You can "apply" for a "License to Live" and it grants you, government-supported, up to an extra 100 years of healthy life extension, which includes government supported vasectomy or sterilization. Only people who have had no more than 2 kids are eligible to receive such a license. People who have only had o or 1 child can get up to 150 years of govt-supported life extension.
Caveats:
If you become unhealthy (heart disease, cirrhosis, cancer, etc) then you are only allowed to continue receiving treatments on the public dime if they are reversing your disease. If not, then you'r left to foot the bill if you wish.
Buying your own life extension still requires the same basic child count and sterilization policy.
When the public policy runs out, you can buy your own.
People who want to have more kids can opt out and reverse their sterilization but will forfeit any legal means of life extension afterward.
The evil I refer to is the idea of taking pains to commit random, motiveless murder of a helpless innocent victim for no reason other than to do it.
Most murders have a highly relevant and particular motive to the murderer. Even terrorism has a motive, but to achieve that motive it must have a broad reach. Hacking a medical connection to kill one person won't achieve that.
Yet surely, someone would do it just to prove they can.
You might say a terrorist would want to do it many times over because that would be effective. But I counter that doing it just once would lead to the closure of whatever loophole he exploited; to continue any further would be an expensive cat and mouse game. No terrorist sees the ROI in that. So it's a dead end.
So, in reality, what we're looking at —as the only viable scenario— is a sick loser who wants to incite disgust and sorrow.
Hence, "never underestimate people's capacity to be mind-blowingly evil".
The problem with diabetes is that either you're T1 and you don't produce insulin (therefore no response) or T2 and your cells are insulin resistant and the temporary extra insulin you get from a diet soda has no effect because the cells just ignore it.
I posted a citation above. But do your own research. Nothing is conclusive in nutrition. Far from it (just look at the cholesterol debacle). But the evidence is damning.
Like I said, go ahead and be a lab rat, but be informed.
Admittedly the case for Aspartame is weaker, and I can't find the citation right now, but despite early studies showing no insulin response for Aspartame, a more recent study DID make make a correlation.
Either way, artificial sweeteners being associated with insulin resistance regardless of BMI has been well-established. It stands to reason, given the evidence that Sucralose has been confirmed to result in an Insulin response, and that Insulin management in general is a tricky thing, that one should treat all artificial sweeteners with the same level of suspicion in this regard.
The only thing that excuses Stevia for now is that studies have shown a beneficial effect as opposed to any negative effect. Feel free to be a lab rat, just be an informed lab rat.
I forgot to point out above: when the insulin tells your cells to uptake the free blood sugar, unless you've been exercising a lot, it's your fat cells doing so.
So even though a diet soda has zero calories, you just got a tiny bit fatter.
The problem is that artificial sweeteners create an insulin response even though they are calorie free.
The insulin causes two things: 1) it tells cells to uptake sugar from your blood, which leaves you slightly hypoglycemic, since the insulin response is out of proportion to the actual sugar load consumed (particularly on an empty stomach). 2) chronically elevated insulin leads to insulin resistance (the precursor to metabolic syndrome which makes you fat, diabetic, hypertensive, etc).
This is the real reason we need to stop using most artificial sweeteners. Stevia and Erythritol have not been shown to cause this insulin response. It doesn't mean they aren't also bad. Only that for now, the jury is still out and they appear to be safe. Stevia in particular has been associated with something of an opposite effect, where it seems to improve insulin response in people who consume it.
Now for the popular reason they're getting rid of it:
Aspartame itself appears to have neurological effects as well, which in sufficient quantities causes problems. I personally know that any more than 20 oz of Diet Coke starts making me feel "odd" for lack of a better way to put it. It's not the caffeine. I don't get the effect from non-aspartame caffeinated drinks.
This seems like a relatively minor reason to stop using aspartame unless you're consuming vast quantities. Regardless, people think it's a neurotoxin and can't have that. (Forget about all the other benzene additives, colorants... even caffeine itself is a toxin).
Anyway, glad to see they are doing away with it. Here's hoping they don't use use Sucralose, which is even worse than Aspartame at producing a phantom insulin spike. (And people get upset at the chlorine... but say nothing about drinking chlorinated water or soaking in hot tubs).
This is a mystery to me... color changes. The building changes color as it moves? We need a better TFA. The one linked explains pretty much nothing. Someone mod this guy up too.
Accurately and precisely canceling out camera shake (indeed the movement of the building/foundation where the camera itself sits too) on something like this would seem to be a big deal.
I guess instead of having accelerometers on the building they put them on the camera? Article didn't really get into this aspect.
