I've been subject to a youtube copyright detection myself, and that's my experience too. The entire appeals process consisted of a drop-down box of possible reasons, none of which applied in my case (The music was public domain, the copyright having long expired). At no point was there even an option to contact a real person. The process was entirely automated.
Eventually someone will make a game which really draws the attention of the censors. There are a few subjects that make them very touchy, like Taiwan - even listing it as an independent country on a drop-down box is enough to earn their ire. If someone made something like an RTg where the player controls Taiwan and it's allies fending off an invasion by the Chinese military, you can expect the crackdown to follow shortly. Valve will be given the standard ultimatum: Either comply with Chinese censorship laws, or be blocked and lose access to one of the world's largest and most lucrative markets.
Former oil industry lobbying Scott Pruitt has had to resign following a series of scandals. His replacement is former coal industry lobbyist Andrew Wheeler. Their political stances are identical though.
The Mormons do keep disaster supplies, but that's more a matter of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. They are preparing for their prophesied apocalypse.
I didn't say that, though it is true. I said that companies have to censor to comply with the law, and that insufficient self-censorship results in politicians passing regulations to require it. Exactly what needs to be censored varies by country, but there's always something. Advertisers are just another reason. A completely unfiltered internet may be a nice dream for idealists, but it doesn't work like that in the real world.
Throughout most of human history, a substantial number of men *did* die very young. Men took all the most dangerous jobs, and frequent wars killed huge numbers of men. Polygamy was more viable under those circumstances.
The UK does not have a constitution. We have a legal doctrine that parliament can pass any law they want, with the sole restriction that they cannot pass a law which restricts their own ability to pass laws.
It may sound totalitarian, but it actually works quite well in practice. We don't get the US's infamous federal-verses-state-verses-local legal conflicts where different levels of government are actively working in opposition to one another.
I still can't figure out how the prime minister gets determined though. I know elections happen, and then a prime minister appears, but I don't think anyone understands what happens in between.
I don't know why people keep singling out the UK for extensive CCTV coverage. Yes, we have cameras everywhere. Now find me a developed nation that doesn't.
There's just too much internet to have any hope of filtering it manually, and yet filtering is required both for legal reasons and to avoid social outrage. So automated filtering is the only way - and we all know how well that works. It's got high rates of both false positives and false negatives.
It's leading to a lot of conspiracy theories though. If you read politically slanted news sites, you will see that those on the right are full of stories about how Facebook and Google are striving to force conservative voices off the internet - and if you flip the other political faction, the news sites on the left run many (though not as many) about how Facebook and Google are striving to force liberal voices off the internet. Just throw in a bit of reporting bias and everyone things the algorithms are out to get their team.
Google could turn the filtering off - but then it would be about a week before stories start appearing about how Google "supports prostitution" or somesuch, and politicians would start to threaten regulation again.
Bernie-loyalist Democrats thinking like that is part of what got us Trump. You can talk all you want about how people should vote in some ideal democracy, but we have to make do with the democracy we have - and in America, that means acknowledging that once the primaries are over there are only two viable candidates, and a vote for one is a vote against the other.
Not going to happen. Voters all know the unfortunate reality that makes two-party systems so stable: If you want to have any hope of keeping the greater evil out, you have to vote for the lesser one.
What you say about conservatives may have been true once. I really do not know. But it is not true of them today. The movement has become overwhelmed by popularism now - intellectual considerations thrown aside in favor of soundbite politics and conspiracy theories. Their approach to the environment is now defined by an instinctive rejection of any and all regulation and an unshakable faith in the market to solve every problem, justified by outright rejecting any scientific evidence that would be politically inconvenient. You read any popular conservative website now and you can expect to see columnists decrying 'so-called' climate change as a liberal conspiracy and asking why the government sacrifices human prosperity to protect endangered species squatting on valuable farmland.
Hams used to push the boundaries of what's possible. They pioneered a lot of technologies. Today, not so much. The complexity of modern electronics advanced beyond the ability of the men-in-sheds army to advance it. I got into it in the hope of meeting people who would share my excitement at designing and building new things, but what I actually found was a dying hobby that stagnated technologically in the 80s.
