Because papers from before then still have scientific merit and may helpfully inform future papers.
That's what my point was; it's one thing to stop submitting to it because it has become a trash journal. It's quite another to "punish" valid articles it's published in the past.
Does it still hinder some crypto, though? Like how Blu-Ray and DVD player encryption can't have currently-unbreakable keys, as that would make them ineligible for export under ITAR?
(And yes, I'm sure most regard this as a good thing, and not because they like to pirate movies, either.)
If it were just about that, then I agree there's nothing sinister. However, Michael Mann also asked for a *complete* blacklisting of the journal -- not just "Don't submit articles there", but "Don't ever cite anything from it, even good articles from before this scandal."
At that point, he was going beyond "Maintain the integrity of journals" and into "Let politics determine who you cite." Not cool. Not as bad as skeptics portray him, but still not cool.
Oh, I am completely sure that this isn't profitable, because registrars and ICANN would crack down on it immediately, and credit card companies would quickly reverse fraudulent puchases made on these websites, and then pass on the fraudsters' information to law enforcement, allowing them to swiftly shut down these operations.
"We have not answered every question you have. Each answer led to more questions. But perhaps now we are confused at a more sophisticated level, and about more important things."
Philosphers still debate this stuff? Hasn't Judea Pearl (et al) already solved this with the method of causal nets and counterfactual surgery? (Presentation)
Okay, okay, good. We're making some progress here. We're making progress.
So you're at the point where you understand why the penalty for wronging someone has to be *worse* than just the cost of undoing that wrong. Alright, I'll take that, that's definitely more progress than I had hoped for.
Now, you're still having a little trouble on admitting any level of similarity between copyright infringement and theft because you can think of one difference, which gives you enough intellectual "covering fire" to make the claim with a straight face. We're going to have to work on that some more.
Also, we're going to need to pencil in some time to talk about red herrings so you can understand why people might cringe at "There's no loss of bits to the owner" -- which, indeed, is also true in shoplifting.
But frankly, I'm proud enough of the progress we've made. You'll still forget it by the next discussion, but this gives me a little hope.
Doing opinion pieces is orthogonal to journalism; doing more of them does not somehow make your group more jouranlistic.
They're not "just" a repository for leaked documents. Any damn fool can set up a repository for leaked documents. Where WL differs is that they have done it in just the right way so that they get relevant documents that matter, and perform some level of filtering so that abusive stuff isn't posted, nor is the site cluttered with random bitstreams.
Lots of "real" journalists have leaked stuff fall right into their laps -- do we trivialize that the same way? No, we recognize that *being* the one people trust with the leaked documents takes work -- the work of a journalist.
Samsung Moment user here too. Hardware keyboards FTW.
Still, I shudder when I read stuff like this: "This is not just another tablet. We call it a Smart Media device," Thomas Richter, Samsung's head of product portfolio, told an IFA press conference
*sigh*... If you have a good product, why the insistence on marketingspeak. Then again, Apple insists on dropping the definite article for the iPhone, er, I mean, for iPhone.
"So I say to the guy, How're you going to get the tank down to the planet? And he goes, I'll just put it on the ship. And I go, if you've got a ship that can carry a tank, why not just put guns on the ship and use it instead?"
What's the non-malicious reason his party affiliation isn't mentioned in the article? And for the general pattern of mentioning that it's a Republican if he done wrong, but not say he's a Democrat if he done wrong?
Do you think the local news could get their mouths off of the authorities' collective dick long enough to air something like that? No, they'd keep quiet about it.
The important difference is that with encryption, they know you're sending messages that you want to keep secret, while with steganography, they don't know you're sending the messages to begin with -- not the critical ones.
Slashdot Mirror
Take one of those knitting kneedles and jab it into someone's eye, puncturing the brain. Very deadly.
That's why they don't let grandmas on a plane with knitting needles.
Well, *obviously* Buddhism has divas -- Richard Gere, Brad Pitt, Tiger Woods, heck, maybe even the Dalai Lama!
(And make sure to spell it right next time.)
Because papers from before then still have scientific merit and may helpfully inform future papers.
That's what my point was; it's one thing to stop submitting to it because it has become a trash journal. It's quite another to "punish" valid articles it's published in the past.
