Why is an article in The Sun linked on the main page?
Surely the same information (from a press release, right?) is available somewhere else. . . To save you the trouble of reading my entire post, I can say that I FOUND NOTHING LIKE THIS SUN ARTICLE'S IMPLICATION anywhere. It is the usual for the Sun – making shit up to fill the pages.
I wasted a good bit of time looking for a verifying source. Nothing. The closest I can find is that for purchasers in New Zealand, the product warranty is not valid unless they sign up with DJI. Not even close to the article's statements.
You do not 'wisely' pass erratic drivers to get away from them. You stay behind them.
I agree with you... under normal circumstances. I skipped some details for brevity.
We were approaching a five-lane (each way) intersection with heavy traffics. Lyft driver got past the dangerous Uber driver, and did his best to avoid the apparent intended direction of the Uber guy, and got three lanes over to the left to avoid his path, passing a backed-up lane of traffic to do so, and effectively wall-off the Uber guy from getting behind us. The Uber guy must have hit the brakes hard, and then swerved over three lanes to hit us – probably because that's what Google maps told him to do at the last second.
Short version: The Lyft guy tried to put other cars between the Uber guy and us.
Why even talk about autonomous semi-trucks? It's stupid. Really.
Self-driving semi-trucks would still use-up our paved interstates. They would have loads of only 18 tons each. If they screw up, people get smashed into goo and their families sue.
The sensible solution is AI for TRAINS, which can haul hundreds of tons at one time. Forget about truck-drivers losing their jobs... it should be train engineers worried about losing their jobs that consist of just standing in the cabin, hitting an "I am at attention" button every couple of minutes, and occasionally confirming to destination controllers that they know which track their train has been set to stop on.
It was a tragedy to deregulate the rail-transport industry. We ended up with federally subsidized interstate highways, which are a major source of carbon-burning and plastic-microparticle emissions that harm the fabric of the natural world around us. Go back to rail! As a bonus, it is a far-easier AI problem to solve than to try and have a semi navigate congested freeways.
Oh, who cares? AI developers are not interested in the achievable. No. Oh, no. The final solution has to always be just out of reach...
Anyone who has read any historical Nazi-era documents will tell you that Fraktur, the Nazi's favorite Blackletter (gothic) typeface, is headache-inducing. Fraktur is ugly. All of those embellishments make it a struggle to differentiate between letters – kind of the opposite of what written text is supposed to do.
FTA: Ford is facing a glut of used cars on the market, which makes it easy for consumers to find affordable recent models instead of buying new cars.
Perfecting AI for self-driving cars is a long way off. Idiots (other drivers) are extremely inventive.
RE the quote FTA: YES. This fact means that the economics of buying a gas car will shift rapidly, especially as self-driving and electrics take a big chunk of the market. Skipping the guts of the microeconomics argument:
I think it can be safely said that we are stuck on gasoline cars as a major percentage of the public fleet for two or three decades, minimum.
Cheaper gas, cheaper parts for repair (used or after-market), people with the skills to maintain aging vehicles exist already. If economic times are tight, people are going to make a choice against their conscience and opt for the far-cheaper (future) option of a used gasoline car.
Oh! Unless we crush them all like GM did with all of the EV1's. That prevented any aftermarket from ever developing. Smashy smashy!
I complained after an Uber driver made me late through his bad driving. Uber apologised that he failed to follow the optimal route offered by his GPS. They didn't seem to want to acknowledge my point that he went further than failing to follow his GPS, but went against three no entry signs and drive the wrong way up a single lane one way road.
Pretty much.
I had an Uber driver leave as I was reaching for the door handle. The time limit for idling-for-customer had been exceeded. OK, true, but my GF was talking to him for the prior three minutes. And the ride we wanted to take was a lo-o-o-ong one. He figured that he would just collect his $10 'no-show' fee, and find another ride in a minute or two. I requested a Lyft, and that person got the long fare. RE the 'no-show' fee: I sorted it all out via email w/Uber, and the driver did not receive the $10 in free money.
Another time, I was in a Lyft. The driver and I were talking about how Uber doesn't do sufficient background checks, and will basically take anyone on as a driver. I noticed a car driving erratically nearby, noted it, and my Lyft driver wisely passed him to get away. Within 100 feet, at a standard-traffic-flow stop-light, the Uber driver rear-ended my Lyft-driver's car. Yes, literally! No injuries, so we went on our way, but what a serendipitous demonstration of how bad Uber drivers can be – just when the topic comes up...
thinks that this will just create more patent infringement friendly jurisdictions, as the wealth gets.... redistributed
Yeah, probably something like that.
