The first line of the article "If Joseph Zawodny, a senior scientist at NASAâ(TM)s Langley Research Center, is correct" is misleading. Zawodny hasn't stated that it works or that he thinks it's definitely a real effect.
Let's look at what Zawodny actually has stated before:
Many extraordinary claims have been made in 2010. In my scientific opinion, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I find a distinct absence of the latter. So let me be very clear here. While I personally find sufficient demonstration that LENR effects warrant further investigation, I remain skeptical. Furthermore, I am unaware of any clear and convincing demonstrations of any viable commercial device producing useful amounts of net energy.
That he still holds this opinion is consistent with the quotes in the gizmag article:
I'm interested in understanding whether the phenomenon is real, what it's all about.... All we really need is that one bit of irrefutable, reproducible proof that we have a system that works.
I should clarify: I think the code should be GPL or some other free software license, but I don't see any issue with CC-BY-ND for your paper (where you are just expressing your thoughts).
Where's the CC-BY-ND option? I would have thought most scientists would not want others to alter their work because it is not technical documentation or code, but an expression of their own thoughts.
I'd suggest reading the article as it invalidates your point. The conspiracy theories that where generated where with respect to the authors' previous publication about conspiracy theories. He is in a unique position in that he already knows that the conspiracy theories are false; he can show how the conspiracy theories are false and illogical.
The notion that "conspiratorial thinking" is "wrong" is a dangerous notion as it sets forth the premise that we should all agree with the prevailing facts as they have been presented.
Conspiratorial thinking is wrong not because of a disagreement about the prevailing facts, but as invoking counter-factual thinking and illogical arguments etc. This is what the paper highlights.
Why would you expect them to talk about fraud and corruption? This is a paper about the actual creation of conspiracies in response to an article on the creation of conspiracies. The paper is not aiming to be a a history of fraud and corruption, and there is no relevance to discussing it in the paper.
It appears that you are trying to justify conspiracy theorists using flawed conspiratorial reasoning by saying that corruption and fraud exist. That makes no sense (non sequitur).
What you are doing is conflating now exposed conspiracies, with conspiracy theories. Sure, conspiracies to scam etc exist, but by their very nature they lack evidence and we, the uninformed, don't know about it. When you assert something is a conspiracy and you are not privy to the evidence then, there is no basis from which you can assert that the conspiracy exists; it is mere speculation. Now look at a conspiracy theory website. They aren't saying they are speculating, instead they use bad logic (as you have done) to twist what is known to fit the conspiracy (and ignore anything that disagrees with conspiracy).
And then there are the conspiracies we know to be true, but cannot prove
How can you know them to be true if you can't prove it? Just because many people believe something to be true without evidence, does not make it so.
You haven't said what the conspiracy theory is. All you have done is said two events "Julian Assange... announced he had an upcoming Wikileak regarding the banking system... he's wanted on rape charges for consensual sex but supposedly with an aconsensual lack of a condom."
What you have also done is the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. You are showing two events, one which happened after the other and saying that the preceding event caused the latter one. You provided no reasoning for why this might be the case beyond making conspirational implications. Where is the evidence? I also had thought the standard conspiracy theory was that the US was trying to get him back for cable leaks/afghanistan leaks etc (isn't that what Julian Assange himself believes?). I guess conspiracy theories change with who's popular to hate.
A crime supposedly so serious that apparently world governments are willing to abandon 500 years of international law and invade sovereign embassies.
It is not clear that anything illegal would need to be done. You are taking what Ecuador has stated, and claiming it is fact, despite that the UK disagrees with what Ecuador has stated.
It depends what you want to do. If you have an existing program and you want to extend it or fix a bug but the original developer isn't interested, open specifications are useless compared to the source code.
You said open specifications "allows more business models to operate" (as though you can have open source but closed specifications). Imagine if the Linux kernel was closed source. What more business models can operate exactly in comparison to it being open source?
Google has increased their revenue by distributing and developing android; by increasing advertising revenue. It sounds like you are nitpicking to exclude this as a form of making money from FOSS development.
I mean, I understand he's challenging world governments by doing this again but do we have to watch every little step and misstep of Kim Dotcom? He's starting to rub me the wrong way as a sort of attention whore.
You make it sound like Kim Dotcom wrote the original (seemingly skewed) submission, rather than being the target of it.
I wouldn't expect much switch over. I just don't think there are that many people that would switch, but are waiting for games to be on linux before they do.
