While a lot of automation replaces boring, dirty and dangerous tasks, there is a modern type of "automation" that does not automate or solve problems, and appears to be much more present than actual automation. It exists as a purpose of its own. Big consultancy and software corporations misuse the trust of other corporations, governments and people in order to create a world that is worse than what it would be without their bad advice.
Climatologists are just conveying a message. It probably is best to go back to or under 350 ppm. The fact that this is difficult or unrealistic is another story.
If it were free software, you or the free software community actually had the option to improve it.
Whether it be free software or not, the parent is of course right that one should not expect a lot of improvements if not paying for it (however, see reply #53142799).
I agree that we should be able to use our Android devices much longer than three years. However, if I am able to upgrade my Nexus 7 with CyanogenMod 13 (Android 6) with security patches for the next ten years or so, I am happy. I care about longivity, not the latest features (which makes me learn new things all the time). I am fine with the current feature set.
The author misleadingly puts trains at the same level of polution as planes and cars, while trains use much less fuel a person than planes or automobiles. Trains also typically run on electricity (generated from a mix of sources).
Not only that, the little control you had by having a NAS with proprietary software in your house that you potentially were still be able to hack, is replaced by their servers. You have no control at all anymore over the data you paid (a licence) for.
Open Source is perhaps modestly more trustworthy, but things like the obfuscated C contest and the fact of very long lived bugs in core elements like SSH prove that open source is no panacea. Whether done by the US or somebody else, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that there are intentional backdoors injected into lots of open source projects, and that it is done skillfully enough that they haven't been noticed.
There may be backdoors in some free software, but this is quite unlikely for such security-focussed projects like OpenSSH (assuming you refer to this implementation). Calling free software only "modestly more thrustworthy" is close to spreading FUD.
That "magical particle" is carbon dioxide. Since about A.D. 1750 (or at least 1780) humans have been influencing the global climate considerably (see e.g. IPCC 2013 paragraph 7.5.1).
This is hardly related to human rights violations. This company decided to put an internet filter by default on your internet connection. If you don't like that, choose a different internet provider, or override this default. I would probably do the former because I don't want something that I don't control to censor my internet connection (and there may "accidental" regressions making you confirm you want to watch porn -- no matter whether that is true or false).
In any case, since you still have a choice here, this is not a human rights violation.
Furthermore, the company says it will also stop issuing software updates to its existing Android tablets. [...] The company will honor after sales support for people who have purchased Venue Android tablets until the warranty and service contracts expire.
This seems inconsistent: If you stop issuing software updates, you are negligent in your after-sales support.
There is a different but related statement to be made. If we are able to create strong AI (including consciousness as we experience this ourselves), there is an extremely small chance we're not living in a computer simulation.
> Despite the poor state of the worldwide smartphone market, Samsung continues to dominate.
This doesn't make sense. Firstly, why call a flattening a 'poor state' of the market? Secondly, even if the state is poor, that does not relate to who dominates the market.
The number of jobless claims (per unit of time) is a measure of the apparent increase of new jobless people. Maybe employment is very low and the job market is stuck. At the very least, it does not follow from this that the job market is strong.
People install this, because most of them are sheep. They don't think critically. They just install anything that appears cool, or what other sheeple tell them is useful.
Of course. I agree with the parent and grandparent that Wikipedia should cite the best sources possible. However, the parent's suggestion that we then have to cite closed access sources is based on a dubious assumption.
Here's the problem: the best possible sources are closed access, especially when we are talking about things in medical research and life sciences.
I cannot judge for life sciences, but in my field of ocean modelling and climate research this is not true. Good sources used to be closed access sources, but more and more scientists prefer open access. Right now, in my field, open access journals (e.g. EGU's Geosci. Model Dev.) are at least as relevant as closed access (e.g. Elsevier's Deep-Sea Res. Pt II). This will only become more important in the future, hence Elsevier's attempt to stay relevant.
It is beneficial for active content creators to have access to these.
They will be able to create citations supporting articles on subjects that couldn't even be written otherwise.
Notability is a frequent issue on Wikipedia with articles on important subjects frequently getting deleted, because high quality citations have not been made to establish their notability ---- citations good enough to meet the criteria are only available through closed-access sources, such as professional journals.
