> Even better - add filters requiring all EU Facebook, Twitter, etc, users to add a credit card to their accounts > and when they post a link to an EU based news source, the poster much pay the article fee directly (as it should be).
That's an interesting solution which I did not think of. Unfortunately, it doesn't solve the "you must filter out content under copyright even though it is impossible to know what content is under copyright".
About the only solution to that problem that I can think of, is to allow anyone to register as a "creator of content to be filtered" while requiring such creators to provide a free service which checks if a given upload is theirs. Then a small business could, eventually, after clearing content through all the registered services, actually allow a user-provided upload. It would probably take a significant amount of time, though, which, like this legislation, is not particularly in line with user expectations ("I have to wait for my upload to be cleared? WTF?").
> because businesses can't afford to police any of that.
Because there is no way to check if anything is under copyright, I don't see how these businesses can actually legally allow user-posted content. The biggies will do it anyway (allow user-posted content), because they have billion-dollar legal budgets and agreements with some large content creators already, and can afford to see how this mess will actually work out in court. No one else will try, so there will be a lot of geo-blocking of the EU.
Google, Facebook and other megacorps can afford to take measures which they can afford to defend in court afterwards, while the judicial system tries to make sense of bad legislation. Sites of the magnitude of Slashdot or smaller, however, probably will not be able to budget for that, and may just geo-block Europe. Not that geo-blocking is effective. Probably may cause a small up-tick in US VPN adoptions....
> There is *no* way to verify your vote was counted correctly with online voting.
Unless you are volunteering to oversee the paper ballot counting process (of your own polling place, which if I am not mistaken is not usually even possible in most jurisdictions with paper ballots), the exact same is true for paper ballots. So what, exactly, is your point?
If it's that overseeing paper ballot counting is within the abilities of far more individuals than overseeing online voting, then I agree.
> Sure, my house could get hit by a meteor, but I'll take my chances.
Perhaps you should consult with someone who has real knowledge of what the risks are. Even without that knowledge, I'd guess that a fire, burglary or perhaps flooding would be far greater risks. Or do you have some kind of fire-proof safe?
My guess is that if its demographic is younger, then proportionally more of its users know about ad blockers, or other tech which limits the users' exposure to the advertising. Another problem with that demographic is that they are savvy enough, instead of impulse buying, to search for the cheap Chinese equivalents of any attractive product they might have seen in an ad, even if they clicked through. Or if content is in question (video games, movies, music), they are more likely to know how to get the product without paying in illegal or semi-legal ways.
And finally, I'd guess that they have less money than, say, 25-30 year olds, who have (hopefully) settled down in their work but don't have families yet. (I could well be wrong about that, and I suppose it also is quite dependent on from what cultures/economic conditions those users come from.)
None of this is well researched. Please update me with actual facts!
The "heaviness" of a Proof-of-Work alt-coin like Bitcoin or Etherium (before this change) has nothing to do with the complexity of the cryptography and everything to do with there being enormous competition between miners because of the perceived value of the currency mined.
In fact, one can characterize modern cryptography as the art of making a complex enough (to be secure) calculation as efficient as possible. And it is, typically, very, very efficient --- or it wouldn't be used.
Furthermore, AFAIK, there is no proof that only Proof-of-Work can be secure or that it is inherently more secure than Proof-of-Stake or some other, yet to be discovered, algorithm. (This comment proposes that there could be yet another "solution" to the PoW escalation problem but it doesn't actually describe enough details so that I can try to analyze if it is at all viable.)
So I suppose you never click on hyperlinks when using the internet? Isn't that a bit extreme?
How do you discover the content you are looking for, is there some kind of paid service you use which vets links for you? Or is your browsing very limited in scope?
Personally, I'm trying out Miniflux. My reasoning is that if Mozilla pisses me off even more and I want to jump to a different browser, I won't have to worry about finding a new RSS reader extension or other solution.
OK, thanks for the info that they are behind on the roadmap. What about EV?
> I make security scanning tools for a living. My team checks at least a dozen things for each certificate. CT isn't something we check, because nobody cares.
Well, I would care. It seems stupid that you wouldn't check CT, considering that it exists, and even seems to be a good idea. I suppose there's some downside I am unaware of? What is it?
I hope Springer also bought the Whac-a-Mole brand, because the benefit to that brand from this court decision is probably going to be more significant than the benefit to Springer directly.
I'm far from an expert, but proof-of-work certainly needs to be computationally expensive, on the other hand I think an economist would tell you that it never will become economically expensive compared to the perceived economic value gained by the computation. (The problem, nowadays, being in the "perceived" part...)
> Sort of exactly like git but also has a (inefficient) way to automatically resolve conflicting "check-ins".
