You're making a giant leap that doesn't seem supported by what's reported so far. This doesn't seem to be about analyzing and criticizing in any meaningful way. That seems to be the crux of the problem.
This wasn't pointing out flaws in the peer review process, since a large percentage of the journals weren't even peer reviewed! One was a total sham of a "pay $650 and we'll publish whatever!"
If what you are describing was what happened here, I don't think there'd be a story. The story is what you're describing didn't happen, and the university basically said, "WTF dude?"
This action suggests that the university holds these journals up as some impeachable resource.
Does it? I'm not so sure. To me, it reads more like the university holding that trolling non-academic journals is an activity that's below the expectations of a professor.
Note that a lot of the "journals" they submitted their shit to weren't reputable journals. And at least one of the reputable ones they submitted to rejected their submission. One was even a "pay $650 and we'll publish your shit" non-peer-reviewed journal.
While the publishing industry is a giant parasite on academia, and the for-profit-junk-journals are the worst of the worst, is it really in this professor's scope of work to troll them? This wasn't seemingly a real academic study, which might have passed muster. It reads a lot more like them just dicking around.
When most of us dick around and pull hilarious viral news stunts instead of working, our employers generally don't look upon that fondly.
I'm looking at this as proof-of-concept. Next step are the protection payments. I mean ongoing invoices to be paid in bitcoin for keeping the place drone-free.
They want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to be visible and engage online, because it helps them get elected and fund raise. But they don't want to be called to task for doing things people don't like, or have to engage with people who don't like them.
Essentially they want to treat online engagements like ticketed donor dinner parties. Get praise and butter up the fans, all of whom are adoring. Unfortunately, the internet is a lot more like taking a stroll through a rough part of town, and apparently the courts think that's the way it should be. If you want to go there, great. If not, you're welcome to not do that.
What you can't do is have the "cops" clear out all the riff-raff before you go for a stroll.
Outlook does this too, so it's not just google. Apparently the default for not responding is to harass you anyway. If I explicitly decline outlook invitations they go away, but if I don't bother to do anything with them, I get reminders.
So in your world, when someone gets a restraining order and harassment continues from them, that's not evidence of their not complying with it? You live in a strange world. In my world, when you're told not to do something but you keep doing it, that's not complying.
That's not remotely true. Encrypt your data, transfer via the cloud, then unencrypt.
Unless you're using a very outdated encryption method, the absolute worst that can happen is that they keep your data for as long as it takes for that method to get broken or for computing to advance far enough that it can be brute forced. And about the only people willing to do that are the intelligence agencies of nation states, and if you're on their radar, you're probably fucked in a dozen different ways anyway.
The current management routines are dropping HIV to what is essentially a non-transmissible level in the blood. And no, for the individual person, that's not a cure. But over time, this is dramatically reducing the transmission rate, and over the next couple of decades, it's going to head very rapidly the way polio went. Unless you're going to define "cure" so narrowly that we haven't cured polio?
And that is even if we don't actually find an individual cure it in the near future.
I'm not sure what your problem with modern medicine is, but it seems to be coming from a place of deep ignorance.
No, it doesn't. It creates a giant fucking problem, which is all of our problem: Preventable and curable illnesses addressed early cost far, far less to deal with than they do later. Unless you think very ill and dying people vanish in a puff of smoke, you should realize that every person who takes an ambulance ride to the ER costs the medical system money. Everyone who needs long-term care because their treatable or preventable illness didn't get medical treatment is a drain on the system. Every family that loses a breadwinner or caregiver to a treatable or preventable illness can also become a drain on our social systems. All the money spent on non-treatments could have been used to make families healthier, wealthier, and better educated.
We live in a very well connected society, not in isolated caves up in the mountains. Fake treatments end up hurting all of us, although some far more than others.
Hiding behind a law to stop you doing simple things is disgusting.
I concur completely. Shouldn't take a competent developer long to design a blacklist system for names, addresses, and photos, so they can't be used in accounts. Also shouldn't take a competent developer long to come up with a way to authenticate requests to add data to that blacklist, and remove data. And it sure would take less money than the lawyers will take battling to not do this in court, and would prevent future suits, win or lose this one.
