ContentID is getting EVEN MORE FUCKED than the troll in here
-
Oxymorons are a juxtapositioning of two oppisites.
...in a contradictory way, e.g. "cruel kindness" to take a dictionary example. A logical tautology, by contrast, is a statement that is true in any possible world: "I'll either be right or wrong", under somewhat reasonable assumptions, is such a statement.
-
Oxymorons are a juxtapositioning of two oppisites.
Yes, but generally in a way implying a paradox or contradiction where both of them are right, definitely not in an "either-or" configuration.
Tautologies are self-reinforcing, redundant.
I'd argue the sentence as spoken was redundant - the fact that "you're either right or wrong" does not convey any meaning (so it's a tautology in rhetorical sense), and it holds true regardless of the input (so it's a tautology in a logical sense).
Or, basically, what @EvanED said.
-
But in real life economics we speak of monopoly if one party has such a power over the market, mostly by the market share, that it can set the price and other parameters without taking the competition into account.
So it is very clear that youtube is not a monopoly then, right? Or have you been paying for your youtubes?
Mindshare is good, but it can be fragile, too. Incidents like this are the very thing that could destroy youtube. The more people hear of artists taking their stuff off youtube, the more likely they are to go to other sites any time they don't find something they're looking for. And what with some isps shenanigans, they might even find that the under-the-radar sites load faster for them. This is how monopolies are lost.
Therefore, I consider Zoë a hero of sorts, because if it weren't for her, google might have been able to pull this shit without anyone knowing. I mean, I'm not that worked up about this specific deal at all, but on principle I think that it's a good idea to support people who share information with consumers about things that affect them.
-
Or have you been paying for your youtubes?
Price is important but not the only delimiter. After all IE is a free but MS got slapped for it anyway. Same with complaints against Google search.
-
Yes, but I don't think youtube can ignore their competition to anywhere near the extent those other two could/can. People still resent google for putting plus comments on videos, and all it would take is just a bit of boycott talk from a few popular content creators to kick off a major backlash. In my opinion.
-
FREE GUNS FOR SOCIALLY DISADVANTAGED!
OH MY GOD, THAT IS JUST THE
WORST/BESTIDEA I HAVE EVER HEARD!!1
-
Does Apple have a monopoly on iPhones?
Yes andIs this a problem?
yes.Actually they don't have monopoly on iPhones themselves, because those are just smartphones and there are other types of those. But what they do have monopoly for is distribution of applications to iPhones. They don't abuse it too much so they can extort their 40% share of all sales of iPhone and iPad applications and companies don't complain, but they are somewhat abusing it against those from whom they wouldn't have anything (though it's not really true; free applications are still a coproduct, improving sales of the platform).
By the way, Google seemed to have understood the coproduct thing. Their business revolves around providing coproducts for advertising. Somehow this YouTube move seems to go against that.
No. A monopoly exists when a business has 100% market share, or at least enough to raise prices on their own due to lack of competition. Not really the case here...as they do not charge anything...
Totally irrelevant, because the competition laws don't speak about monopoly, they speak about abusing market position.
So Microsoft was never a monopoly? Good to know.
I would say that no, they were not really monopoly. But the argument was that they were abusing their market position to damage other companies and whether they were monopoly or even what it exactly means to be one does not really affect that argument.
Yeah, Apple is doing the same these days and pretty explicitly (terms for using AppStore include statement that they may not accept application that provides the same functionality as they provide themselves) and nobody (at least in the relevant regulatory authorities) seems to give a damn.
Also an interesting listen. Maybe the Yahoos who call themselves YouTube Execs should give it a listen too.
And that works fine against United, because flights are commodity and bad publicity will make customers fly with Delta or American or whoever else there is. But Google has a long tradition of considering no customer important and fucking with everybody and people still put up with them because there is no alternative. Apple has the same tradition, but the now way around only concerns companies that are trying to create iOS apps and they generally prefer staying in business over making much fuss. And Microsoft sees it's working for Apple and tries to follow them. And it might just work for them too, because though they are late into the smartphone and tablet business, the advantage of mostly-compatibility with desktop is going to keep them relevant.
So it is very clear that youtube is not a monopoly then, right? Or have you been paying for your youtubes?
