I bought the best plasma TV panel I could find anywhere. The picture is amazing. The "smart" features mostly don't work (voice and gesture control - nice idea but neither actually works for shit), but they came with the TV. One nice bit is the camera built into the TV folds up to point at the ceiling (that's the off switch), though there's no easy way to physically disable the microphone.
I tried the Netflix app, but the Netflix UI is just a lot better on my laptop, so the TV is just a monitor now. The YouTube app is a sad joke - the TV supports a USB keyboard and mouse, but the YouTube app doesn't, so you have to use the shitty on-screen keyboard to search. Worthless.
Basically, all the apps my TV came with are worthless, but it's a great monitor for watching movies.
You're thinking of the "monetary base", which is the total of bills and coins minted, or the total BTC mined. That's largely irrelevant tot he economy, as it represents (in the US), 10%-20% of the money used in commerce.
Inflation in the US has never been caused (yet, anyway) by actually printing more dollar bills. Fixing the USD monetary base in exactly the same way the BTC monetary base is fixed would make almost no difference. The Fed would still be figuratively printing money, or contracting the money supply through high interest rates, QE could still happen, inflation would still happen, and so on. Switching to BTC, if we had all the other stuff we expect to go with it, from savings accounts to CDs to insurance, wouldn't really change any of that.
tldr: the money supply is about fractional reserve banking, not the number of dollar bills or BTC mined.
There was a case in the UK where an MP was taken to a police station ("arrested", or do you say it "helping the police with an inquiry"?), but not prosecuted. But the UK is far from the worst in this arena.
Incitement to immediate violence may be the only legitimate example in your list of prior restraint of speech based on content (the special treatment of child pornography is blatantly unconstitutional, but no one cares to protest that one). Libel and slander are a tort, not a crime. Fraud is a crime, but that's a regulation of business practice, not of speech per se (a lot of fraud involves what you don't say).
Particularly in the realm of political speech, only incitement to immediate violence should ever be banned.
The low end of six digits include plenty who were here from the earliest days. Many people didn't bother to get an account until karma was added, at which point the UIDs shot up to 200k or so as most people finally broke down and got an account.
Oh, sure, but you're now making it harder to help out the third world because of an obsession with fighting your cable company, which has been my point all along.
How about we fix the damn local monopoly (the real problem), instead of making things worse for the needy?
HDMI can only go up to about 50 feet without additional hardware.
True, but my PC is in the living room anyway, since I'm a geek and all that (it's silent, though). I do use a 50' cable, though, since I'm not going to run it across the center of the living room. Sometime this summer I'll switch to a fanless PC under the TV, displacing my X-Box since I hardly use that.
Anyway how long is your mouse cord?
My mouse (well, mice, why have just 1?) is wireless, of course, designed to work well on a couch. USB cable from my PC to a convenient place near the center of the room for the wireless receiver (without having the cable visible, of course). Since I only use my TV as a monitor, the only routine thing I can't do from a mouse is turn the TV on.
Hasn't it already gone very badly in some countries? When an MP is arrested for hate speech for a speech given on the floor of parliament, it has gone very badly. When it's illegal to discuss (one side of) a political issue, such as immigration, even by lawmakers it has gone very badly indeed.
You're missing my point: you're less likely to run into trouble with your own original content.
Less likely? Sure, fine. That's not a very good defense of YouTube's bad behavior, or of the DMCA.
The key emphasis is original content.
Ahh, you're trying to split hairs on "original" content in a different way than the law does (nothing is entirely original, of course, but I don't think that's the point). The point is: YouTube doesn't care about fair use. They should. They've at least shown some progress there, very recently, thanks to all the noise that the WTFU guys have been making, but the trend is still a bad one so I hope they keep up the pressure.
Ever heard of Freenet? It never really took off, but it did (does, I guess) everything you wanted. But no one uses it because, by its nature, it's slow.
You seem to be missing the point here: creating your own content in no way prevents big companies from getting YouTube to take down your original content, and even shut down your account. The system doesn't work in the idealistic way you imagine it works.
The original purpose of copyright was to allow the little guy creating original content to make money from it. That's often not what we see in practice today. It's not 100% broken yet, as a system, but it's clearly trending that way.
WTF is an "illegal download?" There is no such thing!
Illegal is whatever the law says it is - law and common sense have never overlapped much; law and technical details even less so.