You're a ridiculous, abject moron. Undeniably an ad-hominem, but since it's obviously true I'm ok with it =]
For the record, the ad-hominem in question was calling Marlin's integrity, intent, and legitimacy into question as your justification for calling his position and opinion unviable and of no value. Either you can't see that, hence you're a moron, or you can but you choose to argue and troll away regardless... hence you're a moron.
Nice way to interpret his intent into something base can prop your ad hominem upon.
There's nothing wrong with establishing an argument that claims you work in a particular field and therefore are accustomed to making educated choices about stuff related to that field.
If someone calls themselves a chef or a foodie, it may not make them right when they say how long you should boil pasta, but it means their opinion about it IS based on care, thought, and knowledge about the subject at hand. If someone random says "boil spaghetti for 20 minutes" then you may be more apt to consider their opinion as out of hand than someone who presents "credentials".
If slashdot wasn't such a fucking non-stop pissing-contest people might not feel the need to present "papers please" when offering their thoughtful opinions about stuff.
Let's not forget that's the hubris and presumptuousness that is required to assume that a video is worthless except for the copyrighted audio track within. At the very least, Google's Content-ID system should split the revenue sharing 50-50 between the Content ID owner the owner of the video. Neither could exist without the other.
While a record company may claim that no one would watch the video were it not for the soundtrack (and this does happen a lot on YouTube, where people just upload a song and add a photo of the album cover or something), the reverse is just as often true: people watch a video for the video and in the process learn about a song, or are further exposed to it (and that's the point of radio, after all. the more you get exposed to a song the more likely you are to end up wanting to buy it).
At the very least there should be an accountable human behind any DMCA takedown request (which even then would be terribly flawed for all the other arguments pointed out by others).
Yeah, that was unclear... I meant to say that Google fights authority for a lot of things, but not this, because in this case, they have a stake in not fighting it. So it's foolhardy to look at Google and think they are a champion for just causes, which is how they first looked to most people in the earlier days.
I didn't sign the contract. I was just doing a favor. The point of the post is to show how the principle of the system is flawed and stacked against the common person, which is what YouTube was originally all about.
Now it's all big content on there that drives the show. Common person content is only still allowed there as a way to make it seem like it's still the same youtube and maintain it's original attraction. Lies. As soon as any such content actually garners enough eyeballs on a regular basis, a bigger content company buys them out.
I honestly thought of doing something along those lines. But we're talking pennies barely worth small claims court here (going by what Google normally pays out for YT revenue sharing). And at the end of the day, such a suit might even end up dismissed with a simple "well, you should have read the fine print and not posted the video" or some such, because it's true, my company doesn't own the audio content, my friend does and he has a contract with the publishing company so I assume they would argue they are protecting his rights by adding his music to the database. Best case scenario we'd get some fraction of the revenue sharing, the publishing company gets another fraction and my friend gets nothing because it's not enough to undo the by operational costs.
Alas, I have too many other things to worry about and no good lawyer friends. Its not worth it so I just live with that chip on my shoulder but move on.
Sorry, to clarify: our friend has even spoken with the publishing company. They say they have no control over it. Google just automatically flags content that includes songs that are in the database as being owned by different publishers. Short of paying to get lawyers involved, and everyone loses except the lawyers if that happens, there is no way to alter this automated madness!
Google fights authority for lots of things. In this case, they happily worked on non-trivial content-tracking and content-scanning code and subsequently handed over the keys to the YouTube kingdom to the MAFIAA.
Why? Because Big Content is now also distributed on YouTube. Google gets a piece of that action. That wouldn't have happened if Google hadn't agreed to clamp down on even the most borderline and questionable copyright claims possible.
Here's an example: my company wrote, directed, filmed, and edited a music video for a lesser known artist who is a friend. We did it pro bono because he is a friend. We posted the video to YouTube and he started using it successfully to promote himself and get more appearances. He's not making any money, but he is increasing his exposure and the hope is someday it will help him get somewhere. In the meantime, the video is garnering views on YouTube and we had it set to monetize. Our aim was to offset our investment even in the most minor way possible. The medium sized publishing company that he used to distribute his track turns out is owned by a bigger publishing company. That bigger company claimed they owned the copyright on the video. Google happily revoked our right to monetize it and gave us the option to take it down or let the bigger company monetize it. There's no one you can actually talk to at Google to dispute these things and it's all automated and played according to rules designed solely to favor the big content companies that revenue share with Google for hosting their commercial YouTube channels.
