You don't think that there are small animals, let alone larger animals, or insects, that burrow?
I don't think they can burrow deep enough to make an impact. Also most animals that burrow don't actually eat what's underground. Rabbits for instance mostly eat surface plants, maybe some roots, but not dirt. And I'm not sure a landfill is a good environment for animals to burrow due to the high concentration of plastic, metal and various other toxic stuff. In practical terms this means I don't think we can count on multi-cell animals to biodegrade the stuff in our landfills. Not beyond the 0.1% of the day's surface trash that seagulls feast on anyway or what earthworms eat. This means we can only rely on unicellular organisms to biodegrade this type of insulation. And if those had a chance to do it, then I'd expect them to do so just as well while the wires are still in the car and I have not seen evidence of that. So whether unicellular organisms can eat stuff has a big impact on what's going to happen in our landfills.
The article is chock full of descriptions of animals 'eating' the insulation.
The quotes around 'eating' are actually pretty important. You don't seem to acknowledge the distinction between shredding, what's actually described in the articles, and eating. Just shredding stuff makes things worse because it means a lot of animals will actually inadvertently ingest the small pieces which could end up intoxicating them, filling their guts with indigestible stuff and causing them to starve, or causing toxic chemicals to accumulate up the food chain.
Also I'd argue that eating is not a synonym for biodegrading. For instance children and pets may 'eat' a small lego piece but it's clear no biodegradation is going to happen. Even if you let the lego piece go all the way through. Another way to look a it is that a child/pet cannot sustain itself, i.e. get calories or nutrients, by eating lego pieces. But in the articles I have see no indication that the wire insulation provides nutrients to the rodents. Also I have seen hamsters eat phone wire (RJ11 type) insulation back in the 80s, a time where I'm sure those were not biodegradable (and certainly did not have any soy in them).
So maybe my perspective is shaped by these aspects and maybe that means it's different from that of other people. But so far that has not been my impression. Not that I routinely get to discuss that subject mind you;-)
We don't agree on the definition of 'biodegradation.' That's OK. I wish you well in your future endeavors.
You don't find it interesting that you apparently have a size bias as to what constitutes 'an organism breaking down something via various forms of digesting?' What's the difference between bacteria eating something, or fungi, or mold, or insects, or scavengers?
No. The difference is that when a piece of trash is 10 meters deep in a landfill the only things that will be able to eat it are things like bacteria, fungi or mold. Rodents and other scavengers are unlikely to be able to have a go at it. And I still see no indication that the insulation from the articles is being biodegraded, only that it is being shredded.
Well, clearly, everybody other than you here is going by the standard dictionary definition, aka the very first line of the article you posted. You, however, are going by a very narrow definition used in very specific contexts, aka the tiny footnote at the end of the article, which you linked directly to.
Interesting. To me it's your inclusion of rabbits and rats into the organisms that count for biodegradation that seems unusual and overly broad. In part because once something biodegradable is put in a landfill, if it has to rely on rodents to biodegrade it's likely to last for a very long time.
Furthermore one of the articles says that the rodents are "attracted to wires for the purpose of sharpening their teeth" and that they are attracted by the "smell" of the soy insulation. There is no indication in the articles that they digest the insulation, that is transform it into some other chemical compound, which would be a requirement to call it biodegradation.
Most casual users aren't likely to reverse image-search a troll's avatar to see if it was stolen from someone else
If you're using someone else's photo as your avatar you're impersonating that person and that's illegal.
The article refers to "avatar", you switch that to "photo". An "avatar" is an image of some kind, but it is not defined to be "user photo". Many people use the same "avatar" because they like the image; they are not all claiming to be the same person.
Sure they use pictures of objects, animals or fictional characters and that's fine. Nobody is going to believe a sponge, cat or Gandalf is posting on Twitter. It's totally different if you use the photo of a real person.
So you're saying that Ephraim Mirvis really said that "not all nazis were bad"?
I've actually read what I wrote, and I find no references to Ephraim Mirvis at all. So no, I guess I'm not saying that.
You said "What I understand to be the truth is that the Twitter posters are claiming to have certain characteristics, not to be specific people ". This means the article did not give any exemple of someone impersonating a real person. But the very first exemple in the article is someone impersonating Ephraim Mirvis. Please read the article, with images turned on. This will save us a lot of time.
