....when you realize that you prefer the Gopher version to the average modern website design.
I hope they keep it past the 1st of April. It makes me feel younger.
A lot of the critical telecommunication infrastructure is already made up of Huawei products (TLC hardware, networking equipment, end-user phones and modems), and has been since the 2000s. Huawei could already spy the heck out of us if this were their secret mission. I don't understand why it's only now, with 5G tenders in sight, that they've become a problem.
First of all: I am sorry to hear about your condition, and I hope that what I wrote wasn't offensive.
I have a friend who, too, suffers from this illness, to the point that sometimes she couldn't even walk; now she's doing better. Some years ago she tried an experimental therapy, which I am certain was only a scam (it had all the signs of it), and costed her lots of money; however she is happy about having done it, because after each treatment she did feel better! I'm convinced that whatever they've done to her didn't really help in any way. Those scammers make me dislike even more everything that diverts people away from "official" medicine which, with all its limitations, issues and rough edges that I won't deny, is the only thing that will ever provide a treatment.
I understand what it feels like to be in the patient's shoes when doctors misbehave; however, if you read TFA, you'll see that it doesn't seem to be the case here: we're not talking about researchers claiming that CFS is hypochondria, instead what is happening is that the Facebook brigades are attempting to make the researchers' life as unpleasant as possible because they're not satisfied with the output of their research. Let's not put the researchers and his harassers on the same plane, it's unjust.
Once again, turning otherwise normal people into hateful persons who believe themselves to be ridden with problems whose fault is anyone's but theirs. They have an illness? The fault is of the dishonest doctors who won't cure them because they're mediocre. Having devoted one's life to study and research is nothing to them, compared to collecting information on Facebook groups, made by real people and not by big-pharma servants.
This thing that keeps being repeated, that Airbus planes would be less safe because of more automation and of the use of a flight stick instead of a simulated old-school yoke, is bullshit, and we can know this without being pilots: Airbus and Boeing have been on the market for decades, so if one's planes were, say, 10 percent more dangerous than the other's, by now we would have registered 10 percent more crashes on their fleet. Which hasn't happened.
I don't know if I understand your response. To be clear: the problem that YouTube is trying to solve is that some videos of children were used by pedophiles. The comment sections of those videos contained adult persons making vulgar appreciations of a sexual nature about the minor subjects of the video, attaching keywords to make the videos searchable by other members of their community, including links to other videos and timecodes that they could jump to in order to quickly obtain the sequences that were most interesting to them. After discovering this, the people paying for the expenses for keeping those videos online, that is the advertisers, don't want to pay anymore, because that would give them negative publicity which is the opposite of what they are paying for.
What does this have to do with Disney and people getting offended? Shouldn't Disney, or anyone, be free to choose what kind of content they want to support financially? Their own money is a private property, isn't it?
You insist on attacking Alphabet for a decision that was taken by others. Do you really think that Google care about the content of YouTube videos? They're an amoral company that makes money by spying people. What happened is that advertisers threatened to withdraw their ads, and YouTube, if anything, is resorting to desperate measures in order to keep them onboard, in the interest of professional content creators, too.
Anyway, this decision is not about swear words as you seem to believe. If it were, 90% of YouTube would have to be closed, comments and videos alike. This is about people creating paedophile rings using the YouTube comment system - this is not an urban legend, it really happened. The content of those comments would offend even Australian advertisers, I'm sure.
The "work" is not the video: it is the channel, including videos, descriptions, comments, playlists, notifications and anything that the audience looks for in the site.
If you understand, then you shouldn't be using rethoric such as "fault", "screwing the creators", and so on. YouTube don't pay the creators themselves, and have no interest in "screwing" them, because a demonetized video is a loss to them in the first place. It's advertisers who pay, and they don't want to pay for anything that is directly linked to paedophiles. If you want their money, you need to make sure that your work is suitable for their purposes, because they're not into spending money for having a negative return. Whether this means deleting comments used by paedophiles or refraining from spreading hate and fake news, this is part of your job as a content creator - if you want to be paid, that is. You are not entitled to get money just because you have made a video: you need to make a video that other people will pay to distribute and maintain. Is it the peasant's fault if insects attack his crops? No, but still he has to deal with the responsability of applying pesticide to protect them. It's part of his job.