Since the publishing company didn't enter into any contract with us to produce a video, we don't stand a chance to get any money. We can take down the video and thus hurt our friend, or we can demand he pay us, which also hurts him, or we can leave it there and the publishing company, which didn't spend a SINGLE DIME to either write, record or produce the track (they just distribute it, and their reward is a cut of the sales), and which didn't spend a SINGLE DIME to write, record, or produce the video... just gets to sit back and monetize the video. It's peanuts to them. Shit, it's peanuts to us and wouldn't undo the time and money we put into the video. BUT IT'S THE FUCKING PRINCIPLE!
All thanks to Google buying YouTube and then not only not fighting the fight it should have fought, but actually working intentionally to hand it all over to the bad guys.
I never noticed a problem before Google. Even if it were, video is cacheable and buffer-able and I'd prefer to wait if it's the condition for unencumbered content
they've moved to HD
I think this would have happened regardless. Possibly it would have been YouTube's revenue model... to upload or consume HD, you have to pay in some way.
they've removed time limits on videos
I think this would have been similar to the HD situation and would have happened regardless.
they've allowed live streaming of shows
Meh. I don't care much about live streaming. Regardless, the average Joe isn't doing this, it's mostly people with deeper pockets.
they've given away hundreds of millions of dollars through the partnership program they introduced (including many shows that are simply vlogs)
Revenue sharing is only right. You shouldn't credit Google for making money off the content and then sharing some of that revenue with the people that upload it. Because if they didn't, there would be torches and pitchforks headed toward Mountain View. What does suck, though, is their implementation. Upload original content that happens to have some copyrighted song in the background and you don't get a penny. Sorry, but that's just wrong, wrong, wrong.
YouTube was great until Google acquired them. Every "enhancement" and change they make drags it down further.
Of course, without Google, YouTube might not still be around otoh. But the point of YouTube was to decentralize video sharing and take it out of the hands of corporate media giants. Instead, the giants are increasing their stranglehold on YouTube and making it unfeasible for any old Joe to get a tiny kickback for content they upload, as well as crowding out all other competing content.
Meanwhile, Google mandates that people use YouTube with their real name and make it exceedingly difficult to manage multiple accounts.
Slashdot Mirror
"License to Live"
You can "apply" for a "License to Live" and it grants you, government-supported, up to an extra 100 years of healthy life extension, which includes government supported vasectomy or sterilization. Only people who have had no more than 2 kids are eligible to receive such a license. People who have only had o or 1 child can get up to 150 years of govt-supported life extension.
Caveats:
If you become unhealthy (heart disease, cirrhosis, cancer, etc) then you are only allowed to continue receiving treatments on the public dime if they are reversing your disease. If not, then you'r left to foot the bill if you wish.
Buying your own life extension still requires the same basic child count and sterilization policy.
When the public policy runs out, you can buy your own.
People who want to have more kids can opt out and reverse their sterilization but will forfeit any legal means of life extension afterward.
The evil I refer to is the idea of taking pains to commit random, motiveless murder of a helpless innocent victim for no reason other than to do it.
Most murders have a highly relevant and particular motive to the murderer. Even terrorism has a motive, but to achieve that motive it must have a broad reach. Hacking a medical connection to kill one person won't achieve that.
Yet surely, someone would do it just to prove they can.
You might say a terrorist would want to do it many times over because that would be effective. But I counter that doing it just once would lead to the closure of whatever loophole he exploited; to continue any further would be an expensive cat and mouse game. No terrorist sees the ROI in that. So it's a dead end.
So, in reality, what we're looking at —as the only viable scenario— is a sick loser who wants to incite disgust and sorrow.
Hence, "never underestimate people's capacity to be mind-blowingly evil".
*blowingly
never underestimate people's capacity to be mind-glowingly evil...
it seem's they have this thought in mind
The problem with diabetes is that either you're T1 and you don't produce insulin (therefore no response) or T2 and your cells are insulin resistant and the temporary extra insulin you get from a diet soda has no effect because the cells just ignore it.
I posted a citation above. But do your own research. Nothing is conclusive in nutrition. Far from it (just look at the cholesterol debacle). But the evidence is damning.
Like I said, go ahead and be a lab rat, but be informed.
Re insulin response in sucralose: http://www.medicalnewstoday.co...
Also, protein itself elicits an insulin response.
Admittedly the case for Aspartame is weaker, and I can't find the citation right now, but despite early studies showing no insulin response for Aspartame, a more recent study DID make make a correlation.
Either way, artificial sweeteners being associated with insulin resistance regardless of BMI has been well-established. It stands to reason, given the evidence that Sucralose has been confirmed to result in an Insulin response, and that Insulin management in general is a tricky thing, that one should treat all artificial sweeteners with the same level of suspicion in this regard.