Corps. incorporate in a Sate, but do business in potentially all US states. Isn't the legal standard something like, "jurisdiction is determined by where the crime happened."?
If infringement happened all over (some gadget sold at Best Buy nation-wide), then it is generally the plaintiff's choice as to which jurisdiction to bring the complaint in.
Why has the NSA, who know exactly what weaponized exploits were broadcast to the world. . . Why has the NSA not offered-up any antidotes to their now-public weaponization of a bunch of sploits?
They could swoop in and try to look like the hero here, but there's been no sign of that. Not a peep from the NSA.
Are they just making popcorn and watching the fallout because they think they are computer GODS, enjoying watching the plebes fight all of these forthcoming worms and trojans just to get themselves off before going back to work reducing the security of the USA by continuing to develop more of the same?
Sure Windows, you sound legit with your Indian accent. Access as needed. O.....sorry I'm not paying. Btw, you're also locked in a virtualized Windows platform on Debian. Thanks for playing
Windows is sand-boxed inside of a VM instance for me.
but free publications don't count for your publication record.
Where is that written?
So your university won't 'count' free publication in your record? What's their reasoning behind that? (Follow the money.) 'Open source' peer review shouldn't be that difficult to set up if, as you say, reviewers work for free and the opportunity to get a 'first peek'.
Anybody can post a "Lorem ipsum..." or other nonsense document to the ArXiv. Hence, numerous hacks do exactly that, in a misguided attempt to build up the "casual-glance" value of their CV's list of publications. The great thing about the ArXiv is that it plants a flag in the ground, recording the date that you uploaded it. This helps to prevent you being 'scooped' by some other researcher working in the same area. At the same time as your ArXiv upload, you submit your final manuscript to a good journal. It might take a year for your publication to appear in a "peer-reviewed journal of record," so it's worth hedging your bets in this way. You see, it only matters who discovered and reported it first, in the long run.
There are also, unfortunately, tons of outfits that create "journals" left and right. As long as you pay their high fees, they will publish whatever crap you have. Inferior researchers use these avenues to try to fool hiring managers and HR. Good researchers get to know the mainstream outlets, and the "shady" outlets. There are other metrics to refer to, just to be sure.
Last, there are indeed some open-access, peer-reviewed journals, but not very many. A top journal in mathematics was the first one to make the jump, I believe. The entire editorial board resigned from the Elsevier-owned journal, and immediately formed a new journal with a very similar name. Everyone knew that the Editorial Board of this open-access journal was top-notch, as the story made the geek news, so they had no shortage of papers being submitted for possible publication.
I have paid an "extra fee" on a few of my papers to make them "open access and permanently available on the journal's website." Otherwise, I just upload them to ResearchGate.com (or a co-author does) or to my own personal website. There are fair-use rules for academic sharing, and some journals are otherwise cool with the arrangement because it increases their readership.
It could be that Tesla is over-cautious when it comes to work-place injuries, and therefore calls an ambulance in cases where, really, a co-worker could just drive them to the hospital.
Long ago, hurt cooking as a teenager, the boss had a co-worker drive me to get treated for a bad grease burn. Today, I see why. It kept their "reportable accidents" down.
YES YES YES! The Pubic pays THREE times for scientific and engineering information. Everyone does.
(1) Your taxes pay for research projects. (2) The researcher does the work, and writes-up his/her results in a paper. (3) A Referee for the Journal gives it a thumbs-up or -down for publication, doing the job for free. (4) The Researcher must then pay the journal "page charges" to print the article. (5) To access the article, anyone must go to a library that pays an extortionate subscription fee to the journal to allow the Public access. Alternatively, a person can pay $30-100 for a PDF of the article. This group includes, BTW, the authors of a given article.
I once had to pay $35 to get a PDF of an article where I was a listed co-author!!! (My library, at a top-10 US university, did not describe to the journal in question, so I was stuck.)
Is there any actual proof that SciHub's illegal activity is having a positive impact on poor countries?