People can dual boot both if they want to play games, but they don't. This seems to indicate they probably aren't interested in switching unless it was completely hassle free (there will always be some hassle in using a new operating system) or they lack the ability to install a new operating system no matter how basic the installer is. Many are also just not interested in using Linux because they are happy with what they have.
I think the big thing will be that those who dual boot will now have one less reason to keep the windows partition.
Let me summarize what you stated. You asked a "self proclaimed Linux expert". You then generalized from your little anecdote to all Linux users. That he is a "self proclaimed Linux expert" indicates that you doubt his expertise, or have for some reason called it into question.
Evidently he is someone who does not work with audio. He does not work with audio because, as you said, you believed he googled for the answer without even considering the specifics of what you said (possibly because he doesn't have a clue what you are talking about). There is no connection between being an "OS expert" to knowing about good A/V software, if they don't use it or have a need for it. Being an expert on an operating system does not imply being an expert on knowing what software runs on said operating system.
Please tell me how this would differ from the response of a self proclaimed expert of another operating system who is not familiar with A/V. You are asking someone who has no expertise in your question, and eventually he gave you a cop out answer.
I don't know about A/V production on Linux because I don't do it, but it sounds like your issue is that you asked someone who had no expertise to give you a reply. Try finding someone who does A/V production on Linux (presumably someone does or has tried to, even if it is inferior to whatever other software is out there) and ask them.
That you think hardware compatibility is an issue makes me think you are either trolling or using niche equipment, and I'm not sure what media playback issues you are referring to
I dream of a future where women go out and "earn a living" while men stay home and "raise the kids".
It sounds like you aren't against minimizing discrimination, but just want it to be in the other direction.
If women continue to suck at standardized tests what that says to me is that there aren't enough women writing standardized tests.
What makes you think an inadequate amount of women are writing the tests? What difference do you propose adding more women would make? Do you propose that the status quo is that girls outperform boys?
Trying to subvert a decision by the courts by going against the the spirit of it, but while technically following it somewhat doesn't work. Apple knew what it had to do, but it didn't do it. Instead it tried to weasel its way out and now it has been reprimanded. Do you seriously expect the judges to explicitly list every step that Apple needs to take in a large amount of detail?
Slashdot Mirror
He explains his reasoning here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MShbP3OpASA
Perhaps hear his own explanation before calling him a douche.
The IRA wasn't a "catholic terrorist group". I suggest you read up on your Irish history before proceeding.
The first line of the article "If Joseph Zawodny, a senior scientist at NASAâ(TM)s Langley Research Center, is correct" is misleading. Zawodny hasn't stated that it works or that he thinks it's definitely a real effect.
Let's look at what Zawodny actually has stated before:
http://joe.zawodny.com/index.php/2012/01/14/technology-gateway-video/
That he still holds this opinion is consistent with the quotes in the gizmag article:
This cold fusion device has not been shown to produce any electricity.
Linking to a pseudo-scientific institute which supports homoeopathy and other nonsense is a good way to kill credibility.
deb packages are effectively just archives from which you can extract the files. This is why it's available on ArchLinux.
Just to point out a further problem with this sort of reasoning: standard non-open works are already ND and NC.
I should clarify: I think the code should be GPL or some other free software license, but I don't see any issue with CC-BY-ND for your paper (where you are just expressing your thoughts).
Where's the CC-BY-ND option? I would have thought most scientists would not want others to alter their work because it is not technical documentation or code, but an expression of their own thoughts.
I'd suggest reading the article as it invalidates your point. The conspiracy theories that where generated where with respect to the authors' previous publication about conspiracy theories. He is in a unique position in that he already knows that the conspiracy theories are false; he can show how the conspiracy theories are false and illogical.
Conspiratorial thinking is wrong not because of a disagreement about the prevailing facts, but as invoking counter-factual thinking and illogical arguments etc. This is what the paper highlights.
Why would you expect them to talk about fraud and corruption? This is a paper about the actual creation of conspiracies in response to an article on the creation of conspiracies. The paper is not aiming to be a a history of fraud and corruption, and there is no relevance to discussing it in the paper.
It appears that you are trying to justify conspiracy theorists using flawed conspiratorial reasoning by saying that corruption and fraud exist. That makes no sense (non sequitur).
Why do you assert that?
Yes, you are being conspiratorial.
