Do you think Osama would have just given up and accepted being arrested? Of course not. So he got killed while we were trying to capture him.
You seem to have special relation with the guys that made it happen. Perchance, do you know who called the local cops (or whatever civilian organisation that enforce the law in that place), cops that intervened observing a total respect with the jurisdiction and the laws of the place during intervention? Ahhh... were they military and acting outside the civilian code of laws? Well, is this still justice?
How would you like your kids living in a society where "justice" may mean the military are allowed to administer it?
or the us economy will continue to sink into the abyss of insolvency through costly wars and unpaid loans.
Can the US *afford* another war?
Do you really think the Homeland Security and TSA really cares? I'm quite afraid they already overgrew the stage of a simple parasitic infection, it's more like an endemic stage now.
I think this is justice. We went to go get him, and a firefight broke out. He died.
Somehow I doubt the normal course of justice was observer in the process (police force, with proper arrest warrant, respecting the jurisdiction, etc).
What, should we have dicked around with UN proceedings for months, if not years, to determine that after all that, it wasn't even him that was responsible? Or that his capture was all under false pretenses?
Now, look... I fully understand argumentations along the line of "an act in the war theater, act that happened during the War against Terror". The real danger, however, is to call justice what essentially is an act of war. This is a slippery slope... GITMO/Abu Ghraib showed where stepping down on this path actually leads.
In regards with "UN proceedings... months if not years...". Buddy, you know, US isn't the only country to ever have had problems with terrorism: ETA in Spain killed more than 2000, IRA in UK killed more than 3000 people - this even letting aside the Lockerbie bombing (to speak about transnational terrorism). By comparison 9/11 claimed about 1600. However, neither of these countries didn't amend - i.e. get around their justice system, see the PATRIOT act and related - in order to deal with terrorism.
Please, don't think I'm decrying the killing of ObL.... it is only that I refuse to think of this act as justice. And, for the sake of the world you and your children will have to live: call it "eliminating a threat", call it "war on terror", call it vengeance, call it in any way you like but do... not... call... it... justice.
TFA cites 4 examples, none of which reached the level of self-sufficiency. So, while a step in the good direction, the data centers haven't yet reached "to generate the levels of energy required by these facilities" (as TFS suggest).
Anyway, one can only hope the trend will continue, even if only for two very selfish reasons:
a. the more mainstream the PV are, the lower the price on all the market (10 years to ROI for a decent PV home installation is still too expensive to my taste).
b. the more pressure on energy consumption to run a data center, the higher chances computer (part) manufacturers to research techs with lower energy requirements.
I reckon both of them would be good (medium/long term) for my pocket as well.
The difference is that drugs are big business. Wherever there's a fortune to be made, there will always be plenty of willing participants. But when you're looking at living in fear of drone strikes, with your leaders dying ever few months, recruiting gets harder.
As having someone to chase for decades proves to be good business for the military and homeland security, I'm pretty sure they'll think of something... maybe not exactly AQ or OBL-successor.
I can nothing but hope the near future will prove me wrong... but until I see it, thinking otherwise would be foolish.
And all it cost were our civil liberties, national character, and trillions of dollars...
TFA quote:
"I met repeatedly with my National Security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located Bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside Pakistan," the president said.
"Finally, last week I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action and authorized an operation to get Osama Bin Laden and bring him to justice," he said.
Nice wording indeed... (I don't decry the assassination of bin Laden by a military/commando squad, just a bit worried this is called "bringing someone to justice")
I know this is beating a dead horse... but the core problem here isn't Sony's epic failure... it's that the credit system is so broken that this information that was stolen is enough to seriously fuck with someones life.
;) Which life you a speaking about? Because I haven't heard yet of any seppuku in the Sony's executive staff, only about a first public apology...
(grin)
The capability to defend against being screwed doesn't necessary require to learn how to screw the others.
I can't imagine why you think that is possible.
Because critical thinking is just enough.
This knowledge is a weapon that can readily be turned against others, just as it can be used to defend oneself.
So is knowledge on explosives or assassination... sure you don't expect me to learn them as well.
Just because something can be used, it doesn't mean is should be used. Thus, it doesn't mean is should be learned either. Do you see my reason for which I prefer to subordinate "what and how" to "why"? In this instance, why should I learn the way of the greedy and immoral, if critical thinking is enough (and helps me in other things as well)?