Does it still hinder some crypto, though? Like how Blu-Ray and DVD player encryption can't have currently-unbreakable keys, as that would make them ineligible for export under ITAR?
(And yes, I'm sure most regard this as a good thing, and not because they like to pirate movies, either.)
If it were just about that, then I agree there's nothing sinister. However, Michael Mann also asked for a *complete* blacklisting of the journal -- not just "Don't submit articles there", but "Don't ever cite anything from it, even good articles from before this scandal."
At that point, he was going beyond "Maintain the integrity of journals" and into "Let politics determine who you cite." Not cool. Not as bad as skeptics portray him, but still not cool.
Oh, I am completely sure that this isn't profitable, because registrars and ICANN would crack down on it immediately, and credit card companies would quickly reverse fraudulent puchases made on these websites, and then pass on the fraudsters' information to law enforcement, allowing them to swiftly shut down these operations.
*jerk-off gesture*
"We have not answered every question you have. Each answer led to more questions. But perhaps now we are confused at a more sophisticated level, and about more important things."
So when they talked about "offshore drilling rights", they meant the term literally? I thought that was just a euphemism for hookers on cruise ships!
In fairness, Microsoft dropped ACID too.
Philosphers still debate this stuff? Hasn't Judea Pearl (et al) already solved this with the method of causal nets and counterfactual surgery? (Presentation)
Thanks for nothing, philosophers!
Jaron Lanier, is that you?
Okay, okay, good. We're making some progress here. We're making progress.
So you're at the point where you understand why the penalty for wronging someone has to be *worse* than just the cost of undoing that wrong. Alright, I'll take that, that's definitely more progress than I had hoped for.
Now, you're still having a little trouble on admitting any level of similarity between copyright infringement and theft because you can think of one difference, which gives you enough intellectual "covering fire" to make the claim with a straight face. We're going to have to work on that some more.
Also, we're going to need to pencil in some time to talk about red herrings so you can understand why people might cringe at "There's no loss of bits to the owner" -- which, indeed, is also true in shoplifting.
But frankly, I'm proud enough of the progress we've made. You'll still forget it by the next discussion, but this gives me a little hope.
But that's for the British convention of dd/mm/yy. What happens if you read October 10th with mm/dd/yy?
Do you see why shoplifters should be required to give back more than (the price of) the item they stole?
Okay -- start from there.
Doing opinion pieces is orthogonal to journalism; doing more of them does not somehow make your group more jouranlistic.
They're not "just" a repository for leaked documents. Any damn fool can set up a repository for leaked documents. Where WL differs is that they have done it in just the right way so that they get relevant documents that matter, and perform some level of filtering so that abusive stuff isn't posted, nor is the site cluttered with random bitstreams.
Lots of "real" journalists have leaked stuff fall right into their laps -- do we trivialize that the same way? No, we recognize that *being* the one people trust with the leaked documents takes work -- the work of a journalist.
... which would also make it easy for users to get the ebooks for free, making it impossible for authors to make money this way.
Samsung Moment user here too. Hardware keyboards FTW.
Still, I shudder when I read stuff like this: "This is not just another tablet. We call it a Smart Media device," Thomas Richter, Samsung's head of product portfolio, told an IFA press conference
*sigh* ... If you have a good product, why the insistence on marketingspeak. Then again, Apple insists on dropping the definite article for the iPhone, er, I mean, for iPhone.
I have one word for you: Water gate.
Don't be silly -- the Library of Congress is just a unit of measurement! Would you ever hear about a megabyte opening up records?
"So I say to the guy, How're you going to get the tank down to the planet? And he goes, I'll just put it on the ship. And I go, if you've got a ship that can carry a tank, why not just put guns on the ship and use it instead?"
Source.
What's the non-malicious reason his party affiliation isn't mentioned in the article? And for the general pattern of mentioning that it's a Republican if he done wrong, but not say he's a Democrat if he done wrong?
I bow before your tremendous powers of hair-splitting.
Do you think the local news could get their mouths off of the authorities' collective dick long enough to air something like that? No, they'd keep quiet about it.
Nein.
The important difference is that with encryption, they know you're sending messages that you want to keep secret, while with steganography, they don't know you're sending the messages to begin with -- not the critical ones.