How do I get LBRY credits Host content: see Hosting for details. Note that hosting requires the LBRY app, which is currently open to beta testers only. While the LBRY app is running, it communicates to the network what content you're making available. If somebody downloads content from you, you will recieve LBRY credits (LBC) for that. The prices are currently set by the app and can't be changed.
So either this is a for profit model of "sharing" CC non commercial content (selling for their coin that is exchangeable), or the description on their website is incorrect/incomplete and people don't earn credits when they upload content with the price set to free. We need a torrent for these files.
if everyone streamed HD youtube all day nobody would get any data at all
Your math skills are lacking. If everyone did that, everyone would be getting as much as possible from their unlimited plans, that's a lot of data. His solution is obvious, split it evenly between all the customers, without penalizing any of them unequally. In order to provide more bandwidth better technology and coverage might be necessary.
I did download it before the release of the keys, it was super fast. I have a decent fiber connection. After seeing your comment I checked and realized that I was not uploading it, even though it's my last torrent (my usual upload speed is between 500k to 1mb at the moment I checked it was around 600k). So I decided to pause all the other uploads to give it a boost. It's not uploading.
But really, for now you are good just reading most of it on Wikileaks.org most documents are available there, and a lot of stuff will be released only after the patches.
1. The Russians would waste tools they have? 2. In ten years no false document was published by Wikileaks. 2.1 Do you think the Russians would be able to fool them? On this scale? 2.2 Do you think they would waste this kind of credibility when there is so much shit coming from the US anyway?
Recently it became a common place to doubt vetted documents coming from Wikileaks, while taking WP's anonymous sources without documents for absolute truth tellers, and to blame everything on Russia.
But even though your hypothesis doesn't sound compelling to me, the answer to your question is investigate. The US has some legal framework to investigate the executive branch. Let's hope security researchers investigate some stuff too. There is a lot of time before CCC.
Thank you AC, those are good links. Too bad people dislike information. How could this be modded redundant? Are the modders suggesting people to not quote references or link to multiple sources?
The point is that he was Obama's Director of National Intelligence. Yes, Obama's administration was full of lies, and we could not, and did not trust them or anything they said without serious proof, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be held accountable for their lies while on office.
The question isn't about the spy capabilities. It's about whether these tools are used without logging and review by elected officials from the Congressional security committees.
That might be one of the questions for Americans, but the vast majority of the world and of CIA's victims isn't American. Wikileaks isn't American either. This information matters much more for the rest of the world than it does to the American democracy. We can count in one hand the number of Americans drone murdered. Compare that to Pakistanis. Most of the American public doesn't care about mass murder outside of America and think all this capabilities and uses are fine as long as it's legal and there is congressional review.
Did you get the old news about the innocent that was kidnapped by the CIA in Italy, delivered to be tortured in Egypt, and suffered for 4 years? None of the American criminals went to jail. The 22000 American IP addressees in this publication should be the least of the world's concerns.
It's not just "writing style", it's the summary creating a narrative. Reporting the facts is fine, the comments will provide the inevitable abuse, but the summary is designed to prime the reader for outrage and tell them what their opinion is.
Agree with this part, generally agree with your complaints about the summary.
OTOH I have, in the past, upvoted both posts suggesting banning headlines in the form of a question and posts that claim that if the headline is a question the answer is always "no" (that isn't always true, but would apply in your suggestion). After this discussion I think I was wrong, even tough it is a style I REALLY dislike.
I strongly disagree with the lameness filter. Words, expressions and writing styles shouldn't be banned, there are moments when they are appropriate. Sometimes you need a Hitler/nazi comparison, sometimes you need to use the SJW expression, at least to talk about people who use the expression, like you do in your signature. It's better to downvote and show opposition than to ban things.
People have to know everything about their representatives, their murders, their corruption, their stupidity, their crimes, accomplishments, promises, etc. Then they can weight it against the other candidates. Some people will choose the murderer, some will choose the racist, some will choose the stupid. It should be an informed decision.