It depends on both the field and the time when the science was done. I find it obvious that at least the original paper should be cited for any finding. Looking at the history of modern science, and that of open access, this is of course often closed source (well, some publishers make very old issues more and more available, but so far the point still stands). Anyone would agree that such a citation may be amended with another open access review paper, for instance. More recent research can be cited more and more from open access journals.
Finally... the purpose of Wikipedia is to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, Nobody ever said anything about the sources used by Wikipedia having to be the same
Indeed, nobody is saying that. We are talking about the accessibility of the sources, not whether they are libre or you can edit them. (That being said, there are even more advantages if the sources themselves are not only open access, but libre; this is already happening, e.g. many EGU journal papers are libre, and there is no copyright transfer either.)
It would hobble the encyclopedia and greatly limit its coverage, if only free citations can be used.
I love the idea of a free encyclopedia..... and I love the idea of open access journals, BUT let's not delude ourselves into thinking that the canonical work in the sciences are always the open access articles.
I fully agree. But often canonical work in science is in open access journals. I don't think what you say here is consistent with the first sentence about the best possible sources being closed access -- that is becoming less and less universal.
E.g. In article discussing relativity, I would much rather see the cite in the journal where Einstein actually published, than some 4th order / quarternary source that someone preferred since it was an online magazine article available free of charge.
Yes, but there are many high-quality open access journals that may amend the primary citation.
I would also point out... open access today doesn't mean open access tomorrow. Many times Online sources later go offline, or the publisher breaks the URL!
There are a lot of crap open access journals. Don't publish in those, don't cite from those. Within most fields it is clear what I am talking about. I think there is enough expertise between wikipedians to be able to judge which are good and which are bad. Papers should have a Digital Object Identifier (DOI). That does solv
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, but those are exceptions. Doing mediocre things, like posting on social media, usually doesn't get you anywhere.
While a lot of automation replaces boring, dirty and dangerous tasks, there is a modern type of "automation" that does not automate or solve problems, and appears to be much more present than actual automation. It exists as a purpose of its own. Big consultancy and software corporations misuse the trust of other corporations, governments and people in order to create a world that is worse than what it would be without their bad advice.
OpenBSD is not microkernel based.
I stand corrected.
OpenBSD is secure, correct, microkernel-based and doesn't contain any parts of Linux. What is essentially different?
Climatologists are just conveying a message. It probably is best to go back to or under 350 ppm. The fact that this is difficult or unrealistic is another story.
If it were free software, you or the free software community actually had the option to improve it.
Whether it be free software or not, the parent is of course right that one should not expect a lot of improvements if not paying for it (however, see reply #53142799).
I agree that we should be able to use our Android devices much longer than three years.
However, if I am able to upgrade my Nexus 7 with CyanogenMod 13 (Android 6) with security patches for the next ten years or so, I am happy. I care about longivity, not the latest features (which makes me learn new things all the time). I am fine with the current feature set.
Or a BSD. It would be good if the hardware specs are open. Maybe Andromeda would work as well. It should be at least be free software.
The author misleadingly puts trains at the same level of polution as planes and cars, while trains use much less fuel a person than planes or automobiles. Trains also typically run on electricity (generated from a mix of sources).
Not only that, the little control you had by having a NAS with proprietary software in your house that you potentially were still be able to hack, is replaced by their servers. You have no control at all anymore over the data you paid (a licence) for.
Open Source is perhaps modestly more trustworthy, but things like the obfuscated C contest and the fact of very long lived bugs in core elements like SSH prove that open source is no panacea. Whether done by the US or somebody else, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that there are intentional backdoors injected into lots of open source projects, and that it is done skillfully enough that they haven't been noticed.
There may be backdoors in some free software, but this is quite unlikely for such security-focussed projects like OpenSSH (assuming you refer to this implementation).
Calling free software only "modestly more thrustworthy" is close to spreading FUD.
According to this article high voltage was the reason.
Here are a few ideas as to how you pay for something anonymously:
[...]
3. Bitcoin
Bitcoin is not anonymous.
Anonymous cryptocurrencies are developed, but Bitcoin is not one of them.
That "magical particle" is carbon dioxide. Since about A.D. 1750 (or at least 1780) humans have been influencing the global climate considerably (see e.g. IPCC 2013 paragraph 7.5.1).
Thinner glass breaks more easily, and probably new versions of things are still overall slightly better than previous versions.