I don't know the answer to your specific question, but I can answer another one:
Does SciHub increase the Impact Factor (IF)* of Elsevier journals, by spreading articles within them more widely, and thus getting them cited more? The answer is an undoubted "YES."
* IF is a "rule-of-thumb" number that gives you a general idea of the relevancy of any particular journal.**
** IF can be gamed, so Thomson-Reuters came out with the "Eigenfactor", which is much more resistant to gaming or "fluffing."
I am a highly-cited scientist (in my field), but have diligently avoided publishing in, or refereeing articles for (by-rules for-free) any any Elsevier-owned journal – for the entirety of my entire career.
I also go to great pains to avoid citing anything that has appeared in an Elsevier scientific article. Surely the author said something similar somewhere else... or someone else said it...
Elsevier are Copyright-vultures feeding off the free labor and hard work of scientists the world-over.
FTA: The first known ransomware attack was called "AIDS Trojan" that infected Windows machines back in 1989. This particular ransomware attack switched the autoexec.bat file.
I wrote a trojan (spread by BBS) in 1986 that swapped the autoexec.bat file. It would wipe the hard drive of some necessary system files, but did not stoop to the level of scum-baggery of asking for a ransom. Those ransom-ware guys are the absolute worst.
I'm glad to see it. Trump is a regressive relic of an era of disinformation and anti-science, anti-problem-solving "I can do no wrong" ethos. That has to die.
The pendulum always swings back-and-forth.
Let's hope that Trump's fuck-ups are massive enough to give that pendulum of public consensus a good strong kick in the right direction.
Slashdot Mirror
Whirled Peas is the answer.
It's just a simple, innocent oversight. . .
Someone forgot to carry the 12 zeroes somewhere.
That's one error. You picky, picky math-checkers!
This claim of geofencing your DJI drone unless you register is bogus. Made-up. Fiction. Sensationalist rumor-mongering.
See my other post for details.
Why is an article in The Sun linked on the main page?
Surely the same information (from a press release, right?) is available somewhere else. . . To save you the trouble of reading my entire post, I can say that I FOUND NOTHING LIKE THIS SUN ARTICLE'S IMPLICATION anywhere. It is the usual for the Sun – making shit up to fill the pages.
I wasted a good bit of time looking for a verifying source. Nothing. The closest I can find is that for purchasers in New Zealand, the product warranty is not valid unless they sign up with DJI. Not even close to the article's statements.
DJI will not be able to provide you with service under this warranty if you refuse to provide your information or do not wish us to transfer your information to our agent or contractor.
There is noting to find. If you feel like wasting your time as well, then click here to read their After-sales Policies.
/facepalm
You do not 'wisely' pass erratic drivers to get away from them. You stay behind them.
I agree with you... under normal circumstances. I skipped some details for brevity.
We were approaching a five-lane (each way) intersection with heavy traffics. Lyft driver got past the dangerous Uber driver, and did his best to avoid the apparent intended direction of the Uber guy, and got three lanes over to the left to avoid his path, passing a backed-up lane of traffic to do so, and effectively wall-off the Uber guy from getting behind us. The Uber guy must have hit the brakes hard, and then swerved over three lanes to hit us – probably because that's what Google maps told him to do at the last second.
Short version: The Lyft guy tried to put other cars between the Uber guy and us.
Why even talk about autonomous semi-trucks? It's stupid. Really.
Self-driving semi-trucks would still use-up our paved interstates. They would have loads of only 18 tons each. If they screw up, people get smashed into goo and their families sue.
The sensible solution is AI for TRAINS, which can haul hundreds of tons at one time. Forget about truck-drivers losing their jobs... it should be train engineers worried about losing their jobs that consist of just standing in the cabin, hitting an "I am at attention" button every couple of minutes, and occasionally confirming to destination controllers that they know which track their train has been set to stop on.
It was a tragedy to deregulate the rail-transport industry. We ended up with federally subsidized interstate highways, which are a major source of carbon-burning and plastic-microparticle emissions that harm the fabric of the natural world around us. Go back to rail! As a bonus, it is a far-easier AI problem to solve than to try and have a semi navigate congested freeways.
Oh, who cares? AI developers are not interested in the achievable. No. Oh, no. The final solution has to always be just out of reach...
I have a 'wooden eye', you can have five different fonts on a page and I wont notice it, unless it is wingdings...
Five? I pity you.
Or hey, maybe you're lucky, because bad typography seems to be the rule these days.
