Professional journalists don't bother with such things. And remember, they are experts in their field, so you should trust them. Unlike Wikipedia, newspapers are authorities.
> If that print edition is vetted by experts, yes.
No. A printed Britannica article edited by a prominent psychiatrist would have gotten the same treatment. If the DSM is your authority you cite the DSM, not an article about the DSM.
Wikipedia is not a primary source. No encyclopedia is. "Reliability" is not the issue. You never cite what A said that B said when you can directly cite what B said. Best evidence rule.
What would be nice is having "tab sessions": Opening a tab and declaring it to be a separate session. When closing that tab, the session ends, and all session cookies set from that tab are deleted.
Excellent suggestion. I leave Firefox open for weeks at a time so deleting cookies when I close it doesn't do me much good.
Infineon doesn't make cpus. Intel is probably most interested in their rf stuff. Believe it or not, there's a lot more to a cellphone than the processor.
But well-designed stratified-sampling surveys produce better statistics at lower cost. Of course, governments are often after more than mere statistics...
Slashdot Mirror
There are probably some European countries where they could be prosecuted but they have not violated any USA law.
The servers should be replicated in many different jurisdictions, including the USA.
> A mortality rate (like many rates) is per unit time.
No matter how slowly you die, eventually your mortality rate will reach unity.
> ...it'd probably be a simpler task to train people...
No. Training people is a hopeless task.
Someday, in the far future, Gmail may be almost as good as Gnus.
The problem is that the baboons are now a protected species. Previously they were no doubt controlled quite effectively by the obvious methods.
You can bet that theirs will. Acid-free paper and non-fading inks are readily available.
What "battle"? You opened your Google account voluntarily, right?
> Where the hell is THEIR original citation?
Professional journalists don't bother with such things. And remember, they are experts in their field, so you should trust them. Unlike Wikipedia, newspapers are authorities.
This was a prosecutor. A government employee, on salary.
Despite the fact that the Wikipedia article itself links to the DSM.
> If that print edition is vetted by experts, yes.
No. A printed Britannica article edited by a prominent psychiatrist would have gotten the same treatment. If the DSM is your authority you cite the DSM, not an article about the DSM.
Did you bother to discuss the issues on the "talk" page?
Wikipedia is not a primary source. No encyclopedia is. "Reliability" is not the issue. You never cite what A said that B said when you can directly cite what B said. Best evidence rule.
> This isn't always the case, though.
This one is.
Excellent suggestion. I leave Firefox open for weeks at a time so deleting cookies when I close it doesn't do me much good.
> When even this fails... ...try Privoxy.
> I think people should not be haunted with ads by any technique.
No one has to see any ads at all.
> Don't write or talk anything. None will intercept it.
They are working on that...
Meaning that all will be revealed as soon as somebody fiddles with the metadata a bit?
No. The orientations are random. Consequently most are probably non-transiting.
No.
Infineon doesn't make cpus. Intel is probably most interested in their rf stuff. Believe it or not, there's a lot more to a cellphone than the processor.
Better for you and I, yes. But governments have other ideas.
But well-designed stratified-sampling surveys produce better statistics at lower cost. Of course, governments are often after more than mere statistics...
The antitrust suit against Microsoft was not dropped and did not ever involve any criminal charges.