More of an archaism than a misspelling... You know, sometimes the spelling of various words can change over the course of a few hundred years. "Control" used to be spelled "Comptrol" and "Controul" as well as "Control". Hence the office of "comptroller". See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/controul for my source.
Well, I've been using Linux extensively for nearly a decade now, and the only time I've had X break was when I was playing with it, trying to break it. (So that I would know what kinds of things would break it, so that I would have the fun of figuring out how to fix it, and so that I would know how to fix it. (I'm a geek. Sue me.))
I install ubuntu packages pretty blindly, and quite often. Narry a problem with X yet. Not even any other sort of package installation problem has occurred since I switched to ubuntu (from Mandriva, and Red Hat before that).
Yep. I hated Linux for at least a month when I switched, and I'm a particularly determined SOB. That was late 90s, and the situation is a lot better now. A particularly determined SOB like me would probably only hate it for a week or two now, and a less determined fellow might only hate it for a month or two now, as opposed to the (WAG) year or so (s)he might have hated it then.
Stick with it. The unfamiliar things that seem like impossibilities now will seem trivial after you read the forums and learn how to do them. For a thought exercise: imagine that you had been using J. Random OS for your whole life, and decided to switch to Windows. Really think about that one very very carefully.
You don't need to be an expert, you just need to be either not a noob, or patient. The patience gets you through being a noob. The same is true with just about anything worth learning to do, and is the reason for the existence of the phrase "learning curve".
If you like, I (or somebody else) can suggest some tutorials that you might look through (think of the classes at the local community center for proverbial grandmothers getting their first computer and not having any clue how to do anything on Windows, either). I probably won't check this again until tomorrow night, though, so if you ask for tutorials, be patient please. Heck, if you want, I'll even give you my email address, and an offer of personal help. But again, keep patience in mind. I might not have all the solutions, and even when I do have solutions, it might take a while and a lot of back and forth to get them. That's the nature of the beast, no matter your OS. Unless you have a paid support contract and can crack the whip.
So it would make sense if the student were saying "Yep, you got me, I deserve to be punished. But 40 days is excessive, perhaps even cruel and unusual, so I'm suing to have the punishment reduced to something more reasonable." Instead, he's suing because the school has infringed upon his freedom of speech, which I don't think they actually have.
I agree with you, but the student is going after something completely different, and incorrect. I hope he loses the case because of this. If he were suing over the magnitude of the punishment, I would hope he would win the case.
Off the top of my head, I don't know. But I do know that the Mozilla Foundation releases Firefox updates as binaries. You can also get the source, but nonetheless the binary is there. The GGP was complaining that everything had to be compiled from source, and you have not provided an example to support that claim.
However IIRC, firefox is set up to install its own updates to itself rather painlessly and automagically (as in, press the button that says "Yes, install now"), regardless of your platform... If you need more help than that, then I'd suggest you check out the ubuntu support forums. Believe it or not, if you have a problem like this, it is quite likely that someone else has already had the same problem. Thus a quick search should turn up a solution. If not, then either you need better search skills (which will serve you well in many areas of your life), or you should open a new thread. Be polite, make it clear that you've put effort into solving the problem yourself (even if you haven't had any results, say "I searched using google with this search string: and I didn't get any useful results in the first 8 pages of hits), and you'll usually get some good help.
You really haven't used Linux in a long time. Package management of precompiled binaries has been a major feature, even the defining feature, of most distributions for at least 8 years. Something like 22,000+ packages available in the Ubuntu repositories today, all of them precompiled. You don't even have to know what a compiler is to use most any program you can think of on Ubuntu. (or RHEL, or SUSE, or Mandriva, or, or, or)
IANA economist, but I still think that, while I might not be completely right, I'm certainly not as wrong as you think I am.
You seem to assume both that corn production is fixed and will not increase displacing other crops, and that production of products that substitute for corn is unlimited at status quo prices. Both of these are false assumptions.
