- YouTube recently signed deals with Universal Music Group and Sony Music Group.
- Warner Music Group agreed to a deal back in May.
- The deals with the three big labels pave the way for a new music streaming service.
The rumors of YouTube’s new music streaming service appear to be coming true. Earlier this month we told you about rumblings that the streaming platform would roll out a new subscription streaming service. Now, Bloomberg is reporting that YouTube has secured the necessary deals to make it happen.
According to the report, YouTube has just agreed to deals with Universal Music Group and Sony Music Group. Warner Music Group, the last of the big three music labels, agreed to a deal with YouTube earlier this year.
Universal confirmed that the agreement with YouTube will give artists more flexibility and better pay. In addition to the better royalty rates for rights holders, some songs and videos will only be available through this new paid service, according to a Bloomberg source. That source also indicated that earlier this year, Universal was able to take control of ad-supported channels. It also asked YouTube to improve the technology that scans for user-uploaded videos for copyrighted content.
YouTube is currently one of the most popular platforms on the internet to stream music. Users can currently stream music for free, and the only revenue that rights holders see are from ad-based payouts and what channels see from YouTube Red subscriptions. This is in contrast to subscription-based services like Google Play Music, Spotify, and Apple Music that generate more revenue for music labels. The lack of revenue and approach toward protecting copyrighted material lead to friction between the streaming giant and music labels. But, this deal appears to sort out all of their issues.
Details on the new streaming service are nil right now. We expect that it will launch sometime in 2018, but we don’t have details yet on what it will cost or what it will include. If YouTube expects to turn users into paying customers, it’ll have to provide an incentive for them to pay up. Hopefully, that isn’t by restricting content that is currently free to stream.
What do you think YouTube’s new music streaming service will look like? What features would you want and how much would you be willing to pay?
Is Java Dying? of course not but Python growing in popularity day by day. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses.
According to IT programming trends, Java is more popular than any other programming language in terms of number of jobs, number of existing Java developers, and overall usage statics in IT. According to the latest usage statistics posted on a popular technology survey site, Java is being used by 3.0% websites as a server-side programming language, whereas only 0.2% of websites use Python. However, all the recent reports have highlighted that the usage and popularity of Python is growing drastically compared to Java, where usage is coming down year on year.
At myTectra, we have been monitoring the trend of Python and Java since 2013 based on the number of Jobs posted in Naurki for the Bangalore region since 2013. In the below table, we can see that Java requirements are coming down year over year, whereas Python requirement has grown from 200 in 2014 to 6500+ in 2017.
Following job posting statistics from Indeed shows Python is the only programming language consistently growing, compared to Java.
Difference between Java and Python
There are three main language characteristics that make programmers more productive with Python than with Java.
In Java, all variable names (along with their types) must be explicitly declared. Attempting to assign an object of the wrong type to a variable name triggers a type exception.That’s what it means to say that Java is a statically typed language.
Java container objects (e.g. Vector and ArrayList) hold objects of the generic type Object, but cannot hold primitives such as int. To store an int in a Vector, you must first convert the int to an Integer. When you retrieve an object from a container, it doesn’t remember its type, and must be explicitly cast to the desired type.
In Python, you never declare anything. An assignment statement binds a name to an object, and the object can be of any type. If a name is assigned to an object of one type, it may later be assigned to an object of a different type. That’s what it means to say that Python is a dynamically typed language.
Python container objects (e.g. lists and dictionaries) can hold objects of any type, including numbers and lists. When you retrieve an object from a container, it remembers its type, so no casting is required.
Java is a verbose containing more words than are necessary but Python is concise expressing much in fewer words. Java is not compact but Python is a compact language.
Python is powerful, flexible, open source language that is easy to learn, easy to use, and has powerful libraries for data manipulation and analysis. Its simple syntax is very accessible to programming novices, and will look familiar to anyone with experience in Matlab, C/C++, Java, or Visual Basic. Python has a unique combination of being both a capable general-purpose programming language as well as being easy to use for analytical and quantitative computing.
Python become a language of choice for all the current trending Technologies in IT. If the current trends continues Python will become the most sought after language and overtake the number of jobs requirement in next 2-3 years.
Want to Learn Programming?
Leaving a meeting of top officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on Thursday, a CDC analyst in attendance who spoke anonymously to reporters described being briefed on a Trump administration dictum of “forbidden words” that the public health agency was told not to use in any official capacity in documents.
