay marriage was hatred of gays, and no other reason was sincere. Same total lack of understanding.
Intolerance of opposing views comes mostly from ignorance of the rationale for those views, which is simple intellectual laziness. The worst part is, people seem proud of this ignorance.
No, you really didn't. You imagined a bunch of stuff that wasn't in my post, perhaps thinking it was implied? I was pointing out that YouTube's already does, sort of, what the artists should reasonably ask them to.
Are they asking them to do better at this reasonable thing? No. They're asking for something else entirely - the end of "new radio" in some fantasy that that will drive more sales than the lost ad revenue.
All business owners are humans that need to live. Profit is what you take home from your business, not what you save. The profits an Uber drive makes may be shitty, but that doesn't mean you get to re-define words.
Working more destroys the work/life balance.
You've never been poor, I see. Working 2 30-hour jobs is the normal way you get by. One 60-hour job is better, saves you 1 commute. One 60-hour job where you at least sort of control your hours is much better.
To me, the main mistake here is the there's probably a DAC cheap enough that it affects the sound quality. Apple wouldn't use that in their phones, but a cheap earbud maker naturally would. Style over substance again for Apple.
What could they have done? He hadn't committed a crime when they talked to him. You can't start locking people up before they commit a crime, because that set includes everyone.
The gun store owner called the FBI to tell them this guy in particular, they should watch. A member of his mosque (which a previous terrorist shooter also came from) called the FBI to tell them this guy in particular, they should watch. This guy was nothing but red flags.
You don't have to lock him up, but you can keep an eye on him in real time. You can also pay him a friendly visit in person, and just directly ask him. That will derail just about anyone's plans.
If you've ever credibly threatened the president, then when the president is in town a Secret Service agent will come visit you. He's not there to arrest you, but he will say high, and ask to sit with you while the president is in town (you can say no, of course, but I suspect few people do). It's labor intensive, but quite effective. The FBI could have spared an agent.
That's what they could have done. It would have saved 50 lives. They chose poorly.
But even then it's not the DAC that takes the real power, it's the amplification
The DACs in my home receiver consume 140W (20x7, even when I'm only using 2 channels, which is silly, but anyway). It's possible for a human to hear the difference in the sound quality, or so I'm told. I doubt the amplification is every over 1/10th of that in my apartment.
Anyway, most headphones aren't noise cancelling - most are probably earbuds, for which a digital input is just awkward. Also, any decent set of consumer headphones is quite efficient: especially for earbuds, I wouldn't be so sure the DAC takes less power than the drivers, though it's all so low in any case I'm not sure it matters.
If they'd had a switch I might have trusted it - though that would be foolish.
My TV has a camera. The camera has a switch. The "switch" is to rotate the camera so that it points at the ceiling (and also becomes hidden behind the screen, instead of an ugly lump). That's the only approach I trust.
No You want Mary has a Little Lamb, played on some kids' squeaky musical instrument. With one note wrong. Over and over. That's the fate the snoops deserve.
Fun with Windows: I disabled the microphone and uninstalled the driver on my laptop. No microphone was there in the devices UI. Silverlight has some debug mode where it will show you volume coming from your mic, it it was clearly still enabled.
And that wasn't even Windows 10.
Even on Linux, I wouldn't be surprised if the "auxiliary processor" on INtel CUs that has access to the IP stack also has microphone access, with some "power on voice" feature as a disguise for it's true purpose. There were definitely clever microphone hacks in the Snowden papers, though I'm not sure whether they were BIOS-only, or could be prevented by killing the driver.
Yup, a video with a cute girl dancing with a popular tune in the background isn't really bringing in the hits because of the music, so it's all windfall for the artist.
Slashdot Mirror
"Government censorship" is not redundant. Anyone with a channel can censor their channel. That's just what the word means. Google has a very important channel, so it matters when they censor it. Your yard signage is less important, but "censorship" nevertheless.