Provided the increase in corn price is sufficiently small, then my assumptions are quite reasonable approximations. It's called a Taylor series approach, and is very common. Now, I have no idea how to quantify "sufficiently small" in this case nor do I know how great the increase in corn price is, so I don't know if the condition of "sufficiently small" holds here. (Sometimes, "sufficiently small" turns out to be quite large indeed.) You seem to be saying that it does not hold here. Do you know that it does not?
Additionally, many of the corn substitute producing crops are grown in places that cannot grow corn very well, and vice versa. Thus, increased corn production might displace wheat production, but not so much sugar cane production. There is a reason that corn is grown in Iowa and cane is grown in Brazil, and it has rather little to do with economics.
So, for people for whom their main problem is that they cannot afford healthful foods, it will make the problem worse. For people who can afford adequate quantities of healthy or unhealthy food, but they currently choose unhealthy foods in part for price, it may improve their diet. The middle class may be forced to eat better, while the poor are harder pressed to put food of any kind on the table.
Typically, as prices rise, so do wages. This is a little known phenomenon called "inflation".;) Even for those without wages, well, as the wages of the rest of the population increase, so do their charitable donations, and so does (presumably? perhaps not actually?) welfare. Maybe this income inflation will exceed price inflation, and maybe it won't. I don't see any immediately obvious (ie acceptable for/., where an entire economics paper won't really fit) reason that it should be either way. If the income inflation at least matches the price inflation, then the poor become able to eat better.
Nobody is looking for particular events. Everything is statistical in nature. "Do the distributions of these umpteen variables, which are calculable for each event, match what would be expected from theory?" is the basic question. So, in some sense, there is no such thing as "groundbreaking events", and certainly pretty much nobody just goes exploring through the data (by which I assume you mean eyeballing individual events one after another). Offline storage has nothing to do with this; the culprit is just the sheer amount of data combined with the excessively low probabilities of all the interesting processes. Everything with a higher probability has been seen already.
And yes, before somebody asks, people regularly do analyses that are asking the question "Do the distributions of these umpteen variables not match what would be expected from theory, in a statistically significant way?" They very very very rarely find anything, but we keep doing these broad spectrum searches for new physics because it'd just be really cool to be the one to find something utterly unexpected.
Also, unless I'm mistaken, the price per bit for tape is better, and the long-term stability of the data on tapes is much better. Hard disks degrade quite rapidly in comparison to tapes. I have no idea about the power consumption.
It might well make the price of corn syrup and other corn derived sweeteners closer to the price of cane or beet sugar. Ethanol demand (corn-derived ethanol, that is) will raise the price of foods using corn sweeteners, but not raise the price of foods using cane or beet sugar (unless those foods use corn products in other ways, of course). Since only food somehow related to corn (which, yes, I realize includes meats and dairy products) will experience an increase in price, various substitutes for corn derivatives will begin to be used more. Some of these are most likely more healthful than the corn products they replace.
If you accept the thesis that the corn subsidies and the sugar tariffs are largely to blame for poor nutrition (which I haven't seen enough evidence (just in passing, I don't care quite enough to spend time looking) to decide on yet), then it follows that a significant increase in the price of corn without a corresponding increase in the price of things like cane sugar will improve the healthfulness of the cheapest foods in the grocery stores.
Re:Buy a second computer to get to the forums?
on
Dell Linux Details
·
· Score: 1
Do you really not have any friends or neighbors who have computers that connect to the internet? Sometimes it pays off to make nice with people.
Won't be stored on hard drives. At least, only a small portion of the total amount of data taken after a year or two will be stored on hard drives at any given time. The data gets archived on tape drives.
I don't know for sure that that is how it will be at CERN, but I know that that is how we do it at Fermilab, and I don't know of any change in technology between when that was set up and now that would invalidate the reasoning behind using tape at Fermilab. So, I would expect that CERN would do the same.