You're basing your entire argument that the identification of nazis is possible because they use avatars that are used by someone else, too?
No. The argument is that the identification of impersonators is possible becuse they qre using someone else's picture as their own. This has nothing to do with them being nazis or not.
And if I did bother setting my avatar on Twitter it would probably be some image I swiped from somewhere on the net, so your reverse image search would likely find it belonging to someone else.
Again you can use the picture of a weasel as your avatar all you want (modulo the copyright violation, which is in most cases illegal too). But if you use the photo of a real person as your own, then you're impersonating that persone.
In your tiny universe, that would prove I'm a nazi and I deserve to have a bot attack me for every post I make.
No it would prove you're an impersonator and you'd deserve having a bot pointing you out as such. I'm not sure why you keep claiming every impersonator is a nazi. Do you know first hand that it is so or ar you just trying to defame nazis?
For the same reason the attack bot operator cannot prove his assertions, I cannot prove the negative.
You're the one accusing them so you're the one who has to bring proof to back up your claims.
I don't have to prove they're doing something abusive by showing they are hitting incorrect targets, it is sufficient to show that they are incapable of justifying their targets. That's easy, and I've done it.
I have seen nothing convincing from you except that you have obviously not read the article and thus don't know what you're talking about.
What's even easier is to point out that were the targets more socially acceptable you'd not be here supporting the attacks, you'd be objecting.
You're wrong. Again. But I guess you know better than me what I would do, just like you know better than the authors what kind of investigation was done to identify the impersonators.
Source: Many long conversations with an uncle who be rather senior in a multi-state power co-op
I see your appeal to authority and raise you a conflict of interest.
though he is not a believer in man made 'climate change'
Which shows his understanding of aspects connected to his activity are pretty limited.
Keep that in mind: Quick & unexpected downturns in power consumption to save the earth, can actually result in a net positive expenditure of carbon emissions... and in this case, it may be more desirable to have people use the energy (either leaving their lights/heat on when not at home, mining for bitcoin, or looking for aliens with Seti@home) than have the thermal energy be dumped.
That's just an excuse to feel good about being lazy and keeping on wasting energy.
You're conveniently leaving out that they say they are targeting impersonator accounts which is a pretty objective criterion.
To be objective, you need to know who the poster is and that he is not who he claims to be. (Not "what he claims to be", "who".)
From the article: This deception is relatively simple, but it is disturbingly effective. Most casual users aren’t likely to reverse image-search a troll’s avatar to see if it was stolen from someone else
If you're using someone else's photo as your avatar you're impersonating that person and that's illegal.
Impersonating someone else is also illegal
The example I've seen above is "I'm Jewish and I think [a certain person] has some good ideas." Is it illegal to claim in a Twitter post that one is Jewish? Is it illegal to claim that one is a Native American to gain voter support?
So you're saying that Ephraim Mirvis really said that "not all nazis were bad"? Since he is a pretty public figure this should be easy for you to prove. Or did you conveniently miss that example too?
An automated system that responds to arbitrarily determined members of a certain group that you disagree with
Based on the article anyone saying the exact same things under their own identity would not trigger the bot. So the bot is not targeting speech, only people stealing other's identities. Now if you were to prove that they are adding accounts that are not stealing other's identities you would have a point but so far you've not brought one shred of evidence.
"It sounds a lot like they took a self-selected list of target accounts that they selected (or. People they personally chose to try and censor)
You're conveniently leaving out that they say they are targeting impersonator accounts which is a pretty objective criterion. Impersonating someone else is also illegal and most likely against the Twitter terms of use. Sure it would be even better if they were suing impersonators but claiming they should do that instead is ignoring the fact that lawsuits are expensive, often lead nowhere, and even in the best of cases take a very long time to produce any result. Same goes for reporting the accounts to Twitter based on the many accounts of people being harassed. So this bot seems like a good short term solution.
This smells fishy. They openly admit they spammed people, and they don't provide context to the discussion.
What? The first three paragraphs of the article and sample tweets were not enough for you?
The linked article stinks of sensationalism, and that's what tripped my bullshit sensors from the start.
These assholes may be telling the truth,
Sure, let's start with the insults... Great way to raise the level of the conversation. It's not just your bullshit sensors that are getting tripped here.
and they may be entirely justified in their outrage, but the article and the style in which it was written makes me highly suspicious.