Anyone who has read any historical Nazi-era documents will tell you that Fraktur, the Nazi's favorite Blackletter (gothic) typeface, is headache-inducing. Fraktur is ugly. All of those embellishments make it a struggle to differentiate between letters – kind of the opposite of what written text is supposed to do.
Oh, and Arial is a terrible font.
FTA: Ford is facing a glut of used cars on the market, which makes it easy for consumers to find affordable recent models instead of buying new cars.
Perfecting AI for self-driving cars is a long way off. Idiots (other drivers) are extremely inventive.
RE the quote FTA: YES. This fact means that the economics of buying a gas car will shift rapidly, especially as self-driving and electrics take a big chunk of the market. Skipping the guts of the microeconomics argument:
I think it can be safely said that we are stuck on gasoline cars as a major percentage of the public fleet for two or three decades, minimum.
Cheaper gas, cheaper parts for repair (used or after-market), people with the skills to maintain aging vehicles exist already. If economic times are tight, people are going to make a choice against their conscience and opt for the far-cheaper (future) option of a used gasoline car.
Oh! Unless we crush them all like GM did with all of the EV1's. That prevented any aftermarket from ever developing. Smashy smashy!
I complained after an Uber driver made me late through his bad driving. Uber apologised that he failed to follow the optimal route offered by his GPS. They didn't seem to want to acknowledge my point that he went further than failing to follow his GPS, but went against three no entry signs and drive the wrong way up a single lane one way road.
Pretty much.
I had an Uber driver leave as I was reaching for the door handle. The time limit for idling-for-customer had been exceeded. OK, true, but my GF was talking to him for the prior three minutes. And the ride we wanted to take was a lo-o-o-ong one. He figured that he would just collect his $10 'no-show' fee, and find another ride in a minute or two. I requested a Lyft, and that person got the long fare. RE the 'no-show' fee: I sorted it all out via email w/Uber, and the driver did not receive the $10 in free money.
Another time, I was in a Lyft. The driver and I were talking about how Uber doesn't do sufficient background checks, and will basically take anyone on as a driver. I noticed a car driving erratically nearby, noted it, and my Lyft driver wisely passed him to get away. Within 100 feet, at a standard-traffic-flow stop-light, the Uber driver rear-ended my Lyft-driver's car. Yes, literally! No injuries, so we went on our way, but what a serendipitous demonstration of how bad Uber drivers can be – just when the topic comes up...
Also, their CEO is a combative dickhead.
We need more tiny violins! Stat!
How can the Supreme Court crack down on anything? Technically it interprets existing law based on cases brought before it.
ANSWER: Lazy headline-writing.
thinks that this will just create more patent infringement friendly jurisdictions, as the wealth gets.... redistributed
Yeah, probably something like that.
Corps. incorporate in a Sate, but do business in potentially all US states. Isn't the legal standard something like, "jurisdiction is determined by where the crime happened."?
If infringement happened all over (some gadget sold at Best Buy nation-wide), then it is generally the plaintiff's choice as to which jurisdiction to bring the complaint in.
Right? IANAL, so please correct me.
Why has the NSA, who know exactly what weaponized exploits were broadcast to the world. . . Why has the NSA not offered-up any antidotes to their now-public weaponization of a bunch of sploits?
They could swoop in and try to look like the hero here, but there's been no sign of that. Not a peep from the NSA.
Are they just making popcorn and watching the fallout because they think they are computer GODS, enjoying watching the plebes fight all of these forthcoming worms and trojans just to get themselves off before going back to work reducing the security of the USA by continuing to develop more of the same?
Sure Windows, you sound legit with your Indian accent. Access as needed. O.....sorry I'm not paying. Btw, you're also locked in a virtualized Windows platform on Debian. Thanks for playing
Windows is sand-boxed inside of a VM instance for me.
Why didn't you just ask one of the co-authors. I still have copies of all the paper's I've published.
Dead.
From the bottom of my heart: Fuck you!
Was it the swear-word that got me modded down, or does Elsevier have a team of /. moderators on the prowl?
but free publications don't count for your publication record.
Where is that written?
So your university won't 'count' free publication in your record? What's their reasoning behind that? (Follow the money.) 'Open source' peer review shouldn't be that difficult to set up if, as you say, reviewers work for free and the opportunity to get a 'first peek'.