Well, yes, this is confusing the whole matter. All the laws were created for markets with commodities or at least reasonably interchangeable things. A spade is a spade, so you can go buy a spade from someone else and you can buy something that walks like a duck and quacks like a duck from another shop if you for some reason don't like the ducks in the duck shop.
But in the technology market things are not interchangeable, so we are getting new effects like vendor lock-in that the laws don't really handle. I am not sure even economists know what to think of them.
The laws are also created for markets where goods is paid by money and here we are in a mess of coproducts instead. Google is providing video hosting for artists for free so that that people can watch those videos for free and provides them option to comment and share those videos so those people have a reason to sign in for a Google account so Google can collect information about them and show them targeted ads for which it will finally get money. And now how should the poor judge decipher who has what advantage or disadvantage in this chain.
Therefore, I consider Zoë a hero of sorts, because if it weren't for her…
I and in the light of previous paragraph I actually hope Google realizes it's actually breaking this complicated structure that's been so successful so far and it's their own best interest to back off. They've pulled things and quickly backed (or not; there are precedents for both) when somebody protested in the past.
-
I and in the light of previous paragraph I actually hope Google realizes it's actually breaking this complicated structure that's been so successful so far and it's their own best interest to back off.
Exactly this.
First rule of a technician: if it isn't broken, don't fix it!
But all too often a new manager takes charge and wants to "make an impact!" and crap like this happens. I don't know if a new manager caused this, but whatever the reason, I too hope they back off.
-
A logical tautology, by contrast, is a statement that is true in any possible world: "I'll either be right or wrong", under somewhat reasonable assumptions, is such a statement.
Those assumptions are less reasonable than you might think. It's pretty well established in mathematics that any finite set of axioms will lead to the existence of logical statements that are unprovable - that is, they are neither true nor false in a strict logical sense
-
It's pretty well established in mathematics that any finite set of axioms will lead to the existence of logical statements that are unprovable - that is, they are neither true nor false in a strict logical sense
Though what it really means is that each of those unprovable logic statements or its complement is a potential axiom, and that there's no finite set of axioms that can allow all mathematical truth to be derived. Which is pretty neat.
-
Though what it really means is that each of those unprovable logic statements or its complement is a potential axiom, and that there's no finite set of axioms that can allow all mathematical truth to be derived. Which is pretty neat.
Math is weird.
-
-
Maths are weird fun?
-
That's what I said. Are you having trouble understanding me?
-
¿No hablas español?
-
-
@translator is notoriously bad at its job, though.
-
And doesn't play in this thread? :<aw>/
-
check the OP. at his request my bots ignore his threads.
-
I don't think @blakeyrat still cares about this thread. After all, he's missed such a beautiful flame war without even saying a word.
-
He'll be back when he realizes that ContentID was behind Pete Carroll's play call.
-
I don't think @blakeyrat still cares about this thread. After all, he's missed such a beautiful flame war without even saying a word.
he's likely muted it but since my bots can't query and unignore his threads that he's muted they stay muted for any thread he's OP for. you can split thread using reply as new thread if you want to spin off a conversation that plays with them.
i also accept pull requests if you have a solution to that ptoblem.
-
First rule of a technician: if it isn't broken, don't fix it!
It does not really apply to business though. While displacing Google might be difficult even if they screw up due to network effects, they still do have to stay on top of things and come up with new services. The problem here is that this time they try(ed?) to push their new offer (paid streaming service in and of itself does make sense) in a way that disrupts their existing service.
-
It does not really apply to business though.
In actuality, when you have something working, you should tweak it here and there, keep the tweaks that improve things and roll back the ones that don't. That something addresses a need (or want, but we'll use need for sake of argument). The thing to watch for is: what can improve servicing that need?
I need to connect to the internet to do ___. Dial-up at some point serviced this need. Broadband (not DSL, real broadband) services this need much better, so it trumps dial-up. To stay competitive, you will eventually need to change, if only when the previous success starts to dry up and you identify this as the why. At that point the model still works.
Solution X was successful for so long, now is no longer successful(1) - time to change something. In this day and age, you'd better be able to identify why it's no longer successful and make the right change quickly. The really talented leaders can see what's coming and start investing towards the new solution so they can switch over seamlessly when the time comes.