Both the Washington Post and Chicago Tribune reported on having spoken to the analyst who was briefed on the list of “forbidden words.” According to the Post, the forbidden list included the words “diversity,” “entitlement,” “evidence-based,” “fetus,” “science-based,” “transgender,” and “vulnerable.”
The Post reported that Alison Kelly, a CDC official who led the meeting, didn’t explain why these words were being banned, only that they were. Yet it’s easy to speculate about motive, given how politically loaded these terms are. Indeed, scanning the list, it looks like the administration is attempting to atrophy the CDC’s ability to wield the English language in order to promote a conservative agenda.
To wit: The word “fetus” is a more dehumanizing means of referring to a fertilized egg; banning it aligns with a conservative agenda of humanizing unborn fetuses to sway public opinion against abortion rights access.
And regarding the appearance of “transgender” on the list, the Trump administration has been outright hostile to trans people and on issues of transgender rights. In July, Trump announced that he intended to ban transgender people from joining the military “in any capacity.” “After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow [t]ransgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming [v]ictory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail,” Trump wrote on Twitter at the time.
Many experts pointed out Trump’s purported rationale for the trans ban was specious at best; the RAND corporation, a policy think-tank, studied the issue of transgender persons in the military and found that “allowing transgender personnel to serve openly” had “little or no impact on unit cohesion, operational effectiveness, or readiness.” Likewise, Trump greatly exaggerated the medical cost to the military posed by transgender personnel. As Salon’s Amanda Marcotte wrote at the time:
The excuse that Trump used when he first announced [the transgender military ban] on Twitter, and the excuse he will almost certainly continue to use, is that medical care for trans people, such as hormone therapy or gender confirmation surgery, is too expensive. Not only is this another lie — it was widely reported that the military spends five times as much on Viagra as it expects to spend on gender confirmation treatments — but this excuse is in itself a form of bigotry, a way to demonize transgender people by stigmatizing the health care they need.
The appearance of the word “transgender” on the list of banned CDC words greatly suggests erasure is the administration’s intent. While the CDC is currently involved in research studies involving trans people — including studying HIV transmission diagnoses among transgender persons — an inability to name one’s object of study would undoubtedly make research more difficult.
Equally sinister is the inclusion of the verb phrases “evidence-based” and “science-based.” Just as the Trump administration has sown doubt in public opinion of journalists — by constantly questioning their trustworthiness and whether reported “facts” are true — his cadre has done the same with science and scientists, continuing a tradition passed down from the Bush administration. As the Post reported:
Instead of “science-based” or “evidence-based,” the suggested phrase is “CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes,” the person said. In other cases, no replacement words were immediately offered.
Whereas “science-based” implies a systematized form of reasoning and rationality based on measuring, hypothesizing and experimentation, “community standards and wishes” is a more wishy-washy phrase. Whose community and whose standards? There is a large degree of unmeasurable uncertainty introduced by swapping out these two phrases. You could justify virtually any political decision by chalking it up to “community standards and wishes.”
The Trump administration’s foray into linguistic decrees is not a new phenomenon among the American Right. One recent comparable instance of state-decreed censorship: John Ashcroft, a Christian fundamentalist and the first attorney general under George W. Bush, insisted on covering the breasts of a marble statue of the “Spirit of Justice” that stood in the main Justice building. This act of modesty reportedly cost $8,000 of taxpayer money.
- How to Cope with the Trauma of Trump
- Watch: Thousands of Mental Health Professionals Warn of Trump’s Increasing Instability
- Trump Led American Politics Is Swamped by Epidemic of Unprecedented Lying
There’s something familiar about the way the GOP talks about the poor. If you’ve been paying close attention to Republicans in the House and Senate, they may strike you as being eerily reminiscent of other curmudgeons we normally hear from this time of year—infamous villains like Ebenezer Scrooge from Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol.” Between defenses of their ruthless attempts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act and their ludicrous justifications for passing a bill that slashes taxes for the rich while hiking costs for the poor and middle classes, Republican politicians are sounding more and more like the grumpy, selfish antagonists from our favorite stories of the season.
Don’t believe it? Take this quiz to see if you can tell the difference between real people and fictional characters. Check your answers at the bottom.
