Games are still largely gated by a single thread because graphics APIs still don't allow multiple threads to share a context[1]. When you're only allowed to talk to the GPU from a single thread, it's no surprise that thread is going to be CPU bound.
1. Yes I know you can do limited resource sharing between contexts and such for background uploading of resources like textures, but the actual act of issuing all the drawing commands to produce the frame has to happen from a single thread.
Google did not copy millions of books with little regard for the law. They were found by a court of law to have fully complied with the law. They copied millions of books *LEGALLY*. They followed copyright law. They may have gone right up to the edge of the law, but they respected it and did not cross it.
Then nobody would ship on Nexus and everyone else would carry on as normal. Google doesn't move many devices, they aren't a major player here.
Also open source drivers is not going to happen, but that's not even what's being asked for. Qualcomm isn't allowing Google to redistribute the *binary blobs*
I don't understand. If Nexus and iOS devices can be updated without carrier interference, why can't everything else be similarly updated.
Nexus devices aren't sold on a carrier, and those that are (Verizon Galaxy Nexus) *do* go through carrier testing.
Who says iOS devices don't go through carrier testing? It's quite possible that iOS 7 is actually in carrier testing right now, hence the several month "betas" that Apple does. That could just be the carrier testing cycle right there.
Not on a device without expandable storage its not.
And really not even then.
Yes it is, because it sits on/system which is a fixed size partition. Actually deleting the APK would get you exactly 0 bytes more storage *and* would break the factory reset option *and* breaks incremental OTAs.
- google is not disclosing how they protect our data
Yes, they do. That's the privacy policy that nobody reads. If you want security design documents, good luck with that, you'll never see them from anyone.
- google has full access to data that at least I consider is none of their business, so I'd like to be able to supply my own encryption key.
Then don't check the fucking box that says "Backup my stuff to Google" ?
Well, they could offer the option of letting the user set a backup password that is known only to the user (warning the user that if they lose the password, they lose their backups).
Most home users probably won't use it, but those that care about security (like every corporation that uses Android devices) probably will.
Yes, they could. This is what Chrome does for saved passwords, for example, so Google's servers only ever get an ecrypted blob.
However, the question is why on earth is your *WIFI* password that sensitive that it needs that level of user friction, hassle, and increased support costs? Corporations can easily use their own app or a 3rd party app that injects the wireless credentials through Android's public API for that - there's no reason for Google's backup to handle that. Those that care about security have probably already secured every device on their network instead of blindly trusting anything that can reach it. So what, exactly, is so damn sensitive about a wifi password that this needs to be an option that Google should support? Are you that worried that Google will leach off of your bandwidth or something?
And if the NSA is already tapped into the fiber backbones as people suspect, what would they want with this info anyway? Why wardrive and catch snippets when you can just record literally everything?
Facts - 3.2 is the only 3.x line considered in the Android dashboard. The "UI Shift" of Honeycomb was an outlier, with some components of pre 3.x and 3.x making it into 4.x. 4.x is Jelly Bean. 0.1% of the market is on 3.2 and almost 60% are on some variant of 4.x. 60% (rounded even) is much less than roughly 90% on iOS.
60% of Android is *greater than* 90% of iOS, not less.
It's easy to draw the conclusion that git-hosting in the cloud, like Github or Bitbucket, will lead to sharing the sourcecode with the NSA.
lol wut? No, that's not an easy conclusion. Github and Bitbucket are only going to share your sourcecode with the NSA if they receive a FISA (or similar) request for them. In which case you've drawn the attention of the NSA somehow and self-hosting isn't going to save your ass because they're just going to show up on your doorstep with the FISA request instead of Github's. And if you say "no" they'll just throw you in jail.
And if you do take on the task of self-hosting, you now have to deal with security and monitoring and such. The sort of things the cloud companies are doing that you probably won't. Meaning self-hosting will make it *EASIER* for the NSA to hack in and get your source, not harder.
You're way over-thinking this. The NSA just sends their DBA's over to google with fake credentials. They get hired based on their stellar work history. Then they create accounts with full access to Googles APIs and hand them over to the NSA. The NSA can run any query they want against googles data. They can even CHANGE it. It would be a trivial thing to do and would only be noticed if the traffic was excessive. I doubt there's any query that Google would even bat an eyelash at given their size.
That would be damn near impossible. Do you really think Google has no security whatsoever on API access much less data access? I'm pretty sure if the new hire goes to the security team and says "hey, let me punch a hole in the network to the outside world for this API. Oh, and I need also need to approve this API to access all this data" they aren't just going to blindly say "sure thing, no problem!"