It's not trolling because she is running for something, it would be otherwise. While I understand your "writing style" point, people who would be inclined to vote for her have to know this, hence "stuff that matters".
I understand your "block entry to your own home" argument, but:
Once you're in the US (and while your outside the US), your rights as a human being should be fully respected.
I think this clearly shows the problem with your argument. People's rights as human beings should be fully respected everywhere, without exceptions. To verify people are not "potentially dangerous" there is a visa interview and a background check. Maybe the interview and the background check could/should be even more strict (it is already the worst). If they consider necessary to check people's phones, social media stuff, etc, they should request that in the visa application, when the person is still in his own country, not have thugs detaining and intimidating people at the border, threatening (at best) to make them lose a ton of money, doing stuff no country would allow.
That's one of the reasons I'm going to China this year's vacation, instead of the US. That's right Americans, your country is currently worst than China when it comes to freedom. Well, technically not your country, your 100 miles borders. Think about that.
For those who can read Portuguese: Sentença. It's pretty good.
The judge says that according to Brazilian Labor Law (CLT), employee is "any natural person who provides services on a regular basis to an employer, under his or her dependence and on a salary basis", so the elements to recognize the employment relationship are: natural person (i.e. not a company - legal person), personal relation, regular nature of the relationship, onerosity (I've never seen this word in English, in this context means that there is payment for something) and subordination.
1. The driver is a natural person. 2. On the personal relation the main points the judge makes are: 1. That Uber requires previous registering from the drivers. The drivers have to send several documents, not have criminal antecedents, etc and, at the time, the driver had to pass an interview to be approved by Uber. 2. That the driver cannot give his account to another person in any way (rent, cede). He can only share his car with other uber approved drivers. In this point Uber defense was that the users cannot chose the driver, so it was not a personal relationship. The judge dismisses this argument by pointing out that the personal relation in question is not between the driver and the user, but between uber and the driver, just like the user doesn't choose the cook in a restaurant, but the restaurant chooses the cooks that will work for it. 3. On onerosity, the defense argues that the driver is paying uber, and not the opposite. So it is Uber that is providing a service to the driver and being paid. The judge dismisses this argument by pointing out that it is untrue. The facts he pointed are: there are several promotions where the user doesn't pay for the ride, but Uber still pays the driver; There are "promotions" where Uber pays the driver to be available, even if there are not enough rides; and the most important that the users pay Uber, Uber receives the payment, removes it's percentage e retain the rest, passing them along to the drivers at the end of the week. That shows that Uber not only mediates the businesses between driver and passenger but the opposite, receives for every service realized and later pays the worker. 4. On the regularity of the services, the judge points that it is a complicated matter, points some theories and ends up with pointing out that: 1. this driver was working regularly; 2. that if drivers are not available for long periods of time they are excluded from the platform; 3. that one of the drivers received an email threatening being excluded from the platform if he didn't make any rides in the following week. With this he points out that the defendant demands frequency from the drivers. Then he points that the non-eventuality of the relationship was even more evident by the theory of the ends of an enterprise. He questions what are the ends of the defendant? Is it a technology company that only makes the interface between people or a modern passengers transportation company? Then he gets the definition of a transportation service... It goes on for a while, it's late here... 5. On subordination he says it's the most important in the employment relationship. He says it is the most complex to identify. So its very long and I'm sorry. He talks about how the drivers cannot chose prices, cannot refuse rides, cannot hand out personal cards (I didn't know that), etc. Then he talks about how the control over the employees occurs in a different way nowadays, fact that was included in Brazilian law in 2011 (electronic means of control and supervision are equivalent to personal control and supervision he quotes from the law). He points that the control is diluted between the users and the algorithm, and that drivers are punished for being under 4.7 stars, or automatically terminated if under 4.4 stars or committing severe infractions (like handing personal cards).
With this he decided that there is an employment relationship, it's probably going to be appealed. Good night.
He was against the drone assassination program, actually pointed out that the US politics was creating terrorists. One of the few actually good things that I had to say about Trump was that he put up an anti terrorism support in the cabinet. Let's count the bodies and compare to Obama/Clinton to see if he ended up being worst.