You need to understand how YouTube works. Videos don't generate money by themselves, it's advertisers who pay; since their own livelihood, and certainly their return on investment for the ads, depend on their public image, they have a reason not to publish ads on videos that are used by paedophiles to do their thing. YouTube have no say in this decision, and if they can't manage to appease the advertisers, the alternative is for them not to get money any more - at all. Surely that would hurt content creators even more.
What are you talking about? Left-wing media in Europe are a minority, and they rarely attack the US, with the exception of extreme-left-wing media, which targeted the US long before Trump was elected anyway; these are a minority within a minority, and nowadays are dwindling together with the parties that traditionally supported them and which their readers used to vote for.
Of course Trump gets more hate, but this is a result of his incendiary behaviour, that he consciously adopts, knowing what will result of it.
Then we have "quality" media, which hold let's say a 60% share on traditional channels such as TV, and are not left-leaning at all; if anything, they're in Stockholm syndrome with the populists, and they rarely say anything bad about them, because populism is now so widespread that offending them is considered politically incorrect.
Finally, we have trash media, which account for a relevant share of what comes from traditional channels, and an overwhelming majority of the output of "new" channels such as the Internet: these will spew whatever is needed for their audience to "click" on their stories, and that's usually populist lore, conspiracy theories, hate messages; most often, an intersection of the three.
And yeah, the EU and NATO have been real shitheads to America.
To the US? They worship their culture, purchase their products, uphold their doctrine, blindly follow them into all the wars that they have started for domestic interests and that have made Europe a less safe place. I don't think so.
and have no problem unloading vile abuse on a daily basis
Can you make some examples of a political leader of the EU telling anything vile or abusive about the US, or any other country? (Visegrad countries don't count.)
Ungrateful freeloading jerks who take American security for granted
Now this is true, Trump is right about this. Europe definitely freeloads on the bellicosity of the US in order to save money on defence. I'm inclined to believe that certain European countries have almost turned their armed forces into a welfare program. But the US didn't protest until now, because all they cared about was preventing Europe from becoming a western province of Russia. Remember when they sacrificed half of Germany in exchange for the possibility to have their troops and weapons next to the Russians? Nowadays Russia is much less intimidating as a military power, and therefore the need for NATO is less felt on both sides of the Atlantic (wrongly IMHO). So yes, Europe should increase their defence budget, but spare me the moral superiority of the USA, they have none.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't lie; I'm saying that when you do there will be consequences: for example, people won't believe you any more the next time you cry wolf, which is precisely what should happen here.
What Super Micro case? Until now, all we have seen is extraordinary claims without any evidence whatsoever. I believe that it is difficult to hide a generic spying device inside of an extremely low level hardware component which, in production, will only be able to communicate with the external world through channels that are defined, configured and operated at a much higher level. I'm not saying that it is impossible, but whoever claims the contrary should be giving very detailed explanations and this, so far, hasn't happened.
The current President of the United States of America described the EU as his country's "biggest foe globally". Why would one dispense advice to a foe? The US might as well counsel their new allies, such as Putin, who went to great lengths to help their current President get elected.
The United States are known to lie to their allies in order to promote their national interests, and for this reason their word has no value. Besides, they were caught doing exactly what they are now accusing the Chinese of: by preferring US gear to Chinese gear, Europe would be exchanging possible espionage with certain espionage.
Thanks for providing this piece of information; I had a feeling that it had to be "anti-SJW" hate, but I couldn't understand why they had classified Aquaman as "self" this time.
