It also happens that the standards applied to comments are stricter than those applied to the articles, themselves.
Authors can and do get away with expressing outrageous opinions, not just ones that are factually incorrect, but offensive remarks, sexist and on rare occasions statements implying approval of physical abuse. If they gad appeared in the comments, they would have been removed. But moderation is not applied to their authors.
The newspaper has an article that explains a little of how they analysed their data (Postgres, cloud, Perl). However it does appear that they have "valued what they've got", rather than getting what they value.
So, for example, they cite that 8 or their 10 most "abused" contributors were women (4 white, 4 not). But since the newspaper has a great deal of coverage of "women's" issues including a lot of highly opinionated articles about feminism -- but no corresponding articles, or sections, concerning men's issues their coverage is neither balanced, nor able to show how much abuse their "men's" writers would get, since they don't have any.
They also counted all "moderated" comments (ones that do not meet their community standards) as being abusive and they assume that the abuse is directed against the author. However, they remove comments that are off-topic and ones that make personal comments about other commentators. So a comment that was removed because it insulted a commentator who was attacking the article (i.e. the insulter was supporting the author), would be counted as abuse against that author. They do not give reasons for removing comments and only have the single classification.
Finally, The Guardian admits that it does not moderate either consistently: applying different levels of rigor depending on the topic, nor does it moderate all articles to the same extent. It also does not open all it's articles up to comments.
In all, while their analysis does point to there being online abuse - they reckon they delete 2% of articles, from the 70 million submitted so far, the results are patchy, inconsistent and cherry-picked. It would never pass a peer review and seems to have been published more to push the newspaper's own agenda, rather than as an authoritative work to highlight a problem (they don't say if the level of "abuse" is rising or falling since they started in 1999).
Something that a lot of developers seem to take pride in, but which is really at the root of unprofessionalism is Wow, your code is so complex I can't understand it.
it may have cost you the job because you demonstrated a disregard for/sloppiness with details
It probably did both sides a favour. The employer now knows not to call that individual for interview and the applicant won't have to travel to an interview they are (highly) likely to fail.
So what will this 10 inch €300 tablet actually do that a 10 inch Android tablet won't, for half the price?
Really, nobody cares what O/S anything runs, any more (and probably never did - unless it was a Windows tablet). What matters is what apps, security, price, speed and bugginess/bloatware it sports.
There are a lot of things wrong with this article. The idea that doctors spend their time curing cancer - hmmm, maybe one in ten thousand. Great writers don't tend to be highly intelligent (if they were, they'd get work that pays better). And I have yet to meet any lawyer IRL who was both intelligent AND spent all their time doing civil rights cases.
I also don't buy the "evolutionary" or sociological explanation. The population density of our ancestors might have been tiny, when measured over a whole country. But because they stuck together, it was clearly much higher in the groups they lived in. Since it took much more effort to build a house, they tended to be small and close to each other (within the village walls).
I would suggest that one reason that intelligent people would have fewer friends is the difficulty they would experience in finding like-minded individuals to be friends with. It wouldn't be very fulfilling for someone with a brain the size of a planet to spend all their time with people who only talked about soaps and sport.
If you weren't so quick to scoff and had actually gone to the announcement page for this "thing" you would realise that there is no mention at all about WHAT IT IS or WHAT IT IS FOR. It dives straight in jargon about the new features.
It is plain to every professional that if you want people to engage - especially when writing publicity material (such as announcing a new release) that it will answer the readers' questions. The most basic question is WHAT IS THIS THING?
However it's typical of FOSS that the people who make this stuff are more concerned with telling the world how clever they are and how wonderful is the work they have done. How it can be used, what it is for and who might benefit from it are a very distance second. This announcement is a classic example of everything that's wrong with amateur-written (in quality, if not remuneration) products. They are more concerned with features than users.
Much more important is the level of support, the availability of hardware and the knowledge that in the future you will *still* be able find people to help beginners to get started with the product. Add in that the Pi has known and documented limitations (as opposed to unknown and undocumented ones) and is more-or-less reliable and will continue to be available for many more years, and those are the factors that attract people to the product - not the GHz speed of the CPU(s).
When the "other" manufacturers start to realise that simply knocking out a piece of hardware and tossing it over the wall to "users" is a futile exercise - and that the users put much more value in the ease and ability to get it to do something useful - only then will they be able to eat into the RPi's market share.
How does it stack up against "regular" solar panels?
It doesn't. This is simply the air - material interface that has been shown to be particularly lossless. While that is necessary for higher efficiency solar panels, it's not sufficient. It still needs the panels themselves. The developers still need to make these things cheaply enough. The lifetime of these devices needs to be long enough.
There is a great deal of work that needs to be done before there is anything usable, let alone commercially viable. Let's come back in 5 years and see what progress has been made.
Looking at the €50 note - about the same value as $50 - you can fit 6 of them onto a sheet of A4 paper, more or less.
A ream (500 sheets) of 80gram copier paper will be about the same size as 3,000 notes. So €150,000 fits into that size and a box of 5 reams is the same size as €750,000. There are also €100, €200 and €500 notes so the value nearly scales up since the notes get larger as the value increases. Personally I doubt that "criminals" would have any trouble moving large amounts of cash around the world, even if currencies were limited to notes with a maximum value of about €50. In fact, the larger bulk and increased weight of smaller denominations would make it more difficult for one criminal to steal a significant amount from another. But a van full of cash would still be quite easy to transport and conceal.
You're a bit out of line claiming the US has the worst justice system in the world.
When 97% of federal cases end in plea bargains - i.e. don't get to trial, since the "defendant" chooses <cough> to plead guilty to something, there is something deeply and profoundly wrong. That sort of "guilty" record would generally be an indicator of some of the worst dictatorships the world has seen (along with the other tell-tale: 99% majority in elections).
So yes, it is fair to say that the one thing the american justice system does not provide is justice
In the UK a person has a legal obligation to hand over a password to encrypted data when asked nicely by the people with guns.
However, a block of random data is indistinguishable from an encrypted file. So when asked to "decode" a couple of MB of random numbers it should be reasonable to require the authorities to prove that there is actual content within - and that an unlock key exists. This may sound like a philosophical point, but unless the data in question has been encrypted, a person cannot be asked to provide the key.
The channel was meant to cover "young people" as the BBC, in its wisdom had decided that they weren't watching enough TV (as if that was a bad thing). However, the BBC's idea of "young people" was a rather arbitrary age range of 16 - 34 year olds. That is a group defined by the advertising industry, but since the BBC is advert free, it's not really relevant to them and can hardly be said to be a "demographic".
Given that most 16 year olds are spotty children, living with their parents who still snigger when someone says "fart" and 34 year-olds are generally on their second baby, with a partner, mortgage, job and a car or two - it's a pretty wide range to please, So it's no surprise that the target audience (who weren't watching enough TV) stayed away. Sure, in the eyes of those people who made a living from BBC3, it was "pioneering" or "innovative". However those people were generally, themselves, not exactly target-audience material, either.
When the TV "digital revolution" (i.e. replacing the small number of wide-band analog stations with a large number of digital ones) started, there was a plethora of new stations. Most of them had very little content that was either new or worth watching. Most of these, especially the new ones that the BBC started, can be considered failures. BBC3 is just the most high-profile failure and probably won't be missed, except by those middle-aged 34 year-olds who still wish they were spotty children - or who are still living with their parents.
in other words, a full 2F warmer than pre-1980 levels.
Simply devalue the degree Fahrenheit. Most of the world uses Celsius, so few people will be affected by it. And at a stroke you've managed what governments all over the world do when faced with an annoying problem: redefined it out of existence. The final step would be to rename Climate Change to something else, reset all the counters so that all old measurements cannot be converted. Then just carry on as if nothing had happened.
The plane reported the "incident" 5 or 6 miles after takeoff. So it was already pretty high at that point given the rate of climb. But yes, I agree: although we hear many tales of "laser attacks" on planes, nobody has yet explained to my satisfaction how a hand-held laser can be pointed upwards into a cockpit window of a plane traveling at several hundred MPH and to track it for long enough to dazzle anyone - let alone just one of the two pilots.
I could understand complaints of car drivers being dazzled, since they are much slower, the lasers can be on bridges over the road and would be much closer to the vehicles. But we almost never hear of these incidents (are they so common they don't count as news, or cause accidents - which would be newsworthy) and it only seems to be pilots who are sensitive to this issue.
Rather than coat the entire windshield with a filter, it would be simpler, cheaper and more effective to give the pilots glasses with the filters built in.
massive retaliation literally destroying their country
I assume you don't actually know where NK is. Look on a map. Bejing is less than 500miles away. NK shares a border with China. Japan is very close, too. There is no possibility that China would allow the USA to nuke one of its neighbours - not with the possibility of fallout spreading across the region.
Luckily, your fears are completely unfounded. NK doesn't give a flying *** about the USA. It is more concerned with South Korea and if it was to use a nuke, they already have a target painted large as Seoul is only 30 miles from the NK border - easily reachable by truck in less than an hour. That is their hostage, should anyone attack them. What is far more likely is that they are developing the technology to sell. The launches are just advertising for their capabilities and the people you should be worried about are the ones who hate you and have lots of money. Sadly, that list is quite long: just look at all the countries you've bombed back to the stone age in the past few decades.
One crappy cord, and his $1500 computer would be fried.
From the article. It almost sounds like the guy was determined to continue his quest for a crappy cable until he destroyed an expensive laptop.
Any sane person - or one using equipment they have paid for, themselves - would have tested on something less expensive if not actually sacrificial. But no! This guy decides that a high-end computer should be his victim.
For most people - excluding the 5% who are american, this represents a good level of income. No wonder there are so many hackers and attacks.
As for stopping 60% of attacks by delaying them for 2 days - again, this doesn't sound like much of a deterrent. In fact when you couple it with the above statistic, it just shows that the serious hackers are willing to carry on for days, to make their year's income.
If we're talking about obesity, then it's still a case of you only get fat if you eat too much. And here (for those who haven't already clicked Reply and are starting an argument) "too much" means more than your body needs to function, for however much or little exercise you take.
If your weight is increasing and you don't want it to: either exercise more to burn off the excess, or eat less. That is independent of whatever unit of energy you use - or the accuracy of the food labeling.
Slashdot Mirror
Authors can and do get away with expressing outrageous opinions, not just ones that are factually incorrect, but offensive remarks, sexist and on rare occasions statements implying approval of physical abuse. If they gad appeared in the comments, they would have been removed. But moderation is not applied to their authors.
So, for example, they cite that 8 or their 10 most "abused" contributors were women (4 white, 4 not). But since the newspaper has a great deal of coverage of "women's" issues including a lot of highly opinionated articles about feminism -- but no corresponding articles, or sections, concerning men's issues their coverage is neither balanced, nor able to show how much abuse their "men's" writers would get, since they don't have any.
They also counted all "moderated" comments (ones that do not meet their community standards) as being abusive and they assume that the abuse is directed against the author. However, they remove comments that are off-topic and ones that make personal comments about other commentators. So a comment that was removed because it insulted a commentator who was attacking the article (i.e. the insulter was supporting the author), would be counted as abuse against that author. They do not give reasons for removing comments and only have the single classification.
Finally, The Guardian admits that it does not moderate either consistently: applying different levels of rigor depending on the topic, nor does it moderate all articles to the same extent. It also does not open all it's articles up to comments.
In all, while their analysis does point to there being online abuse - they reckon they delete 2% of articles, from the 70 million submitted so far, the results are patchy, inconsistent and cherry-picked. It would never pass a peer review and seems to have been published more to push the newspaper's own agenda, rather than as an authoritative work to highlight a problem (they don't say if the level of "abuse" is rising or falling since they started in 1999).
Something that a lot of developers seem to take pride in, but which is really at the root of unprofessionalism is
Wow, your code is so complex I can't understand it.
it may have cost you the job because you demonstrated a disregard for/sloppiness with details
It probably did both sides a favour. The employer now knows not to call that individual for interview and the applicant won't have to travel to an interview they are (highly) likely to fail.
Really, nobody cares what O/S anything runs, any more (and probably never did - unless it was a Windows tablet). What matters is what apps, security, price, speed and bugginess/bloatware it sports.
Micro:bits, ... will be delivered nationwide through schools and made available to home-schooled students over the course of the next few weeks
And most will end up in a drawer / in the bin or on eBay within a matter of weeks.
There are a lot of things wrong with this article. The idea that doctors spend their time curing cancer - hmmm, maybe one in ten thousand. Great writers don't tend to be highly intelligent (if they were, they'd get work that pays better). And I have yet to meet any lawyer IRL who was both intelligent AND spent all their time doing civil rights cases.
I also don't buy the "evolutionary" or sociological explanation. The population density of our ancestors might have been tiny, when measured over a whole country. But because they stuck together, it was clearly much higher in the groups they lived in. Since it took much more effort to build a house, they tended to be small and close to each other (within the village walls).
I would suggest that one reason that intelligent people would have fewer friends is the difficulty they would experience in finding like-minded individuals to be friends with. It wouldn't be very fulfilling for someone with a brain the size of a planet to spend all their time with people who only talked about soaps and sport.
you can't even do a Google search?
If you weren't so quick to scoff and had actually gone to the announcement page for this "thing" you would realise that there is no mention at all about WHAT IT IS or WHAT IT IS FOR. It dives straight in jargon about the new features.
It is plain to every professional that if you want people to engage - especially when writing publicity material (such as announcing a new release) that it will answer the readers' questions. The most basic question is WHAT IS THIS THING?
However it's typical of FOSS that the people who make this stuff are more concerned with telling the world how clever they are and how wonderful is the work they have done. How it can be used, what it is for and who might benefit from it are a very distance second. This announcement is a classic example of everything that's wrong with amateur-written (in quality, if not remuneration) products. They are more concerned with features than users.
When announcing a new "thing" or a new version, it's often helpful to tell people WHAT IT IS and WHAT IT IS FOR.
Much more important is the level of support, the availability of hardware and the knowledge that in the future you will *still* be able find people to help beginners to get started with the product. Add in that the Pi has known and documented limitations (as opposed to unknown and undocumented ones) and is more-or-less reliable and will continue to be available for many more years, and those are the factors that attract people to the product - not the GHz speed of the CPU(s).
When the "other" manufacturers start to realise that simply knocking out a piece of hardware and tossing it over the wall to "users" is a futile exercise - and that the users put much more value in the ease and ability to get it to do something useful - only then will they be able to eat into the RPi's market share.
How does it stack up against "regular" solar panels?
It doesn't. This is simply the air - material interface that has been shown to be particularly lossless. While that is necessary for higher efficiency solar panels, it's not sufficient. It still needs the panels themselves. The developers still need to make these things cheaply enough. The lifetime of these devices needs to be long enough.
There is a great deal of work that needs to be done before there is anything usable, let alone commercially viable. Let's come back in 5 years and see what progress has been made.
A ream (500 sheets) of 80gram copier paper will be about the same size as 3,000 notes. So €150,000 fits into that size and a box of 5 reams is the same size as €750,000. There are also €100, €200 and €500 notes so the value nearly scales up since the notes get larger as the value increases. Personally I doubt that "criminals" would have any trouble moving large amounts of cash around the world, even if currencies were limited to notes with a maximum value of about €50. In fact, the larger bulk and increased weight of smaller denominations would make it more difficult for one criminal to steal a significant amount from another. But a van full of cash would still be quite easy to transport and conceal.
You're a bit out of line claiming the US has the worst justice system in the world.
When 97% of federal cases end in plea bargains - i.e. don't get to trial, since the "defendant" chooses <cough> to plead guilty to something, there is something deeply and profoundly wrong. That sort of "guilty" record would generally be an indicator of some of the worst dictatorships the world has seen (along with the other tell-tale: 99% majority in elections).
So yes, it is fair to say that the one thing the american justice system does not provide is justice
In the UK a person has a legal obligation to hand over a password to encrypted data when asked nicely by the people with guns.
However, a block of random data is indistinguishable from an encrypted file. So when asked to "decode" a couple of MB of random numbers it should be reasonable to require the authorities to prove that there is actual content within - and that an unlock key exists. This may sound like a philosophical point, but unless the data in question has been encrypted, a person cannot be asked to provide the key.
The channel was meant to cover "young people" as the BBC, in its wisdom had decided that they weren't watching enough TV (as if that was a bad thing). However, the BBC's idea of "young people" was a rather arbitrary age range of 16 - 34 year olds. That is a group defined by the advertising industry, but since the BBC is advert free, it's not really relevant to them and can hardly be said to be a "demographic".
Given that most 16 year olds are spotty children, living with their parents who still snigger when someone says "fart" and 34 year-olds are generally on their second baby, with a partner, mortgage, job and a car or two - it's a pretty wide range to please, So it's no surprise that the target audience (who weren't watching enough TV) stayed away. Sure, in the eyes of those people who made a living from BBC3, it was "pioneering" or "innovative". However those people were generally, themselves, not exactly target-audience material, either.
When the TV "digital revolution" (i.e. replacing the small number of wide-band analog stations with a large number of digital ones) started, there was a plethora of new stations. Most of them had very little content that was either new or worth watching. Most of these, especially the new ones that the BBC started, can be considered failures. BBC3 is just the most high-profile failure and probably won't be missed, except by those middle-aged 34 year-olds who still wish they were spotty children - or who are still living with their parents.
in other words, a full 2F warmer than pre-1980 levels.
Simply devalue the degree Fahrenheit. Most of the world uses Celsius, so few people will be affected by it. And at a stroke you've managed what governments all over the world do when faced with an annoying problem: redefined it out of existence. The final step would be to rename Climate Change to something else, reset all the counters so that all old measurements cannot be converted. Then just carry on as if nothing had happened.
The plane reported the "incident" 5 or 6 miles after takeoff. So it was already pretty high at that point given the rate of climb. But yes, I agree: although we hear many tales of "laser attacks" on planes, nobody has yet explained to my satisfaction how a hand-held laser can be pointed upwards into a cockpit window of a plane traveling at several hundred MPH and to track it for long enough to dazzle anyone - let alone just one of the two pilots.
I could understand complaints of car drivers being dazzled, since they are much slower, the lasers can be on bridges over the road and would be much closer to the vehicles. But we almost never hear of these incidents (are they so common they don't count as news, or cause accidents - which would be newsworthy) and it only seems to be pilots who are sensitive to this issue.
Rather than coat the entire windshield with a filter, it would be simpler, cheaper and more effective to give the pilots glasses with the filters built in.
massive retaliation literally destroying their country
I assume you don't actually know where NK is. Look on a map. Bejing is less than 500miles away. NK shares a border with China. Japan is very close, too. There is no possibility that China would allow the USA to nuke one of its neighbours - not with the possibility of fallout spreading across the region.
Luckily, your fears are completely unfounded. NK doesn't give a flying *** about the USA. It is more concerned with South Korea and if it was to use a nuke, they already have a target painted large as Seoul is only 30 miles from the NK border - easily reachable by truck in less than an hour. That is their hostage, should anyone attack them. What is far more likely is that they are developing the technology to sell. The launches are just advertising for their capabilities and the people you should be worried about are the ones who hate you and have lots of money. Sadly, that list is quite long: just look at all the countries you've bombed back to the stone age in the past few decades.
Why bother with re-entry at all. Just pop it off as an exo-atmospheric detonation and let the EMP do its damage.
it is a very short leap to aiming those payloads to impact any continent on Earth
Almost 60 years ago, americans were scared of the USSR for exactly the same reasons. Same fears, different country. Nothing changes.
One crappy cord, and his $1500 computer would be fried.
From the article. It almost sounds like the guy was determined to continue his quest for a crappy cable until he destroyed an expensive laptop.
Any sane person - or one using equipment they have paid for, themselves - would have tested on something less expensive if not actually sacrificial. But no! This guy decides that a high-end computer should be his victim.
The only functional difference between a 'proper repair' and a 'third party repair' is typically just $$$$$$$.
If you discount the small detail of the phone getting bricked by the unauthorised repair, yes.
I can see a lot of people tossing their (slightly) damaged phones and a surge in reported "thefts". Then simply claiming on their insurance, instead.
As for stopping 60% of attacks by delaying them for 2 days - again, this doesn't sound like much of a deterrent. In fact when you couple it with the above statistic, it just shows that the serious hackers are willing to carry on for days, to make their year's income.
If we're talking about obesity, then it's still a case of you only get fat if you eat too much. And here (for those who haven't already clicked Reply and are starting an argument) "too much" means more than your body needs to function, for however much or little exercise you take.
If your weight is increasing and you don't want it to: either exercise more to burn off the excess, or eat less. That is independent of whatever unit of energy you use - or the accuracy of the food labeling.