But you neglect that I also mentioned that in this hypothetical system, the opportunity for remote code execution occurs both very rarely and very briefly. To be more specific, we might say that the program enters an exploitable state for on average six seconds, at an average rate of once per 3 months of continuous running. Furthermore, I also specified that the program is not a daemon or a kernel (or anything else long-running), but is instead an incidental user-app. So perhaps it is run for up to about 4 hours per day. At that rate, not counting weekends, it would take 36 weeks (mental math disclaimer) before the program would enter an exploitable state for six seconds, and then leave the exploitable state again. We might further suppose, just for kicks and because we can, that the particular string of bytes needed to activate the exploit depends upon the state of the program, and thus would not be expected to be the same from one exploitable-time to another.
The severity of the potential exploit must be considered, and remote code execution is a nasty one. But, in order to really triage the bug, you also have to consider the probability of exploit. Since this one is such an extremely low-probability exploit, the priority of the bug goes down dramatically (in my estimation). Even though it is arbitrary code execution.
If my hypothetical stats don't give a low-enough probability for you, then strengthen them. Maybe the bug occurs once per 56 years of continuous running, and the exploitable state only lasts for 16 cpu cycles. Maybe this seems ridiculous, but perhaps bugs of this extremely low probability are rampant, and we just don't know about them because they're all but impossible to find, and nobody would care even if they did find one.
... states that Congress has the authority to establish laws that protect these to "promote the progress of science and useful arts."
Not quite exactly right. The constitution gives Congress the authority to promote the progress of science and useful arts by establishing these protections. It is a subtle but important distinction, and places the emphasis very firmly upon the promotion of progress of science and useful arts.
Partly so that after the creator of the work is dead, the work doesn't also die. If the copyright never expires, then nobody can use it without the copyright holder's permission. If the copyright holder is dead, then he/she can't give permission. Of course, this is ignoring the possibility of transfer of copyright to the estate of the creator.
Also, any creative work which is worthwhile will become known to a large portion of the population. In some sense, it becomes part of our culture. There is an idea that things that are part of our culture and heritage are really collective property, and should be unrestricted. The "Happy Birthday" song is one example: nearly everybody growing up learns that song, and sings it fairly frequently. But, the copyright holder has in recent years decided to tighten the screws, so that restaurants, etc, cannot use the song. This might be said to have had a (minor) detrimental effect on our culture's development. If copyright expires, then suchlike things are mitigated and limited.
Patents are meant to grant a monopoly so that the inventor can get a company selling his invention off the ground even in the face of nasty competition. Monopolies are generally thought to be a Bad Thing, notably by the US government, which has anti-trust laws, so it would be rather contradictory to grant an eternal monopoly.
The GP said that most people don't change their own oil, not that very few people do change their own oil. Most people not changing their own oil and Walmart having a large amount of floorspace dedicated to oil-changing products are not incompatible. Very few people do change their own oil, compared to the number that do not.
Low-risk does not mean easy to fix. Sometimes, a bug might be a very low-risk bug, but demand immense amounts of time to find and fix. For instance, sometimes I might be writing a program, and at some point, it begins crashing unpredictably, but very rarely. I know that there is a bug, but I have no idea what the trigger is, I have no idea which part of the code contains the bug, and I have no idea how to fix it. Since the MTBF is (say) 3 months, and (say) the code is not long-running (like a daemon or a kernel), it is probably not worth finding and fixing the bug.
Now, that's bugs, which is a wider category than security holes. So, suppose that instead of crashing, it very rarely and briefly enters a state in which a particular sequence of bytes sent to it via the net can cause it to execute arbitrary code. Furthermore, suppose the program should never be running as root, so the arbitrary code is nearly useless. This is a low risk security hole, and probably not worth patching.
Could take hundreds of man-hours to find the cause, and perhaps even longer to fix. Probability of ever seeing this exploited is very very low. Should it then be patched?