You may be entirely justified in your outrage, but your post and the style in which it was written makes me highly suspicious.
Ok, so you got a weird message that one time over two decades ago. That's possible. But it is at odds with you claiming this is still going on by repeating 'always' four times in your original post. So as far as I can tell the only one lying is you: no, Wine has not been giving this meaningless statistic for the past two decades; and, contrary to your claim, CodeWeavers does feed back its changes to Wine on a daily basis.
It's been that way since the early 1990's. You's run something, it'd run until it fell over because Wine was not sufficiently implemented, and then it'd print fudged stats to encourage you to contribute code.
I have been using and contributing to Wine since 1998 and I have never seen this message you talk about. So again, source please.
The only thing idiotic is claiming "You do know web browsers run natively and using WINE makes no sense right?". Although if you only meant that using Wine for running web browsers makes no sense then you would have more of a point, except for all the compatibility issues with various Intranet (synonym for badly designed) websites.
I don't understand why no government has invested in Wine.
The NSA intercepts and modifies Cisco routers, introduces vulnerabilities in security standards, does not hesitate to intercept Google's cross-datacenter traffic, forces US ISPs to install black boxes for monitoring, and pulls all kinds of other stunts. But despite Microsoft being in the same jurisdiction as the NSA and possibly subject to various secret orders, most countries just happily depend on Windows, going so far as using it in their armies!
If Windows were to suddenly disappear the economy of most countries would instantly crash: banks, ATMs, airports, travel agencies, even some fuel stations; none of these would work without Windows. They all use software that would need to be rewritten from scratch to be ported to another platform, an endeavor that would take years. That makes Windows a critical resource, one for which there should be multiple sources, just like for oil, etc. Yet, if you need Windows there is only one company you can turn to: Microsoft.
Given the number of custom Windows applications involved, the only credible way to fix this situation is to improve Wine. And improving Wine is easy when you have a government's budget: even hiring 10 competent developers to contribute to Wine full-time would make a significant difference. If only five countries in the world did that it would more than double the number of developers working on Wine full-time!
You do know web browsers run natively and using WINE makes no sense right?
Right. If your life is limited to Slashdot and Facebook then yes, using Wine makes no sense. But for people who have a real job or hobby that depends on a Windows application, when Wine works it is much more practical than having to reboot or install a virtual machine.
This is because they always counted the number of API calls they succeed in handling, and then the one they failed at was "just that one".
So you always had "((N-1)/N * 100)% of calls worked!".
I have never seen that claim made by any Wine developer. Source please.
To get you over that hump, you've always had to to go with a commercial version of WINE, like CrossOver, where they don't ever shove the final fixes back into the actual WINE code -- despite the GPL.
That's a lie:
$ git log origin/master | grep Author: | head -n 10
Author: Nikolay Sivov <nsivov at codeweavers.com>
Author: Jacek Caban <jacek at codeweavers.com>
Author: Jacek Caban <jacek at codeweavers.com>
Author: Jacek Caban <jacek at codeweavers.com>
Author: Jactry Zeng <jzeng at codeweavers.com>
Author: Huw Davies <huw at codeweavers.com>
Author: Fabian Maurer <dark.shadow4 at web.de>
Author: Vincent Povirk <vincent at codeweavers.com>
Author: Aric Stewart <aric at codeweavers.com>
Author: Nikolay Sivov <nsivov at codeweavers.com>
10 commits, 9 by CodeWeavers developpers. So much for CodeWeavers never sending back patches!
CodeWeavers commits fixes and improvements to Wine first. The benefit of using CrossOver is that it is more up-to-date than Wine Stable, but still goes through a phase of testing and stabilization before it gets into the users hands so it is less buggy than the Wine nightlies.
Also Wine is LGPL, not GPL. Not that it makes any difference in this case.
The only ad that took longer than three minutes to be approved by Facebook sought to exclude potential renters 'interested in Islam, Sunni Islam, and Shia Islam.' It was approved after 22 minutes.
I guess you should use this table instead of separated page link... And it shows that your number is still off a bit (France is at 93rd place with 319/mi^2 and US is at 185th place with 86/mi^2).
It really does not matter. Either way your numbers were off by a factor > 5!
