Bad analogy (it's almost like this is slashdot). A better analogy would be if Breitbart refused to sell you ad space for your socialist screed. But that's flawed too: Breitbart is a publisher, not a common carrier, and can e.g. be sued for libel for what they publish.
There's no objective way to distinguish who is "the press", but I think self-selection could work well. Let corporations decide whether they're a publisher, with editorial control and liability, or a platform with neither.
It' impossible to prove that your crypto library is invulnerable to side-channel attacks. It is possible, however, to prove it's not vulnerable to common side-channel attacks. That's not nothing.
Their marketing hyperbole is so over the top, however, that I wouldn't trust them with anything.
A big problem in general in software crypto is that it's impossible to prove that the random/entropy source provided by the processor is good. There's no software work-around to that - oh, you can try to use I/O timings and so on, but those can be manipulated. Even if the code that generates the mask that is used in the fab is proven correct, we know the NSA is capable of tampering with the mask between code and fab.
After the Snowden revelations were understood, paranoid crytpo guys reached the point of "I can't only trust a hardware entropy source that I build myself from components I bought myself in person from a random store." That's not exactly productizable, but it's a fair assessment of the threat of the NSA.
I'm not sure I see that pattern. There are moral panics, to be sure. The waltz, pool halls, D&D, video games, really anything the kids do. That's not the same thing, though. There is certainly much historical precedent for government or religion stamping down on those who challenge their authority (which, yes, is a thing popular with edgelords), but that's not the same, really.
There are more video sharing services now than at any other point in Youtube's history. They've never been easier to use, and it's never been easier to share and advertise your creations, you fucking moron.
There are approximately 0 people earning a living on any service other than YouTube.
Oh well nevermind, let's just take your brain-dead thoughts to their logical conclusion and see how much you enjoy legislation forcing private entities to host speech you like, what could go wrong.
Do you leap to the defense of publicly held corporations in every context, or just this one? Is a publicly held corporation (not a group of people who know each other) really a "private entity"? Is it a person, with rights? What's the difference between what the government does, and what the government allows a monopoly that it chooses not to break up to do?
You don't get to demand a podium and an audience, especially when someone privately owns that podium.
It amazes me how zealously you defend the rights of corporations here. Are they people? Monopolies deserve regulations that competitive markets don't, especially when that intersects with political speech.
"Oh, the government isn't censoring, it's just that the monopoly is censoring in a way the government likes, and the government isn't intervening. Total coincidence, free speech unaffected".
That's a lot of words to say that you like censorship. I don't.
The solution for "bad speech" is more speech. Don't like speakers that "radicalize" people? Present a more compelling argument. Should be easy: after all, you're right and they're wrong, yes? But if you insult instead of argue, and the radicals welcome people and validate them, you're going to lose.
Some social norms are bad. We need the ability to "radicalize" people away from those. And it's not your job to choose.
It would be different, for sure, if YouTube were not an effective monopoly. But while they are, their censorship deserves the same skepticism as government censorship.
There's a needed distinction between "discourse acceptable in polite society" and "legal discourse allowed on common carriers". Let the edgelords and the pornographers and everyone else the finger-wagging moral scolds hate have their place. .
You're saying "censor the edgelords to make sure we get the racists". Nope. I'm saying "don't censor the racists either". The solution to "bad speech" is more speech. Freedom: it's important.
A society that can't take edgelords in stride is pretty damn useless. Maybe the answer is to realize that humor, tasteless or otherwise, is unimportant, and let is pass.
I think the thing is people don't start out wanting to see crazy conspiracy theory stuff. People start out watching one thing and 5 hours later they're doubting vaccines. That's the problem. Back in thr day we never had to worry about this, because you had to actively seek crazy stuff out.
So explain Christianity?
OK, I'm not actually anti-Christian, but I hope you get my point? 100 years ago we had seances all over the place as mediums made a killing. We had utopias and cults aplenty. YouTube isn't anything special here. Humans gonna human.
Indeed. Which standard do you, gentle Slashdot read, want: * Videos that people want to put up, and that people want to see; or * A curated selection of videos that are best for you, as judged by your betters
We know that oppressive governments the world round demand the second option. Which should you demand?
"To know who rules you, ask: who am I not allowed to criticize in public? Those are your rulers."
You might find it interesting to look at the glacier maps from the last glaciation. A big chunk of modern Europe was under the ice sheet. One of the bigger mysteries of climate is why that's not the current condition - it should have been, had the pattern for the last million years or so held (and probably a lot longer, but that's as far back as we have ice core data). It's no coincidence that human civilization arose when the usually-brief warm period lasted 10,000 years instead.
Every drop of oil Norway pumps is burned. That's the world we live in. Doesn't matter whether it's burned domestically or elsewhere, it will be burned. Norway could pump less oil, but someone else would just pump more.
Feelgood measures are nice and all, but they don't actually matter. Reducing oil consumption in China and India as those economies emerge is all that really matters. That's the real world you actually live in, sorry it's less pleasant than your fantasy world.
USA is generating all that heat, and heat rises, and Canada is above USA, so...