If the youtubers people like (not me) are banned, a few million will enrage enough to ditch the google website. This guy had 53 million followers, let's hope he takes his business elsewhere. The clearer the "censorship" gets the better. (Not real censorship in this case, but behavior manipulation).
Twice, two issues of the Playboy magazine from the same model (Tiazinha) in 1999 and 2000. I was a teenager but I still have them for sentimental value.
Both Nasa employees, ordinary people and terrorists should have this. The evil group here is clearly the border patrol. If it wasn't evil, or at least contrary to the country's values, it would be legal inside the country.
As soon as you give up your password, it should be reasonable that you can't be accounted for anything that happens in your account(s). Also, people reutilize passwords a lot, I guess they are shooting for that too.
They admitted in court about running over half of the child pornography websites. It's not a crazy bet that the other half is theirs too (or at least part of it), but it is not a known fact.
Now they'll drone murder us based on what an algorithm mistranslated. If at least a bilingual murderer had to listen to the xbox record of us joking in the living room our chances would be higher.
"we came, we saw, he died". They do come up dead, maybe not the ones the media likes to bring attention to, but thousands of Libyans are dead because she thought that it would be good for her campaign if they were out of the way.
On one hand we have a man with 10 year perfect record for truth telling -> weasel, liar, attention whore because he won't surrender for the torture country; On the other hand we have the mass murderer, who kept people who lied to congress in control of the intelligence, that was caught lying to help his candidate, and that didn't stop the human right abuses he promised to -> nobody is criticizing him.
I really hope he does not keep up with this "promise". Who will enable the next Manning? Who will save the next Snowden? The Guardian? WP? Only Wikileaks go the extra length to protect whistleblowers and to publish the truth in adversity. We need Assange free and working more than we need him keeping up with his PR stunts.
Slashdot Mirror
From their FAQ:
How do I get LBRY credits
Host content: see Hosting for details. Note that hosting requires the LBRY app, which is currently open to beta testers only.
While the LBRY app is running, it communicates to the network what content you're making available. If somebody downloads content from you, you will recieve LBRY credits (LBC) for that. The prices are currently set by the app and can't be changed.
So either this is a for profit model of "sharing" CC non commercial content (selling for their coin that is exchangeable), or the description on their website is incorrect/incomplete and people don't earn credits when they upload content with the price set to free.
We need a torrent for these files.
if everyone streamed HD youtube all day nobody would get any data at all
Your math skills are lacking. If everyone did that, everyone would be getting as much as possible from their unlimited plans, that's a lot of data.
His solution is obvious, split it evenly between all the customers, without penalizing any of them unequally. In order to provide more bandwidth better technology and coverage might be necessary.
I did download it before the release of the keys, it was super fast. I have a decent fiber connection.
After seeing your comment I checked and realized that I was not uploading it, even though it's my last torrent (my usual upload speed is between 500k to 1mb at the moment I checked it was around 600k).
So I decided to pause all the other uploads to give it a boost.
It's not uploading.
But really, for now you are good just reading most of it on Wikileaks.org most documents are available there, and a lot of stuff will be released only after the patches.
1. The Russians would waste tools they have?
2. In ten years no false document was published by Wikileaks.
2.1 Do you think the Russians would be able to fool them? On this scale?
2.2 Do you think they would waste this kind of credibility when there is so much shit coming from the US anyway?
Recently it became a common place to doubt vetted documents coming from Wikileaks, while taking WP's anonymous sources without documents for absolute truth tellers, and to blame everything on Russia.
But even though your hypothesis doesn't sound compelling to me, the answer to your question is investigate. The US has some legal framework to investigate the executive branch. Let's hope security researchers investigate some stuff too. There is a lot of time before CCC.
Thank you AC, those are good links. Too bad people dislike information. How could this be modded redundant? Are the modders suggesting people to not quote references or link to multiple sources?
The point is that he was Obama's Director of National Intelligence. Yes, Obama's administration was full of lies, and we could not, and did not trust them or anything they said without serious proof, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be held accountable for their lies while on office.