This fact makes all kinds of infrastructure in the US very different than other countries. We have vast areas, millions of square miles, with very few people. France has 1,717 people per square mile, the US has 85.
Your numbers way off! The French population density is 300.4 people per square mile while the US density is 90.6 people per square mile. So instead of having density ratio of 20 it's only 3.3.
Slashdot Mirror
In other news Facebook is now selling hard drives at a discount!
You don't think that there are small animals, let alone larger animals, or insects, that burrow?
I don't think they can burrow deep enough to make an impact. Also most animals that burrow don't actually eat what's underground. Rabbits for instance mostly eat surface plants, maybe some roots, but not dirt. And I'm not sure a landfill is a good environment for animals to burrow due to the high concentration of plastic, metal and various other toxic stuff. In practical terms this means I don't think we can count on multi-cell animals to biodegrade the stuff in our landfills. Not beyond the 0.1% of the day's surface trash that seagulls feast on anyway or what earthworms eat. This means we can only rely on unicellular organisms to biodegrade this type of insulation. And if those had a chance to do it, then I'd expect them to do so just as well while the wires are still in the car and I have not seen evidence of that. So whether unicellular organisms can eat stuff has a big impact on what's going to happen in our landfills.
The article is chock full of descriptions of animals 'eating' the insulation.
The quotes around 'eating' are actually pretty important. You don't seem to acknowledge the distinction between shredding, what's actually described in the articles, and eating. Just shredding stuff makes things worse because it means a lot of animals will actually inadvertently ingest the small pieces which could end up intoxicating them, filling their guts with indigestible stuff and causing them to starve, or causing toxic chemicals to accumulate up the food chain.
Also I'd argue that eating is not a synonym for biodegrading. For instance children and pets may 'eat' a small lego piece but it's clear no biodegradation is going to happen. Even if you let the lego piece go all the way through. Another way to look a it is that a child/pet cannot sustain itself, i.e. get calories or nutrients, by eating lego pieces. But in the articles I have see no indication that the wire insulation provides nutrients to the rodents. Also I have seen hamsters eat phone wire (RJ11 type) insulation back in the 80s, a time where I'm sure those were not biodegradable (and certainly did not have any soy in them).
So maybe my perspective is shaped by these aspects and maybe that means it's different from that of other people. But so far that has not been my impression. Not that I routinely get to discuss that subject mind you ;-)
We don't agree on the definition of 'biodegradation.' That's OK. I wish you well in your future endeavors.
Looks that way. Same to you :-)
You don't find it interesting that you apparently have a size bias as to what constitutes 'an organism breaking down something via various forms of digesting?' What's the difference between bacteria eating something, or fungi, or mold, or insects, or scavengers?
No. The difference is that when a piece of trash is 10 meters deep in a landfill the only things that will be able to eat it are things like bacteria, fungi or mold. Rodents and other scavengers are unlikely to be able to have a go at it. And I still see no indication that the insulation from the articles is being biodegraded, only that it is being shredded.
Well, clearly, everybody other than you here is going by the standard dictionary definition, aka the very first line of the article you posted. You, however, are going by a very narrow definition used in very specific contexts, aka the tiny footnote at the end of the article, which you linked directly to.
Interesting. To me it's your inclusion of rabbits and rats into the organisms that count for biodegradation that seems unusual and overly broad. In part because once something biodegradable is put in a landfill, if it has to rely on rodents to biodegrade it's likely to last for a very long time.
Furthermore one of the articles says that the rodents are "attracted to wires for the purpose of sharpening their teeth" and that they are attracted by the "smell" of the soy insulation. There is no indication in the articles that they digest the insulation, that is transform it into some other chemical compound, which would be a requirement to call it biodegradation.
The article is literally about the insulation being biodegradable.
Biodegradable: (of a substance or object) capable of being decomposed by bacteria or other living organisms.
More precisely: The IUPAC defines biodegradation as "degradation caused by enzymatic process resulting from the action of cells" and notes that the definition is "modified to exclude abiotic enzymatic processes.". Rats and rabbits are not cells hence when they chomp on insulation it's not biodegradation.
But at least you did get around to telling us you're personally the best and brightest.
He's just saying he was lucky to go through school at the right time.
Really, biodegradable insulation on copper wire in an automotive context is a phenomenally stupid idea.
Fortunately there is nothing indicating that this insulation is biodegradable.