Wow, this got "Insightful"? Considering that git's claim-to-fame is low-cost branching, and the whole point of blockchain is to prevent branching, I'd say that they're really not at all alike. The analogy is about as good as saying plants are sort of exactly like animals except the animals have a better way to move around.
Last time I checked, I don't think I qualified to be a "regular" user.
If this is done wrong, it's going to be a nightmare for me. And a lot of other users who are not "regular" because they are simply handicapped, as opposed to being outliers in the geeky/techno direction.
> (only reason anyone uses over 15GB a month is to stream shit
Yeah, sure. And if I like analyzing astronomic data, instead? Or running a D&D session using video conferencing? Or (insert tons of things I can't think of right now and even maybe haven't been invented yet)?
The first hit on my search for "15GB tax" doesn't seem to indicate that the proposed tax won't be levied on data downloaded from legal (i.e., paid-for) streaming services. Which makes no sense, since if you "stream shit" that you pay for, there is no logical reason to pay an additional tax on it.
About the only good reason I can think of is to encourage society to pursue healthier activities like participating in sports, etc.
> which in theory will go to the artists who are getting ripped off by the capitalists)
Ooooh. You sound totally convinced that those artists (as opposed to producers or gate keepers) are going to benefit. And your wishy-washiness is perfectly correct!
Is this a new kind of "in-line" dupe? Wasn't the old kind good enough????
In a pilot study with a small sample size, researchers looked for microplastics in stool samples of eight people from Finland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Russia, the United Kingdom and Austria. To their surprise, every single sample tested positive for the presence of a variety of microplastics (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source). In a pilot study with a small sample size, researchers looked for microplastics in stool samples of eight people from Finland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Russia, the United Kingdom and Austria. To their surprise, every single sample tested positive for the presence of a variety of microplastics.
In August 2013, DVD-Ranger released a white paper detailing their methods for detecting, and subsequently removing, the present Cinavia signal from audio files.[16] The DVD-Ranger CinEx beta software synchronises and detects the Cinavia signal in the same way as a consumer Cinavia detection routine; these identified parts of the audio stream are permanently removed, removing the Cinavia signal. Post-processing can be used to try to "fill-in" the audible gaps created.[16]
There are claims[17] that Cinavia can be removed using open source software like Audacity with an extracted audio file from a video source. The audio file is processed by decreasing pitch by 13%; the processed audio file is then merged back into the video source. This renders the Cinavia watermark unreadable.
Slashdot Mirror
> Even better - add filters requiring all EU Facebook, Twitter, etc, users to add a credit card to their accounts
> and when they post a link to an EU based news source, the poster much pay the article fee directly (as it should be).
That's an interesting solution which I did not think of. Unfortunately, it doesn't solve the "you must filter out content under copyright even though it is impossible to know what content is under copyright".
About the only solution to that problem that I can think of, is to allow anyone to register as a "creator of content to be filtered" while requiring such creators to provide a free service which checks if a given upload is theirs. Then a small business could, eventually, after clearing content through all the registered services, actually allow a user-provided upload. It would probably take a significant amount of time, though, which, like this legislation, is not particularly in line with user expectations ("I have to wait for my upload to be cleared? WTF?").
> because businesses can't afford to police any of that.
Because there is no way to check if anything is under copyright, I don't see how these businesses can actually legally allow user-posted content. The biggies will do it anyway (allow user-posted content), because they have billion-dollar legal budgets and agreements with some large content creators already, and can afford to see how this mess will actually work out in court. No one else will try, so there will be a lot of geo-blocking of the EU.
Google, Facebook and other megacorps can afford to take measures which they can afford to defend in court afterwards, while the judicial system tries to make sense of bad legislation. Sites of the magnitude of Slashdot or smaller, however, probably will not be able to budget for that, and may just geo-block Europe. Not that geo-blocking is effective. Probably may cause a small up-tick in US VPN adoptions....
Can it even play Cryosis?
FTFY
> There is *no* way to verify your vote was counted correctly with online voting.
Unless you are volunteering to oversee the paper ballot counting process (of your own polling place, which if I am not mistaken is not usually even possible in most jurisdictions with paper ballots), the exact same is true for paper ballots. So what, exactly, is your point?
If it's that overseeing paper ballot counting is within the abilities of far more individuals than overseeing online voting, then I agree.
> Sure, my house could get hit by a meteor, but I'll take my chances.
Perhaps you should consult with someone who has real knowledge of what the risks are. Even without that knowledge, I'd guess that a fire, burglary or perhaps flooding would be far greater risks. Or do you have some kind of fire-proof safe?
> I'm sticking to well-aged titles, last-gen systems and indie studios.
Appropriate for someone whose nick is "Qbertino", I suppose. (Q*bert rocked!)
People who hate advertising give the best advice? An interesting observation which seems to make sense.
I'm not sure how the "honesty" you talk about factors in.