Google is using ECDHE for HTTPS. Unless NSA has been running an incredibly good MITM that nobody has detected and has never once had a single outage or issue, HTTPS to Google has been uncompromised since 2011.
Sadly more people aren't using ECDHE yet, though, so the same can't be said of most sites which could very well have compromised certs. Perhaps this can be used to help push ECDHE more broadly, although I kind of doubt anyone will really care, sadly.
I've been feeling that they are liking arguing semantics. Sure the government doesn't have direct access but a 3rd party does and via perhaps their data the government gets what it wants or something a long those lines.
That's because you *want* that to be true to justify your initial emotional reaction. Google has very clearly stated that nothing of the sort is happening. They are not playing words games in the slightest. There is no broad data dump - not directly, not "indirectly" (which is a stupid argument in the first place), nothing. The other companies have said similar things. Nobody is arguing semantics. PRISM as it was initially reported simply doesn't exist.
Seriously, the initial reports were just *wrong*, flat out. Anyone with half a brain could easily see that if they bothered to look. If the slides meant what they were initially reported on it would be the single greatest feat in the history of mankind as the budget was listed at $20M.
The bandwidth here is basically faster than 6 x8 slots.
False. The x8 slots you'll find in any PC these days is PCI-e 3.0, which is 64Gb/s. The bandwidth in those 6 Thunderbolt connectors is less than a *single* x16 slot these days (128Gb/s).
And in case you think that's overkill, note that higher end video cards are bottlenecked by anything less than x8 (64Gb/s). Good luck combining 3 Thunderbolt connections together to drive a single video card.
I'm so tired of the stupid fucking argument that it's impossible for a lightly armed militia to fight the U.S. military because the military has drones, jet fighters, SAT intel, Abrams tanks, etc. History, even recent history, proves otherwise.
Look no further than AFGHANISTAN where a bunch of guys with rifles and improvised explosives have been fighting the world's most advanced military for 12 years!
No, not really. Claiming they've been fighting implies a level of equality in the battles. There was no such thing. They lost control of every city in less than a month - they got completely steamrolled by the US military. Utterly dominated. Now they have managed to *HIDE* for 12 years, yes. They've taken random potshots here and there with IEDs and the like, sure, but they haven't had any chance at regaining power or driving the US out.
Similarly the war in Pakistan, despite still "ongoing", was really finished quite quickly. And the Taliban lost 27,000 people in that war to the US's 98.
Recent history completely disagrees with you. A bunch of guys with rifles and IEDs don't have a snowball's chance in hell against the world's most advanced military when it comes to taking control or defending a point of interest (such as a city). A bunch of guys with rifles can definitely hide and being annoying for the world's most advanced military, but being annoying and being a threat are not even remotely close.
"probably cause" is the grounds needed to make an arrest, conduct a personal or property search, or obtain a warrant.
There is *nothing* about needing probable cause to start an investigation. And that would be completely idiotic anyway. How can you get probably cause without investigating? Investigation *results in* probable cause which *results in* more investigation.
Ignoring your random anti-government corruption rant, you're correct that the FTC & IRS very much do investigate large companies randomly. Why? Because that's their fucking job. Although the IRS randomly audits everyone, not just large companies. And the only way for the FTC to enforce the laws is to randomly investigate whether or not people are following them. Once you get big enough, the FTC *will* investigate to make sure you got big by playing fair and that you aren't abusing your bigness.
For me, drivers are more important than hardware. The difference in speed between the flaky, wonky proprietary drivers and the fairly steady but dog slow open source drivers are on the order of 10x.
Not for AMD. Phoronix has plenty of benchmarks, the open source drivers have 80% the performance of the proprietary ones.
They still aren't competing for the Linux market. I have older low end stuff, an AMD machine (Phenom II with an HD 5450), and an Intel+Nvidia machine (Core 2 Quad Q6600 with a GeForce 8500GT that I recently replaced with a fanless GT 610), and in neither can I get satisfactory Linux support. The proprietary driver on the Nvidia box has the best performance. Next best is the AMD box with the open source driver. (I haven't tried Catalyst, so I don't know how good AMD can be.) The Nouveau driver is horrible for 3D acceleration. ATI/AMD has repeatedly promised they would help open source drivers use the full potential of their hardware, but thus far they haven't delivered. NVidia has flat out refused to help, and has tried to claim that keeping their proprietary driver up to date is being supportive of open source.