You joke, but that's more or less how it actually works. Global warming due to CO2 mostly warms the poles, because the effect is to even out temps across the globe. For a little bit of warming at the equator, you get a lot of warming at the poles.
This effect is why there's a worry about the ice at the poles melting with only a small average increase in temperature. It works the other way too: with a smallish decrease in temperature, Canada will be under 1 km of glaciers, which has been the most common condition for the past 100 M years or so (we're in the Quaternary Ice Age).
Norway is a massive oil exporter. Every drop of oil they don't burn in cars they export as oil instead. Norway moving to electric cars does nothing at all to reduce the overall problem because they just export the difference.
Marriage is the proven recipe for keeping a community going across generations. There may be other ways that work, but most clever ideas haven't worked out.
I agree, in modern society there's not really anything in it for the man. Seems like a problem to be solved, if you ask me.
As I've said before, Outlook.com does not suck. And while Microsoft may desire to monetize your personal details, they definitely lack Google's talent at it.
Low ID users need to fuck off and die. You're just a bunch of old IT closet-cleaning losers. A bunch of 50 year old nerds who are unemployed and unmarried.
A "vidogames are bad" story presented uncritically on Slashdot? My how we've fallen from a nerd-centric site. Jack Thompson would be proud of what Slashdot has become.
Err, high-UID Slashdotters do know who Jack Thompson is, right? Get off my lawn!
In the US it doesn't work so rationally. In many states, there are limited circumstances in which you can challenge paternity, and if you miss the window (e.g., were living in a different state after the breakup and ooopsie didn't get notified) you can be on the hook for child support. 18 years.
No modern study of paternity statistics can be trusted, of course, because the issue is political now.
That goes both ways, actually. When my ~15 year relationship broke up, I got into dating again. I'm a man, and the women I was dating were aged 35-42, and regularly viewing a potential partner as their last chance to have children. Whenever it got to sex (which is not often because I'm no ladies' man), I made super double sure to wear a condom, even though she said she'd be on contraception.
And in my (European) country, you can bet your ass you will pay through the nose for a child that you didn't choose.
And when she gets pregnant anyway? Won't that be awkward. It's something like 20% of men who have a mistaken belief as to the father of their children.
Fun fact, in many US states, you can be legally required to pay child support even if you prove you're not the father (at least in some circumstances, varies state to state). At least if there's a "male pill" you can have some ground to demand a paternity test, even though that will usually end the relationship either way.
Slashdot Mirror
Bad analogy (it's almost like this is slashdot). A better analogy would be if Breitbart refused to sell you ad space for your socialist screed. But that's flawed too: Breitbart is a publisher, not a common carrier, and can e.g. be sued for libel for what they publish.
There's no objective way to distinguish who is "the press", but I think self-selection could work well. Let corporations decide whether they're a publisher, with editorial control and liability, or a platform with neither.
It' impossible to prove that your crypto library is invulnerable to side-channel attacks. It is possible, however, to prove it's not vulnerable to common side-channel attacks. That's not nothing.
Their marketing hyperbole is so over the top, however, that I wouldn't trust them with anything.
A big problem in general in software crypto is that it's impossible to prove that the random/entropy source provided by the processor is good. There's no software work-around to that - oh, you can try to use I/O timings and so on, but those can be manipulated. Even if the code that generates the mask that is used in the fab is proven correct, we know the NSA is capable of tampering with the mask between code and fab.
After the Snowden revelations were understood, paranoid crytpo guys reached the point of "I can't only trust a hardware entropy source that I build myself from components I bought myself in person from a random store." That's not exactly productizable, but it's a fair assessment of the threat of the NSA.
I'm not sure I see that pattern. There are moral panics, to be sure. The waltz, pool halls, D&D, video games, really anything the kids do. That's not the same thing, though. There is certainly much historical precedent for government or religion stamping down on those who challenge their authority (which, yes, is a thing popular with edgelords), but that's not the same, really.
There are more video sharing services now than at any other point in Youtube's history. They've never been easier to use, and it's never been easier to share and advertise your creations, you fucking moron.
There are approximately 0 people earning a living on any service other than YouTube.
Oh well nevermind, let's just take your brain-dead thoughts to their logical conclusion and see how much you enjoy legislation forcing private entities to host speech you like, what could go wrong.
Do you leap to the defense of publicly held corporations in every context, or just this one? Is a publicly held corporation (not a group of people who know each other) really a "private entity"? Is it a person, with rights? What's the difference between what the government does, and what the government allows a monopoly that it chooses not to break up to do?
You don't get to demand a podium and an audience, especially when someone privately owns that podium.
It amazes me how zealously you defend the rights of corporations here. Are they people? Monopolies deserve regulations that competitive markets don't, especially when that intersects with political speech.
"Oh, the government isn't censoring, it's just that the monopoly is censoring in a way the government likes, and the government isn't intervening. Total coincidence, free speech unaffected".
Is that really the hill you want to defend?
That's a lot of words to say that you like censorship. I don't.
The solution for "bad speech" is more speech. Don't like speakers that "radicalize" people? Present a more compelling argument. Should be easy: after all, you're right and they're wrong, yes? But if you insult instead of argue, and the radicals welcome people and validate them, you're going to lose.
