Here's something for you to ponder: Who does those alleged jobs in areas without a large population of illegal immigrants? They still need done, and still get done, after all.
Part of the problem is that we have no viable way of determining the magnitude of the problem. Yes, that means everything is tainted to some degree.
Some one here made an analogy some time back. If you had a bag of m&m's and I told you one of the candies was deadly, would you still eat a few? What if it were 100 bags? 1000? Of course not. Every piece is suspect.
Making excuses for these journals or outright denying the problem as "the system is working as intended" (when it clearly is not) isn't helpful. Real protections need to be put in place to prevent this kind of fraud beforehand. We also need ways to find fraudulent papers and excise them, should some any find their way to publication.
this misconduct was identified and rectified. Sounds to me like the system is working as intended.
See, the system is, quite clearly, not working as intended. That's what allowed those particular instances of fraud to happen in the first place! Worse, these few were caught only because Curtis thought the contact details for the reviewers looked a bit off.
Further, look at your reasoning here. If no fraud is noticed, you go "Look how great things are, no fraud spotted." When fraud is found, you go "Look, we rooted out the fraud, the system works." You are simply incapable of acknowledging any problems.
This is part of the problem of the public understanding of science.
You hear idle speculation 20 years ago and, with clenched fists and tears welling up in your eyes, whisper "it's gospel truth" and go around believing, wholeheartedly, unsubstantiated nonsense.
Now, far off in the future, someone says "hey, here's some evidence that indicates that this idea may have some merit" you scoff and complain that this is "unremarkable" old news.
You'd be amazed at how many "scientific" beliefs people have that are no more than empty claims with no supporting evidence made by people with lab coats decades ago. Do some checking next time.
There is no profession without idiots; however in this profession someone is going to pay a heavy price for a mistake.
Far too often, it's not the officer who pays that price, it's the victims of their abuse. Things need to change dramatically. Dismissing or excusing the police, like the OP, is only going to make the situation worse.
Do you have any deeper explanation for your assertion that this "speculative pre-connection" behavior "simply doesn't happen"
Yes, I do. You would as well, if you took half-a-second to look in to the issue.
Those speculative connections happen only on a few specific parts of the UI, not on any random webpage. So the "speculative pre-connection" "automatically connecting to every single hyperlink on the page" and you're slightly narrower "just moused-over links" (the implication being that it happens on random web pages) simply doesn't happen.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. If you need help understanding why that comic is dangerous nonsense, take a quick look at the comments on his own site about it. Here's a hint: It has nothing to do with the subject, but the method.
You can't fight reality. Randal has, in the past, said some pretty absurd stuff in his comics. Misleading the pubic about how science works is deeply harmful, regardless of your motivations. He deserves derision, not praise, for empowering the under-educated science-cheerleaders with dangerous nonsense.
It lost a lot of share to Chrome because,well, Chrome was better. Rather than standing still, FireFox has been improving steadily for years, I'd recommend it over Chrome today.
Then you have the noisy idiots. That's mostly Slashdot, but the stupidity tends to spread like spilled ink. Privacy hawks bitch and moan over things that often aren't even true, then recommend the worst browser on the market in terms of privacy (see above). Take a look at the prefetch flap-up further down the front page, the reality is so far away from the nonsense that dominates that thread it boarders on the absurd. More commonly, you'll hear about the mysterious memory leak issues (many of which simply didn't exist) from a bygone era. Times have changed, kids, get with it.
The weirdest of all, naturally, is the bitching and moaning over Australis. So upset these yahoos are over the change that they vow to switch to Chrome. No, I'm not kidding. I'll bet a nickle you'll find one in this thread.
I've been recommending FF for XP users over Chrome for a while because it was undeniably better on those older machines. I've been recommending it now because it's better everywhere else now as well. (Cue the "no it's not because of minor feature x" comments.) That it's also better for philosophical reasons is a nice bonus.
Chrome gained market share because people like you and I recommend it over the alternatives. We recommended it because it was, hands-down, the best browser on the market. Times have changed. Rather than bitching and moaning about how it's not perfect, pushing people away from such an incredibly important product, we should instead promote it as the better browser. FF will regain market share the same way it lost it.
(There are other factors that may help that shift along. Kids have already started to discover that a lot of the games they play simply won't work on Chrome after they dropped NPAPI support. I've already noticed a shift to FF among that demographic in my tiny corner of the world.)
I switched back to FF about a year ago when they updated the UI. I stayed with it because it performed noticeably better than Chrome. Why wouldn't I recommend it over the privacy nightmare that is Chrome?
Understand that the situation you're describing won't happen because that's not how this feature works. Now, calm down and take your pills. It's almost time for group.
