And if that plugin gets popular enough, they will request it to be taken down too! Google aren't stupid -- they are perfectly capable of protecting their content if their lawyers want it. For example, it is basically impossible to automate search queries because Google really hates it when you using their search engine but are not exposed to their sponsored results. They have very sophisticated means of determining when it is likey that a user is a bot and will then serve up an annoying captcha. They will do the same thing with youtube. The difference is that, while search engine results are "theirs" and copying them can be seen as plagiarizing, taking the audio of youtube videos cannot because the videos aren't Googles property, they are owned by the youtubers who created them.

According to the law it is probably alright for them to do what the hell they want with the content users uploads, but from a moral standpoint I think what they are doing is highly unethical. Google has gained enormously on everyone who uploads videos, whether it is original stuff, remixes of other material or dvd rips of popular tv shows. I think they should return the kindness and allow as unrestricted usage of the content on youtube as possible.

I'm the same. But the option is listening to music or hearing my coworkers constant chattering. I choose the former option.

Even my stupid cellphone has an audio detection feature. You let it record a few seconds of music and it sends the data to a server that replies with the name of the song, the album and the band. The same methods can easily be applied to other types of content such as video. All thanks to Bayesian networks and other advanced classification algorithms. Only idiots claim it is impossible to filter content. What smarter minds claim, is that it is impossible to correctly filter all content all the time. There will always be false positives and true negatives that the algoritms fail on and a human must intervene.

So... how come she's your ex-wife?

Most of us didn't roll any dice at all, but had a third party buy useless Facebook shares for us. All OECD countries put their retirement funds on the stock market (which is total insanity but what can you do?). Idiots managing those funds then thought it was a gansta good idea to get in early on the fb action. If there was relevant information not relayed to them but to other investors then that is equivalent to insider trading. A textbook example of capitalism forcing everyone to play the same game (on the stock market) but then giving some superior rules.

Now I've also read the article and I can't see where it says the chips are deterministic. if they are, then you are of course right. However, if their edge cases are known on beforehand that is even better as software (or the chip itself) could just delegate the calculation to the main cpu. Or you could have two inexact chips working in parallel as long as their sets of edge cases does not intersect.

Before someone comes up with that stupid remark, not much. :) If the chips are 15 times as efficient as normal ones, it means that you could run for instance four in parallel and rerun each calculation in which one of them differs. That way you would both get both accurate calculations and power savings. Modify the number of chips to run in parallel depending on the accuracy and efficiency needed.

Right, but that is a secondary cause. Additives may enhance your appetite, but it is still the eating of the extra calories that is causing the obesity. SSRI may also increase your appetite, but one wouldn't suggest it as a cause.

Neither preservatives nor flavor enhancers cause obesity. They may be unhealthy to eat for other reasons but when it comes to overweight problems it is calories that count.

That's bullshit. Environmentalists have for ages supported investments in public transportation. Basically for every new rail or subway line ever constructed you have had loads of people supporting it. You are the one who have decided to not hear that and all the thousands of suggestions from environmentalists on how to get rid of our oil dependence. The first step is to ensure every city has a functioning public transportation system with high coverage so that people can travel efficiently without having to drive. The second step is to encourage people to use it by lowering fare prices and increasing the price on driving using tolls on congested roads. Employers should get tax rebates if, say more than 20% of all employee time is worked from home. Make it easier for people to live close to work so they dont have to drive 40 km each way every day.

There are many more ideas out there, practical stuff that can easily reduce carbon emissions. The green movement are absolutely not just a bunch of whiners but are definitely offering suggestions to the problems.

Great explanation! The 8% interest rate should be compared to the yield the capitalist can expect on other types of investments. Currently, there is absolutely nothing you can invest in to receive such a high return with so low risk. The lender, who is using the capital to finance education and also is shouldering the risk, has to be sure that the investment in education pays off with an cumulative income until retirement that is so much higher than what would be attained without education that the loan can be amortized and the student can have a significantly higher standard of living. Otherwise it makes no sense to make the investment.

Are you serious about that 8.5% figure? The annual interest rate is 8.5%? That is about 6 times higher than my student loans and about 3 times higher than my apartment loans. Do you really have to take loans at loan sharks to pay for tuition. With that kind of interest you'd be a fool to choose to study.

Actually it is called "guilt by association" also known as Reductio ad Hitlerum :). People come up with dog Latin phrases all the time.

There is no need to nitpick. The phrase copying error is commonly used to describe the process in which dna changes structure over generations. An error is a mistake.

I see no problem with isp level filtering as long as it is opt-in. I'd image many parents would gladly pay extra to have the isp filter out some of the naughtiness from the internet connection their children uses. If some parents want to minimize the chances their children will be exposed to goatse and other even more deranged porn fetishes that is their right. It could also be much more efficient than client-side filtering at the end point which is only effective if the parent is more technically savvy than their child which is not always the case. However, it should be opt-in, not opt-out. And it doesn't need to be government mandated - the "free market" should be able to solve it by itself. Lots of concerned parents would freely purchase isp filtering if it was available as a product and everyone could be happy.