When it comes to the poor, Mitch McConnell’s views are virtually the same as Mr. Potter’s from “It’s a Wonderful Life.”
Photo Credit: Liberty Films (Potter, left); Wikimedia Commons (McConnell, right)
1. “I am an old man and most people hate me. But I don’t like them either, so that makes it all even.”
a) Mitch McConnell
b) Orrin Hatch
c) Mr. Potter (It’s a Wonderful Life)
2. “We don’t want to turn the safety net into a hammock that lulls able-bodied people into complacency and dependence.”
a) Paul Ryan
b) Ebenezer Scrooge
c) Mitch McConnell
3. “Are you running a business or a charity ward? Not with my money!”
a) Paul Ryan
b) Mr. Potter
c) Sen. Chuck Grassley
4. “I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies.”
a) Sen. Chuck Grassley
b) The Grinch
c) Mr. Potter
5. “Oh, bleeding hearts of the world, unite!”
a) The Grinch
b) Ebenezer Scrooge
c) Orrin Hatch
6. “Are there no prisons? And the union workhouses, are they still in operation? Those who are badly off must go there.”
a) Mitch McConnell
b) Ebenezer Scrooge
c) The Grinch
7. “I have a rough time wanting to spend billions and billions and trillions of dollars to help people who won’t help themselves, won’t lift a finger, and expect the federal government to do everything.”
a) Mr. Potter
b) Paul Ryan
c) Orrin Hatch
8. “Those people who lead good lives, they’re healthy, they’ve done the things to keep their bodies healthy. And right now, those are the people who have done things the right way that are seeing their costs skyrocketing.”
a) Mr. Potter
b) Mo Brooks, Alabama congressman
c) Ebenezer Scrooge
9. “We have got this tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning to value the culture of work, so there is a real culture problem here that has to be dealt with.”
a) The Grinch
b) Ebenezer Scrooge
c) Paul Ryan
10. “Uh-huh. You see, if you shoot pool with some employee here, you can come and borrow money. What does that get us? A discontented, lazy rabble instead of a thrifty working class.”
a) Chuck Grassley
b) Paul Ryan
c) Mr. Potter
Key: 1:C, 2:A, 3:B, 4:A, 5:A, 6:B, 7:C, 8:B, 9:C, 10:C
Pope Francis has criticised journalists who dredge up old scandals and sensationalise the news, saying it’s a “very serious sin” that hurts all involved.
Francis, who plans to dedicate his upcoming annual communications message to “fake news”, told Catholic media on Saturday that journalists perform a mission that is among the most “fundamental” to democratic societies.
But he reminded them to provide precise, complete and correct information and not to provide one-sided reports.
The pope said: “You shouldn’t fall into the ‘sins of communication:’ disinformation, or giving just one side, calumny that is sensationalised, or defamation, looking for things that are old news and have been dealt with and bringing them to light today.”
He called those actions a “grave sin that hurts the heart of the journalist and hurts others”.
- Blame the Media? The NY Times Coverage of Clinton v. Trump Was Lacking
- Watch: Former Navy Officers Tell NY Times They Had a UFO Encounter in 2004
- Ex-CIA Director Warns ‘Inaccurate, Unprofessional’ Fox News Against Its ‘Conspiratorial Hit Job’ on Robert Mueller and the FBI
Republican leaders in Congress make no secret of prioritizing tax cuts for their wealthy donors and corporate allies over the needs of people who work for a living. Donald Trump presented himself as a different kind of Republican—a populist who would look out for ordinary Americans. But, with the president’s full-throated support, Republicans are poised to pass a reverse Robin Hood tax plan that lavishes benefits on corporations and the very wealthy at the expense of Americans just trying to get by.
Americans get it, even though the GOP has tried to keep them in the dark. Republicans in Congress have rushed to ram(link is external)through the most sweeping tax overhaul in three decades without a single hearing, before the final bill has been scored or even seen except by a select few, and without one Democratic vote in favor. Why the hurry? Why not wait(link is external)—as President Obama did after Republican Scott Brown was elected to take Edward Kennedy’s Senate seat—until Sen.-elect Doug Jones can be seated?
That would respect the will of voters, and it would allow for transparency so the details of this far-reaching tax cut legislation for the wealthy can be examined. But GOP leaders are digging in: They know that time, sunlight and their dwindling Senate majority all work against them, so they’re operating as swiftly and secretly as they can. Even so, only 26 percent(link is external) of voters approve of their plan.