The utter stupidity will be if and when they lose this that they pay legal costs, pay a settlement fine, and still have to pay a developer to implement the system they should have been decent enough to build in the first place. How fucked up is your management if they look at this request and can't say, "Eh, they've got a point. We should build in some safeguards before we get sued for enabling stalking and harassment."
If you had clicked into the story, you'd find that this has already gone before the courts, and they issued a temporary restraining order against Grindr, which Grindr subsequently ignored. Thus the lawsuit. Pretty clear who's in the wrong, eh?
Instead it's all in the fine print and the user has to bear the full responsibility and consequences even if they aren't at fault.
That makes a giant, giant assumption that the person impacted is a current user of the service. If they aren't a user of the service, they haven't agreed to anything. (Even if the EULA is found to be enforceable, which is a whole different can of worms.) At that point, a company is doing harm to someone who has no contractual relationship with that company, and yeah, that's definitely grounds for a lawsuit.
In addition to what's already been said, there's a subculture within rednecks of pulling the trucks around somewhere for some chew, smokes, and beers and shooting the shit. Generally talking about hunting and fishing, sports, trucks, and politics while hating on various groups of people. Depending on the location, it might be done at the local fishing hole, someone's garage, or a parking lot somewhere.
If they were going to be leaning on trucks somewhere, might as well do it where they can piss off a couple of liberal environmentalist rich suburban assholes in the process. If none of them show up, so be it. If one or two do, more entertainment.
Cheapest F-150 starts at about $30k, and that's bare-bones. The most expensive one starts at $67k before you add in options.
If Tesla actually ever comes out with their $35k Model E variant, they then overlap pretty much the entire F-150 price-range, save for the $28k-$34k sliver.
And in case a delicate little F-150 isn't for you, if you want to go with the Super Duty Fords, top of the line there starts off at $86,500 before you add options. There's a reason Ford is dropping a lot of its automotive lines in favor of just pumping out F-Series. They're cheap to make, and they successfully sell them at ridiculous prices.
But absolutely, GM has a long history of selling cars with "fit and finish" problems.
If anything, that's an understatement. My extended family went through a rather stupid amount of GM cars in the 80s and 90s, and the vast majority were stinkers. The thing is, they were relatively cheap compared to other cars, at least in our area, and we weren't exactly rich.
I have lots of memories of trying to repair those cars, trucks, and vans. Lots of memories dealing with all the stupid issues, parts which failed repeatedly, and all the irritations that come with lots of lemons. And those memories made it so I've never bought a GM vehicle in my adult life, and I've got no plans to ever do so.
Sure, maybe GM changed, and maybe they now make great vehicles. I really don't care. There are plenty of companies in the world who make vehicles which haven't made my life miserable that I can choose from instead.
When the next oil crisis arrives, consumers will sell off the trucks and SUV and buy subcompacts instead.
Doubtful. It's going to be far more cost effective for automotive manufacturers to just switch to an electric drive-train than it will be to retool entire lines to make smaller cars, and to dust off plans for smaller, more efficient engines and get lines up and running for those.
That's almost possible now, but not quite. In another 5-10 years? Shouldn't be a problem.
The biggest issue will be enough batteries, and more than likely, that's where Tesla ends up making the big bucks. Couple more gigafactories, and they can start to supply everyone else.
where is the proof that each and every landmass during the precambrian/cyrogenian period moved and distributed themselves equally between temperate and tropical zones, ensuring the same degree of solar exposure?
The good news is that you're at least getting closer to understanding why your question about about glaciation all the way to the equator is a stupid question. The bad news is that this is a dumber question, and shows a remarkable lack of understanding of the topic at hand. One step forward and two back, it seems.
But you're welcome to continue on with your little rant about how arrogant and dumb I am rather than reading and learning enough to understand.
They actually hacked the oxygen removal pathway. Apparently within respiration, plants pull in something like 30% O2 rather than CO2, and have to spit that back out. Plants turn CO2 into O2 by photosynthesis, and accidentally pulling in O2 instead is a waste of energy since it's not the feedstock of photosynthesis.
What they did was hack an enzyme which is involved in purging O2, making that process far more efficient. Now when the plant pulls in O2 by accident, it can very efficiently purge that and try again for some CO2.
Still wrong, and entirely missing the big picture.