GCC does not by default implement ansi C, yet we still call it a C compiler. I don't know exactly which pieces of GCC C are different from ansi C, but there are plenty. Standards compliance can be obtained by the use of the -ansi flag, however. So, we're back to the question that the GP had: Why don't we get rid of nasty functions that are extremely prone to holes, and just add them back in whenever somebody uses the -ansi flag?
Thing is, in this case, the guy being charged didn't cross any oceans. He stayed in one place. This is as if you stole a piece of bread in New York City, and then suddenly found yourself arrested by the LAPD, and whisked off to stand trial in LA (only worse, because at least NYC and LA are both in the US). It is a matter not of whether or not the man should be punished, but where he should be punished and whose laws he should be punished under. He is an Australian. He stood on Australian soil and broke Australian laws. He was never under US jurisdiction at all until we picked him up and brought him here without any justification. He should be charged. If convicted, he should be punished. IN AUSTRALIA!
Well, presumably the US Navy consists primarily of English speakers. Also, the bulk of the people who ought to be interested in work by the US Navy, an arm of the US government, are English speakers. So, it would seem that the US Navy should publish their work (at least, that which is publishable) in a English-language journal. The fact that this was not done might suggest that it was not possible; no English language journal would accept their work. There might be other explanations, but this is the most obvious one, and it is certainly plausible.
Add to that the fact that, since WWII, English has become the de facto language of the physics community, and it looks suspicious again.
Thus, we see that the question "Why was it published in a German journal?" is quite likely the result of a thought process similar to that outlined above, rather than "xenophobic racism".
Better than bending over and taking it from the RIAA, yet still learning nothing. Most people are never going to care enough to learn why they take whichever course of action they take, so I'm satisfied that they do fight, whether they know why or not.
I'd rather they learned, and I'm willing to put forth a little bit of effort to teach, but I'm not going to tell them not to fight just because they don't know why.
It matters more that the article is a waste of time than whether he is a blogger or a "real" journalist. Unless of course you define "real" journalists as people who write only articles that are not wastes of time and bloggers oppositely... But I don't think that is a very useful definition.
Either he must abandon his principles and break the law, or he must stick to his principles, which means not following the instructions of his immediate superiors. Practically, this usually means quitting.
Did you read this part? I am not invoking the fallacy, I am legitimately using the law of the excluded middle. Either he must abandon his principles or he must stick to his principles. This is rather obviously A or not-A, because sticking to his principles is directly the negation of abandoning his principles. Abandoning his principles means breaking the law. Sticking to his principles means not following the instructions of his immediate superiors. Not following the instructions of his immediate superiors will usually result in loss of his job. Please note well that I was very careful to qualify the statement I made about quitting; I said usually, not always, and I stated plainly that quitting was a practical, as opposed to logical, conclusion. So, no, I am not using the fallacy, nor am I saying "Abandon your principles or quit!", nor am I admitting to using the fallacy (because I haven't). I am saying "Abandon your principles or (probably) quit, although it is true that occasionally it works out to where you don't have to quit to stick to your principles in a situation like this!". There is a big difference here, and you need to pay better attention to big differences like this one.
Slashdot Mirror
More of an archaism than a misspelling... You know, sometimes the spelling of various words can change over the course of a few hundred years. "Control" used to be spelled "Comptrol" and "Controul" as well as "Control". Hence the office of "comptroller". See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/controul for my source.
Well, I've been using Linux extensively for nearly a decade now, and the only time I've had X break was when I was playing with it, trying to break it. (So that I would know what kinds of things would break it, so that I would have the fun of figuring out how to fix it, and so that I would know how to fix it. (I'm a geek. Sue me.))
I install ubuntu packages pretty blindly, and quite often. Narry a problem with X yet. Not even any other sort of package installation problem has occurred since I switched to ubuntu (from Mandriva, and Red Hat before that).
Yep. I hated Linux for at least a month when I switched, and I'm a particularly determined SOB. That was late 90s, and the situation is a lot better now. A particularly determined SOB like me would probably only hate it for a week or two now, and a less determined fellow might only hate it for a month or two now, as opposed to the (WAG) year or so (s)he might have hated it then.