A key reason is that for all the talk of this being a “middle-class tax plan,” this is a tax increase plan for millions of middle-income Americans. Even with the deductions that Republicans have been shamed into restoring, such as those for high medical expenses, taxes could go up(link is external) for 87 million middle-class families, including 67 million making less than $100,000 annually. It will strip 13 million Americans(link is external) of their health insurance and raise premiums on the individual market(link is external) by an average of $2,000 per year. That doesn’t even count the automatic Medicare cuts(link is external) of $25 billion next year this corporate tax cut bill triggers, as well as hundreds of billions of dollars in automatic cuts(link is external) to other social services over the next decade.
It’s estimated that more than 60 percent of the tax cuts will go to the wealthiest 1 percent(link is external) of Americans. The plan lowers the top tax rate for upper-income households and slashes the corporate tax rate. While union members will no longer be able to deduct their dues, people who own private jets(link is external) will get a break. This is an obscene transfer of wealth upward at a time of record corporate profits and income inequality, while sticking it to wage earners, whose incomes have been stagnant for decades.
Perhaps worst of all, the GOP plan pays for corporate tax cuts by eviscerating the deduction for state and local taxes(link is external), which pay for public education, public colleges, public safety and infrastructure. Millions of people will pay more taxes and, as a result, that will make it harder for states and communities to raise money for these public investments. Squeezing funding for public schools and services is especially cruel at a time when at least 29 states are spending less(link is external) on public education than before the Great Recession.
Raising taxes on ordinary Americans still won’t cover all the breaks for corporations and the wealthy, so the GOP is mortgaging America’s future—by jacking up the federal deficit(link is external) by at least $1 trillion. This will limit our ability to invest in the infrastructure, health, education and retirement programs the country needs, and will saddle ordinary Americans with the tab for generations to come.
Republican lawmakers’ erstwhile aversion to deficits may be gone for now, but not for long. House Speaker Paul Ryan already has said, “We’re going to have to get back next year at entitlement reform, which is how you tackle the debt and the deficit.” Translation: Blow up the deficit though tax cuts, then use the debt as an excuse to slash education, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, housing and hunger programs—shredding the social safety net(link is external).
The AFT and our members have worked around the clock to mitigate some of the most harmful elements in earlier versions of this legislation. But given the rushed, dark-of-night process the GOP has used, we are still discovering new ways the bill will harm working families, such as parents of college students likely seeing a larger tax increase under the bill than taxpayers in general. Sadly, most but not all Republican lawmakers have sided with donors(link is external) and turned their backs on their constituents. They have made the calculation that between tweetstorms, the holidays and the 24-hour news cycle, Americans won’t notice or won’t object to this reprehensible rewarding of the rich at the expense of everyone else. But GOP lawmakers’ hypocrisy and contempt(link is external) for people who work hard for a living will not go unnoticed—now or in November.
One major difficulty I have with World of Warcraft is that the buttons I have for each character have changed so often over the life of this game. Which means that even on my main character which I have played literally for thousands of hours I can’t remember the optimum sequence of button presses after a year and a half of not playing the game. That doesn’t appear to matter for quests, I can do those with just randomly mashing buttons, but it is a serious barrier to re-entry if I wanted to play again.
The next thing that hit me was getting billions of artifact points thrown at me for doing not much. It basically made all the effort I had previously put into artifact weapons seem pointless. On the other hand, I had stopped playing with only part 1 of the achievement necessary for flying done, and it turns out that part 2 still needs weeks of grinding to get to. No thanks!
In summary, World of Warcraft has changed the details frequently (which makes it hard to remember how to play well), while not changing the basic structure of the game enough (which makes it hard to find a renewed interest in playing). I still don’t think I will buy the next expansion, Battle for Azeroth.
One of the main reason why most of us love Gmail is because of its generous offering in terms of storage space.Google accounts now use a shared pool of storage. Every account gets 15 GB of free space, which is shared across your Gmail, Google Drive, and Google+ Photos.There’s really no need to delete your emails and still maintaining a far distance from blowing it up.
Not deleting emails leads us to next potential problem – messy and unsorted inbox. Gmail’s a Google product, so of course it has powerful search features. But some of Gmail’s search features are hidden and don’t appear in the Search Options pane.