Anybody can post a "Lorem ipsum ..." or other nonsense document to the ArXiv. Hence, numerous hacks do exactly that, in a misguided attempt to build up the "casual-glance" value of their CV's list of publications. The great thing about the ArXiv is that it plants a flag in the ground, recording the date that you uploaded it. This helps to prevent you being 'scooped' by some other researcher working in the same area. At the same time as your ArXiv upload, you submit your final manuscript to a good journal. It might take a year for your publication to appear in a "peer-reviewed journal of record," so it's worth hedging your bets in this way. You see, it only matters who discovered and reported it first , in the long run.
There are also, unfortunately, tons of outfits that create "journals" left and right. As long as you pay their high fees, they will publish whatever crap you have. Inferior researchers use these avenues to try to fool hiring managers and HR. Good researchers get to know the mainstream outlets, and the "shady" outlets. There are other metrics to refer to, just to be sure.
Last, there are indeed some open-access, peer-reviewed journals, but not very many. A top journal in mathematics was the first one to make the jump, I believe. The entire editorial board resigned from the Elsevier-owned journal, and immediately formed a new journal with a very similar name. Everyone knew that the Editorial Board of this open-access journal was top-notch, as the story made the geek news, so they had no shortage of papers being submitted for possible publication.
I have paid an "extra fee" on a few of my papers to make them "open access and permanently available on the journal's website." Otherwise, I just upload them to ResearchGate.com (or a co-author does) or to my own personal website. There are fair-use rules for academic sharing, and some journals are otherwise cool with the arrangement because it increases their readership.
It could be that Tesla is over-cautious when it comes to work-place injuries, and therefore calls an ambulance in cases where, really, a co-worker could just drive them to the hospital.
Long ago, hurt cooking as a teenager, the boss had a co-worker drive me to get treated for a bad grease burn. Today, I see why. It kept their "reportable accidents" down.
What's "Flash"?
Is it like COBOL or something?
YES YES YES! The Pubic pays THREE times for scientific and engineering information. Everyone does.
(1) Your taxes pay for research projects.
(2) The researcher does the work, and writes-up his/her results in a paper.
(3) A Referee for the Journal gives it a thumbs-up or -down for publication, doing the job for free.
(4) The Researcher must then pay the journal "page charges" to print the article.
(5) To access the article, anyone must go to a library that pays an extortionate subscription fee to the journal to allow the Public access. Alternatively, a person can pay $30-100 for a PDF of the article. This group includes, BTW, the authors of a given article.
I once had to pay $35 to get a PDF of an article where I was a listed co-author!!! (My library, at a top-10 US university, did not describe to the journal in question, so I was stuck.)
Is there any actual proof that SciHub's illegal activity is having a positive impact on poor countries?
I don't know the answer to your specific question, but I can answer another one:
Does SciHub increase the Impact Factor (IF)* of Elsevier journals, by spreading articles within them more widely, and thus getting them cited more? The answer is an undoubted "YES."
* IF is a "rule-of-thumb" number that gives you a general idea of the relevancy of any particular journal.**
** IF can be gamed, so Thomson-Reuters came out with the "Eigenfactor", which is much more resistant to gaming or "fluffing."
From the bottom of my heart: Fuck you!
I am a highly-cited scientist (in my field), but have diligently avoided publishing in, or refereeing articles for (by-rules for-free) any any Elsevier-owned journal – for the entirety of my entire career.
I also go to great pains to avoid citing anything that has appeared in an Elsevier scientific article. Surely the author said something similar somewhere else... or someone else said it...
Elsevier are Copyright-vultures feeding off the free labor and hard work of scientists the world-over.
Let's give credit where it is due.
FTA: The first known ransomware attack was called "AIDS Trojan" that infected Windows machines back in 1989. This particular ransomware attack switched the autoexec.bat file.
I wrote a trojan (spread by BBS) in 1986 that swapped the autoexec.bat file. It would wipe the hard drive of some necessary system files, but did not stoop to the level of scum-baggery of asking for a ransom. Those ransom-ware guys are the absolute worst.
I'm glad to see it. Trump is a regressive relic of an era of disinformation and anti-science, anti-problem-solving "I can do no wrong" ethos. That has to die.
The pendulum always swings back-and-forth.
Let's hope that Trump's fuck-ups are massive enough to give that pendulum of public consensus a good strong kick in the right direction.