Stick with it. The unfamiliar things that seem like impossibilities now will seem trivial after you read the forums and learn how to do them. For a thought exercise: imagine that you had been using J. Random OS for your whole life, and decided to switch to Windows. Really think about that one very very carefully.
You don't need to be an expert, you just need to be either not a noob, or patient. The patience gets you through being a noob. The same is true with just about anything worth learning to do, and is the reason for the existence of the phrase "learning curve".
If you like, I (or somebody else) can suggest some tutorials that you might look through (think of the classes at the local community center for proverbial grandmothers getting their first computer and not having any clue how to do anything on Windows, either). I probably won't check this again until tomorrow night, though, so if you ask for tutorials, be patient please. Heck, if you want, I'll even give you my email address, and an offer of personal help. But again, keep patience in mind. I might not have all the solutions, and even when I do have solutions, it might take a while and a lot of back and forth to get them. That's the nature of the beast, no matter your OS. Unless you have a paid support contract and can crack the whip.
So it would make sense if the student were saying "Yep, you got me, I deserve to be punished. But 40 days is excessive, perhaps even cruel and unusual, so I'm suing to have the punishment reduced to something more reasonable." Instead, he's suing because the school has infringed upon his freedom of speech, which I don't think they actually have.
I agree with you, but the student is going after something completely different, and incorrect. I hope he loses the case because of this. If he were suing over the magnitude of the punishment, I would hope he would win the case.
Off the top of my head, I don't know. But I do know that the Mozilla Foundation releases Firefox updates as binaries. You can also get the source, but nonetheless the binary is there. The GGP was complaining that everything had to be compiled from source, and you have not provided an example to support that claim.
However IIRC, firefox is set up to install its own updates to itself rather painlessly and automagically (as in, press the button that says "Yes, install now"), regardless of your platform... If you need more help than that, then I'd suggest you check out the ubuntu support forums. Believe it or not, if you have a problem like this, it is quite likely that someone else has already had the same problem. Thus a quick search should turn up a solution. If not, then either you need better search skills (which will serve you well in many areas of your life), or you should open a new thread. Be polite, make it clear that you've put effort into solving the problem yourself (even if you haven't had any results, say "I searched using google with this search string: and I didn't get any useful results in the first 8 pages of hits), and you'll usually get some good help.
You really haven't used Linux in a long time. Package management of precompiled binaries has been a major feature, even the defining feature, of most distributions for at least 8 years. Something like 22,000+ packages available in the Ubuntu repositories today, all of them precompiled. You don't even have to know what a compiler is to use most any program you can think of on Ubuntu. (or RHEL, or SUSE, or Mandriva, or, or, or)
Provided the increase in corn price is sufficiently small, then my assumptions are quite reasonable approximations. It's called a Taylor series approach, and is very common. Now, I have no idea how to quantify "sufficiently small" in this case nor do I know how great the increase in corn price is, so I don't know if the condition of "sufficiently small" holds here. (Sometimes, "sufficiently small" turns out to be quite large indeed.) You seem to be saying that it does not hold here. Do you know that it does not?
Additionally, many of the corn substitute producing crops are grown in places that cannot grow corn very well, and vice versa. Thus, increased corn production might displace wheat production, but not so much sugar cane production. There is a reason that corn is grown in Iowa and cane is grown in Brazil, and it has rather little to do with economics.
Typically, as prices rise, so do wages. This is a little known phenomenon called "inflation".
Was that "No, the technology is not there", or "Not- the technology is not there" (reducing to "The technology is there")?
Nobody is looking for particular events. Everything is statistical in nature. "Do the distributions of these umpteen variables, which are calculable for each event, match what would be expected from theory?" is the basic question. So, in some sense, there is no such thing as "groundbreaking events", and certainly pretty much nobody just goes exploring through the data (by which I assume you mean eyeballing individual events one after another). Offline storage has nothing to do with this; the culprit is just the sheer amount of data combined with the excessively low probabilities of all the interesting processes. Everything with a higher probability has been seen already.