The only thing that excuses Stevia for now is that studies have shown a beneficial effect as opposed to any negative effect. Feel free to be a lab rat, just be an informed lab rat.
I forgot to point out above: when the insulin tells your cells to uptake the free blood sugar, unless you've been exercising a lot, it's your fat cells doing so.
So even though a diet soda has zero calories, you just got a tiny bit fatter.
The problem is that artificial sweeteners create an insulin response even though they are calorie free.
The insulin causes two things: 1) it tells cells to uptake sugar from your blood, which leaves you slightly hypoglycemic, since the insulin response is out of proportion to the actual sugar load consumed (particularly on an empty stomach). 2) chronically elevated insulin leads to insulin resistance (the precursor to metabolic syndrome which makes you fat, diabetic, hypertensive, etc).
This is the real reason we need to stop using most artificial sweeteners. Stevia and Erythritol have not been shown to cause this insulin response. It doesn't mean they aren't also bad. Only that for now, the jury is still out and they appear to be safe. Stevia in particular has been associated with something of an opposite effect, where it seems to improve insulin response in people who consume it.
Now for the popular reason they're getting rid of it:
Aspartame itself appears to have neurological effects as well, which in sufficient quantities causes problems. I personally know that any more than 20 oz of Diet Coke starts making me feel "odd" for lack of a better way to put it. It's not the caffeine. I don't get the effect from non-aspartame caffeinated drinks.
This seems like a relatively minor reason to stop using aspartame unless you're consuming vast quantities. Regardless, people think it's a neurotoxin and can't have that. (Forget about all the other benzene additives, colorants... even caffeine itself is a toxin).
Anyway, glad to see they are doing away with it. Here's hoping they don't use use Sucralose, which is even worse than Aspartame at producing a phantom insulin spike. (And people get upset at the chlorine... but say nothing about drinking chlorinated water or soaking in hot tubs).
This is a mystery to me... color changes. The building changes color as it moves?
We need a better TFA. The one linked explains pretty much nothing.
Someone mod this guy up too.
Accurately and precisely canceling out camera shake (indeed the movement of the building/foundation where the camera itself sits too) on something like this would seem to be a big deal.
I guess instead of having accelerometers on the building they put them on the camera? Article didn't really get into this aspect.
Democracy? Democracy?
Also, "peace" is debatable. There are a lot of people who would not feel at peace living under the Hamas world-view.
posting to undo moderation. I aimed for funny but mistakenly released on overrated. ugh.
You're a ridiculous, abject moron. Undeniably an ad-hominem, but since it's obviously true I'm ok with it =]
For the record, the ad-hominem in question was calling Marlin's integrity, intent, and legitimacy into question as your justification for calling his position and opinion unviable and of no value. Either you can't see that, hence you're a moron, or you can but you choose to argue and troll away regardless... hence you're a moron.
Nice way to interpret his intent into something base can prop your ad hominem upon.
There's nothing wrong with establishing an argument that claims you work in a particular field and therefore are accustomed to making educated choices about stuff related to that field.
If someone calls themselves a chef or a foodie, it may not make them right when they say how long you should boil pasta, but it means their opinion about it IS based on care, thought, and knowledge about the subject at hand. If someone random says "boil spaghetti for 20 minutes" then you may be more apt to consider their opinion as out of hand than someone who presents "credentials".
If slashdot wasn't such a fucking non-stop pissing-contest people might not feel the need to present "papers please" when offering their thoughtful opinions about stuff.
From what I've read, you'd be wrong about that. Link your source or I have to call misinformation / FUD on that one.
bingo
most on point comment in the debate ever
Let's not forget that's the hubris and presumptuousness that is required to assume that a video is worthless except for the copyrighted audio track within.
At the very least, Google's Content-ID system should split the revenue sharing 50-50 between the Content ID owner the owner of the video. Neither could exist without the other.
While a record company may claim that no one would watch the video were it not for the soundtrack (and this does happen a lot on YouTube, where people just upload a song and add a photo of the album cover or something), the reverse is just as often true: people watch a video for the video and in the process learn about a song, or are further exposed to it (and that's the point of radio, after all. the more you get exposed to a song the more likely you are to end up wanting to buy it).
This. The Content-ID thing. A travesty.
At the very least there should be an accountable human behind any DMCA takedown request (which even then would be terribly flawed for all the other arguments pointed out by others).
Yeah, that was unclear... I meant to say that Google fights authority for a lot of things, but not this, because in this case, they have a stake in not fighting it. So it's foolhardy to look at Google and think they are a champion for just causes, which is how they first looked to most people in the earlier days.
I didn't sign the contract. I was just doing a favor. The point of the post is to show how the principle of the system is flawed and stacked against the common person, which is what YouTube was originally all about.