The question isn't about the spy capabilities. It's about whether these tools are used without logging and review by elected officials from the Congressional security committees.
That might be one of the questions for Americans, but the vast majority of the world and of CIA's victims isn't American. Wikileaks isn't American either. This information matters much more for the rest of the world than it does to the American democracy. We can count in one hand the number of Americans drone murdered. Compare that to Pakistanis.
Most of the American public doesn't care about mass murder outside of America and think all this capabilities and uses are fine as long as it's legal and there is congressional review.
Did you get the old news about the innocent that was kidnapped by the CIA in Italy, delivered to be tortured in Egypt, and suffered for 4 years? None of the American criminals went to jail. The 22000 American IP addressees in this publication should be the least of the world's concerns.
Said a marketer who does not understand what Linux users expect from their computing.
When Apple was awarded 1 billion/598 million over things that included round corners?
It's not just "writing style", it's the summary creating a narrative. Reporting the facts is fine, the comments will provide the inevitable abuse, but the summary is designed to prime the reader for outrage and tell them what their opinion is.
Agree with this part, generally agree with your complaints about the summary.
OTOH I have, in the past, upvoted both posts suggesting banning headlines in the form of a question and posts that claim that if the headline is a question the answer is always "no" (that isn't always true, but would apply in your suggestion). After this discussion I think I was wrong, even tough it is a style I REALLY dislike.
I strongly disagree with the lameness filter. Words, expressions and writing styles shouldn't be banned, there are moments when they are appropriate. Sometimes you need a Hitler/nazi comparison, sometimes you need to use the SJW expression, at least to talk about people who use the expression, like you do in your signature. It's better to downvote and show opposition than to ban things.
People have to know everything about their representatives, their murders, their corruption, their stupidity, their crimes, accomplishments, promises, etc. Then they can weight it against the other candidates. Some people will choose the murderer, some will choose the racist, some will choose the stupid. It should be an informed decision.
It's not trolling because she is running for something, it would be otherwise. While I understand your "writing style" point, people who would be inclined to vote for her have to know this, hence "stuff that matters".
I understand your "block entry to your own home" argument, but:
Once you're in the US (and while your outside the US), your rights as a human being should be fully respected.
I think this clearly shows the problem with your argument. People's rights as human beings should be fully respected everywhere, without exceptions.
To verify people are not "potentially dangerous" there is a visa interview and a background check.
Maybe the interview and the background check could/should be even more strict (it is already the worst). If they consider necessary to check people's phones, social media stuff, etc, they should request that in the visa application, when the person is still in his own country, not have thugs detaining and intimidating people at the border, threatening (at best) to make them lose a ton of money, doing stuff no country would allow.
That's one of the reasons I'm going to China this year's vacation, instead of the US.
That's right Americans, your country is currently worst than China when it comes to freedom. Well, technically not your country, your 100 miles borders.
Think about that.
For those who can read Portuguese: Sentença.
It's pretty good.
The judge says that according to Brazilian Labor Law (CLT), employee is "any natural person who provides services on a regular basis to an employer, under his or her dependence and on a salary basis", so the elements to recognize the employment relationship are: natural person (i.e. not a company - legal person), personal relation, regular nature of the relationship, onerosity (I've never seen this word in English, in this context means that there is payment for something) and subordination.
1. The driver is a natural person.
2. On the personal relation the main points the judge makes are: 1. That Uber requires previous registering from the drivers. The drivers have to send several documents, not have criminal antecedents, etc and, at the time, the driver had to pass an interview to be approved by Uber. 2. That the driver cannot give his account to another person in any way (rent, cede). He can only share his car with other uber approved drivers. In this point Uber defense was that the users cannot chose the driver, so it was not a personal relationship. The judge dismisses this argument by pointing out that the personal relation in question is not between the driver and the user, but between uber and the driver, just like the user doesn't choose the cook in a restaurant, but the restaurant chooses the cooks that will work for it.