Some social norms are bad. We need the ability to "radicalize" people away from those. And it's not your job to choose.
It would be different, for sure, if YouTube were not an effective monopoly. But while they are, their censorship deserves the same skepticism as government censorship.
There's a needed distinction between "discourse acceptable in polite society" and "legal discourse allowed on common carriers". Let the edgelords and the pornographers and everyone else the finger-wagging moral scolds hate have their place. .
You're saying "censor the edgelords to make sure we get the racists". Nope. I'm saying "don't censor the racists either". The solution to "bad speech" is more speech. Freedom: it's important.
A society that can't take edgelords in stride is pretty damn useless. Maybe the answer is to realize that humor, tasteless or otherwise, is unimportant, and let is pass.
I think the thing is people don't start out wanting to see crazy conspiracy theory stuff. People start out watching one thing and 5 hours later they're doubting vaccines. That's the problem. Back in thr day we never had to worry about this, because you had to actively seek crazy stuff out.
So explain Christianity?
OK, I'm not actually anti-Christian, but I hope you get my point? 100 years ago we had seances all over the place as mediums made a killing. We had utopias and cults aplenty. YouTube isn't anything special here. Humans gonna human.
Indeed. Which standard do you, gentle Slashdot read, want:
* Videos that people want to put up, and that people want to see; or
* A curated selection of videos that are best for you, as judged by your betters
We know that oppressive governments the world round demand the second option. Which should you demand?
"To know who rules you, ask: who am I not allowed to criticize in public? Those are your rulers."
The beatings will continue until moral improves.
I think that's part of their code of conduct.
You might find it interesting to look at the glacier maps from the last glaciation. A big chunk of modern Europe was under the ice sheet. One of the bigger mysteries of climate is why that's not the current condition - it should have been, had the pattern for the last million years or so held (and probably a lot longer, but that's as far back as we have ice core data). It's no coincidence that human civilization arose when the usually-brief warm period lasted 10,000 years instead.
There's a nice pipe dream.
Every drop of oil Norway pumps is burned. That's the world we live in. Doesn't matter whether it's burned domestically or elsewhere, it will be burned. Norway could pump less oil, but someone else would just pump more.
Feelgood measures are nice and all, but they don't actually matter. Reducing oil consumption in China and India as those economies emerge is all that really matters. That's the real world you actually live in, sorry it's less pleasant than your fantasy world.
USA is generating all that heat, and heat rises, and Canada is above USA, so...
You joke, but that's more or less how it actually works. Global warming due to CO2 mostly warms the poles, because the effect is to even out temps across the globe. For a little bit of warming at the equator, you get a lot of warming at the poles.
This effect is why there's a worry about the ice at the poles melting with only a small average increase in temperature. It works the other way too: with a smallish decrease in temperature, Canada will be under 1 km of glaciers, which has been the most common condition for the past 100 M years or so (we're in the Quaternary Ice Age).
Norway is a massive oil exporter. Every drop of oil they don't burn in cars they export as oil instead. Norway moving to electric cars does nothing at all to reduce the overall problem because they just export the difference.
Best you can hope for, these days.
Marriage is the proven recipe for keeping a community going across generations. There may be other ways that work, but most clever ideas haven't worked out.
I agree, in modern society there's not really anything in it for the man. Seems like a problem to be solved, if you ask me.
Hotmail FTW
As I've said before, Outlook.com does not suck. And while Microsoft may desire to monetize your personal details, they definitely lack Google's talent at it.
Low ID users need to fuck off and die. You're just a bunch of old IT closet-cleaning losers. A bunch of 50 year old nerds who are unemployed and unmarried.
At 50, you become a Wizard.
Before the cascade begins of ever-shorter UIDs, we all pretty much joined in the same year.
A "vidogames are bad" story presented uncritically on Slashdot? My how we've fallen from a nerd-centric site. Jack Thompson would be proud of what Slashdot has become.
Err, high-UID Slashdotters do know who Jack Thompson is, right? Get off my lawn!
In the US it doesn't work so rationally. In many states, there are limited circumstances in which you can challenge paternity, and if you miss the window (e.g., were living in a different state after the breakup and ooopsie didn't get notified) you can be on the hook for child support. 18 years.
No modern study of paternity statistics can be trusted, of course, because the issue is political now.
That goes both ways, actually. When my ~15 year relationship broke up, I got into dating again. I'm a man, and the women I was dating were aged 35-42, and regularly viewing a potential partner as their last chance to have children. Whenever it got to sex (which is not often because I'm no ladies' man), I made super double sure to wear a condom, even though she said she'd be on contraception.
And in my (European) country, you can bet your ass you will pay through the nose for a child that you didn't choose.
And when she gets pregnant anyway? Won't that be awkward. It's something like 20% of men who have a mistaken belief as to the father of their children.
Fun fact, in many US states, you can be legally required to pay child support even if you prove you're not the father (at least in some circumstances, varies state to state). At least if there's a "male pill" you can have some ground to demand a paternity test, even though that will usually end the relationship either way.