Now it's all big content on there that drives the show. Common person content is only still allowed there as a way to make it seem like it's still the same youtube and maintain it's original attraction. Lies. As soon as any such content actually garners enough eyeballs on a regular basis, a bigger content company buys them out.
I honestly thought of doing something along those lines. But we're talking pennies barely worth small claims court here (going by what Google normally pays out for YT revenue sharing). And at the end of the day, such a suit might even end up dismissed with a simple "well, you should have read the fine print and not posted the video" or some such, because it's true, my company doesn't own the audio content, my friend does and he has a contract with the publishing company so I assume they would argue they are protecting his rights by adding his music to the database. Best case scenario we'd get some fraction of the revenue sharing, the publishing company gets another fraction and my friend gets nothing because it's not enough to undo the by operational costs.
Alas, I have too many other things to worry about and no good lawyer friends. Its not worth it so I just live with that chip on my shoulder but move on.
Sorry, to clarify: our friend has even spoken with the publishing company. They say they have no control over it. Google just automatically flags content that includes songs that are in the database as being owned by different publishers. Short of paying to get lawyers involved, and everyone loses except the lawyers if that happens, there is no way to alter this automated madness!
Google fights authority for lots of things. In this case, they happily worked on non-trivial content-tracking and content-scanning code and subsequently handed over the keys to the YouTube kingdom to the MAFIAA.
Why? Because Big Content is now also distributed on YouTube. Google gets a piece of that action. That wouldn't have happened if Google hadn't agreed to clamp down on even the most borderline and questionable copyright claims possible.
Here's an example: my company wrote, directed, filmed, and edited a music video for a lesser known artist who is a friend. We did it pro bono because he is a friend. We posted the video to YouTube and he started using it successfully to promote himself and get more appearances. He's not making any money, but he is increasing his exposure and the hope is someday it will help him get somewhere. In the meantime, the video is garnering views on YouTube and we had it set to monetize. Our aim was to offset our investment even in the most minor way possible. The medium sized publishing company that he used to distribute his track turns out is owned by a bigger publishing company. That bigger company claimed they owned the copyright on the video. Google happily revoked our right to monetize it and gave us the option to take it down or let the bigger company monetize it. There's no one you can actually talk to at Google to dispute these things and it's all automated and played according to rules designed solely to favor the big content companies that revenue share with Google for hosting their commercial YouTube channels.
Since the publishing company didn't enter into any contract with us to produce a video, we don't stand a chance to get any money. We can take down the video and thus hurt our friend, or we can demand he pay us, which also hurts him, or we can leave it there and the publishing company, which didn't spend a SINGLE DIME to either write, record or produce the track (they just distribute it, and their reward is a cut of the sales), and which didn't spend a SINGLE DIME to write, record, or produce the video... just gets to sit back and monetize the video. It's peanuts to them. Shit, it's peanuts to us and wouldn't undo the time and money we put into the video. BUT IT'S THE FUCKING PRINCIPLE!
All thanks to Google buying YouTube and then not only not fighting the fight it should have fought, but actually working intentionally to hand it all over to the bad guys.
server speed has increased immensely
I never noticed a problem before Google. Even if it were, video is cacheable and buffer-able and I'd prefer to wait if it's the condition for unencumbered content
they've moved to HD
I think this would have happened regardless. Possibly it would have been YouTube's revenue model... to upload or consume HD, you have to pay in some way.
they've removed time limits on videos
I think this would have been similar to the HD situation and would have happened regardless.
they've allowed live streaming of shows
Meh. I don't care much about live streaming. Regardless, the average Joe isn't doing this, it's mostly people with deeper pockets.
they've given away hundreds of millions of dollars through the partnership program they introduced (including many shows that are simply vlogs)
Revenue sharing is only right. You shouldn't credit Google for making money off the content and then sharing some of that revenue with the people that upload it. Because if they didn't, there would be torches and pitchforks headed toward Mountain View. What does suck, though, is their implementation. Upload original content that happens to have some copyrighted song in the background and you don't get a penny. Sorry, but that's just wrong, wrong, wrong.
YouTube was great until Google acquired them. Every "enhancement" and change they make drags it down further.
Of course, without Google, YouTube might not still be around otoh. But the point of YouTube was to decentralize video sharing and take it out of the hands of corporate media giants. Instead, the giants are increasing their stranglehold on YouTube and making it unfeasible for any old Joe to get a tiny kickback for content they upload, as well as crowding out all other competing content.
Meanwhile, Google mandates that people use YouTube with their real name and make it exceedingly difficult to manage multiple accounts.
Fuck em.