Nah, people were always assholes. It's just that the Internet, once it became mainstream enough for anyone to use, basically brought those assholes into the mix and allowed them to mingle with others on a global scale.
Try this experiment: pick on this very same site a story from the late 90s, and give a look at the comment section. Compare it to the comment section of a contemporary article. Tell me if you notice a difference.
Another sign of the times is that back in the old days, it would have been obvious to me that your reply was sarcastic. Nowadays I can't be so sure;-) .
Slashdot Mirror
....when you realize that you prefer the Gopher version to the average modern website design. I hope they keep it past the 1st of April. It makes me feel younger.
A lot of the critical telecommunication infrastructure is already made up of Huawei products (TLC hardware, networking equipment, end-user phones and modems), and has been since the 2000s. Huawei could already spy the heck out of us if this were their secret mission. I don't understand why it's only now, with 5G tenders in sight, that they've become a problem.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
I have a friend who, too, suffers from this illness, to the point that sometimes she couldn't even walk; now she's doing better. Some years ago she tried an experimental therapy, which I am certain was only a scam (it had all the signs of it), and costed her lots of money; however she is happy about having done it, because after each treatment she did feel better! I'm convinced that whatever they've done to her didn't really help in any way. Those scammers make me dislike even more everything that diverts people away from "official" medicine which, with all its limitations, issues and rough edges that I won't deny, is the only thing that will ever provide a treatment.
I understand what it feels like to be in the patient's shoes when doctors misbehave; however, if you read TFA, you'll see that it doesn't seem to be the case here: we're not talking about researchers claiming that CFS is hypochondria, instead what is happening is that the Facebook brigades are attempting to make the researchers' life as unpleasant as possible because they're not satisfied with the output of their research. Let's not put the researchers and his harassers on the same plane, it's unjust.
Bullshit that you are saying, not me.
Once again, turning otherwise normal people into hateful persons who believe themselves to be ridden with problems whose fault is anyone's but theirs. They have an illness? The fault is of the dishonest doctors who won't cure them because they're mediocre. Having devoted one's life to study and research is nothing to them, compared to collecting information on Facebook groups, made by real people and not by big-pharma servants.
This thing that keeps being repeated, that Airbus planes would be less safe because of more automation and of the use of a flight stick instead of a simulated old-school yoke, is bullshit, and we can know this without being pilots: Airbus and Boeing have been on the market for decades, so if one's planes were, say, 10 percent more dangerous than the other's, by now we would have registered 10 percent more crashes on their fleet. Which hasn't happened.
What does this have to do with Disney and people getting offended? Shouldn't Disney, or anyone, be free to choose what kind of content they want to support financially? Their own money is a private property, isn't it?
Anyway, this decision is not about swear words as you seem to believe. If it were, 90% of YouTube would have to be closed, comments and videos alike. This is about people creating paedophile rings using the YouTube comment system - this is not an urban legend, it really happened. The content of those comments would offend even Australian advertisers, I'm sure.
True. To be honest, I think that it's not wise for your livelihood to be based on a Google product; at least, not if you haven't got backup plans.
I don't know, you should ask a Google-sucking Nazi about that. You'll find no shortage of them on YouTube.
The "work" is not the video: it is the channel, including videos, descriptions, comments, playlists, notifications and anything that the audience looks for in the site.
No, they don't. The whole point is that advertisers don't want their ads displayed on those videos.
If you understand, then you shouldn't be using rethoric such as "fault", "screwing the creators", and so on. YouTube don't pay the creators themselves, and have no interest in "screwing" them, because a demonetized video is a loss to them in the first place. It's advertisers who pay, and they don't want to pay for anything that is directly linked to paedophiles. If you want their money, you need to make sure that your work is suitable for their purposes, because they're not into spending money for having a negative return. Whether this means deleting comments used by paedophiles or refraining from spreading hate and fake news, this is part of your job as a content creator - if you want to be paid, that is. You are not entitled to get money just because you have made a video: you need to make a video that other people will pay to distribute and maintain. Is it the peasant's fault if insects attack his crops? No, but still he has to deal with the responsability of applying pesticide to protect them. It's part of his job.