The Linux market is full of masochists that continue to purchase and recommend the company that hates them (Nvidia) and shun the one that's actually doing what the community is asking for (AMD). AMD *has* delivered on the open source drivers. They *have* delivered on the specs. Everything the community has asked for, AMD has done. And yet, the community continues to buy Nvidia while complaining that Nvidia doesn't do what they want. No shit, why would they when you give them your money anyway?
What on earth are you talking about? AMD is very competitive still.
7870 vs 660 Ti: similar price, similar performance. 7970 GHz Edition vs. 680: Similar price, similar performance.
The two companies are battling it out at every segment with neither having a clear lead anywhere. The exception being the GTX Titan and the 780 - both of which are brand new cards and AMD just hasn't yet released their new batch of cards. If AMD takes months to come out with something, then the will no longer be competitive. But right now to claim that AMD is not competitive is laughably ignorant.
There are some serious privacy concerns with Google+, and a lot of people smart enough to avoid the whole Facebook clusterfuck are not at all keen to surrender to Google even if Google appears to be somewhat more responsible with your data.
Only by people that don't understand that you can have a G+ account without filling out a profile or using the social stream stuff. There's no privacy concerns with having a G+ account - if you don't want to give Google your information, then don't. But you can still have a G+ account to use all the latest toys. And you can share G+ photo albums with people that aren't on G+, the old Picasa "unlisted" albums still exist and still work with G+ albums. You can still create them, and you can still share them. Only it's even easier to do so now, as you just hit "Share" on a G+ photo album and type in an email address.
No, the only thing weasel-worded and misleading is the claim that Google dropped/is dropping CalDAV. They never said that, and all they did was switch from "everyone has access by default" to "you have to register with us first". That's only unreasonable if they are restrictive about who can sign up for CalDAV, but I haven't seen anyone complaining about not being able to register. Of course they want people to use their own API, but that's *very* different from dropping support for standards.
That would not be a new standard. That would merely be a new protocol, which they publicly documented. There's a big difference. Documenting it isn't enough either. Do all those other xmpp users out there need to migrate their servers and clients too? Just because google wanted to use a new protocol? I don't think so.
No, actually, there isn't a difference. You can pretend that somehow the IETF magically turns RFCs into "standards", but a standard is merely something publicly defined that people can follow.
If it's so outdated, why do facebook, wlm and whatsapp use it internally? Granted, they don't federate, but they still use the protocol.
WLM uses MSNP2, not XMPP.
None of those do video chat, either. And just because they use it doesn't mean it's a good decision or not outdated. XMPP is not mobile-friendly
Because the simple fact is that people want the extra features way, waaaay more than they want XMPP. The standard is outdated, it isn't competitive. It doesn't matter if you run on top of a standard if nobody wants to use the product.
Dropping XMPP doesn't automatically mean lock in, either. Google could come out with a new standard. Doubtful, perhaps, but with Google you never know.
Corporations are trying to redefine how the web works, in order to establish a new "social contract" for commerce that doesn't work like the traditional "I give you money for stuff, then use stuff as I want." If you want to sell your content on the internet, then *sell your content on the internet*: take payment for it before letting it go out *your* door.
No, they are not trying to redefine anything. YouTube functions the exact same way broadcast TV does, and the radio before that. It's a business model that has existed for 90 years now.
And guess what? YouTube *does* take "payment" before letting the content go out the door. The ad comes first, THEN the content.
Corporations want to redefine how law works on the internet, such that by printing "by taking a rutabaga, you agree to read this religious tract" on the religious tract they hand out with the rutabaga, I am morally and/or legally bound to do so. But this is complete rubbish, and I utterly reject it. I block ads on websites. I never signed a contract with them saying "I will watch your ads." I sent my browser to their storefront, and they willingly handed over an ad-laden rutabaga, knowing that I had never agreed to their terms. If you don't like people stripping away your ads, then *don't hand out (ad-laden) content to any anonymous stranger who walks up and asks for it*. It's *your* responsibility to create a valid pre-existing contract with people viewing your content, and restrict who you hand out content to.
Your incredibly selfish position is self-defeating. Fortunately everyone doesn't behave like you do, or the internet would actually regress all the way back to the BBS days of old. Then again, I suspect many people here actually WANT that, but fortunately that population is far too small to matter.
Slashdot Mirror
Games are still largely gated by a single thread because graphics APIs still don't allow multiple threads to share a context[1]. When you're only allowed to talk to the GPU from a single thread, it's no surprise that thread is going to be CPU bound.