What you are doing is conflating now exposed conspiracies, with conspiracy theories. Sure, conspiracies to scam etc exist, but by their very nature they lack evidence and we, the uninformed, don't know about it. When you assert something is a conspiracy and you are not privy to the evidence then, there is no basis from which you can assert that the conspiracy exists; it is mere speculation. Now look at a conspiracy theory website. They aren't saying they are speculating, instead they use bad logic (as you have done) to twist what is known to fit the conspiracy (and ignore anything that disagrees with conspiracy).
How can you know them to be true if you can't prove it? Just because many people believe something to be true without evidence, does not make it so.
You haven't said what the conspiracy theory is. All you have done is said two events "Julian Assange ... announced he had an upcoming Wikileak regarding the banking system ... he's wanted on rape charges for consensual sex but supposedly with an aconsensual lack of a condom."
What you have also done is the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. You are showing two events, one which happened after the other and saying that the preceding event caused the latter one. You provided no reasoning for why this might be the case beyond making conspirational implications. Where is the evidence? I also had thought the standard conspiracy theory was that the US was trying to get him back for cable leaks/afghanistan leaks etc (isn't that what Julian Assange himself believes?). I guess conspiracy theories change with who's popular to hate.
It is not clear that anything illegal would need to be done. You are taking what Ecuador has stated, and claiming it is fact, despite that the UK disagrees with what Ecuador has stated.
It wasn't published in Nature from what I can see.
Ireland doesn't have particularly low tax on rich people. We have a low corporate tax, but that isn't the same thing.
It depends what you want to do. If you have an existing program and you want to extend it or fix a bug but the original developer isn't interested, open specifications are useless compared to the source code.
You said open specifications "allows more business models to operate" (as though you can have open source but closed specifications). Imagine if the Linux kernel was closed source. What more business models can operate exactly in comparison to it being open source?
Google has increased their revenue by distributing and developing android; by increasing advertising revenue. It sounds like you are nitpicking to exclude this as a form of making money from FOSS development.
You make it sound like Kim Dotcom wrote the original (seemingly skewed) submission, rather than being the target of it.
According to http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/01/megabad-a-quick-look-at-the-state-of-megas-encryption/ it uses javascript. Which would be client side.
I wouldn't expect much switch over. I just don't think there are that many people that would switch, but are waiting for games to be on linux before they do.
People can dual boot both if they want to play games, but they don't. This seems to indicate they probably aren't interested in switching unless it was completely hassle free (there will always be some hassle in using a new operating system) or they lack the ability to install a new operating system no matter how basic the installer is. Many are also just not interested in using Linux because they are happy with what they have.
I think the big thing will be that those who dual boot will now have one less reason to keep the windows partition.
You have to allow them to execute first.
Let me summarize what you stated. You asked a "self proclaimed Linux expert". You then generalized from your little anecdote to all Linux users. That he is a "self proclaimed Linux expert" indicates that you doubt his expertise, or have for some reason called it into question.
Evidently he is someone who does not work with audio. He does not work with audio because, as you said, you believed he googled for the answer without even considering the specifics of what you said (possibly because he doesn't have a clue what you are talking about). There is no connection between being an "OS expert" to knowing about good A/V software, if they don't use it or have a need for it. Being an expert on an operating system does not imply being an expert on knowing what software runs on said operating system.
Please tell me how this would differ from the response of a self proclaimed expert of another operating system who is not familiar with A/V. You are asking someone who has no expertise in your question, and eventually he gave you a cop out answer.
I don't know about A/V production on Linux because I don't do it, but it sounds like your issue is that you asked someone who had no expertise to give you a reply. Try finding someone who does A/V production on Linux (presumably someone does or has tried to, even if it is inferior to whatever other software is out there) and ask them.
That you think hardware compatibility is an issue makes me think you are either trolling or using niche equipment, and I'm not sure what media playback issues you are referring to
It sounds like you aren't against minimizing discrimination, but just want it to be in the other direction.
What makes you think an inadequate amount of women are writing the tests? What difference do you propose adding more women would make? Do you propose that the status quo is that girls outperform boys?
Trying to subvert a decision by the courts by going against the the spirit of it, but while technically following it somewhat doesn't work. Apple knew what it had to do, but it didn't do it. Instead it tried to weasel its way out and now it has been reprimanded. Do you seriously expect the judges to explicitly list every step that Apple needs to take in a large amount of detail?