Heh... I think you are confusing "learning" (developing the capacity to think) with "taming/training" (building a set of predefined behaviors/reflexes).
I did so deliberately. It doesn't matter what sort of learning you have in mind. Be it "training" or your definition of "learning". I think of it purely from game theory point of view. If the winning strategy is to defect and harm other players, then that's the strategy you will see prevail. Change the game not the players.
Huh! I can also refuse to play the game at all, can't I? Sure I can, I've done it already.
Fear of the police abusing their power is a terrible reason to avoid doing a perfectly legal action.
Aren't there any laws in regards with the responsibility of the owner on the way his property is used? (no, not implying anything here. Just genuinely asking). There are at least some cases, I think:
a. a pet dog biting a child. Isn't the owner liable at all?
b. fire guns; don't they need to be stored under key?
Isn't the activity of providing Internet access subject to any regulation? If so, what stops anyone declaring her/himself an ISP?
"Education" - as a way to create the ability to judge the consequences of greedy action - seems more reasonable:
And what happens when that educated person realizes that "Hey, I can make vast amounts of money at the expense of people I don't care about!" Maybe they'll choose not to do it. But it's foolish to think that a bunch of rational, educated people are going to leave that lying around. Morality or ethics is not attached to education.
I must conclude that we attach different meanings to the word "education".
To answer to your question: depending the circumstances, an educated person may sometimes do it. But he/she will do it in a far more limited times than the current (almost generalized) psychopathic elite.(You know? Something on the line of: "you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time"... pertains to common-sense, don't you think?)
except it won't be easy to learn this in a society in which being "full of her/himself" is a social norm for "signs of the potential to be successful". Also, slim chances to happen in a society oriented mainly on "what and how" than on "why".
Mind you, in the above context, "education != school"... I do believe that common-sense can be learnt even outside of the school.
Education != doing the right thing. There are a lot of people who understand the consequences of their actions and screw over other people anyway. I think it vastly unwise to try to "educate" a person who is unable mentally to screw over someone else. They'll just be ripe fruit for the con men of the world. The capability to screw someone over comes with the ability to defend against that behavior.
The capability to defend against being screwed doesn't necessary require to learn how to screw the others. I found that a modest capability of critical thinking is just enough for the former. That is to say: I can't agree with you in your assertion that "teaching greed is necessary, too bad is not wise to do it".
Second, in reality, "what" and "how" are hard questions with valuable answers. They say something about what reality itself is and how things work. "Why" is just an opportunity to rationalize. The con men and oppressive governments of the world have never had problems answering "why."
We can agree to disagree, then. Far from me to deny the value of "what" and "how", but for me "why" is a matter not for a post-factum rationalization of the act, but a preliminary step in choosing the appropriate "what and how" - "why" becomes clearly important when picking certain "what"-s and "how"-s, based on the chances to reach the target vs the risk/costs to achieve it (it is very rarely a problem has a single solution)
Finally, I think the idea of connecting morality and ethics to education has lead to some bizarrely hypocritical and rather obnoxious university cultures. People that advocate equality of men by discriminating against and advocating non-equal treatment of particular beliefs and ethnic groups.
Cultures that decry corporate greed and theft from the under trodden while themselves being remarkably sticky fingered with property of others such as laptops, bicycles, electronics, CDs in cars, etc. Schools that fight sexual discrimination and oppose the oppression of women while suppressing data about rapes among their students. People, who have never held a real job in their lives, claim to know what the common worker wants better than the workers themselves.
As above, we might actually be in agreement if not picking different meaning for the rather loose term of "education". If you pick the restricted meaning of "formal education", then you are right. If adopting a more generalized meaning of "building the mental/rational capacity to evaluate consequences of actions
The second is to provide incentives to greedy people so that they do stuff that benefits societies (such as becoming a wealthy doctor) rather than stuff that harms societies (such as a lucrative black market human organ theft racket). It's far more effective for a behavior to be legal and beneficial than illegal and harmful. Greed is one of those behaviors that can be made legal and beneficial.
Except the wording in to provide, I agree with the above as a (at least, theoretical) solution.
Now, in regards with providing: if you see the situation as in "the incentives descending from the Holy Sky" (or worse, imposed by a government), somehow I don't think is going to work.