You need to understand how YouTube works. Videos don't generate money by themselves, it's advertisers who pay; since their own livelihood, and certainly their return on investment for the ads, depend on their public image, they have a reason not to publish ads on videos that are used by paedophiles to do their thing. YouTube have no say in this decision, and if they can't manage to appease the advertisers, the alternative is for them not to get money any more - at all. Surely that would hurt content creators even more.
Are you sure? Look harder.
What are you talking about? Left-wing media in Europe are a minority, and they rarely attack the US, with the exception of extreme-left-wing media, which targeted the US long before Trump was elected anyway; these are a minority within a minority, and nowadays are dwindling together with the parties that traditionally supported them and which their readers used to vote for.
Of course Trump gets more hate, but this is a result of his incendiary behaviour, that he consciously adopts, knowing what will result of it.
Then we have "quality" media, which hold let's say a 60% share on traditional channels such as TV, and are not left-leaning at all; if anything, they're in Stockholm syndrome with the populists, and they rarely say anything bad about them, because populism is now so widespread that offending them is considered politically incorrect.
Finally, we have trash media, which account for a relevant share of what comes from traditional channels, and an overwhelming majority of the output of "new" channels such as the Internet: these will spew whatever is needed for their audience to "click" on their stories, and that's usually populist lore, conspiracy theories, hate messages; most often, an intersection of the three.
To the US? They worship their culture, purchase their products, uphold their doctrine, blindly follow them into all the wars that they have started for domestic interests and that have made Europe a less safe place. I don't think so.
Can you make some examples of a political leader of the EU telling anything vile or abusive about the US, or any other country? (Visegrad countries don't count.)
Now this is true, Trump is right about this. Europe definitely freeloads on the bellicosity of the US in order to save money on defence. I'm inclined to believe that certain European countries have almost turned their armed forces into a welfare program. But the US didn't protest until now, because all they cared about was preventing Europe from becoming a western province of Russia. Remember when they sacrificed half of Germany in exchange for the possibility to have their troops and weapons next to the Russians? Nowadays Russia is much less intimidating as a military power, and therefore the need for NATO is less felt on both sides of the Atlantic (wrongly IMHO). So yes, Europe should increase their defence budget, but spare me the moral superiority of the USA, they have none.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't lie; I'm saying that when you do there will be consequences: for example, people won't believe you any more the next time you cry wolf, which is precisely what should happen here.
What Super Micro case? Until now, all we have seen is extraordinary claims without any evidence whatsoever.
I believe that it is difficult to hide a generic spying device inside of an extremely low level hardware component which, in production, will only be able to communicate with the external world through channels that are defined, configured and operated at a much higher level. I'm not saying that it is impossible, but whoever claims the contrary should be giving very detailed explanations and this, so far, hasn't happened.
The current President of the United States of America described the EU as his country's "biggest foe globally". Why would one dispense advice to a foe? The US might as well counsel their new allies, such as Putin, who went to great lengths to help their current President get elected.
The United States are known to lie to their allies in order to promote their national interests, and for this reason their word has no value. Besides, they were caught doing exactly what they are now accusing the Chinese of: by preferring US gear to Chinese gear, Europe would be exchanging possible espionage with certain espionage.
"Netscape" being alive is still a pet peeve of them.
Thanks for providing this piece of information; I had a feeling that it had to be "anti-SJW" hate, but I couldn't understand why they had classified Aquaman as "self" this time.
Try this experiment: pick on this very same site a story from the late 90s, and give a look at the comment section. Compare it to the comment section of a contemporary article. Tell me if you notice a difference.
Another sign of the times is that back in the old days, it would have been obvious to me that your reply was sarcastic. Nowadays I can't be so sure ;-) .