All streams are downloads, and all downloads are streams. The Internet cannot work any other way
I'm pretty sure YouTube doesn't send you an unencrypted stream (anyone know for sure?). I've always assumed you run their EULA-bound, DMCA-protected software in order to decrypt that stream and watch it. Easy enough to save that, of course, but you have to bypass the DRM.
I have a 550 series Samsung LCD TV, and giving it a garbage DNS setting (its own static IP address as the DNS address) seems to prevent it from "connecting" to the internet while still letting me stream to it from my PC.
I'm baffled at this sort of thing. I just have an HDMI cable from my PC to my TV - why on Earth would I "stream"?
There is "currency style regulation" of Bitcoin in that the supply is limited, just by mathematics instead of by a central bank.
You do understand that the "money supply" is not the supply of the underlying currency (be it dollar bills, gold, or Bitcoins), right? There are no BTC-denominated savings accounts, but if there were, mathematics wouldn't limit the BTC money supply - you get that, right? And there would also be no FDIC insurance, no reserve requirements for banks, none of the other regulation protecting you. This is exactly the case when EU banks offer USD-denominated savings accounts (eurodollars), or when US banks offer euro-denominated savings accounts (euroeuros).
No, Net Neutrality also means you can't "zero-rate" content. Throttling is just one of many ways the cable company can advantage themselves. Adding a strict data cap then not counting their own content against the data cap is another (and cables companies are all flipping to that now).
Want to allow poor customers access to Wikipedia without charging that to their data plan? Well, that's the exact thing Net Neutrality needs to forbid.
Slashdot is full of people who are fans of the words "Net Neutrality", but who haven't thought through the actual details.
No, we're not talking about unrelated issues here. We're talking about Net Neutrality directly preventing helping out the needy in some small way. Let's not do that. Yes, I also like my entertainment to be inexpensive, don't get me wrong, but it's hardly the highest ideal.
Frankly, "Net Neutrality" was always ignoring the specific real problem in pursuit of some purist goal. The real problem is cable companies with local monopolies fucking their customers. Even if we pretend that very specific problem is very important, we can focus on that. Offering free Wikipedia to third-world nation in no way harms our goal of keeping our internet bill down.
Only in maturity. There are no Bitcoin savings accounts yet, no currency-style regulation of it, and the Bitcoin money supply is equal to the amount of Bitcoin issued.
Legally, Bitcoin is currently treated that way gold or stamps are: a collectable with a objectively measurable value (even if one that changes fairly often). Today that makes sense. But if banks stared offering Bitcoin-denominated savings accounts, that would be exactly the same as a non-EU bank offering Euro-denominated savings accounts, called euroeuros, for historical reasons. That could happen with either Bitcoins or gold, and in both cases the money supply would become much larger than the "physical" supply.
Net neutrality is actually very simple. He just opposes it,
Net neutrality addresses first-world problems. He rightly points out that there are more important problems in the world, even the world of the internet.
And now I must go scrub myself with a Brillo pad to clean off the stain of defending Jimmy Wales.
I remember when file-and-print servers were a big deal, but them I'm old. Nowadays, all the servers I work on are effectively single user. Oh, they'll do work on behalf of thousands or millions of end users, but none of those end users have sessions or accounts on the servers, they just send some bytes to port 443, or whatever port the server has open for the API it serves.
At most, there'll be one human actually logged in, to troubleshoot something, and if he needs nohup then nohup needs to work.
Regardless of the search, thats ~63,420 hits per second, which is a large web service for sure. When you remember that all the search results are customized to keep each user in a pleasant bubble of comfortable results, with advertising served based on not just your search terms, but your age, sex, race, and income, that's certainly impressive.
Sure the calculator built into the search box is less work, but few people use that. Everyone who uses Google just to get a link to the site name they typed into the search still gets customized results with customized advertising.
I think you read my post backwards, for you have come to the opposite point I was making. "Stockholders get burned" is the same as "most retirees get burned" (sure, a few people are so rich they don't get burned, but that doesn't make much difference here).
Slashdot Mirror
I bought the best plasma TV panel I could find anywhere. The picture is amazing. The "smart" features mostly don't work (voice and gesture control - nice idea but neither actually works for shit), but they came with the TV. One nice bit is the camera built into the TV folds up to point at the ceiling (that's the off switch), though there's no easy way to physically disable the microphone.