And yes, before somebody asks, people regularly do analyses that are asking the question "Do the distributions of these umpteen variables not match what would be expected from theory, in a statistically significant way?" They very very very rarely find anything, but we keep doing these broad spectrum searches for new physics because it'd just be really cool to be the one to find something utterly unexpected.
Also, unless I'm mistaken, the price per bit for tape is better, and the long-term stability of the data on tapes is much better. Hard disks degrade quite rapidly in comparison to tapes. I have no idea about the power consumption.
It might well make the price of corn syrup and other corn derived sweeteners closer to the price of cane or beet sugar. Ethanol demand (corn-derived ethanol, that is) will raise the price of foods using corn sweeteners, but not raise the price of foods using cane or beet sugar (unless those foods use corn products in other ways, of course). Since only food somehow related to corn (which, yes, I realize includes meats and dairy products) will experience an increase in price, various substitutes for corn derivatives will begin to be used more. Some of these are most likely more healthful than the corn products they replace.
If you accept the thesis that the corn subsidies and the sugar tariffs are largely to blame for poor nutrition (which I haven't seen enough evidence (just in passing, I don't care quite enough to spend time looking) to decide on yet), then it follows that a significant increase in the price of corn without a corresponding increase in the price of things like cane sugar will improve the healthfulness of the cheapest foods in the grocery stores.
Do you really not have any friends or neighbors who have computers that connect to the internet? Sometimes it pays off to make nice with people.
Won't be stored on hard drives. At least, only a small portion of the total amount of data taken after a year or two will be stored on hard drives at any given time. The data gets archived on tape drives.
I don't know for sure that that is how it will be at CERN, but I know that that is how we do it at Fermilab, and I don't know of any change in technology between when that was set up and now that would invalidate the reasoning behind using tape at Fermilab. So, I would expect that CERN would do the same.
But you neglect that I also mentioned that in this hypothetical system, the opportunity for remote code execution occurs both very rarely and very briefly. To be more specific, we might say that the program enters an exploitable state for on average six seconds, at an average rate of once per 3 months of continuous running. Furthermore, I also specified that the program is not a daemon or a kernel (or anything else long-running), but is instead an incidental user-app. So perhaps it is run for up to about 4 hours per day. At that rate, not counting weekends, it would take 36 weeks (mental math disclaimer) before the program would enter an exploitable state for six seconds, and then leave the exploitable state again. We might further suppose, just for kicks and because we can, that the particular string of bytes needed to activate the exploit depends upon the state of the program, and thus would not be expected to be the same from one exploitable-time to another.
The severity of the potential exploit must be considered, and remote code execution is a nasty one. But, in order to really triage the bug, you also have to consider the probability of exploit. Since this one is such an extremely low-probability exploit, the priority of the bug goes down dramatically (in my estimation). Even though it is arbitrary code execution.
If my hypothetical stats don't give a low-enough probability for you, then strengthen them. Maybe the bug occurs once per 56 years of continuous running, and the exploitable state only lasts for 16 cpu cycles. Maybe this seems ridiculous, but perhaps bugs of this extremely low probability are rampant, and we just don't know about them because they're all but impossible to find, and nobody would care even if they did find one.
Partly so that after the creator of the work is dead, the work doesn't also die. If the copyright never expires, then nobody can use it without the copyright holder's permission. If the copyright holder is dead, then he/she can't give permission. Of course, this is ignoring the possibility of transfer of copyright to the estate of the creator.
Also, any creative work which is worthwhile will become known to a large portion of the population. In some sense, it becomes part of our culture. There is an idea that things that are part of our culture and heritage are really collective property, and should be unrestricted. The "Happy Birthday" song is one example: nearly everybody growing up learns that song, and sings it fairly frequently. But, the copyright holder has in recent years decided to tighten the screws, so that restaurants, etc, cannot use the song. This might be said to have had a (minor) detrimental effect on our culture's development. If copyright expires, then suchlike things are mitigated and limited.