This is hardly related to human rights violations. This company decided to put an internet filter by default on your internet connection. If you don't like that, choose a different internet provider, or override this default. I would probably do the former because I don't want something that I don't control to censor my internet connection (and there may "accidental" regressions making you confirm you want to watch porn -- no matter whether that is true or false).
In any case, since you still have a choice here, this is not a human rights violation.
Furthermore, the company says it will also stop issuing software updates to its existing Android tablets. [...] The company will honor after sales support for people who have purchased Venue Android tablets until the warranty and service contracts expire.
This seems inconsistent: If you stop issuing software updates, you are negligent in your after-sales support.
Musk's argument has nothing to do with solipsism or religion. He is just suggesting that we live in a simulation.
Not senile, maybe naive.
There is a different but related statement to be made. If we are able to create strong AI (including consciousness as we experience this ourselves), there is an extremely small chance we're not living in a computer simulation.
cat /var/log/syslog | grep foo | less
You are overly piping; can do grep foo /var/log/syslog | less.
> Despite the poor state of the worldwide smartphone market, Samsung continues to dominate.
This doesn't make sense. Firstly, why call a flattening a 'poor state' of the market? Secondly, even if the state is poor, that does not relate to who dominates the market.
The number of jobless claims (per unit of time) is a measure of the apparent increase of new jobless people.
Maybe employment is very low and the job market is stuck. At the very least, it does not follow from this that the job market is strong.
People install this, because most of them are sheep. They don't think critically. They just install anything that appears cool, or what other sheeple tell them is useful.
You cannot have privacy or security with proprietary software.
If you want that, use free software with end-to-end encryption, do not use WhatsApp.
Of course. I agree with the parent and grandparent that Wikipedia should cite the best sources possible. However, the parent's suggestion that we then have to cite closed access sources is based on a dubious assumption.
Here's the problem: the best possible sources are closed access, especially when we are talking about
things in medical research and life sciences.
I cannot judge for life sciences, but in my field of ocean modelling and climate research this is not true. Good sources used to be closed access sources, but more and more scientists prefer open access. Right now, in my field, open access journals (e.g. EGU's Geosci. Model Dev.) are at least as relevant as closed access (e.g. Elsevier's Deep-Sea Res. Pt II). This will only become more important in the future, hence Elsevier's attempt to stay relevant.
It is beneficial for active content creators to have access to these.
They will be able to create citations supporting articles on subjects that couldn't even be written otherwise.
Notability is a frequent issue on Wikipedia with articles on important subjects frequently getting deleted, because high quality citations have not been made to establish their notability ---- citations good enough to meet the criteria are only available through closed-access sources, such as professional journals.
It depends on both the field and the time when the science was done. I find it obvious that at least the original paper should be cited for any finding. Looking at the history of modern science, and that of open access, this is of course often closed source (well, some publishers make very old issues more and more available, but so far the point still stands). Anyone would agree that such a citation may be amended with another open access review paper, for instance. More recent research can be cited more and more from open access journals.
Finally... the purpose of Wikipedia is to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit,
Nobody ever said anything about the sources used by Wikipedia having to be the same
Indeed, nobody is saying that. We are talking about the accessibility of the sources, not whether they are libre or you can edit them. (That being said, there are even more advantages if the sources themselves are not only open access, but libre; this is already happening, e.g. many EGU journal papers are libre, and there is no copyright transfer either.)
It would hobble the encyclopedia and greatly limit its coverage, if only free citations can be used.
I love the idea of a free encyclopedia..... and I love the idea of open access journals, BUT let's not delude ourselves into thinking that the canonical work in the sciences are always the open access articles.
I fully agree. But often canonical work in science is in open access journals. I don't think what you say here is consistent with the first sentence about the best possible sources being closed access -- that is becoming less and less universal.
E.g. In article discussing relativity, I would much rather see the cite in the journal where Einstein actually published,
than some 4th order / quarternary source that someone preferred since it was an online magazine article available free of charge.
Yes, but there are many high-quality open access journals that may amend the primary citation.
I would also point out... open access today doesn't mean open access tomorrow.
Many times Online sources later go offline, or the publisher breaks the URL!
There are a lot of crap open access journals. Don't publish in those, don't cite from those. Within most fields it is clear what I am talking about. I think there is enough expertise between wikipedians to be able to judge which are good and which are bad. Papers should have a Digital Object Identifier (DOI). That does solv