Okay, call him an "Information Liberator." He doesn't appear to have referred to himself as a hacker, at least not in the short article, so lets assume he never did. Do you still hope he dies imprisoned?
If not, why are you getting so bent out of shape about a trivial use of a trivial word?
It does say he "leaked loads of accurate new info to Kotaku about the then unnamed Xbox One and PS4 earlier this year," which is possibly why the generally-not-born-yesterday kotaku may be taking it somewhat seriously.
Numerous people on slashdot, reddit, and IRL seem to think that the only way anything in American politics is going to get better is if the number of choices increases from two to three or more, and the vast majority of them don't bother looking for evidence in any of the numerous countries with more than two parties.
Sometimes, one must first take actions which are doomed to fail. If you know an enemy is going to attack you, and you make a pre-emptive strike without first saying "Hey man, back off" or "I don't want any trouble," it can really come around to bite you in the ass. Furthermore, perhaps you are wrong. Asking in a petition for his honorable actions to be considered honorable and not criminal is a good first step even if you're positive it won't work.
Whatever action you think will be needed eventually, you probably don't want to jump right to it first. Even if it is "gnash your teeth and give up all hope of anything ever getting better."
Anyone who thinks third party voting is the cure to the problems the US is facing such as erosion of civil liberties, please explain to me why this is happening in Britain. Where they have more than two parties.
Why on earth would ANY third party be better? US history shows that third parties quickly become one of the two main parties or die out. Politicians give the people what they want, and what the people want is a monstrous government to protect them from imaginary boogeymen. Most voters will vote to continue the war on terror.
Thus any third party which is going to win will either support the war on terror and be about the same, or will have to actually convince most people that the war on terror is a bad idea. I don't think that's possible, I don't think the voters are that open minded and I think there are too many powerful interests in keeping the paranoia alive. It's a good racket for the military industrial complex for one thing. For another, any opponent is very easily able to say "They're trying to kill your children!!!"
Actually, failure to vote for third parties is the primary reason they're able to get away with stuff like this.
It's a commonly held theory that the two party system is to blame for something such as erosion of our privacy and rights in America. However, it seems to me that the evidence utterly shreds this notion: countries like the UK have more than two parties, yet they have the same problems.
I've never heard a good explanation as to why a third party in the US would solve problems that we see in countries WITH third or more parties.
I'd suggest it's the voters are stupid and paranoid and get the government they deserve, independent of party structure or number.
I'll point again to the human genome project and the mars rovers as clear examples of how we are winning overall. Look at the dark ages, or the taliban rule in Afghanistan for examples of when "they" win. It could be much better, but the forces of ignorance and greed aren't winning.
You say that, but it's been less than ten years since we finished sequencing the human genome, and we currently have a robot on Mars. Yes, there are forces in the West pushing for overseas corporations and CEOs to have a few million dollars more even if it means shutting down NASA. Yes they've been making some progress in cutting back OUR progress. And yes, I wish we would build killer robots to tear them limb from limb. But they're not winning. And China has those people too.
Can't access the page right now. Here's hoping he tried to contact some proper official, and the official demanded a bribe in order to investigate, so he published it on his blog instead.
Not that that will save him from getting dragged over the legal coals, just that would be extra embarrassing.
Not because of the bad publicity, but if they take it as an indication that most people are upset about it then yeah, they might not want to annoy their user base away and fall below critical mass.
Specifically to this issue? No, it's abundantly clear that most facebookers don't care. But when it comes to trivial things like "where did the 'like' button go why did you move it all the way to the line below oh my god this is horrible" then maybe.
The NIH has an interest in finding a cure for cancer. They have a budget of $20 million to spend. Company A hires lots and lots of top-notch researchers to do the work for their proposal, spends $5 million on them, still turns a profit on their bid after paying all these researchers. Company B hires one research guy as a figurehead, waits 2 years for the exact same research to be done in a unrelated biology research project in academia, pays $100 for the data-mined results, pulls in $9 million profit direct to the shareholder's and executives bottom line. Out of generosity they kick back $1 million on PAC money to the politicians supportive of the clear "health care research efficiency benefits" they've provided and who also conveniently control future funding to the NIH.
Next year, the grant is going down to $5 million, Company A is going out of business, or both.