"Education" - as a way to create the ability to judge the consequences of greedy action - seems more reasonable: except it won't be easy to learn this in a society in which being "full of her/himself" is a social norm for "signs of the potential to be successful". Also, slim chances to happen in a society oriented mainly on "what and how" than on "why". Mind you, in the above context, "education != school"... I do believe that common-sense can be learnt even outside of the school.
China screw your whole company - affected every employees. However, that's ok because a few of them will be able to retire. There is no more reason to complain about this than against the Banker destroying the economy or corps buying laws - the price was right for them.
After some 20 years of US teaching the rest of the world that profit is the only measure of success (screw the ethics and consequences), is it a wonder China learns the lesson and overshadows the teacher?
(and just in case you wonder, I would go 2-3 years in China train them if that bought me and my family financial security for the rest of my life, life taught me that food on the table is a better sleeping aid than good conscience)
I wonder how long for US (and other diligent students) to unlearn it? For instance, how long 'til the open-source software lessons (share and take advantage of what others share in return) will be understood?
Probably from their currency manipulation schemes that lower the value of their currency (and, in turn, lower the cost to buy their goods). That scheme subsidizes Americans more than any debt ownership. Still, we're mutually dependent, I'm not worried about them.
While China does something to work itself out from the "mutual dependency" with US, what is US doing (or even able to do)?
The joke is that there are no competent Chinese engineers to fix it. They'll have to hire German, Japanese, or French engineers from the firms that produced the plans they stole to build these lines in the first place and then pay them to fix the mistakes the incompetent Chinese "engineers" made "adapting" them.
I'm not sure the joke is what you are thinking. Its not that the new guys have to turn to the old guys for help, its that the old guys are willing to train their competitors/replacements.
If the price is right, why not? I mean, assume a group of 3-5 persons hired 10 times the rate the original employer would pay them... I think it will still be cheaper for the Chinese to do it and the "consultants" can retire after 2-3 years of teaching/working for the Chinese.
So... on one side FBI don't have the skills to investigate intrusion, on the other side we should trust them enough to allow remote uninstalling the CoreBoot trojan, eh?
This is gross hyperbole. 77million accounts were compromised but that many people didn't have credit card information on there. A generous estimate would be 10% of accounts had CC information saved. Delusions of Grandeur
Attempts to estimate the impact:
Assuming a USD1000 in CC fraud for each CC: 10% x 77 mils x USD1000 = USD7700 - to be supported by either the owners of CC or CC companies;
Assuming a 10 mins per "support call" to change the card: 10% x 77 mils x 10 mins > 160.000 men*days.
Not if it leaves the machine in an unclean or unusable state. If you thought anti-American attitudes are bad now, imagine the FBI disabling a couple hundred thousand key machines abroad-- just to get rid of a virus.
Disabling is the normal course of action taken on an infected machine.
In fact, the only method certain to work.
SOP when discovering a backdoored machine spewing spam, participating in a DDoS, running a backdoor, or botnet node,
should be: to if possible, use the malware's infiltrated command and control or the published backdoor
to render the backdoor or the system useless to further the attack as quickly as possible.
Easy... easy... You know, I wonder how the situation would be seen if China would start to disable US computers only because they are used for serving content that don't fit their policies. I mean, for them that content might be as "aggressive" and "dangerous" as a botnet.
Bingo. I would love to publish all of my papers in open journals, but can't afford the "loss of prestige".
Easily gained back: just refuse the Fields Medal after you publish a meaningful article on arxiv.org. What makes the "prestige" of a journal? Why an "open journal" would not be able to achieve the "prestigious" status? Who's to blame for the fact that anything "open" in science is associated with the lost of prestige... even if there are "prestigious open source projects"?
If the academia doesn't like to contribute by at least a honest "open-source-like" peer-reviewing the work of others, why should I give away the protection of the copyright laws for my GPLv3 open-source code?
Slashdot Mirror
Do you think Osama would have just given up and accepted being arrested? Of course not. So he got killed while we were trying to capture him.
You seem to have special relation with the guys that made it happen. Perchance, do you know who called the local cops (or whatever civilian organisation that enforce the law in that place), cops that intervened observing a total respect with the jurisdiction and the laws of the place during intervention? Ahhh... were they military and acting outside the civilian code of laws? Well, is this still justice?