(1) This assumes someone didn't go in and change from Solution X (while it was still working) to some other thing, and THAT caused things to go downhill. This is what happens in the business world way too often and why "leadership" is considered a swear word by many.
-
http://startpage.com
I read their entire "privacy policy" which looks like it was written by a marketing department that just found out about the concepts of fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
Seriously, if an advertiser can give me more relevant ads or a search engine can give me more relevant results, and in return I need to not do anything that I wouldn't normally, that's a net gain for everyone involved. Avoiding that is like avoiding the flu vaccine because it's different based on what flu they think will happen that year.
If you don't want the government spying on you, you're either overly paranoid, doing something incredibly bad, or scared because you don't understand technology like the prime minister of England.
Stuff like startpage.com will never be better than Google unless they find a way to give me relevant results by pulling data directly from my brain and then discarding it after the search or something. In which case Google and the other search giants will be able to do the same thing, but faster because they don't need to re-index my brain every time I search.
What were we talking about again?
-
Am I wrong in a meaninglessly pedantic way because you and one other person are doing that right now so that you can say that I'm wrong? Or are you suggesting that this is a typical use-case?
I have gone to youtube's front page, searched for "song of storms" and wound up discovering Taylor Davis and Lindsey Stirling, which isn't quite what you posited in your previous post, but it's kind of close, because I was looking for something more electronica than what I found.
-
If you don't want the government spying on you, you're either overly paranoid, doing something incredibly bad, or scared because you don't understand technology like the prime minister of England.
Don't forget doing something perfectly ok, but not ok in the eyes of the government (e.g., disagreeing with the government). This is why the 4th and 6th amendments were created in the American constitution.
-
I read their entire "privacy policy"
I stopped at around "we don't record your fucking IP address". Sold. It's a search engine, not my personal journal.
Seriously, if an advertiser can give me more relevant ads
I don't understand the concept of "more revelant ads". Is it like "more socially acceptable turds"?
If you don't want the government spying on you,
Who said anything about the government? Google is a private enterprise, and they're not bound by any social contract to "not be evil" with data they're hoarding.
doing something incredibly bad
You mean, like researching a novel, or something like that? Fucking novelists...
EDIT: Thinking about it, I realized you're probably about half my age, which means it's possible you've spend your entire life living in the Google Panopticon, see it as entirely normal, and I just seem like an old man shouting at trains.
Filed under Unknown error saving post, try again, 502 Bad Gateway, 504 reasons your website sucks
-
Don't forget doing something perfectly ok, but not ok in the eyes of the government (e.g., disagreeing with the government).
If you want to run a grassroots campaign to abolish the government, then just get a guy who knows how to cover your tracks. If you just want to spam "obama suxxx" on Twitter, nobody's gonna care. If you're incredibly lucky you'll trip a filter, get someone at NSA to read your post, shrug and click "next".
In any case, bragging about how all the government and all the secret services are on to you is just penis enhancement.
-
I said that people don't start with a blank youtube page and just search for random stuff.
Now I feel obligated to point out that every time I post a youtube video on this site (e.g. Song of the Day thread), this is my exact workflow.
-
If you want to run a grassroots campaign to abolish the government, good luck with that in this day and age, who do you think you are, Karl Marx?
FTRSROTMSS
-
It's pretty well established...
Oh, it's very well established. ;-)Though I don't think that that the incompleteness theorm is a good counterargument to be honest, at least as you've applied it, because I don't consider provable ≡ true, in either direction. If I start with a poor set of axioms I can use them to prove things that are wholly untrue, but more to the point I was originally going to say that I think that any statement, in objective reality, is either true or false, and whether we can get there is a different matter. (I'm not sure this analogy works -- maybe related to what I'm going to say next -- but take an analogy to the halting problem. If you give me a TM, it either halts on every input or it doesn't; IMO, there's no middle ground. But if you accept the strong Church-Turing conjecture, there's not always a way to come up with a proof.)
After all that though, I realized you still have to deal with statements like "this statement is false", which is not really either right or wrong. (And of course self-referential statements like this are the basis for the proof of the incompleteness theorem, so in that sense citing it is on the money.) But then you also have statements that are ambiguous, or just nonsense (there's the whole "is 'colorless green ideas sleep furiously' true or false?" thing, though perhaps the answer to that is just false"), etc.