Or pretty much anything remotely useful. Ham radio is only practical because it's utterly useless - if it were useful, the spectrum would be full of people actually using it.
- No broadcasts, except to establish contact: All conversations must be between explicatively identified parties. - No commercial activity. That means no using it as a convenient way to coordinate your taxi fleet. - No encryption. - No music.
It's only usable as a hobby - see who you can, reach, chat a bit.
I've found a few pirate stations. A lot of it is weird, non-mainstream music. I've heard, but not personally found (for I live in the UK), that a lot of pirate stations in the US are run by church figures or political activists with intensely anti-governmental views - they aren't going to submit to the FCC as a matter of principle.
1. Find someone who doesn't mind ruining their life (career criminal, terminal illness, just plain dumb. 2. "Ok, you set up the station, then I'll turn you in. A million for you, a million for me!"
The shelf life of LiFePO4 is substantially longer than Li-Ion. That translates to laptops and cell phones that you don't end up replacing after a few years years because the battery that used to last two days is now only lasting two hours.
The legality of porn in the US is a really complicated matter, and depends on state. There are a lot of laws which are intended to make it legal, but also completely impractical to produce or distribute. Fortunately for the porn fans of the internet, most of these laws have not been enforced for years.
Robotic probes are cool and give good science, but still... it feels somehow like not pushing hard enough. There's a whole solar system out there to explore and exploit, and probes aren't going to do much exploiting. We should be out there to witness glorious new landscapes, then level them and build supermarkets on Mars.
IPFS is content distribution system. It offers no search capability.
There are actually two search engines dedicated to IPFS. ipfs-search and Hypatia. But IPFS uses the conventional internet for hosting, and Hypatia is... well, it kind of sucks, if you can get it working at all.
February 2014. About a year into Obama's second term. There wasn't much either president could have done about it though - you can't approve military conflict with Russia due to the likelihood of escalation.
Slashdot Mirror
And languish in obscurity? Youtube is where the viewers are. That means anyone who wants their video to be seen needs to use youtube.
I've been subject to a youtube copyright detection myself, and that's my experience too. The entire appeals process consisted of a drop-down box of possible reasons, none of which applied in my case (The music was public domain, the copyright having long expired). At no point was there even an option to contact a real person. The process was entirely automated.
Eventually someone will make a game which really draws the attention of the censors. There are a few subjects that make them very touchy, like Taiwan - even listing it as an independent country on a drop-down box is enough to earn their ire. If someone made something like an RTg where the player controls Taiwan and it's allies fending off an invasion by the Chinese military, you can expect the crackdown to follow shortly. Valve will be given the standard ultimatum: Either comply with Chinese censorship laws, or be blocked and lose access to one of the world's largest and most lucrative markets.
Former oil industry lobbying Scott Pruitt has had to resign following a series of scandals. His replacement is former coal industry lobbyist Andrew Wheeler. Their political stances are identical though.
The Mormons do keep disaster supplies, but that's more a matter of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. They are preparing for their prophesied apocalypse.
If they thought it would buy them more time, many people would be happy to spend an hour a day plumbed in to a minimum-wage teenager.
I didn't say that, though it is true. I said that companies have to censor to comply with the law, and that insufficient self-censorship results in politicians passing regulations to require it. Exactly what needs to be censored varies by country, but there's always something. Advertisers are just another reason. A completely unfiltered internet may be a nice dream for idealists, but it doesn't work like that in the real world.
Throughout most of human history, a substantial number of men *did* die very young. Men took all the most dangerous jobs, and frequent wars killed huge numbers of men. Polygamy was more viable under those circumstances.
The UK does not have a constitution. We have a legal doctrine that parliament can pass any law they want, with the sole restriction that they cannot pass a law which restricts their own ability to pass laws.
It may sound totalitarian, but it actually works quite well in practice. We don't get the US's infamous federal-verses-state-verses-local legal conflicts where different levels of government are actively working in opposition to one another.
I still can't figure out how the prime minister gets determined though. I know elections happen, and then a prime minister appears, but I don't think anyone understands what happens in between.
I don't know why people keep singling out the UK for extensive CCTV coverage. Yes, we have cameras everywhere. Now find me a developed nation that doesn't.