How would you like your kids living in a society where "justice" may mean the military are allowed to administer it?
or the us economy will continue to sink into the abyss of insolvency through costly wars and unpaid loans. Can the US *afford* another war?
Do you really think the Homeland Security and TSA really cares?
I'm quite afraid they already overgrew the stage of a simple parasitic infection, it's more like an endemic stage now.
I think this is justice. We went to go get him, and a firefight broke out. He died.
Somehow I doubt the normal course of justice was observer in the process (police force, with proper arrest warrant, respecting the jurisdiction, etc).
What, should we have dicked around with UN proceedings for months, if not years, to determine that after all that, it wasn't even him that was responsible? Or that his capture was all under false pretenses?
Now, look... I fully understand argumentations along the line of "an act in the war theater, act that happened during the War against Terror".
The real danger, however, is to call justice what essentially is an act of war. This is a slippery slope... GITMO/Abu Ghraib showed where stepping down on this path actually leads.
In regards with "UN proceedings... months if not years...".
Buddy, you know, US isn't the only country to ever have had problems with terrorism: ETA in Spain killed more than 2000, IRA in UK killed more than 3000 people - this even letting aside the Lockerbie bombing (to speak about transnational terrorism). By comparison 9/11 claimed about 1600.
However, neither of these countries didn't amend - i.e. get around their justice system, see the PATRIOT act and related - in order to deal with terrorism.
Please, don't think I'm decrying the killing of ObL.... it is only that I refuse to think of this act as justice.
And, for the sake of the world you and your children will have to live: call it "eliminating a threat", call it "war on terror", call it vengeance, call it in any way you like but do... not... call... it... justice.
Anyway, one can only hope the trend will continue, even if only for two very selfish reasons:
a. the more mainstream the PV are, the lower the price on all the market (10 years to ROI for a decent PV home installation is still too expensive to my taste).
b. the more pressure on energy consumption to run a data center, the higher chances computer (part) manufacturers to research techs with lower energy requirements.
I reckon both of them would be good (medium/long term) for my pocket as well.
Due process? I say we process his rotten corpse by sewing it up into the carcass of a pig. Fucker.
Fine with me.
Just please don't use the "bring him to justice" wording, it's hypocritical.
The difference is that drugs are big business. Wherever there's a fortune to be made, there will always be plenty of willing participants. But when you're looking at living in fear of drone strikes, with your leaders dying ever few months, recruiting gets harder.
As having someone to chase for decades proves to be good business for the military and homeland security, I'm pretty sure they'll think of something... maybe not exactly AQ or OBL-successor.
I can nothing but hope the near future will prove me wrong... but until I see it, thinking otherwise would be foolish.
And all it cost were our civil liberties, national character, and trillions of dollars...
TFA quote:
"I met repeatedly with my National Security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located Bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside Pakistan," the president said.
"Finally, last week I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action and authorized an operation to get Osama Bin Laden and bring him to justice," he said.
Nice wording indeed... (I don't decry the assassination of bin Laden by a military/commando squad, just a bit worried this is called "bringing someone to justice")
I know this is beating a dead horse... but the core problem here isn't Sony's epic failure... it's that the credit system is so broken that this information that was stolen is enough to seriously fuck with someones life.
;) Which life you a speaking about? Because I haven't heard yet of any seppuku in the Sony's executive staff, only about a first public apology...
(grin)
In contrast to fraud, Ruben argues, such hoaxes do a great service to science by illustrating 'failures of our most important tool: our skepticism.'"
But... was this peer-reviewed?
The capability to defend against being screwed doesn't necessary require to learn how to screw the others.
I can't imagine why you think that is possible.
Because critical thinking is just enough.
This knowledge is a weapon that can readily be turned against others, just as it can be used to defend oneself.
So is knowledge on explosives or assassination... sure you don't expect me to learn them as well.
Just because something can be used, it doesn't mean is should be used. Thus, it doesn't mean is should be learned either.
Do you see my reason for which I prefer to subordinate "what and how" to "why"? In this instance, why should I learn the way of the greedy and immoral, if critical thinking is enough (and helps me in other things as well)?
Heh... I think you are confusing "learning" (developing the capacity to think) with "taming/training" (building a set of predefined behaviors/reflexes).