3. On onerosity, the defense argues that the driver is paying uber, and not the opposite. So it is Uber that is providing a service to the driver and being paid. The judge dismisses this argument by pointing out that it is untrue. The facts he pointed are: there are several promotions where the user doesn't pay for the ride, but Uber still pays the driver; There are "promotions" where Uber pays the driver to be available, even if there are not enough rides; and the most important that the users pay Uber, Uber receives the payment, removes it's percentage e retain the rest, passing them along to the drivers at the end of the week. That shows that Uber not only mediates the businesses between driver and passenger but the opposite, receives for every service realized and later pays the worker.
4. On the regularity of the services, the judge points that it is a complicated matter, points some theories and ends up with pointing out that: 1. this driver was working regularly; 2. that if drivers are not available for long periods of time they are excluded from the platform; 3. that one of the drivers received an email threatening being excluded from the platform if he didn't make any rides in the following week. With this he points out that the defendant demands frequency from the drivers. Then he points that the non-eventuality of the relationship was even more evident by the theory of the ends of an enterprise. He questions what are the ends of the defendant? Is it a technology company that only makes the interface between people or a modern passengers transportation company? Then he gets the definition of a transportation service... It goes on for a while, it's late here...
5. On subordination he says it's the most important in the employment relationship. He says it is the most complex to identify. So its very long and I'm sorry. He talks about how the drivers cannot chose prices, cannot refuse rides, cannot hand out personal cards (I didn't know that), etc. Then he talks about how the control over the employees occurs in a different way nowadays, fact that was included in Brazilian law in 2011 (electronic means of control and supervision are equivalent to personal control and supervision he quotes from the law). He points that the control is diluted between the users and the algorithm, and that drivers are punished for being under 4.7 stars, or automatically terminated if under 4.4 stars or committing severe infractions (like handing personal cards).
With this he decided that there is an employment relationship, it's probably going to be appealed.
Good night.
He was against the drone assassination program, actually pointed out that the US politics was creating terrorists. One of the few actually good things that I had to say about Trump was that he put up an anti terrorism support in the cabinet. Let's count the bodies and compare to Obama/Clinton to see if he ended up being worst.
If the youtubers people like (not me) are banned, a few million will enrage enough to ditch the google website.
This guy had 53 million followers, let's hope he takes his business elsewhere. The clearer the "censorship" gets the better. (Not real censorship in this case, but behavior manipulation).
Twice, two issues of the Playboy magazine from the same model (Tiazinha) in 1999 and 2000. I was a teenager but I still have them for sentimental value.
Both Nasa employees, ordinary people and terrorists should have this. The evil group here is clearly the border patrol. If it wasn't evil, or at least contrary to the country's values, it would be legal inside the country.
The Internet needs a way to select preferred routes that avoid trouble states/companies. Yes, the US and China are the trouble states.
And their 600 million contract. That's his political career. WaPo is the fake news part of it.
As soon as you give up your password, it should be reasonable that you can't be accounted for anything that happens in your account(s).
Also, people reutilize passwords a lot, I guess they are shooting for that too.
They admitted in court about running over half of the child pornography websites. It's not a crazy bet that the other half is theirs too (or at least part of it), but it is not a known fact.
Now they'll drone murder us based on what an algorithm mistranslated.
If at least a bilingual murderer had to listen to the xbox record of us joking in the living room our chances would be higher.
"we came, we saw, he died". They do come up dead, maybe not the ones the media likes to bring attention to, but thousands of Libyans are dead because she thought that it would be good for her campaign if they were out of the way.
Its incredible the double standard around here.
On one hand we have a man with 10 year perfect record for truth telling -> weasel, liar, attention whore because he won't surrender for the torture country;
On the other hand we have the mass murderer, who kept people who lied to congress in control of the intelligence, that was caught lying to help his candidate, and that didn't stop the human right abuses he promised to -> nobody is criticizing him.
I really hope he does not keep up with this "promise". Who will enable the next Manning? Who will save the next Snowden? The Guardian? WP? Only Wikileaks go the extra length to protect whistleblowers and to publish the truth in adversity. We need Assange free and working more than we need him keeping up with his PR stunts.