I've been coming to/. for a long time for intelligent discussion, and I get a little irritated when stupid, ignorant shit gets modded up. Not knowing the first thing you're talking about doesn't entitle you to a polite education from me or anyone else.
You've thrown a little temper-tantrum because I didn't treat your ignorance with respect. Sorry kid, but it doesn't deserve respect. I gave you some really good starting points for you to correct your deep chasm of knowledge, and your response was to piss and moan. If you don't want to become more knowledgeable, that's up to you.
Yep. I had a 2012 and two years ago finally shrugged and got a Dell Precision from their Small Business section loaded with Ubuntu. Way less than the MBP, with a 2 TB drive on board, and the ability to crack it open and slap in whatever SSD I want. Oh, and it has an actual dedicated video card in it! Imagine that!
There was a time when I would happily pay a moderate premium for an Apple product, but that's no longer something they offer. If OSX was still doing OK, that would be one thing, but even that now has so many longstanding bugs and issues that I don't see it as a selling point anymore.
If Apple had kept their 2012-2014 MBPs and just kept the hardware updated, I'd probably still be buying. But no. They had to let the hardware languish, make it thinner and thinner, and jacked the prices into the stratosphere.
Studies show making products more efficient has - along with other factors - already been slightly more effective than renewable energy in cutting CO2 emissions.
The difference is that glamorous renewables grab the headlines.
It's not an all-or-nothing approach. Too much CO2 in the atmosphere has a lot of causes, and a lot of solutions. The key is to work on all of them, not fixate on one of them.
No, you've got the same problem OP has. Thanks for trying to shame me, however. Feel free to read through what I wrote and answer those questions for yourself. You've got the aptitude for learning if you took the baby step of looking up the Snowball Earth, so I have hope for you.
Thanks - that's a helpful comparison. Although I don't watch really any youtube channels either....life is too short to sift through piles of shit looking for diamonds.
Slashdot Mirror
You're making a giant leap that doesn't seem supported by what's reported so far. This doesn't seem to be about analyzing and criticizing in any meaningful way. That seems to be the crux of the problem.
This wasn't pointing out flaws in the peer review process, since a large percentage of the journals weren't even peer reviewed! One was a total sham of a "pay $650 and we'll publish whatever!"
If what you are describing was what happened here, I don't think there'd be a story. The story is what you're describing didn't happen, and the university basically said, "WTF dude?"
This action suggests that the university holds these journals up as some impeachable resource.
Does it? I'm not so sure. To me, it reads more like the university holding that trolling non-academic journals is an activity that's below the expectations of a professor.
Note that a lot of the "journals" they submitted their shit to weren't reputable journals. And at least one of the reputable ones they submitted to rejected their submission. One was even a "pay $650 and we'll publish your shit" non-peer-reviewed journal.
While the publishing industry is a giant parasite on academia, and the for-profit-junk-journals are the worst of the worst, is it really in this professor's scope of work to troll them? This wasn't seemingly a real academic study, which might have passed muster. It reads a lot more like them just dicking around.
When most of us dick around and pull hilarious viral news stunts instead of working, our employers generally don't look upon that fondly.
I'm looking at this as proof-of-concept. Next step are the protection payments. I mean ongoing invoices to be paid in bitcoin for keeping the place drone-free.
Those vans actually exist[d]...
But did the cat-detector van actually exist? And would it matter how happy the cats were?
They want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to be visible and engage online, because it helps them get elected and fund raise. But they don't want to be called to task for doing things people don't like, or have to engage with people who don't like them.
Essentially they want to treat online engagements like ticketed donor dinner parties. Get praise and butter up the fans, all of whom are adoring. Unfortunately, the internet is a lot more like taking a stroll through a rough part of town, and apparently the courts think that's the way it should be. If you want to go there, great. If not, you're welcome to not do that.
What you can't do is have the "cops" clear out all the riff-raff before you go for a stroll.
Outlook does this too, so it's not just google. Apparently the default for not responding is to harass you anyway. If I explicitly decline outlook invitations they go away, but if I don't bother to do anything with them, I get reminders.
So in your world, when someone gets a restraining order and harassment continues from them, that's not evidence of their not complying with it? You live in a strange world. In my world, when you're told not to do something but you keep doing it, that's not complying.