I keep hearing this, but I haven't seem any (that I can remember, at least) convincing examples.
On Slashdot, the biggest objection is "something changed about the thing I was comfortable using" without any thought in to why they believe the change to be for the worse. When pressed, all you get is "this is how I used to do it, it was perfection itself! With the new UI, I gave up without even trying, so horrible was the UI"
Not very helpful, as you can imagine.
The problem with the art designers is that they are often making a complete mess of things from a functionality perspective.
Usability is always part of design. Even in Apple land, where form is often second to function, a great deal of thought has clearly been put in to the functional part of design.
Though I should probably also mention that usability, by necessity, targets the broadest range of users. You've seem a lot of complaints about Ubuntu's UI, but it's about as simple as it can get. All the most common things are lined up neatly on the left. A user new to the system can find and launch the programs they want in seconds. Wireless settings, power options, etc. are all clear and within view. You won't see any complaints from the average user. "Advanced" users, however, are a different story. Because they don't already know where the advanced options and tools can be found, they feel helpless and incompetent. Then they blame the UI and those horrible designers who "made a mess of things". The "unusable" UI, from the Slashdot users perspective, is the reason that the average user can use Ubuntu Linux if they so choose.
In the case of Minecraft, mentioned by the parent, a good deal of the game play is directly facilitated by the aesthetic. I have little doubt a good bit of the game design was directly influenced by it, rather than the other way around. I'd go as far as to say that had the author more artistic talent, game play would be dramatically different.
Conversely, you could look at a game like Zelda's Adventure, where the game design itself is reasonably sound but is hampered significantly by the artwork.
Slashdot Mirror
It is because people won't do them.
That old nonsense? Do people still believe that?
Here's something for you to ponder: Who does those alleged jobs in areas without a large population of illegal immigrants? They still need done, and still get done, after all.
Part of the problem is that we have no viable way of determining the magnitude of the problem. Yes, that means everything is tainted to some degree.
Some one here made an analogy some time back. If you had a bag of m&m's and I told you one of the candies was deadly, would you still eat a few? What if it were 100 bags? 1000? Of course not. Every piece is suspect.
Making excuses for these journals or outright denying the problem as "the system is working as intended" (when it clearly is not) isn't helpful. Real protections need to be put in place to prevent this kind of fraud beforehand. We also need ways to find fraudulent papers and excise them, should some any find their way to publication.
Here's the problem.
this misconduct was identified and rectified. Sounds to me like the system is working as intended.
See, the system is, quite clearly, not working as intended. That's what allowed those particular instances of fraud to happen in the first place! Worse, these few were caught only because Curtis thought the contact details for the reviewers looked a bit off.
Further, look at your reasoning here. If no fraud is noticed, you go "Look how great things are, no fraud spotted." When fraud is found, you go "Look, we rooted out the fraud, the system works." You are simply incapable of acknowledging any problems.
The assumption you're making here is that those 43 papers represent all of the fraudulent papers. That's foolish. It could very well be more.
When you see one roach...
I certainly can. That's precisely what makes me self-aware.
You mean in others. As for the alleged deduction, it's depressingly weak.
This is part of the problem of the public understanding of science.
You hear idle speculation 20 years ago and, with clenched fists and tears welling up in your eyes, whisper "it's gospel truth" and go around believing, wholeheartedly, unsubstantiated nonsense.
Now, far off in the future, someone says "hey, here's some evidence that indicates that this idea may have some merit" you scoff and complain that this is "unremarkable" old news.
You'd be amazed at how many "scientific" beliefs people have that are no more than empty claims with no supporting evidence made by people with lab coats decades ago. Do some checking next time.
The 'self awareness' is a part of the processing.
Why do you believe silly things without evidence? The answer to the self awareness question is a clear and unambiguous "we don't know".
How many people can a dead cop protect?
That depends on the cop, but I'd say about three lives.
A murderous little gang of thugs they are...
There is no profession without idiots; however in this profession someone is going to pay a heavy price for a mistake.
Far too often, it's not the officer who pays that price, it's the victims of their abuse. Things need to change dramatically. Dismissing or excusing the police, like the OP, is only going to make the situation worse.
Nonsense.
Do you have any deeper explanation for your assertion that this "speculative pre-connection" behavior "simply doesn't happen"
Yes, I do. You would as well, if you took half-a-second to look in to the issue.
Those speculative connections happen only on a few specific parts of the UI, not on any random webpage. So the "speculative pre-connection" "automatically connecting to every single hyperlink on the page" and you're slightly narrower "just moused-over links" (the implication being that it happens on random web pages) simply doesn't happen.
You're spreading nonsense. Stop it.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. If you need help understanding why that comic is dangerous nonsense, take a quick look at the comments on his own site about it. Here's a hint: It has nothing to do with the subject, but the method.