I tried the Netflix app, but the Netflix UI is just a lot better on my laptop, so the TV is just a monitor now. The YouTube app is a sad joke - the TV supports a USB keyboard and mouse, but the YouTube app doesn't, so you have to use the shitty on-screen keyboard to search. Worthless.
Basically, all the apps my TV came with are worthless, but it's a great monitor for watching movies.
Since use of bitcoin is easily regulated, a government can restrict it pretty effectively within its borders.
You're thinking of the "monetary base", which is the total of bills and coins minted, or the total BTC mined. That's largely irrelevant tot he economy, as it represents (in the US), 10%-20% of the money used in commerce.
Inflation in the US has never been caused (yet, anyway) by actually printing more dollar bills. Fixing the USD monetary base in exactly the same way the BTC monetary base is fixed would make almost no difference. The Fed would still be figuratively printing money, or contracting the money supply through high interest rates, QE could still happen, inflation would still happen, and so on. Switching to BTC, if we had all the other stuff we expect to go with it, from savings accounts to CDs to insurance, wouldn't really change any of that.
tldr: the money supply is about fractional reserve banking, not the number of dollar bills or BTC mined.
There was a case in the UK where an MP was taken to a police station ("arrested", or do you say it "helping the police with an inquiry"?), but not prosecuted. But the UK is far from the worst in this arena.
Incitement to immediate violence may be the only legitimate example in your list of prior restraint of speech based on content (the special treatment of child pornography is blatantly unconstitutional, but no one cares to protest that one). Libel and slander are a tort, not a crime. Fraud is a crime, but that's a regulation of business practice, not of speech per se (a lot of fraud involves what you don't say).
Particularly in the realm of political speech, only incitement to immediate violence should ever be banned.
Ask the Trump supporters.
Please take your political tribal signalling to Reddit, where it belongs.
The low end of six digits include plenty who were here from the earliest days. Many people didn't bother to get an account until karma was added, at which point the UIDs shot up to 200k or so as most people finally broke down and got an account.
Oh, sure, but you're now making it harder to help out the third world because of an obsession with fighting your cable company, which has been my point all along.
How about we fix the damn local monopoly (the real problem), instead of making things worse for the needy?
HDMI can only go up to about 50 feet without additional hardware.
True, but my PC is in the living room anyway, since I'm a geek and all that (it's silent, though). I do use a 50' cable, though, since I'm not going to run it across the center of the living room. Sometime this summer I'll switch to a fanless PC under the TV, displacing my X-Box since I hardly use that.
Anyway how long is your mouse cord?
My mouse (well, mice, why have just 1?) is wireless, of course, designed to work well on a couch. USB cable from my PC to a convenient place near the center of the room for the wireless receiver (without having the cable visible, of course). Since I only use my TV as a monitor, the only routine thing I can't do from a mouse is turn the TV on.
Hasn't it already gone very badly in some countries? When an MP is arrested for hate speech for a speech given on the floor of parliament, it has gone very badly. When it's illegal to discuss (one side of) a political issue, such as immigration, even by lawmakers it has gone very badly indeed.
You're missing my point: you're less likely to run into trouble with your own original content.
Less likely? Sure, fine. That's not a very good defense of YouTube's bad behavior, or of the DMCA.
The key emphasis is original content.
Ahh, you're trying to split hairs on "original" content in a different way than the law does (nothing is entirely original, of course, but I don't think that's the point). The point is: YouTube doesn't care about fair use. They should. They've at least shown some progress there, very recently, thanks to all the noise that the WTFU guys have been making, but the trend is still a bad one so I hope they keep up the pressure.
my PC is far away from my TV
I have a long HDMI cable. They make those.
and because it's more convenient to be able to access my library and control things with the TV remote.
Wow, really? Can't argue with taste, I guess. Nothing's easier than a mouse, to me.
Ever heard of Freenet? It never really took off, but it did (does, I guess) everything you wanted. But no one uses it because, by its nature, it's slow.
You seem to be missing the point here: creating your own content in no way prevents big companies from getting YouTube to take down your original content, and even shut down your account. The system doesn't work in the idealistic way you imagine it works.
The original purpose of copyright was to allow the little guy creating original content to make money from it. That's often not what we see in practice today. It's not 100% broken yet, as a system, but it's clearly trending that way.