Why on earth would anybody want wires with biodegradable insulation?
Where does it say that this insulation is biodegradable? I did not find any reference to this in the articles.
And wiring insulation is NOT something that you want to start to degrade after a few years...
Where does it say that this insulation is biodegradable? I did not find any reference to this in the articles.
Most casual users aren't likely to reverse image-search a troll's avatar to see if it was stolen from someone else If you're using someone else's photo as your avatar you're impersonating that person and that's illegal.
The article refers to "avatar", you switch that to "photo". An "avatar" is an image of some kind, but it is not defined to be "user photo". Many people use the same "avatar" because they like the image; they are not all claiming to be the same person.
Sure they use pictures of objects, animals or fictional characters and that's fine. Nobody is going to believe a sponge, cat or Gandalf is posting on Twitter. It's totally different if you use the photo of a real person.
So you're saying that Ephraim Mirvis really said that "not all nazis were bad"?
I've actually read what I wrote, and I find no references to Ephraim Mirvis at all. So no, I guess I'm not saying that.
You said "What I understand to be the truth is that the Twitter posters are claiming to have certain characteristics, not to be specific people ". This means the article did not give any exemple of someone impersonating a real person. But the very first exemple in the article is someone impersonating Ephraim Mirvis. Please read the article, with images turned on. This will save us a lot of time.
You're basing your entire argument that the identification of nazis is possible because they use avatars that are used by someone else, too?
No. The argument is that the identification of impersonators is possible becuse they qre using someone else's picture as their own. This has nothing to do with them being nazis or not.
And if I did bother setting my avatar on Twitter it would probably be some image I swiped from somewhere on the net, so your reverse image search would likely find it belonging to someone else.
Again you can use the picture of a weasel as your avatar all you want (modulo the copyright violation, which is in most cases illegal too). But if you use the photo of a real person as your own, then you're impersonating that persone.
In your tiny universe, that would prove I'm a nazi and I deserve to have a bot attack me for every post I make.
No it would prove you're an impersonator and you'd deserve having a bot pointing you out as such. I'm not sure why you keep claiming every impersonator is a nazi. Do you know first hand that it is so or ar you just trying to defame nazis?
For the same reason the attack bot operator cannot prove his assertions, I cannot prove the negative.
You're the one accusing them so you're the one who has to bring proof to back up your claims.
I don't have to prove they're doing something abusive by showing they are hitting incorrect targets, it is sufficient to show that they are incapable of justifying their targets. That's easy, and I've done it.
I have seen nothing convincing from you except that you have obviously not read the article and thus don't know what you're talking about.
What's even easier is to point out that were the targets more socially acceptable you'd not be here supporting the attacks, you'd be objecting.
You're wrong. Again. But I guess you know better than me what I would do, just like you know better than the authors what kind of investigation was done to identify the impersonators.
Source: Many long conversations with an uncle who be rather senior in a multi-state power co-op
I see your appeal to authority and raise you a conflict of interest.
though he is not a believer in man made 'climate change'
Which shows his understanding of aspects connected to his activity are pretty limited.
Keep that in mind: Quick & unexpected downturns in power consumption to save the earth, can actually result in a net positive expenditure of carbon emissions... and in this case, it may be more desirable to have people use the energy (either leaving their lights/heat on when not at home, mining for bitcoin, or looking for aliens with Seti@home) than have the thermal energy be dumped.
That's just an excuse to feel good about being lazy and keeping on wasting energy.
You're conveniently leaving out that they say they are targeting impersonator accounts which is a pretty objective criterion.
To be objective, you need to know who the poster is and that he is not who he claims to be. (Not "what he claims to be", "who".)
From the article: This deception is relatively simple, but it is disturbingly effective. Most casual users aren’t likely to reverse image-search a troll’s avatar to see if it was stolen from someone else
If you're using someone else's photo as your avatar you're impersonating that person and that's illegal.
Impersonating someone else is also illegal
The example I've seen above is "I'm Jewish and I think [a certain person] has some good ideas." Is it illegal to claim in a Twitter post that one is Jewish? Is it illegal to claim that one is a Native American to gain voter support?
So you're saying that Ephraim Mirvis really said that "not all nazis were bad"? Since he is a pretty public figure this should be easy for you to prove. Or did you conveniently miss that example too?