Two things, one, grants from the NIH are judged by scientists in the field. Currently, the process can distinguish between company A doing actual research and company B rehashing research quite well.
Two, Company B can already get company A's results. They publish the results. Company B could already steal A's results and rehash them. Yet we don't see the problem you suggest.
For further examples, just look most anywhere in the U.S. The value science provides becomes increasingly accumulated by a narrower and narrower subset of the population, leaving a growing expanse of the unemployable whose skills aren't sufficiently differentiable, at least to CEO's, than hiring a new graduate at bottom dollar and plugging them into Google.
You're still making a general statement and insisting it applies to this specific area when it clearly doesn't. Data mining does not make lab work redundant. Neither the NIH nor any CEO worth considering will say "Hey, why pay a million dollars to screen novel drugs that can fight cancer when we could spend five dollars to do a google search for it." Because that's nonsense.
That doesn't make any sense, because you're still refusing to give any examples.
The NIH has an interest in finding a cure for cancer. They give money to researchers to add chemicals to cells and look at them under the microscope. Google repackaging published papers is not going to compete with that.
The idea that the government need not return value from investment, per the perceptions of the public based on their expectations of private industry, is fiction.
Which is why I never suggested anything of the sort. To quote myself "The incentive for the government agency to provide the grants is still there: to advance science."
The government still gets their return on investment, even if google mines the data: the science is done. Whether the results appear only in Elsevier or whether they're included in a larger data set, the government and scientists get value out of the grant process. Only Elsevier and other publishers are hurt, which is why they're the only ones opposed to it.
Let X = grants from the government. Plugging that into your text
Grants will cease to exist when all value accrues to the companies mining and distributing the data by the most efficient means possible, such as Google... If X is a university or government agency providing funding or a grant, the economic process remains the same. Ultimately there is no reason for any value to accrue to any other entity, if the answer for Big Data Corp. is always "wait for somebody to provide content for free, or mine it, and slap an ad on it".
That doesn't make any sense. The government is not looking for a direct return on the grant, particularly not in the form of publication income. The incentive for the government agency to provide the grants is still there: to advance science. If it ends up open access, published by elsevier or others, or packaged into google's data, the research is still being done.
That's my point, as expressed. Frankly your evaluation of its correspondence with this particular case is of marginal interest to me.:p
So you're just interested in spouting general economic principles and ignoring whether or not they apply to the topic of conversation? Because in this case, it doesn't. What you're suggesting is nonsense, but you don't care to hear that it's nonsense? Well then you'll never learn.
You've failed to read the summary and now the reply you were replying to. The researchers are the ones who want data mining, the publishers do not, at least not without being paid more money. Not for adding any value either, just for slightly modifying the copyright. On data that shouldn't be theirs.
Give the researchers a few years with the current trends, when it becomes clearer that if nobody associated with their work is getting paid for it, they won't be either.
The researchers are paid with grants, they're not paid directly through publishing. If I publish a paper in Nature, it gets included in text mining, and people cite it from the text mine, that benefits me EVEN if no one ever actually reads the paper. If zero people pay for access to my article, that doesn't matter to me. If a billion people pay $30 to see my article, that doesn't matter to me. It matters only to the publisher.
And data mining can't replace most researchers doing benchwork. Barring AI, data mining is not going to come up with brilliant theories or insights, and barring robots, data mining is not going to do benchwork.
Publishers have a lot to fear from this, not researchers.
And makes the rest of us feel better about our own lives! I may have problems, but at least I'm not lonely or sad enough to resort to being an ass anonymously online in a pathetic attempt to make myself feel better.
I'm guessing the military industrial complex who is more concerned about this. It's the people who make the drones that want to keep the gravy train of spending tons of taxpayer dollars on expensive toys to fight the war on whatever our paranoia has fixated on. If we said "Wait, these things can KILL people!?!?! SHUT IT DOWN!" the government would immediately find some other campaign donors and some other way to stay in office, then immediately would say "Sure! No problem!"
Slashdot Mirror
THAT'S what you're upset about?
Okay, call him an "Information Liberator." He doesn't appear to have referred to himself as a hacker, at least not in the short article, so lets assume he never did. Do you still hope he dies imprisoned?
If not, why are you getting so bent out of shape about a trivial use of a trivial word?