I did so deliberately. It doesn't matter what sort of learning you have in mind. Be it "training" or your definition of "learning". I think of it purely from game theory point of view. If the winning strategy is to defect and harm other players, then that's the strategy you will see prevail. Change the game not the players.
Huh! I can also refuse to play the game at all, can't I? Sure I can, I've done it already.
Fear of the police abusing their power is a terrible reason to avoid doing a perfectly legal action.
Aren't there any laws in regards with the responsibility of the owner on the way his property is used? (no, not implying anything here. Just genuinely asking). There are at least some cases, I think:
a. a pet dog biting a child. Isn't the owner liable at all?
b. fire guns; don't they need to be stored under key?
Isn't the activity of providing Internet access subject to any regulation? If so, what stops anyone declaring her/himself an ISP?
"Education" - as a way to create the ability to judge the consequences of greedy action - seems more reasonable:
And what happens when that educated person realizes that "Hey, I can make vast amounts of money at the expense of people I don't care about!" Maybe they'll choose not to do it. But it's foolish to think that a bunch of rational, educated people are going to leave that lying around. Morality or ethics is not attached to education.
I must conclude that we attach different meanings to the word "education".
To answer to your question: depending the circumstances, an educated person may sometimes do it. But he/she will do it in a far more limited times than the current (almost generalized) psychopathic elite.(You know? Something on the line of: "you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time"... pertains to common-sense, don't you think?)
except it won't be easy to learn this in a society in which being "full of her/himself" is a social norm for "signs of the potential to be successful". Also, slim chances to happen in a society oriented mainly on "what and how" than on "why". Mind you, in the above context, "education != school"... I do believe that common-sense can be learnt even outside of the school.
Education != doing the right thing. There are a lot of people who understand the consequences of their actions and screw over other people anyway. I think it vastly unwise to try to "educate" a person who is unable mentally to screw over someone else. They'll just be ripe fruit for the con men of the world. The capability to screw someone over comes with the ability to defend against that behavior.
The capability to defend against being screwed doesn't necessary require to learn how to screw the others. I found that a modest capability of critical thinking is just enough for the former.
That is to say: I can't agree with you in your assertion that "teaching greed is necessary, too bad is not wise to do it".
Second, in reality, "what" and "how" are hard questions with valuable answers. They say something about what reality itself is and how things work. "Why" is just an opportunity to rationalize. The con men and oppressive governments of the world have never had problems answering "why."
We can agree to disagree, then. Far from me to deny the value of "what" and "how", but for me "why" is a matter not for a post-factum rationalization of the act, but a preliminary step in choosing the appropriate "what and how" - "why" becomes clearly important when picking certain "what"-s and "how"-s, based on the chances to reach the target vs the risk/costs to achieve it (it is very rarely a problem has a single solution)
Finally, I think the idea of connecting morality and ethics to education has lead to some bizarrely hypocritical and rather obnoxious university cultures. People that advocate equality of men by discriminating against and advocating non-equal treatment of particular beliefs and ethnic groups. Cultures that decry corporate greed and theft from the under trodden while themselves being remarkably sticky fingered with property of others such as laptops, bicycles, electronics, CDs in cars, etc. Schools that fight sexual discrimination and oppose the oppression of women while suppressing data about rapes among their students. People, who have never held a real job in their lives, claim to know what the common worker wants better than the workers themselves.
As above, we might actually be in agreement if not picking different meaning for the rather loose term of "education". If you pick the restricted meaning of "formal education", then you are right. If adopting a more generalized meaning of "building the mental/rational capacity to evaluate consequences of actions
The second is to provide incentives to greedy people so that they do stuff that benefits societies (such as becoming a wealthy doctor) rather than stuff that harms societies (such as a lucrative black market human organ theft racket). It's far more effective for a behavior to be legal and beneficial than illegal and harmful. Greed is one of those behaviors that can be made legal and beneficial.
Except the wording in to provide, I agree with the above as a (at least, theoretical) solution.
Now, in regards with providing: if you see the situation as in "the incentives descending from the Holy Sky" (or worse, imposed by a government), somehow I don't think is going to work.
"Education" - as a way to create the ability to judge the consequences of greedy action - seems more reasonable: except it won't be easy to learn this in a society in which being "full of her/himself" is a social norm for "signs of the potential to be successful". Also, slim chances to happen in a society oriented mainly on "what and how" than on "why".