That's not remotely true. Encrypt your data, transfer via the cloud, then unencrypt.
Unless you're using a very outdated encryption method, the absolute worst that can happen is that they keep your data for as long as it takes for that method to get broken or for computing to advance far enough that it can be brute forced. And about the only people willing to do that are the intelligence agencies of nation states, and if you're on their radar, you're probably fucked in a dozen different ways anyway.
You are pretty much totally wrong.
The current management routines are dropping HIV to what is essentially a non-transmissible level in the blood. And no, for the individual person, that's not a cure. But over time, this is dramatically reducing the transmission rate, and over the next couple of decades, it's going to head very rapidly the way polio went. Unless you're going to define "cure" so narrowly that we haven't cured polio?
And that is even if we don't actually find an individual cure it in the near future.
I'm not sure what your problem with modern medicine is, but it seems to be coming from a place of deep ignorance.
No, it doesn't. It creates a giant fucking problem, which is all of our problem: Preventable and curable illnesses addressed early cost far, far less to deal with than they do later. Unless you think very ill and dying people vanish in a puff of smoke, you should realize that every person who takes an ambulance ride to the ER costs the medical system money. Everyone who needs long-term care because their treatable or preventable illness didn't get medical treatment is a drain on the system. Every family that loses a breadwinner or caregiver to a treatable or preventable illness can also become a drain on our social systems. All the money spent on non-treatments could have been used to make families healthier, wealthier, and better educated.
We live in a very well connected society, not in isolated caves up in the mountains. Fake treatments end up hurting all of us, although some far more than others.
Hiding behind a law to stop you doing simple things is disgusting.
I concur completely. Shouldn't take a competent developer long to design a blacklist system for names, addresses, and photos, so they can't be used in accounts. Also shouldn't take a competent developer long to come up with a way to authenticate requests to add data to that blacklist, and remove data. And it sure would take less money than the lawyers will take battling to not do this in court, and would prevent future suits, win or lose this one.
The utter stupidity will be if and when they lose this that they pay legal costs, pay a settlement fine, and still have to pay a developer to implement the system they should have been decent enough to build in the first place. How fucked up is your management if they look at this request and can't say, "Eh, they've got a point. We should build in some safeguards before we get sued for enabling stalking and harassment."
If you had clicked into the story, you'd find that this has already gone before the courts, and they issued a temporary restraining order against Grindr, which Grindr subsequently ignored. Thus the lawsuit. Pretty clear who's in the wrong, eh?
You are partly very, very incorrect.
Instead it's all in the fine print and the user has to bear the full responsibility and consequences even if they aren't at fault.
That makes a giant, giant assumption that the person impacted is a current user of the service. If they aren't a user of the service, they haven't agreed to anything. (Even if the EULA is found to be enforceable, which is a whole different can of worms.) At that point, a company is doing harm to someone who has no contractual relationship with that company, and yeah, that's definitely grounds for a lawsuit.
In addition to what's already been said, there's a subculture within rednecks of pulling the trucks around somewhere for some chew, smokes, and beers and shooting the shit. Generally talking about hunting and fishing, sports, trucks, and politics while hating on various groups of people. Depending on the location, it might be done at the local fishing hole, someone's garage, or a parking lot somewhere.
If they were going to be leaning on trucks somewhere, might as well do it where they can piss off a couple of liberal environmentalist rich suburban assholes in the process. If none of them show up, so be it. If one or two do, more entertainment.
Teslas are also relatively costly...
Have you looked at the price of pickups lately?
https://www.ford.com/trucks/f1...
Cheapest F-150 starts at about $30k, and that's bare-bones. The most expensive one starts at $67k before you add in options.
If Tesla actually ever comes out with their $35k Model E variant, they then overlap pretty much the entire F-150 price-range, save for the $28k-$34k sliver.
And in case a delicate little F-150 isn't for you, if you want to go with the Super Duty Fords, top of the line there starts off at $86,500 before you add options. There's a reason Ford is dropping a lot of its automotive lines in favor of just pumping out F-Series. They're cheap to make, and they successfully sell them at ridiculous prices.
But absolutely, GM has a long history of selling cars with "fit and finish" problems.