1. Yes I know you can do limited resource sharing between contexts and such for background uploading of resources like textures, but the actual act of issuing all the drawing commands to produce the frame has to happen from a single thread.
Google did not copy millions of books with little regard for the law. They were found by a court of law to have fully complied with the law. They copied millions of books *LEGALLY*. They followed copyright law. They may have gone right up to the edge of the law, but they respected it and did not cross it.
(The device clocks aren't increasing, the priority of the processes is changing.)
This is why you don't comment on an article without reading it - you look stupid as a result.
The clocks *ARE* being increased, and the device is being kept awake artificially regardless of work load.
Then nobody would ship on Nexus and everyone else would carry on as normal. Google doesn't move many devices, they aren't a major player here.
Also open source drivers is not going to happen, but that's not even what's being asked for. Qualcomm isn't allowing Google to redistribute the *binary blobs*
I don't understand.
If Nexus and iOS devices can be updated without carrier interference, why can't everything else be similarly updated.
Nexus devices aren't sold on a carrier, and those that are (Verizon Galaxy Nexus) *do* go through carrier testing.
Who says iOS devices don't go through carrier testing? It's quite possible that iOS 7 is actually in carrier testing right now, hence the several month "betas" that Apple does. That could just be the carrier testing cycle right there.
Not on a device without expandable storage its not.
And really not even then.
Yes it is, because it sits on /system which is a fixed size partition. Actually deleting the APK would get you exactly 0 bytes more storage *and* would break the factory reset option *and* breaks incremental OTAs.
- google is not disclosing how they protect our data
Yes, they do. That's the privacy policy that nobody reads. If you want security design documents, good luck with that, you'll never see them from anyone.
- google has full access to data that at least I consider is none of their business, so I'd like to be able to supply my own encryption key.
Then don't check the fucking box that says "Backup my stuff to Google" ?
Well, they could offer the option of letting the user set a backup password that is known only to the user (warning the user that if they lose the password, they lose their backups).
Most home users probably won't use it, but those that care about security (like every corporation that uses Android devices) probably will.
Yes, they could. This is what Chrome does for saved passwords, for example, so Google's servers only ever get an ecrypted blob.
However, the question is why on earth is your *WIFI* password that sensitive that it needs that level of user friction, hassle, and increased support costs? Corporations can easily use their own app or a 3rd party app that injects the wireless credentials through Android's public API for that - there's no reason for Google's backup to handle that. Those that care about security have probably already secured every device on their network instead of blindly trusting anything that can reach it. So what, exactly, is so damn sensitive about a wifi password that this needs to be an option that Google should support? Are you that worried that Google will leach off of your bandwidth or something?
And if the NSA is already tapped into the fiber backbones as people suspect, what would they want with this info anyway? Why wardrive and catch snippets when you can just record literally everything?
Facts - 3.2 is the only 3.x line considered in the Android dashboard. The "UI Shift" of Honeycomb was an outlier, with some components of pre 3.x and 3.x making it into 4.x. 4.x is Jelly Bean. 0.1% of the market is on 3.2 and almost 60% are on some variant of 4.x. 60% (rounded even) is much less than roughly 90% on iOS.
60% of Android is *greater than* 90% of iOS, not less.
So at this point your claim is basically "Google is run entirely by the NSA"
Speaking of which, can I borrow some tinfoil? You clearly have a good stockpile, and I don't feel like running to the store right now.
It's easy to draw the conclusion that git-hosting in the cloud, like Github or Bitbucket, will lead to sharing the sourcecode with the NSA.
lol wut? No, that's not an easy conclusion. Github and Bitbucket are only going to share your sourcecode with the NSA if they receive a FISA (or similar) request for them. In which case you've drawn the attention of the NSA somehow and self-hosting isn't going to save your ass because they're just going to show up on your doorstep with the FISA request instead of Github's. And if you say "no" they'll just throw you in jail.
And if you do take on the task of self-hosting, you now have to deal with security and monitoring and such. The sort of things the cloud companies are doing that you probably won't. Meaning self-hosting will make it *EASIER* for the NSA to hack in and get your source, not harder.
You're way over-thinking this. The NSA just sends their DBA's over to google with fake credentials. They get hired based on their stellar work history. Then they create accounts with full access to Googles APIs and hand them over to the NSA. The NSA can run any query they want against googles data. They can even CHANGE it. It would be a trivial thing to do and would only be noticed if the traffic was excessive. I doubt there's any query that Google would even bat an eyelash at given their size.