WTF is an "illegal download?" There is no such thing!
Illegal is whatever the law says it is - law and common sense have never overlapped much; law and technical details even less so.
All streams are downloads, and all downloads are streams. The Internet cannot work any other way
I'm pretty sure YouTube doesn't send you an unencrypted stream (anyone know for sure?). I've always assumed you run their EULA-bound, DMCA-protected software in order to decrypt that stream and watch it. Easy enough to save that, of course, but you have to bypass the DRM.
I have a 550 series Samsung LCD TV, and giving it a garbage DNS setting (its own static IP address as the DNS address) seems to prevent it from "connecting" to the internet while still letting me stream to it from my PC.
I'm baffled at this sort of thing. I just have an HDMI cable from my PC to my TV - why on Earth would I "stream"?
There is "currency style regulation" of Bitcoin in that the supply is limited, just by mathematics instead of by a central bank.
You do understand that the "money supply" is not the supply of the underlying currency (be it dollar bills, gold, or Bitcoins), right? There are no BTC-denominated savings accounts, but if there were, mathematics wouldn't limit the BTC money supply - you get that, right? And there would also be no FDIC insurance, no reserve requirements for banks, none of the other regulation protecting you. This is exactly the case when EU banks offer USD-denominated savings accounts (eurodollars), or when US banks offer euro-denominated savings accounts (euroeuros).
No, Net Neutrality also means you can't "zero-rate" content. Throttling is just one of many ways the cable company can advantage themselves. Adding a strict data cap then not counting their own content against the data cap is another (and cables companies are all flipping to that now).
Want to allow poor customers access to Wikipedia without charging that to their data plan? Well, that's the exact thing Net Neutrality needs to forbid.
Slashdot is full of people who are fans of the words "Net Neutrality", but who haven't thought through the actual details.
No, we're not talking about unrelated issues here. We're talking about Net Neutrality directly preventing helping out the needy in some small way. Let's not do that. Yes, I also like my entertainment to be inexpensive, don't get me wrong, but it's hardly the highest ideal.
Frankly, "Net Neutrality" was always ignoring the specific real problem in pursuit of some purist goal. The real problem is cable companies with local monopolies fucking their customers. Even if we pretend that very specific problem is very important, we can focus on that. Offering free Wikipedia to third-world nation in no way harms our goal of keeping our internet bill down.
Only in maturity. There are no Bitcoin savings accounts yet, no currency-style regulation of it, and the Bitcoin money supply is equal to the amount of Bitcoin issued.
Legally, Bitcoin is currently treated that way gold or stamps are: a collectable with a objectively measurable value (even if one that changes fairly often). Today that makes sense. But if banks stared offering Bitcoin-denominated savings accounts, that would be exactly the same as a non-EU bank offering Euro-denominated savings accounts, called euroeuros, for historical reasons. That could happen with either Bitcoins or gold, and in both cases the money supply would become much larger than the "physical" supply.
Net neutrality is actually very simple. He just opposes it,
Net neutrality addresses first-world problems. He rightly points out that there are more important problems in the world, even the world of the internet.
And now I must go scrub myself with a Brillo pad to clean off the stain of defending Jimmy Wales.
I remember when file-and-print servers were a big deal, but them I'm old. Nowadays, all the servers I work on are effectively single user. Oh, they'll do work on behalf of thousands or millions of end users, but none of those end users have sessions or accounts on the servers, they just send some bytes to port 443, or whatever port the server has open for the API it serves.
At most, there'll be one human actually logged in, to troubleshoot something, and if he needs nohup then nohup needs to work.
Regardless of the search, thats ~63,420 hits per second, which is a large web service for sure. When you remember that all the search results are customized to keep each user in a pleasant bubble of comfortable results, with advertising served based on not just your search terms, but your age, sex, race, and income, that's certainly impressive.
Sure the calculator built into the search box is less work, but few people use that. Everyone who uses Google just to get a link to the site name they typed into the search still gets customized results with customized advertising.
I think you read my post backwards, for you have come to the opposite point I was making. "Stockholders get burned" is the same as "most retirees get burned" (sure, a few people are so rich they don't get burned, but that doesn't make much difference here).
So what? About half of Americans are stockholders. You've named 2 of over 100 million who won't be burned. What's your point again?