Just to make sure there are no misunderstandings: the mediacccde account is official:
> To mitigate this we have decided to open an official media.ccc.de YouTube channel to at least make sure users don’t have to suffer advertisements, incorrect licenses and incomplete metadata. This account can be found on https://www.youtube.com/mediacccde.
Are you referring to the incident involving author Philip Roth's book "The Human Stain"? The problem there appeared to be that Mr Roth took exception to the Wikipedia article which mentioned published reviews of his book where the review authors felt that a character may have been inspired by a real life person. Mr Roth disagreed with this, but he sought to have mention of the reviews themselves removed from the article purely because he disagreed with their conclusions.
There is little question that an author should easily be able to correct a factual inaccuracies in a Wikipedia article which is related to them or their work, however the rights of an author to suppress mentions of reviews of their work purely because they disagree with them, are a different matter entirely.
Content ID is automatic and relies on matching fingerprints of existing video. If you upload something that's known to be copyrighted and where the fingerprint is already (or subsequently becomes) known, content ID is what monetises or blocks the video. You don't get copyright strikes for content ID hits, and such a hit is not a "takedown" - that term refers to cases where a copyright holder notifies youtube that a specific video infringes their rights. THAT is when you get a copyright strike.
You have, of course, the ability to appeal - basically saying "Samsung are full of shit, put my video back and tell them to sue me if they don't like it" and that's exactly what happened here.
I remember trying out Zmodem early on, only to find that it obviously had some kind of bug in that it would reliably and consistently drop the line after a certain amount of data had been transferred.
Not so, of course - but unlike Xmodem and Ymodem which acknowledged every packet (and slowed things down), Zmodem would not constantly ack back to the host unless there was an error... So this triggered the modem's inactivity timeout, since despite the constant stream of data coming down from the remote system, there were no "keystrokes" or other packets travelling in the other direction. Hence, after X minutes... Line drop.
Easily sorted with a few AT commands, eventually. :)
OK, so, the obvious "congratulations" messages aside, what's really in that file?
Example: Take the PNG, convert it to another lossless format. Then convert that lossless format back to PNG.
Different file size, right? OK, the comment accounts for about 120 bytes.. but what about the rest? Why is it that much bigger?
"As I read, numbers I see. 'Twould be a great shame not to count this art among the great texts of our time" - count this art among the great texts... it's a one time pad, isn't it.
I unpacked the chunks and there doesn't look to be much more (or it's subtle).
The IDAT chunk (which makes up most of the file) is DEFLATE-d but uses full color (rather than palettized color, which would have saved lots of space, and might be how you'd get 40% compression). It also doesn't use any row filtering.
I checked incase something was hidden in the DEFLATE encoding itself (e.g. using sub-optimal block encoding selection) but this round-trips exactly, so I don't think it can be.
I got that far too. I don't believe it - there has to be more to it than that. There'll be something else in that file that's better hidden, for sure, and I'm pretty sure it won't be plain ASCII and hex. :)
I'm a bit disappointed there aren't any hidden chunks that take advantage of the PNG format :-(
Uncompressed it's just a binary message of 2 pixel colours, so unless that comment at the end is pointing somewhere else then it's not got much depth...
"It may be no coincidence that in the last two weeks Paramount has struck a deal with Netflix to stream new episodes of the much-awaited 2017 Star Trek reboot globally within 24 hours of network broadcast."
Er, it certainly would be a coincidence, since the EU investigation began some time before the Star Trek reboot was even conceived, and additionally since no such distribution deal between Paramount and Netflix exists, since Star Trek in its TV form is a CBS property.
As part of the push towards a digital single market the EU has looked at geoblocking for a while. It will probably still take a while for geoblocking (in the EU) to end but it's only a question of when and not if. I don't think it's too far fetched to assume that some companies are already accepting that instead of fighting against it.
They are probably actually confusing Paramount Television (which was a name retained by CBS after the CBS/Viacom split through 2009, when the unit was renamed CBS Television Studios) with Paramount Television (the unit of Paramount Pictures, which resurrected the unit name in 2014 or so.)
No, HMRC rents its offices from a commercial company - it just happens that the company is headquartered offshore. HMRC themselves aren't dodging tax, and I'm sure there is no suggestion that the offshore company is doing anything improper either, the article is more about the irony of HMRC seeming to endorse or validate such offshore behaviour when of course a big reason for companies to go offshore is to - legally - avoid tax which would otherwise have to be paid to authorities like HMRC.
Although it's not really up to HMRC, they have to work through Private Finance Initiatives (PFIs), which the Thatcher and Major governments ushered in. Some people have become and will continue to become very wealthy from these deals. You might think that some of those beneficiaries might have been in government when PFI rules were introduced, and remain today - but you can't prove it, as the money trail usually goes cold offshore.
Is there any hint of any evidence of that - it's an enormous accusation. Stupidity and near bankruptcy of the state have always been the assumptions I have worked with on why PFI was so popular. Actual corruption is a real step too far though. Then again maybe the people pf Iceland thought the same
No, that's rather the point of offshoring things, usually through lengthy chains - although you only need three degrees to be immune to pretty much any kind of disclosure. As for corruption, it's again hard to pin down, as even if disclosed they're just private citizens managing legal investments.
No 3G, as you say, but Ofcom's mobile coverage checker shows Kendal bathed in 4G EE coverage, with a good chance of good indoor reception. (And if not, a 4G router with decent outdoor antenna should help enormously.)