So you're right that, in general, "I'll either be right or wrong" is not necessarily a tautology... though most of the time it's antecedent is sufficiently well-defined that it is. :-)
-
I don't understand the concept of "more revelant ads". Is it like "more socially acceptable turds"?
Relevant ads: I'm searching for a blouse for an outfit. I don't find one I like. The next day on Facebook I find an ad featuring a really pretty corset. I browse their site and find a corset and jacket combo I like for that outfit. They get money, I get my needs filled. This happens to me plenty since I don't block anyone's attempts to track me.
-
Relevant ads: I'm searching for a blouse for an outfit. I don't find one I like. The next day on Facebook I find an ad featuring a really pretty corset. I browse their site and find a corset and jacket combo I like for that outfit. They get money, I get my needs filled. This happens to me plenty since I don't block anyone's attempts to track me.
Or the annoying: My wife sends me a link to a dress that she likes, so I click it and then get followed around by dresses on every site that I visit for the next three weeks.
-
If you just want to spam "obama suxxx" on Twitter, nobody's gonna care.
You don't read US news much, do you?
-
If you want to run a grassroots campaign to abolish the government, then just get a guy who knows how to cover your tracks.
- It's hard.
- It's even harder considering that the govt controls every entry point to the internet.
- It's even harder considering that you don't only have to cover up yourself but also everyone you tell about your plan, and telling everyone is the fucking point of what you're doing.
- Even if you don't plan to do such things now, you might in the future - and if invigilation will reach so far it becomes impossible, you will never be able to. I like to keep my options open.
Relevant ads: I'm searching for a blouse for an outfit. I don't find one I like. The next day on Facebook I find an ad featuring a really pretty corset. I browse their site and find a corset and jacket combo I like for that outfit. They get money, I get my needs filled. This happens to me plenty since I don't block anyone's attempts to track me.
You're the first person I've ever met who hasn't clicked an advertisement by accident.
-
If you just want to spam "obama suxxx" on Twitter, nobody's gonna care.
Au contraire! The Republican Party might be very interested in communicating with you.
-
You're the first person I've ever met who hasn't clicked an advertisement by accident.
You are either an idiot (most likely), or you wrote that sentence backwards and upside-down.
-
I'm a foreigner and I can't build English sentences 100% correctly all the time. Cut me some slack!
-
If I start with a poor set of axioms I can use them to prove things that are wholly untrue
I think you've explained yourself extremely poorly here. I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself prior to flames.
-
Relevant ads:...
+ᶗ
Most anti-ad rants seem fairly short sighted and don't understand the point of advertising or why it's beneficial to the consumer. Of course, these are usually people to whom "consumer" is a four letter word.
-
If I start with a poor set of axioms I can use them to prove things that are wholly untrue
Foolish people do foolish things. News at 11.
-
-
Careful, Boomzilla's gonna overthrow your government.
I wish. At least I'm not advocating them being brutalized by murderous dictators like Blakeyrat, though, hey?
-
Who said anything about the government? Google is a private enterprise, and they're not bound by any social contract to "not be evil" with data they're hoarding.
Government isn't either. Well, the social contract is there, they just don't consider it to be binding in practice.
-
Careful, Boomzilla's gonna overthrow your government.
OH PLEASE DO IT!!! I have enough of 60%+VAT of my salary being stolen from me every month!
-
followed around by dresses on every site that I visit for the next three weeks.
Any time I actually have ads anabled I seem to get them for hotels I've stayed in (i.e. already am aware of), or industrial farming equipment (
).:fail.tgz:
-
FTRSROTMSS
Dissedcourse actually LET you post that? How'd you pull that off?
Filed under: Raw HTML post cheater
-
DISCOURSE CARES ONLY THAT A SINGLE LOWER CASE LETTER EXISTS IN YOUR POST—IT DOESN'T EVEN NEED TO BE VISIBLE.
-
DISCOURSE CARES ONLY THAT A SINGLE LOWER CASE LETTER EXISTS IN YOUR POST—IT DOESN'T EVEN NEED TO BE VISIBLE.
THAT INCLUDES THE BBCODE FOR THE QUOTES