If anything, that's an understatement. My extended family went through a rather stupid amount of GM cars in the 80s and 90s, and the vast majority were stinkers. The thing is, they were relatively cheap compared to other cars, at least in our area, and we weren't exactly rich.
I have lots of memories of trying to repair those cars, trucks, and vans. Lots of memories dealing with all the stupid issues, parts which failed repeatedly, and all the irritations that come with lots of lemons. And those memories made it so I've never bought a GM vehicle in my adult life, and I've got no plans to ever do so.
Sure, maybe GM changed, and maybe they now make great vehicles. I really don't care. There are plenty of companies in the world who make vehicles which haven't made my life miserable that I can choose from instead.
When the next oil crisis arrives, consumers will sell off the trucks and SUV and buy subcompacts instead.
Doubtful. It's going to be far more cost effective for automotive manufacturers to just switch to an electric drive-train than it will be to retool entire lines to make smaller cars, and to dust off plans for smaller, more efficient engines and get lines up and running for those.
That's almost possible now, but not quite. In another 5-10 years? Shouldn't be a problem.
The biggest issue will be enough batteries, and more than likely, that's where Tesla ends up making the big bucks. Couple more gigafactories, and they can start to supply everyone else.
where is the proof that each and every landmass during the precambrian/cyrogenian period moved and distributed themselves equally between temperate and tropical zones, ensuring the same degree of solar exposure?
The good news is that you're at least getting closer to understanding why your question about about glaciation all the way to the equator is a stupid question. The bad news is that this is a dumber question, and shows a remarkable lack of understanding of the topic at hand. One step forward and two back, it seems.
But you're welcome to continue on with your little rant about how arrogant and dumb I am rather than reading and learning enough to understand.
They actually hacked the oxygen removal pathway. Apparently within respiration, plants pull in something like 30% O2 rather than CO2, and have to spit that back out. Plants turn CO2 into O2 by photosynthesis, and accidentally pulling in O2 instead is a waste of energy since it's not the feedstock of photosynthesis.
What they did was hack an enzyme which is involved in purging O2, making that process far more efficient. Now when the plant pulls in O2 by accident, it can very efficiently purge that and try again for some CO2.
Still wrong, and entirely missing the big picture.
I've been coming to /. for a long time for intelligent discussion, and I get a little irritated when stupid, ignorant shit gets modded up. Not knowing the first thing you're talking about doesn't entitle you to a polite education from me or anyone else.
You've thrown a little temper-tantrum because I didn't treat your ignorance with respect. Sorry kid, but it doesn't deserve respect. I gave you some really good starting points for you to correct your deep chasm of knowledge, and your response was to piss and moan. If you don't want to become more knowledgeable, that's up to you.
And it looks like the $29 battery replacement window just expired. $99 now, and it will take 2-3 weeks.
Yep. I had a 2012 and two years ago finally shrugged and got a Dell Precision from their Small Business section loaded with Ubuntu. Way less than the MBP, with a 2 TB drive on board, and the ability to crack it open and slap in whatever SSD I want. Oh, and it has an actual dedicated video card in it! Imagine that!
There was a time when I would happily pay a moderate premium for an Apple product, but that's no longer something they offer. If OSX was still doing OK, that would be one thing, but even that now has so many longstanding bugs and issues that I don't see it as a selling point anymore.
If Apple had kept their 2012-2014 MBPs and just kept the hardware updated, I'd probably still be buying. But no. They had to let the hardware languish, make it thinner and thinner, and jacked the prices into the stratosphere.
Hot off the presses - one of the things that gives me hope: https://www.bbc.com/news/scien...
Studies show making products more efficient has - along with other factors - already been slightly more effective than renewable energy in cutting CO2 emissions.
The difference is that glamorous renewables grab the headlines.
It's not an all-or-nothing approach. Too much CO2 in the atmosphere has a lot of causes, and a lot of solutions. The key is to work on all of them, not fixate on one of them.
No, you've got the same problem OP has. Thanks for trying to shame me, however. Feel free to read through what I wrote and answer those questions for yourself. You've got the aptitude for learning if you took the baby step of looking up the Snowball Earth, so I have hope for you.
Thanks - that's a helpful comparison. Although I don't watch really any youtube channels either....life is too short to sift through piles of shit looking for diamonds.