It's not about "when is it censorship", because by definition it's "every time". It's about "what's the balance between the owner's rights and the community's rights". While I'm strongly biased in favor of the former, once enough of the community depends on you that you have some of the power of a government, then you accrue some of the matching obligations.
Right, you can either be a sovereign nation, or remain in the EU. That was sort of the whole point, yes?
There's nothing requiring any trade barriers to be put in place between the UK and EU, BTW. Trade can still be as free as the nations want it to be.
The part where non-democratic governments are bad. The part where growing centralized power never ends well (75 years ago Britain had a rather different view of a unified Europe). Hey, if you want to trade democracy for slightly cheaper consumer goods, that's your vote. Others voted otherwise. But don't assume your conclusion when making your argument.
If you cannot limit immigration, you are not a sovereign nation.
We didn't lose it, we morphed it into something better.
You really love twisting the meanings of words to pretend to be correct, I see.
The EU is bad for the UK. Thus the pro-EU media hate them and want them to suffer.
See how easy that is?
Yes, billionaires and investment banks really don't like the Brexit, On that basis alone it must be good.
The simple fact is: all the "remain" arguments are practical, while the "leave" vote was one of principle. The risk of the EU becoming a non-democracy is real (that's half-true today: democratic state governments can block EC rulings, but they can't initiate them). The risk of economic collapse of the EU is real. The cultural values of Britain as something worth holding on to is seen as important by many. National sovereignty and the ability to enforce the borders, to limit immigration to some value lower than infinity, is seen as important by many
Fundamentally, the "remain" camp was arguing money, the "leave" camp was arguing "we want to be British, not European". Which camp will actually work out better for the common man? Brexit will be a cost in the short term; time will tell the long term.
In the early days: because the Bible says it's bad. These days: it's not outright illegal, but it's highly regulated, as it should be given the long history of scamming by gambling houses. Plus, many states want their state lottery to be the only legal betting: no one else gets to milk the gambling addicts.
Looking at the behavior of the average royal, it's easy to see why democracy works better (though I do admit some respect for Charles past middle age).
The UK has a significant trade deficit, and importantly that's mostly with Germany. The EU won't be eager to stifle that net inflow of money. No reason to expect that to suffer.
This hurts the City, because when you do only arbitrage and add no value, an extra 0.01% cost to trade is a big deal. Billionaires are very sad today.
US companies don't care.
I hadn't thought of the benifit this will have for Netflix. My first take was: Chome "bug" makes it easy to download videos from Google's competitors. This really helps those guys, though, unless it lasts long enough that the content owners start getting pissed at Netflix (not sure how much it matters to Amazon's "purchase" model).
Wish I had mod points - my hat's off to you sir!
What's that? I only read the first half of your post for some reason.
Ah, yes, the intellectual royalty has come to tell the peasants how wrong they are. Democracy must suck.
Meanwhile, UK trade with the EU will continue full force. UK trade with Asia and the US will be unaffected, and so on.
There are plenty of issues on the right (most Obama conspiracies, 6000 year old earth, "creation science") that can't be logically argued.
They very much can be, if you bother to understand them. Take creationism. The wonderful talk.origins FAQ website (along with the many FAQs linked off of it) does just that. Turns out a lot of creationism is based on debunking "evolution as taught in high school", which is in fact often wrong, because the textbook was really bad, or oversimplified too far. Realizing that "oh, yeah, no scientist believes that either, it's just nonsense" can lead to actually resolving the disagreement based on proving new information.
Logical arguments can be based on false premises, and still be logical. (A lot of other arguments makes sense if you know a little, but not if you know a lot, but that should never be assumed to be the case.)
In fact, most topics on which intelligent people disagree (often strongly) are simply based on reasoning logically from different starting points, or having different goals in mind because you have different values, leading to people arguing past one another forever.
The bias doesn't disturb me. It's the intolerance of opposing views.
As I've always said, if you can't argue the opposing view on any contentious topic, you don't understand the topic and shouldn't hold a strong view. It's so damn easy to attribute the opposing view to malice or trolling, as it takes no effort.