There's just too much internet to have any hope of filtering it manually, and yet filtering is required both for legal reasons and to avoid social outrage. So automated filtering is the only way - and we all know how well that works. It's got high rates of both false positives and false negatives.
It's leading to a lot of conspiracy theories though. If you read politically slanted news sites, you will see that those on the right are full of stories about how Facebook and Google are striving to force conservative voices off the internet - and if you flip the other political faction, the news sites on the left run many (though not as many) about how Facebook and Google are striving to force liberal voices off the internet. Just throw in a bit of reporting bias and everyone things the algorithms are out to get their team.
Google could turn the filtering off - but then it would be about a week before stories start appearing about how Google "supports prostitution" or somesuch, and politicians would start to threaten regulation again.
Bernie-loyalist Democrats thinking like that is part of what got us Trump. You can talk all you want about how people should vote in some ideal democracy, but we have to make do with the democracy we have - and in America, that means acknowledging that once the primaries are over there are only two viable candidates, and a vote for one is a vote against the other.
Not going to happen. Voters all know the unfortunate reality that makes two-party systems so stable: If you want to have any hope of keeping the greater evil out, you have to vote for the lesser one.
What you say about conservatives may have been true once. I really do not know. But it is not true of them today. The movement has become overwhelmed by popularism now - intellectual considerations thrown aside in favor of soundbite politics and conspiracy theories. Their approach to the environment is now defined by an instinctive rejection of any and all regulation and an unshakable faith in the market to solve every problem, justified by outright rejecting any scientific evidence that would be politically inconvenient. You read any popular conservative website now and you can expect to see columnists decrying 'so-called' climate change as a liberal conspiracy and asking why the government sacrifices human prosperity to protect endangered species squatting on valuable farmland.
Hams used to push the boundaries of what's possible. They pioneered a lot of technologies. Today, not so much. The complexity of modern electronics advanced beyond the ability of the men-in-sheds army to advance it. I got into it in the hope of meeting people who would share my excitement at designing and building new things, but what I actually found was a dying hobby that stagnated technologically in the 80s.
Or pretty much anything remotely useful. Ham radio is only practical because it's utterly useless - if it were useful, the spectrum would be full of people actually using it.
- No broadcasts, except to establish contact: All conversations must be between explicatively identified parties.
- No commercial activity. That means no using it as a convenient way to coordinate your taxi fleet.
- No encryption.
- No music.
It's only usable as a hobby - see who you can, reach, chat a bit.
I've found a few pirate stations. A lot of it is weird, non-mainstream music. I've heard, but not personally found (for I live in the UK), that a lot of pirate stations in the US are run by church figures or political activists with intensely anti-governmental views - they aren't going to submit to the FCC as a matter of principle.
I can see that being used for a good scam.
1. Find someone who doesn't mind ruining their life (career criminal, terminal illness, just plain dumb.
2. "Ok, you set up the station, then I'll turn you in. A million for you, a million for me!"
The shelf life of LiFePO4 is substantially longer than Li-Ion. That translates to laptops and cell phones that you don't end up replacing after a few years years because the battery that used to last two days is now only lasting two hours.
The legality of porn in the US is a really complicated matter, and depends on state. There are a lot of laws which are intended to make it legal, but also completely impractical to produce or distribute. Fortunately for the porn fans of the internet, most of these laws have not been enforced for years.
Robotic probes are cool and give good science, but still... it feels somehow like not pushing hard enough. There's a whole solar system out there to explore and exploit, and probes aren't going to do much exploiting. We should be out there to witness glorious new landscapes, then level them and build supermarkets on Mars.
If Iraq had WMDs, why were they not used in the invasion? Why have none of any note been found?
Or a loanword incorporated into some dialects of English.
English has a lot of loanwords, picked up from all the various cultures that England has either invaded or been invaded by. Mostly the former.
IPFS is content distribution system. It offers no search capability.
There are actually two search engines dedicated to IPFS. ipfs-search and Hypatia. But IPFS uses the conventional internet for hosting, and Hypatia is... well, it kind of sucks, if you can get it working at all.
February 2014. About a year into Obama's second term. There wasn't much either president could have done about it though - you can't approve military conflict with Russia due to the likelihood of escalation.