It does say he "leaked loads of accurate new info to Kotaku about the then unnamed Xbox One and PS4 earlier this year," which is possibly why the generally-not-born-yesterday kotaku may be taking it somewhat seriously.
Just from yesterday:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3843845&cid=43955011
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3842539&cid=43951973
Numerous people on slashdot, reddit, and IRL seem to think that the only way anything in American politics is going to get better is if the number of choices increases from two to three or more, and the vast majority of them don't bother looking for evidence in any of the numerous countries with more than two parties.
Sometimes, one must first take actions which are doomed to fail. If you know an enemy is going to attack you, and you make a pre-emptive strike without first saying "Hey man, back off" or "I don't want any trouble," it can really come around to bite you in the ass. Furthermore, perhaps you are wrong. Asking in a petition for his honorable actions to be considered honorable and not criminal is a good first step even if you're positive it won't work.
Whatever action you think will be needed eventually, you probably don't want to jump right to it first. Even if it is "gnash your teeth and give up all hope of anything ever getting better."
Anyone who thinks third party voting is the cure to the problems the US is facing such as erosion of civil liberties, please explain to me why this is happening in Britain. Where they have more than two parties.
Why on earth would ANY third party be better? US history shows that third parties quickly become one of the two main parties or die out. Politicians give the people what they want, and what the people want is a monstrous government to protect them from imaginary boogeymen. Most voters will vote to continue the war on terror.
Thus any third party which is going to win will either support the war on terror and be about the same, or will have to actually convince most people that the war on terror is a bad idea. I don't think that's possible, I don't think the voters are that open minded and I think there are too many powerful interests in keeping the paranoia alive. It's a good racket for the military industrial complex for one thing. For another, any opponent is very easily able to say "They're trying to kill your children!!!"
Actually, failure to vote for third parties is the primary reason they're able to get away with stuff like this.
It's a commonly held theory that the two party system is to blame for something such as erosion of our privacy and rights in America. However, it seems to me that the evidence utterly shreds this notion: countries like the UK have more than two parties, yet they have the same problems.
I've never heard a good explanation as to why a third party in the US would solve problems that we see in countries WITH third or more parties.
I'd suggest it's the voters are stupid and paranoid and get the government they deserve, independent of party structure or number.
Climate change seems like a bigger problem to me than currency devaluation.
I'll point again to the human genome project and the mars rovers as clear examples of how we are winning overall. Look at the dark ages, or the taliban rule in Afghanistan for examples of when "they" win. It could be much better, but the forces of ignorance and greed aren't winning.
You say that, but it's been less than ten years since we finished sequencing the human genome, and we currently have a robot on Mars. Yes, there are forces in the West pushing for overseas corporations and CEOs to have a few million dollars more even if it means shutting down NASA. Yes they've been making some progress in cutting back OUR progress. And yes, I wish we would build killer robots to tear them limb from limb. But they're not winning. And China has those people too.
Can't access the page right now. Here's hoping he tried to contact some proper official, and the official demanded a bribe in order to investigate, so he published it on his blog instead.
Not that that will save him from getting dragged over the legal coals, just that would be extra embarrassing.
That ditch would have to pay several times what the corpse was worth for that to happen.
Not because of the bad publicity, but if they take it as an indication that most people are upset about it then yeah, they might not want to annoy their user base away and fall below critical mass.
Specifically to this issue? No, it's abundantly clear that most facebookers don't care. But when it comes to trivial things like "where did the 'like' button go why did you move it all the way to the line below oh my god this is horrible" then maybe.
The NIH has an interest in finding a cure for cancer. They have a budget of $20 million to spend. Company A hires lots and lots of top-notch researchers to do the work for their proposal, spends $5 million on them, still turns a profit on their bid after paying all these researchers. Company B hires one research guy as a figurehead, waits 2 years for the exact same research to be done in a unrelated biology research project in academia, pays $100 for the data-mined results, pulls in $9 million profit direct to the shareholder's and executives bottom line. Out of generosity they kick back $1 million on PAC money to the politicians supportive of the clear "health care research efficiency benefits" they've provided and who also conveniently control future funding to the NIH. Next year, the grant is going down to $5 million, Company A is going out of business, or both.
Two things, one, grants from the NIH are judged by scientists in the field. Currently, the process can distinguish between company A doing actual research and company B rehashing research quite well.