My guess is that if its demographic is younger, then proportionally more of its users know about ad blockers, or other tech which limits the users' exposure to the advertising. Another problem with that demographic is that they are savvy enough, instead of impulse buying, to search for the cheap Chinese equivalents of any attractive product they might have seen in an ad, even if they clicked through. Or if content is in question (video games, movies, music), they are more likely to know how to get the product without paying in illegal or semi-legal ways.
And finally, I'd guess that they have less money than, say, 25-30 year olds, who have (hopefully) settled down in their work but don't have families yet. (I could well be wrong about that, and I suppose it also is quite dependent on from what cultures/economic conditions those users come from.)
None of this is well researched. Please update me with actual facts!
The "heaviness" of a Proof-of-Work alt-coin like Bitcoin or Etherium (before this change) has nothing to do with the complexity of the cryptography and everything to do with there being enormous competition between miners because of the perceived value of the currency mined.
In fact, one can characterize modern cryptography as the art of making a complex enough (to be secure) calculation as efficient as possible. And it is, typically, very, very efficient --- or it wouldn't be used.
Furthermore, AFAIK, there is no proof that only Proof-of-Work can be secure or that it is inherently more secure than Proof-of-Stake or some other, yet to be discovered, algorithm. (This comment proposes that there could be yet another "solution" to the PoW escalation problem but it doesn't actually describe enough details so that I can try to analyze if it is at all viable.)
I would recommend disabling / randomizing other stuff found at:
* tool*.telemetry.*
*.normandy.*
*.normandy.*
and if you are not interested in seeing DRM content or notices about it:
*widevinecdm.*
So I suppose you never click on hyperlinks when using the internet? Isn't that a bit extreme?
How do you discover the content you are looking for, is there some kind of paid service you use which vets links for you? Or is your browsing very limited in scope?
I can't imagine using the net like that.
Personally, I'm trying out Miniflux. My reasoning is that if Mozilla pisses me off even more and I want to jump to a different browser, I won't have to worry about finding a new RSS reader extension or other solution.
OK, thanks for the info that they are behind on the roadmap. What about EV?
> I make security scanning tools for a living. My team checks at least a dozen things for each certificate. CT isn't something we check, because nobody cares.
Well, I would care. It seems stupid that you wouldn't check CT, considering that it exists, and even seems to be a good idea. I suppose there's some downside I am unaware of? What is it?
I hope Springer also bought the Whac-a-Mole brand, because the benefit to that brand from this court decision is probably going to be more significant than the benefit to Springer directly.
Will they never learn?
What kind of blockchains feature low-cost branching as a major selling point?
It seems to me that a blockchain is, well, a "chain", but a git repo is a "directed acyclic graph", which is much more general. Did I miss something?
I'm far from an expert, but proof-of-work certainly needs to be computationally expensive, on the other hand I think an economist would tell you that it never will become economically expensive compared to the perceived economic value gained by the computation. (The problem, nowadays, being in the "perceived" part...)
> Sort of exactly like git but also has a (inefficient) way to automatically resolve conflicting "check-ins".
Wow, this got "Insightful"? Considering that git's claim-to-fame is low-cost branching, and the whole point of blockchain is to prevent branching, I'd say that they're really not at all alike. The analogy is about as good as saying plants are sort of exactly like animals except the animals have a better way to move around.
Chrome does "use" Certificate Transparency, just not in the particular way you believe they should. (BTW, with a road map for the kind of implementation you want.)
Possibly Tidelift?
Whether Tidelift will "fly" (cringing at metaphor mixing), I have no idea....
I'm certainly no expert, but last time I checked, Ethereum was trying to get a viable proof-of-stake algorithm up and running.
> observing how regular users interact
Last time I checked, I don't think I qualified to be a "regular" user.
If this is done wrong, it's going to be a nightmare for me. And a lot of other users who are not "regular" because they are simply handicapped, as opposed to being outliers in the geeky/techno direction.
> (only reason anyone uses over 15GB a month is to stream shit
Yeah, sure. And if I like analyzing astronomic data, instead? Or running a D&D session using video conferencing? Or (insert tons of things I can't think of right now and even maybe haven't been invented yet)?
The first hit on my search for "15GB tax" doesn't seem to indicate that the proposed tax won't be levied on data downloaded from legal (i.e., paid-for) streaming services. Which makes no sense, since if you "stream shit" that you pay for, there is no logical reason to pay an additional tax on it.
About the only good reason I can think of is to encourage society to pursue healthier activities like participating in sports, etc.
> which in theory will go to the artists who are getting ripped off by the capitalists)
Ooooh. You sound totally convinced that those artists (as opposed to producers or gate keepers) are going to benefit. And your wishy-washiness is perfectly correct!
Is this a new kind of "in-line" dupe? Wasn't the old kind good enough????
From Wikipedia: