I did not acknowledge anything (I'm an openSUSE community member working on KDE), I only acknowledged a manifesto and code of conduct when I signed up to be an openSUSE member.
This announcement is the best way to prevent me from using Mendeley. I will not touch anything that's handled by Elsevier, just as I refuse to review anything that comes from them.
I had already tried - and got rejected. It's not that "sits in the dark corners of my disk" - I use it regularly (daily), but I'd love to spread it around (also more eyeballs around etc etc).
It doesn't help that I'm the only one doing this in my institution.
And to answer other replies, I had a *huge* flame with a Detroit professor because he wanted to keep other things closed - luckily I won that battle and the stuff went out as LGPL.
Actually, no. Code can be the matter of a paper - and by releasing it, you may break the "novelty" aspect and never publish anything.
I have a bunch of software I've been very willing to set free (it has already even GPL3 headers!) but I can't, because it might be publishable one day.
If you read another developer's response to this commit you will see that the actual feature (reject cross domain cookies) was not affected by this blunder: instead the issue was completely different and only occurred when the KDE daemon was restarted.
Actually, after getting out in (very rough shape) in 4.7, KMail got a new maintainer, and he's been fixing bugs and improving things like crazy (look at the commits by "montel").
Also other people have been working on other parts of the infrastructure and there are more fixes on the way.
Lastly, you're putting together two things unrelated to each other: Akonadi is a local cache for PIM data (contacts, mails, calendars...), while Nepomuk is a framework used to organize data semantically (and used a lot in other bits of the KDE platform), which is used in Akonadi to store mail and contact data for searching.
Compared to Romney, Obama is likely to be somewhat less friendly to hedge funds and private equity companies
Disclaimer: I'm not a US citizen and I found the presidential election to be a fight between two pygmies.
However, did the "less friendly" included giving a massive bailout that basically socialized the losses made by the people who created the subprime bubble?
Sadly, even scientific journals frown upon "negative results" nowadays (at least in my field, the life sciences). And few if any bother to publish them.
I am not taking sides in this, as I haven't read the paper. But I question the fact that often extreme skepticism (cynism) isn't backed by facts, but by suspects, especially once a result is not "wanted".
Going after the funding without looking and (possibly questioning) the results scientifically smells of straw man.
and that is assuming this study is telling the truth, for example, Stanford has ties to Monsanto
If that's the case, debunk the science of the article, and not question the results merely basing on "ties": if it were published due to a "push" it would have flaws, wouldn't it?.
Surely peer review has faults, but do you think this paper didn't go through it?
To be honest, developing a drug is really expensive. And the most expensive part is not the actual R&D, but the testing (the phase I-II-III clinical trials). In particular, phase III clinical trials are one of the largest money sink in the whole operation.
And you have consider that only a fraction of the developed drugs make it to the market for a number of reason (efficacy not larger than existing alternatives, side effects, etc.).
As far as I can remember, these studies on Neanderthal used mitochondrial DNA (i.e., the DNA stored in the mitochondria, which is separate from the one in the nucleus) rather than genomic (i.e. the DNA in the nucleus of the cell).
After all that, *if* you can find a job, you get paid for a year's work about what a Wall Street broker makes during the time he's sitting on the toilet taking a dump
Sorry for the bluntness, but so what? I'm only worried about my pay if it doesn't give me enough to have a reasonable standard of life. Why should I be envious of my other peers?
Even if "who to collaborate with" is your boss, or the head of the department, or whatever (yes, they want to be the final name, but they may "suggest" names to get other collaborators happy)? It happens. I'm not saying it the norm, but the competition is too fierce and some people will go the extra mile to get that. And that is indeed a problem of the publishing papers hysteria. The whole debacle is IMO highglighted well by this book (notice it covers also a lot of unrelated topics to publish or perish).
The problem is in the degree of such evaluations. Also, the "expected results" section in grants are sometimes difficult to write down, after all you're doing the experiments in the first place to actually see anything. And then there's the matter of authorship in papers, since you can easily lose the first author position out of politics (I had to fight for one of mine quite strongly).
Slashdot Mirror
I did not acknowledge anything (I'm an openSUSE community member working on KDE), I only acknowledged a manifesto and code of conduct when I signed up to be an openSUSE member.
Only after being "saved" with government money because they were "too big to fail". A nice move that swept away responsiblity.
http://blog.linode.com/2013/04/16/security-incident-update/ However I'm not knowledgeable enough wrt security to say if it's just damage control or not.
This announcement is the best way to prevent me from using Mendeley. I will not touch anything that's handled by Elsevier, just as I refuse to review anything that comes from them.
See this post for details.
Also about tight-fisted control on what you can do with the console, even more than Sony or Microsoft. Region lock, anyone?
Oh yes, the GATK debacle. A pity, because it's such a useful tool, however since the license change, I'm phasing it out from my work.
It doesn't help that I'm the only one doing this in my institution.
And to answer other replies, I had a *huge* flame with a Detroit professor because he wanted to keep other things closed - luckily I won that battle and the stuff went out as LGPL.
I have a bunch of software I've been very willing to set free (it has already even GPL3 headers!) but I can't, because it might be publishable one day.
And so, it'll keep on being hidden...
The issue only occurred if the KDE daemon (kded) was restarted. With normal usage, this never happens (only if you are testing things, or a crash).
If you read another developer's response to this commit you will see that the actual feature (reject cross domain cookies) was not affected by this blunder: instead the issue was completely different and only occurred when the KDE daemon was restarted.
Actually, after getting out in (very rough shape) in 4.7, KMail got a new maintainer, and he's been fixing bugs and improving things like crazy (look at the commits by "montel").
Also other people have been working on other parts of the infrastructure and there are more fixes on the way.
Lastly, you're putting together two things unrelated to each other: Akonadi is a local cache for PIM data (contacts, mails, calendars...), while Nepomuk is a framework used to organize data semantically (and used a lot in other bits of the KDE platform), which is used in Akonadi to store mail and contact data for searching.
Don't forget Freespace 2 and the massive mod community that's backing it nowadays.
Disclaimer: I'm not a US citizen and I found the presidential election to be a fight between two pygmies.
However, did the "less friendly" included giving a massive bailout that basically socialized the losses made by the people who created the subprime bubble?
INAIL - Istituto Nazionale per l'Assicurazione contro gli Infortuni sul Lavoro, that is "National institute for work accidents insurance".
It handles (mandatory) insurance for any type of work contract, IIRC.
Sadly, even scientific journals frown upon "negative results" nowadays (at least in my field, the life sciences). And few if any bother to publish them.
Going after the funding without looking and (possibly questioning) the results scientifically smells of straw man.
If that's the case, debunk the science of the article, and not question the results merely basing on "ties": if it were published due to a "push" it would have flaws, wouldn't it?.
Surely peer review has faults, but do you think this paper didn't go through it?
I also recommend "Derelict", a very long and involving campaign that's IMO very much in the spirit of Freespace 2.
And you have consider that only a fraction of the developed drugs make it to the market for a number of reason (efficacy not larger than existing alternatives, side effects, etc.).
As far as I can remember, these studies on Neanderthal used mitochondrial DNA (i.e., the DNA stored in the mitochondria, which is separate from the one in the nucleus) rather than genomic (i.e. the DNA in the nucleus of the cell).
Sorry for the bluntness, but so what? I'm only worried about my pay if it doesn't give me enough to have a reasonable standard of life. Why should I be envious of my other peers?
It's been there since ages: right click on the notification icon (the "i") and uncheck to show transfers.
Even if "who to collaborate with" is your boss, or the head of the department, or whatever (yes, they want to be the final name, but they may "suggest" names to get other collaborators happy)? It happens. I'm not saying it the norm, but the competition is too fierce and some people will go the extra mile to get that. And that is indeed a problem of the publishing papers hysteria. The whole debacle is IMO highglighted well by this book (notice it covers also a lot of unrelated topics to publish or perish).
The problem is in the degree of such evaluations. Also, the "expected results" section in grants are sometimes difficult to write down, after all you're doing the experiments in the first place to actually see anything. And then there's the matter of authorship in papers, since you can easily lose the first author position out of politics (I had to fight for one of mine quite strongly).