That would be damn near impossible. Do you really think Google has no security whatsoever on API access much less data access? I'm pretty sure if the new hire goes to the security team and says "hey, let me punch a hole in the network to the outside world for this API. Oh, and I need also need to approve this API to access all this data" they aren't just going to blindly say "sure thing, no problem!"
Google is using ECDHE for HTTPS. Unless NSA has been running an incredibly good MITM that nobody has detected and has never once had a single outage or issue, HTTPS to Google has been uncompromised since 2011.
Sadly more people aren't using ECDHE yet, though, so the same can't be said of most sites which could very well have compromised certs. Perhaps this can be used to help push ECDHE more broadly, although I kind of doubt anyone will really care, sadly.
I've been feeling that they are liking arguing semantics. Sure the government doesn't have direct access but a 3rd party does and via perhaps their data the government gets what it wants or something a long those lines.
That's because you *want* that to be true to justify your initial emotional reaction. Google has very clearly stated that nothing of the sort is happening. They are not playing words games in the slightest. There is no broad data dump - not directly, not "indirectly" (which is a stupid argument in the first place), nothing. The other companies have said similar things. Nobody is arguing semantics. PRISM as it was initially reported simply doesn't exist.
Seriously, the initial reports were just *wrong*, flat out. Anyone with half a brain could easily see that if they bothered to look. If the slides meant what they were initially reported on it would be the single greatest feat in the history of mankind as the budget was listed at $20M.
The bandwidth here is basically faster than 6 x8 slots.
False. The x8 slots you'll find in any PC these days is PCI-e 3.0, which is 64Gb/s. The bandwidth in those 6 Thunderbolt connectors is less than a *single* x16 slot these days (128Gb/s).
And in case you think that's overkill, note that higher end video cards are bottlenecked by anything less than x8 (64Gb/s). Good luck combining 3 Thunderbolt connections together to drive a single video card.
I'm so tired of the stupid fucking argument that it's impossible for a lightly armed militia to fight the U.S. military because the military has drones, jet fighters, SAT intel, Abrams tanks, etc. History, even recent history, proves otherwise.
Look no further than AFGHANISTAN where a bunch of guys with rifles and improvised explosives have been fighting the world's most advanced military for 12 years!
No, not really. Claiming they've been fighting implies a level of equality in the battles. There was no such thing. They lost control of every city in less than a month - they got completely steamrolled by the US military. Utterly dominated. Now they have managed to *HIDE* for 12 years, yes. They've taken random potshots here and there with IEDs and the like, sure, but they haven't had any chance at regaining power or driving the US out.
Similarly the war in Pakistan, despite still "ongoing", was really finished quite quickly. And the Taliban lost 27,000 people in that war to the US's 98.
Recent history completely disagrees with you. A bunch of guys with rifles and IEDs don't have a snowball's chance in hell against the world's most advanced military when it comes to taking control or defending a point of interest (such as a city). A bunch of guys with rifles can definitely hide and being annoying for the world's most advanced military, but being annoying and being a threat are not even remotely close.
"probably cause" is the grounds needed to make an arrest, conduct a personal or property search, or obtain a warrant.
There is *nothing* about needing probable cause to start an investigation. And that would be completely idiotic anyway. How can you get probably cause without investigating? Investigation *results in* probable cause which *results in* more investigation.
Ignoring your random anti-government corruption rant, you're correct that the FTC & IRS very much do investigate large companies randomly. Why? Because that's their fucking job. Although the IRS randomly audits everyone, not just large companies. And the only way for the FTC to enforce the laws is to randomly investigate whether or not people are following them. Once you get big enough, the FTC *will* investigate to make sure you got big by playing fair and that you aren't abusing your bigness.
For me, drivers are more important than hardware. The difference in speed between the flaky, wonky proprietary drivers and the fairly steady but dog slow open source drivers are on the order of 10x.
Not for AMD. Phoronix has plenty of benchmarks, the open source drivers have 80% the performance of the proprietary ones.
They still aren't competing for the Linux market. I have older low end stuff, an AMD machine (Phenom II with an HD 5450), and an Intel+Nvidia machine (Core 2 Quad Q6600 with a GeForce 8500GT that I recently replaced with a fanless GT 610), and in neither can I get satisfactory Linux support. The proprietary driver on the Nvidia box has the best performance. Next best is the AMD box with the open source driver. (I haven't tried Catalyst, so I don't know how good AMD can be.) The Nouveau driver is horrible for 3D acceleration. ATI/AMD has repeatedly promised they would help open source drivers use the full potential of their hardware, but thus far they haven't delivered. NVidia has flat out refused to help, and has tried to claim that keeping their proprietary driver up to date is being supportive of open source.