You can't fight reality. Randal has, in the past, said some pretty absurd stuff in his comics. Misleading the pubic about how science works is deeply harmful, regardless of your motivations. He deserves derision, not praise, for empowering the under-educated science-cheerleaders with dangerous nonsense.
privacy.trackingprotection.enabled
That took all of two seconds to find by typing "privacy" in about:config.
As a bonus, you can toggle privacy.donottrackheader.enabled to true for a faster browsing experience.
Yet still, your beliefs are wrong. That simply doesn't happen.
That's because the issue you've described simply doesn't exist. It's a figment of Slashdot's collective imaginations.
There's also no option to prevent it from attracting tigers, stealing your soul, or taking your sandwich from the breakroom fridge.
It lost a lot of share to Chrome because,well, Chrome was better. Rather than standing still, FireFox has been improving steadily for years, I'd recommend it over Chrome today.
Then you have the noisy idiots. That's mostly Slashdot, but the stupidity tends to spread like spilled ink. Privacy hawks bitch and moan over things that often aren't even true, then recommend the worst browser on the market in terms of privacy (see above). Take a look at the prefetch flap-up further down the front page, the reality is so far away from the nonsense that dominates that thread it boarders on the absurd. More commonly, you'll hear about the mysterious memory leak issues (many of which simply didn't exist) from a bygone era. Times have changed, kids, get with it.
The weirdest of all, naturally, is the bitching and moaning over Australis. So upset these yahoos are over the change that they vow to switch to Chrome. No, I'm not kidding. I'll bet a nickle you'll find one in this thread.
I've been recommending FF for XP users over Chrome for a while because it was undeniably better on those older machines. I've been recommending it now because it's better everywhere else now as well. (Cue the "no it's not because of minor feature x" comments.) That it's also better for philosophical reasons is a nice bonus.
Chrome gained market share because people like you and I recommend it over the alternatives. We recommended it because it was, hands-down, the best browser on the market. Times have changed. Rather than bitching and moaning about how it's not perfect, pushing people away from such an incredibly important product, we should instead promote it as the better browser. FF will regain market share the same way it lost it.
(There are other factors that may help that shift along. Kids have already started to discover that a lot of the games they play simply won't work on Chrome after they dropped NPAPI support. I've already noticed a shift to FF among that demographic in my tiny corner of the world.)
I switched back to FF about a year ago when they updated the UI. I stayed with it because it performed noticeably better than Chrome. Why wouldn't I recommend it over the privacy nightmare that is Chrome?
Understand that the situation you're describing won't happen because that's not how this feature works. Now, calm down and take your pills. It's almost time for group.
Can you elaborate?
I hate to break it to you, but Chromium has done this for years.
Wow, you should really read the posts above yours.
How this got marked insightful is beyond me.
I keep hearing this, but I haven't seem any (that I can remember, at least) convincing examples.
On Slashdot, the biggest objection is "something changed about the thing I was comfortable using" without any thought in to why they believe the change to be for the worse. When pressed, all you get is "this is how I used to do it, it was perfection itself! With the new UI, I gave up without even trying, so horrible was the UI"
Not very helpful, as you can imagine.
The problem with the art designers is that they are often making a complete mess of things from a functionality perspective.
Usability is always part of design. Even in Apple land, where form is often second to function, a great deal of thought has clearly been put in to the functional part of design.
Though I should probably also mention that usability, by necessity, targets the broadest range of users. You've seem a lot of complaints about Ubuntu's UI, but it's about as simple as it can get. All the most common things are lined up neatly on the left. A user new to the system can find and launch the programs they want in seconds. Wireless settings, power options, etc. are all clear and within view. You won't see any complaints from the average user. "Advanced" users, however, are a different story. Because they don't already know where the advanced options and tools can be found, they feel helpless and incompetent. Then they blame the UI and those horrible designers who "made a mess of things". The "unusable" UI, from the Slashdot users perspective, is the reason that the average user can use Ubuntu Linux if they so choose.
There's a reason the intersections on a Go board aren't spaced equally along both axes, you know.
Or maybe you don't.
You can't privilege one aspect over another.
In the case of Minecraft, mentioned by the parent, a good deal of the game play is directly facilitated by the aesthetic. I have little doubt a good bit of the game design was directly influenced by it, rather than the other way around. I'd go as far as to say that had the author more artistic talent, game play would be dramatically different.
Conversely, you could look at a game like Zelda's Adventure, where the game design itself is reasonably sound but is hampered significantly by the artwork.
I would counter that design is precisely why both of those are so successful.
First, don't confuse graphics with artwork, they are very different concepts. Further, don't mistake simplicity in design for a lack of design.