Two, Company B can already get company A's results. They publish the results. Company B could already steal A's results and rehash them. Yet we don't see the problem you suggest.
For further examples, just look most anywhere in the U.S. The value science provides becomes increasingly accumulated by a narrower and narrower subset of the population, leaving a growing expanse of the unemployable whose skills aren't sufficiently differentiable, at least to CEO's, than hiring a new graduate at bottom dollar and plugging them into Google.
You're still making a general statement and insisting it applies to this specific area when it clearly doesn't. Data mining does not make lab work redundant. Neither the NIH nor any CEO worth considering will say "Hey, why pay a million dollars to screen novel drugs that can fight cancer when we could spend five dollars to do a google search for it." Because that's nonsense.
Curious how he stated that was his goal only after it had already happened.
Before: "We will destroy the great satan! BRING IT ON! "
After: "Uh... we MEANT for that to happen! Ha ha! We're wasting your tax dollars! Again, that was totally our goal from the start!"
I assure you that the people being spied upon are not the people who were spying on citizens of other countries. So I don't see the hypocrisy.
That doesn't make any sense, because you're still refusing to give any examples.
The NIH has an interest in finding a cure for cancer. They give money to researchers to add chemicals to cells and look at them under the microscope. Google repackaging published papers is not going to compete with that.
The idea that the government need not return value from investment, per the perceptions of the public based on their expectations of private industry, is fiction.
Which is why I never suggested anything of the sort. To quote myself "The incentive for the government agency to provide the grants is still there: to advance science."
The government still gets their return on investment, even if google mines the data: the science is done. Whether the results appear only in Elsevier or whether they're included in a larger data set, the government and scientists get value out of the grant process. Only Elsevier and other publishers are hurt, which is why they're the only ones opposed to it.
Grants will cease to exist when all value accrues to the companies mining and distributing the data by the most efficient means possible, such as Google... If X is a university or government agency providing funding or a grant, the economic process remains the same. Ultimately there is no reason for any value to accrue to any other entity, if the answer for Big Data Corp. is always "wait for somebody to provide content for free, or mine it, and slap an ad on it".
That doesn't make any sense. The government is not looking for a direct return on the grant, particularly not in the form of publication income. The incentive for the government agency to provide the grants is still there: to advance science. If it ends up open access, published by elsevier or others, or packaged into google's data, the research is still being done.
That's my point, as expressed. Frankly your evaluation of its correspondence with this particular case is of marginal interest to me. :p
So you're just interested in spouting general economic principles and ignoring whether or not they apply to the topic of conversation? Because in this case, it doesn't. What you're suggesting is nonsense, but you don't care to hear that it's nonsense? Well then you'll never learn.
It's annoying, but it's rapidly changing. A decade ago, I'm not sure open-access was a thing most researchers had ever heard of. Today, any biomedical research funded by the NIH has to be open access within a year of publication. I agree, it's time to cut the buggy whip makers out, but realize that is in fact happening right now.
Give the researchers a few years with the current trends, when it becomes clearer that if nobody associated with their work is getting paid for it, they won't be either.
The researchers are paid with grants, they're not paid directly through publishing. If I publish a paper in Nature, it gets included in text mining, and people cite it from the text mine, that benefits me EVEN if no one ever actually reads the paper. If zero people pay for access to my article, that doesn't matter to me. If a billion people pay $30 to see my article, that doesn't matter to me. It matters only to the publisher.
And data mining can't replace most researchers doing benchwork. Barring AI, data mining is not going to come up with brilliant theories or insights, and barring robots, data mining is not going to do benchwork.
Publishers have a lot to fear from this, not researchers.
And makes the rest of us feel better about our own lives! I may have problems, but at least I'm not lonely or sad enough to resort to being an ass anonymously online in a pathetic attempt to make myself feel better.
I'm guessing the military industrial complex who is more concerned about this. It's the people who make the drones that want to keep the gravy train of spending tons of taxpayer dollars on expensive toys to fight the war on whatever our paranoia has fixated on. If we said "Wait, these things can KILL people!?!?! SHUT IT DOWN!" the government would immediately find some other campaign donors and some other way to stay in office, then immediately would say "Sure! No problem!"
people don't agree with their opinions on what is the "correct" way to do things?
I imagine he walks over to the bar, has ridiculously overpriced cocktails, then drives drunk and speeds in his corvette home.