The simple “Search Mail” function right beside Gmail logo actually does more than we imagined. In this post, we’ll introduce you the useful Gmail search operators as well as examples on how you can search for almost any type of mails easily via the search text field.
Here’s a list of Gmail operators you can take advantage of when you search via the search box in your Gmail. Examples of usage is also provided.
Example: “Amazon.in order”(Return only emails with the exact quoted keyword(s).)
Example: subject:Practice Coding(Return emails with keyword(s) in titles.)
Example: from:Pinterest(Return emails received from a specific user, but not the email address.)
Example: from:[email protected](Return emails received from a specific email address.)
Example: to:Rocky Jagtiani(Return emails sent to a specific user, but not the email address.)
Example: to:[email protected](Return emails sent to a specific email address.)
Example: in:trash(Return emails stored in a specific location. If you are looking for emails that you have no clue where it is, use in:anywhere.)
Example: is:unread(Return emails with a specific status. E.g, Starred, unread, read emails or even Gtalk chat logs.)
cc: & bcc:
Format: cc: or cc:
Example: cc:Rocky Jagtiani or cc:[email protected](Return emails carbon copied to a user or specific email address.)
Format: bcc: or cc:
Example: bcc:Rocky Jagtiani or cc:[email protected](Return emails blind carbon copied to a user or specific email address.)
Before: & after:
Example: before:2016/01/01(Return emails before a specific date.)
Format: after: before:
Example: after:2015/01/01 before:2016/02/01(Return emails after in range of or after specific date.)
Example: “meeting agenda”(Return only emails with the exact quoted keyword(s).)
Example: label:Comments(Return emails with a specific label.)
Example: filename:presentation.pdf(Return emails with the exact filename attached.)
Example: filename:pdf(Return emails that have the same file type attached.)
Example:has:attachment(A more general search for emails with attachments. Return emails with attachments, regardless of file type and format.)
Here are some operators that allows you to yeild more specific and accurate results.
Format: operator : value -operator:value
Example: has:attachment -filename:zip(Return emails with attachments, filtering away those with .zip attachments.)
Format: operator:value OR operator:value
Example: from:[email protected] OR from:[email protected](Return emails received from either user(s).)
Format: operator:value AND operator:value
Example: from:[email protected] AND has:attachment(Return only emails received from a specific email that has an attachment.)
Saving a Filter
Create a filter to automatically perform actions when a message matches a specific search.
To create a filter, click the down arrow again, then click the “Create filter with this search” option.
You can manage your filters from the Filters pane on Gmail’s settings page.
Want To Learn Digital Marketing?
“Tick tock, tick tock,” wrote conservative commentator and Bill O’Reilly sexual harassment accuser Juliet Huddy on Saturday. “Executives who not only covered up for sexual harassers/predators (statements by 21st Century Fox co-chairman Rupert Murdoch, who said on Friday that the sexual harassment and abuse scandal at his network is merely “nonsense,” and that it’s a “political” attack on the network “because we’re conservative.”
LawAndCrime.com said that in a post that she deleted from Facebook, but then posted on Twitter, Huddy wrote, “Rupert Murdoch is not just a media mogul. He’s a perpetrator, complicit in wrecking careers of hardworking, talented people while protecting their tormentors.”
She continued, “The more we shame disgraceful executives like Murdoch, the faster we send the message that sexual harassment will not be tolerated.”
In a statement to Law and Crime, Huddy said, “It’s ironic that O’Reilly, Murdoch and others have suggested that I, along with the other accusers, are part of some left wing conspiracy. [One], I’m fiscally conservative and socially liberal so let’s just get that out of the way. [And two], based on everything I have seen and has been reported, the participants in this, The Grand Conspiracy, are the executives at Fox.”
She said that Murdoch himself is not accused of harassing women, but that he was instrumental in covering up and burying stories about O’Reilly, former Fox News CEO Roger Ailes and others.
Huddy is one of multiple women to whom Fox News has paid out tens of millions of dollars in settlements related to O’Reilly alone. A parade of other women have come forward with accusations of harassment, sexualized bullying and a “locker room” culture at the network.
- Is This a ‘Sex Panic’ or a National Moment of Reckoning? Can’t It Be Both?
- Why Some of Us Hesitated to Say #MeToo
- How One American Journalist Took Down Militiamen Who Raped 50 Young Girls