This always pissed me off growing up, when some on the religious right would claim that gays were only have same-sex sex out of a desire to be evil, not a sincere desire for the same sex. Total lack of understanding. More recently I've seem the exact same ignorance in reverse, where people on the progressive left would claim that the only reason conservatives could oppose gay marriage was hatred of gays, and no other reason was sincere. Same total lack of understanding.
Intolerance of opposing views comes mostly from ignorance of the rationale for those views, which is simple intellectual laziness. The worst part is, people seem proud of this ignorance.
No, you really didn't. You imagined a bunch of stuff that wasn't in my post, perhaps thinking it was implied? I was pointing out that YouTube's already does, sort of, what the artists should reasonably ask them to.
Are they asking them to do better at this reasonable thing? No. They're asking for something else entirely - the end of "new radio" in some fantasy that that will drive more sales than the lost ad revenue.
All business owners are humans that need to live. Profit is what you take home from your business, not what you save. The profits an Uber drive makes may be shitty, but that doesn't mean you get to re-define words.
Working more destroys the work/life balance.
You've never been poor, I see. Working 2 30-hour jobs is the normal way you get by. One 60-hour job is better, saves you 1 commute. One 60-hour job where you at least sort of control your hours is much better.
To me, the main mistake here is the there's probably a DAC cheap enough that it affects the sound quality. Apple wouldn't use that in their phones, but a cheap earbud maker naturally would. Style over substance again for Apple.
What could they have done? He hadn't committed a crime when they talked to him. You can't start locking people up before they commit a crime, because that set includes everyone.
The gun store owner called the FBI to tell them this guy in particular, they should watch. A member of his mosque (which a previous terrorist shooter also came from) called the FBI to tell them this guy in particular, they should watch. This guy was nothing but red flags.
You don't have to lock him up, but you can keep an eye on him in real time. You can also pay him a friendly visit in person, and just directly ask him. That will derail just about anyone's plans.
If you've ever credibly threatened the president, then when the president is in town a Secret Service agent will come visit you. He's not there to arrest you, but he will say high, and ask to sit with you while the president is in town (you can say no, of course, but I suspect few people do). It's labor intensive, but quite effective. The FBI could have spared an agent.
That's what they could have done. It would have saved 50 lives. They chose poorly.
But even then it's not the DAC that takes the real power, it's the amplification
The DACs in my home receiver consume 140W (20x7, even when I'm only using 2 channels, which is silly, but anyway). It's possible for a human to hear the difference in the sound quality, or so I'm told. I doubt the amplification is every over 1/10th of that in my apartment.
Anyway, most headphones aren't noise cancelling - most are probably earbuds, for which a digital input is just awkward. Also, any decent set of consumer headphones is quite efficient: especially for earbuds, I wouldn't be so sure the DAC takes less power than the drivers, though it's all so low in any case I'm not sure it matters.
If they'd had a switch I might have trusted it - though that would be foolish.
My TV has a camera. The camera has a switch. The "switch" is to rotate the camera so that it points at the ceiling (and also becomes hidden behind the screen, instead of an ugly lump). That's the only approach I trust.
No You want Mary has a Little Lamb, played on some kids' squeaky musical instrument. With one note wrong. Over and over. That's the fate the snoops deserve.
Fun with Windows: I disabled the microphone and uninstalled the driver on my laptop. No microphone was there in the devices UI. Silverlight has some debug mode where it will show you volume coming from your mic, it it was clearly still enabled.
And that wasn't even Windows 10.
Even on Linux, I wouldn't be surprised if the "auxiliary processor" on INtel CUs that has access to the IP stack also has microphone access, with some "power on voice" feature as a disguise for it's true purpose. There were definitely clever microphone hacks in the Snowden papers, though I'm not sure whether they were BIOS-only, or could be prevented by killing the driver.
Yup, a video with a cute girl dancing with a popular tune in the background isn't really bringing in the hits because of the music, so it's all windfall for the artist.
Are you replying to the right post?