Mind you, in the above context, "education != school"... I do believe that common-sense can be learnt even outside of the school.
I guess you perfectly illustrated the GP point.
China screw your whole company - affected every employees. However, that's ok because a few of them will be able to retire. There is no more reason to complain about this than against the Banker destroying the economy or corps buying laws - the price was right for them.
After some 20 years of US teaching the rest of the world that profit is the only measure of success (screw the ethics and consequences), is it a wonder China learns the lesson and overshadows the teacher?
(and just in case you wonder, I would go 2-3 years in China train them if that bought me and my family financial security for the rest of my life, life taught me that food on the table is a better sleeping aid than good conscience)
I wonder how long for US (and other diligent students) to unlearn it?
For instance, how long 'til the open-source software lessons (share and take advantage of what others share in return) will be understood?
Probably from their currency manipulation schemes that lower the value of their currency (and, in turn, lower the cost to buy their goods). That scheme subsidizes Americans more than any debt ownership. Still, we're mutually dependent, I'm not worried about them.
While China does something to work itself out from the "mutual dependency" with US, what is US doing (or even able to do)?
Makes me happy to hear that somebody knows how to do it properly. I'd love to see high speed trains come to the US if it could be done well.
Oh, yeah... After Wall Mart, the railway system can benefit from Chinese exports as well.
The joke is that there are no competent Chinese engineers to fix it. They'll have to hire German, Japanese, or French engineers from the firms that produced the plans they stole to build these lines in the first place and then pay them to fix the mistakes the incompetent Chinese "engineers" made "adapting" them.
I'm not sure the joke is what you are thinking. Its not that the new guys have to turn to the old guys for help, its that the old guys are willing to train their competitors/replacements.
If the price is right, why not? I mean, assume a group of 3-5 persons hired 10 times the rate the original employer would pay them... I think it will still be cheaper for the Chinese to do it and the "consultants" can retire after 2-3 years of teaching/working for the Chinese.
So... on one side FBI don't have the skills to investigate intrusion, on the other side we should trust them enough to allow remote uninstalling the CoreBoot trojan, eh?
This is gross hyperbole. 77million accounts were compromised but that many people didn't have credit card information on there. A generous estimate would be 10% of accounts had CC information saved. Delusions of Grandeur
Attempts to estimate the impact:
Assuming a USD1000 in CC fraud for each CC: 10% x 77 mils x USD1000 = USD7700 - to be supported by either the owners of CC or CC companies;
Assuming a 10 mins per "support call" to change the card: 10% x 77 mils x 10 mins > 160.000 men*days.
Not if it leaves the machine in an unclean or unusable state. If you thought anti-American attitudes are bad now, imagine the FBI disabling a couple hundred thousand key machines abroad-- just to get rid of a virus.
Disabling is the normal course of action taken on an infected machine. In fact, the only method certain to work.
SOP when discovering a backdoored machine spewing spam, participating in a DDoS, running a backdoor, or botnet node, should be: to if possible, use the malware's infiltrated command and control or the published backdoor to render the backdoor or the system useless to further the attack as quickly as possible.
Easy... easy... You know, I wonder how the situation would be seen if China would start to disable US computers only because they are used for serving content that don't fit their policies. I mean, for them that content might be as "aggressive" and "dangerous" as a botnet.
new user-interface is a bad idea and may slow down users moving to windows 8.
Just what they'll move towards?
Do you have laws against your guys using it against you?
Do you really think having those laws would really help?
If there were ways to tap phones without doing this, using only the phone system, they would be common knowledge.
There's the supersecret method of bribe/extort an employee to get access.
Hah! Indeed
Bingo. I would love to publish all of my papers in open journals, but can't afford the "loss of prestige".
Easily gained back: just refuse the Fields Medal after you publish a meaningful article on arxiv.org.
What makes the "prestige" of a journal? Why an "open journal" would not be able to achieve the "prestigious" status? Who's to blame for the fact that anything "open" in science is associated with the lost of prestige... even if there are "prestigious open source projects"?
If the academia doesn't like to contribute by at least a honest "open-source-like" peer-reviewing the work of others, why should I give away the protection of the copyright laws for my GPLv3 open-source code?
I can only agree, considering that PSN have been down for about a week now. So technically PSN have 0 subscribers as of 21 April..
Technically... it has zillions of subscribers to... nothing.