The Linux market is full of masochists that continue to purchase and recommend the company that hates them (Nvidia) and shun the one that's actually doing what the community is asking for (AMD). AMD *has* delivered on the open source drivers. They *have* delivered on the specs. Everything the community has asked for, AMD has done. And yet, the community continues to buy Nvidia while complaining that Nvidia doesn't do what they want. No shit, why would they when you give them your money anyway?
What on earth are you talking about? AMD is very competitive still.
7870 vs 660 Ti: similar price, similar performance.
7970 GHz Edition vs. 680: Similar price, similar performance.
The two companies are battling it out at every segment with neither having a clear lead anywhere. The exception being the GTX Titan and the 780 - both of which are brand new cards and AMD just hasn't yet released their new batch of cards. If AMD takes months to come out with something, then the will no longer be competitive. But right now to claim that AMD is not competitive is laughably ignorant.
There are some serious privacy concerns with Google+, and a lot of people smart enough to avoid the whole Facebook clusterfuck are not at all keen to surrender to Google even if Google appears to be somewhat more responsible with your data.
Only by people that don't understand that you can have a G+ account without filling out a profile or using the social stream stuff. There's no privacy concerns with having a G+ account - if you don't want to give Google your information, then don't. But you can still have a G+ account to use all the latest toys. And you can share G+ photo albums with people that aren't on G+, the old Picasa "unlisted" albums still exist and still work with G+ albums. You can still create them, and you can still share them. Only it's even easier to do so now, as you just hit "Share" on a G+ photo album and type in an email address.
No, the only thing weasel-worded and misleading is the claim that Google dropped/is dropping CalDAV. They never said that, and all they did was switch from "everyone has access by default" to "you have to register with us first". That's only unreasonable if they are restrictive about who can sign up for CalDAV, but I haven't seen anyone complaining about not being able to register. Of course they want people to use their own API, but that's *very* different from dropping support for standards.
That would not be a new standard. That would merely be a new protocol, which they publicly documented. There's a big difference.
Documenting it isn't enough either. Do all those other xmpp users out there need to migrate their servers and clients too? Just because google wanted to use a new protocol? I don't think so.
No, actually, there isn't a difference. You can pretend that somehow the IETF magically turns RFCs into "standards", but a standard is merely something publicly defined that people can follow.
If it's so outdated, why do facebook, wlm and whatsapp use it internally? Granted, they don't federate, but they still use the protocol.
WLM uses MSNP2, not XMPP.
None of those do video chat, either. And just because they use it doesn't mean it's a good decision or not outdated. XMPP is not mobile-friendly
Because the simple fact is that people want the extra features way, waaaay more than they want XMPP. The standard is outdated, it isn't competitive. It doesn't matter if you run on top of a standard if nobody wants to use the product.
Dropping XMPP doesn't automatically mean lock in, either. Google could come out with a new standard. Doubtful, perhaps, but with Google you never know.
Corporations are trying to redefine how the web works, in order to establish a new "social contract" for commerce that doesn't work like the traditional "I give you money for stuff, then use stuff as I want." If you want to sell your content on the internet, then *sell your content on the internet*: take payment for it before letting it go out *your* door.
No, they are not trying to redefine anything. YouTube functions the exact same way broadcast TV does, and the radio before that. It's a business model that has existed for 90 years now.
And guess what? YouTube *does* take "payment" before letting the content go out the door. The ad comes first, THEN the content.
Corporations want to redefine how law works on the internet, such that by printing "by taking a rutabaga, you agree to read this religious tract" on the religious tract they hand out with the rutabaga, I am morally and/or legally bound to do so. But this is complete rubbish, and I utterly reject it. I block ads on websites. I never signed a contract with them saying "I will watch your ads." I sent my browser to their storefront, and they willingly handed over an ad-laden rutabaga, knowing that I had never agreed to their terms. If you don't like people stripping away your ads, then *don't hand out (ad-laden) content to any anonymous stranger who walks up and asks for it*. It's *your* responsibility to create a valid pre-existing contract with people viewing your content, and restrict who you hand out content to.
Your incredibly selfish position is self-defeating. Fortunately everyone doesn't behave like you do, or the internet would actually regress all the way back to the BBS days of old. Then again, I suspect many people here actually WANT that, but fortunately that population is far too small to matter.