Patents are meant to grant a monopoly so that the inventor can get a company selling his invention off the ground even in the face of nasty competition. Monopolies are generally thought to be a Bad Thing, notably by the US government, which has anti-trust laws, so it would be rather contradictory to grant an eternal monopoly.
The GP said that most people don't change their own oil, not that very few people do change their own oil. Most people not changing their own oil and Walmart having a large amount of floorspace dedicated to oil-changing products are not incompatible. Very few people do change their own oil, compared to the number that do not.
Low-risk does not mean easy to fix. Sometimes, a bug might be a very low-risk bug, but demand immense amounts of time to find and fix. For instance, sometimes I might be writing a program, and at some point, it begins crashing unpredictably, but very rarely. I know that there is a bug, but I have no idea what the trigger is, I have no idea which part of the code contains the bug, and I have no idea how to fix it. Since the MTBF is (say) 3 months, and (say) the code is not long-running (like a daemon or a kernel), it is probably not worth finding and fixing the bug.
Now, that's bugs, which is a wider category than security holes. So, suppose that instead of crashing, it very rarely and briefly enters a state in which a particular sequence of bytes sent to it via the net can cause it to execute arbitrary code. Furthermore, suppose the program should never be running as root, so the arbitrary code is nearly useless. This is a low risk security hole, and probably not worth patching.
Could take hundreds of man-hours to find the cause, and perhaps even longer to fix. Probability of ever seeing this exploited is very very low. Should it then be patched?
Actually, they will probably pass the costs of development and manufacture on to the consumer, and then pocket even more profit. </tinfoil>
GCC does not by default implement ansi C, yet we still call it a C compiler. I don't know exactly which pieces of GCC C are different from ansi C, but there are plenty. Standards compliance can be obtained by the use of the -ansi flag, however. So, we're back to the question that the GP had: Why don't we get rid of nasty functions that are extremely prone to holes, and just add them back in whenever somebody uses the -ansi flag?
Thing is, in this case, the guy being charged didn't cross any oceans. He stayed in one place. This is as if you stole a piece of bread in New York City, and then suddenly found yourself arrested by the LAPD, and whisked off to stand trial in LA (only worse, because at least NYC and LA are both in the US). It is a matter not of whether or not the man should be punished, but where he should be punished and whose laws he should be punished under. He is an Australian. He stood on Australian soil and broke Australian laws. He was never under US jurisdiction at all until we picked him up and brought him here without any justification. He should be charged. If convicted, he should be punished. IN AUSTRALIA!
Well, presumably the US Navy consists primarily of English speakers. Also, the bulk of the people who ought to be interested in work by the US Navy, an arm of the US government, are English speakers. So, it would seem that the US Navy should publish their work (at least, that which is publishable) in a English-language journal. The fact that this was not done might suggest that it was not possible; no English language journal would accept their work. There might be other explanations, but this is the most obvious one, and it is certainly plausible.
Add to that the fact that, since WWII, English has become the de facto language of the physics community, and it looks suspicious again.
Thus, we see that the question "Why was it published in a German journal?" is quite likely the result of a thought process similar to that outlined above, rather than "xenophobic racism".
Better than bending over and taking it from the RIAA, yet still learning nothing. Most people are never going to care enough to learn why they take whichever course of action they take, so I'm satisfied that they do fight, whether they know why or not.
I'd rather they learned, and I'm willing to put forth a little bit of effort to teach, but I'm not going to tell them not to fight just because they don't know why.
It matters more that the article is a waste of time than whether he is a blogger or a "real" journalist. Unless of course you define "real" journalists as people who write only articles that are not wastes of time and bloggers oppositely... But I don't think that is a very useful definition.
"I'm inserting my unwilling penis into your shit bucket full of rusty nails"? Good grief.