An automated system that responds to arbitrarily determined members of a certain group that you disagree with
Based on the article anyone saying the exact same things under their own identity would not trigger the bot. So the bot is not targeting speech, only people stealing other's identities. Now if you were to prove that they are adding accounts that are not stealing other's identities you would have a point but so far you've not brought one shred of evidence.
"It sounds a lot like they took a self-selected list of target accounts that they selected (or. People they personally chose to try and censor)
You're conveniently leaving out that they say they are targeting impersonator accounts which is a pretty objective criterion. Impersonating someone else is also illegal and most likely against the Twitter terms of use. Sure it would be even better if they were suing impersonators but claiming they should do that instead is ignoring the fact that lawsuits are expensive, often lead nowhere, and even in the best of cases take a very long time to produce any result. Same goes for reporting the accounts to Twitter based on the many accounts of people being harassed. So this bot seems like a good short term solution.
This smells fishy. They openly admit they spammed people, and they don't provide context to the discussion.
What? The first three paragraphs of the article and sample tweets were not enough for you?
The linked article stinks of sensationalism, and that's what tripped my bullshit sensors from the start.
These assholes may be telling the truth,
Sure, let's start with the insults... Great way to raise the level of the conversation. It's not just your bullshit sensors that are getting tripped here.
and they may be entirely justified in their outrage, but the article and the style in which it was written makes me highly suspicious.
You may be entirely justified in your outrage, but your post and the style in which it was written makes me highly suspicious.
I do not have Internet Archives from 1994/1995.
Apparently no one does.
Ok, so you got a weird message that one time over two decades ago. That's possible. But it is at odds with you claiming this is still going on by repeating 'always' four times in your original post. So as far as I can tell the only one lying is you: no, Wine has not been giving this meaningless statistic for the past two decades; and, contrary to your claim, CodeWeavers does feed back its changes to Wine on a daily basis.
It's been that way since the early 1990's. You's run something, it'd run until it fell over because Wine was not sufficiently implemented, and then it'd print fudged stats to encourage you to contribute code.
I have been using and contributing to Wine since 1998 and I have never seen this message you talk about. So again, source please.
The only idiotic thing I'm doing is responding to an obvious troll.
The only thing idiotic is claiming "You do know web browsers run natively and using WINE makes no sense right?". Although if you only meant that using Wine for running web browsers makes no sense then you would have more of a point, except for all the compatibility issues with various Intranet (synonym for badly designed) websites.
I don't understand why no government has invested in Wine.
The NSA intercepts and modifies Cisco routers, introduces vulnerabilities in security standards, does not hesitate to intercept Google's cross-datacenter traffic, forces US ISPs to install black boxes for monitoring, and pulls all kinds of other stunts. But despite Microsoft being in the same jurisdiction as the NSA and possibly subject to various secret orders, most countries just happily depend on Windows, going so far as using it in their armies!
If Windows were to suddenly disappear the economy of most countries would instantly crash: banks, ATMs, airports, travel agencies, even some fuel stations; none of these would work without Windows. They all use software that would need to be rewritten from scratch to be ported to another platform, an endeavor that would take years. That makes Windows a critical resource, one for which there should be multiple sources, just like for oil, etc. Yet, if you need Windows there is only one company you can turn to: Microsoft.
Given the number of custom Windows applications involved, the only credible way to fix this situation is to improve Wine. And improving Wine is easy when you have a government's budget: even hiring 10 competent developers to contribute to Wine full-time would make a significant difference. If only five countries in the world did that it would more than double the number of developers working on Wine full-time!
Note that CrossOver has a free trial version. So the simplest way to figure out whether it's worth it would be to try it out.
You do know web browsers run natively and using WINE makes no sense right?
Right. If your life is limited to Slashdot and Facebook then yes, using Wine makes no sense. But for people who have a real job or hobby that depends on a Windows application, when Wine works it is much more practical than having to reboot or install a virtual machine.
This is because they always counted the number of API calls they succeed in handling, and then the one they failed at was "just that one".
So you always had "((N-1)/N * 100)% of calls worked!".
I have never seen that claim made by any Wine developer. Source please.
To get you over that hump, you've always had to to go with a commercial version of WINE, like CrossOver, where they don't ever shove the final fixes back into the actual WINE code -- despite the GPL.
That's a lie:
$ git log origin/master | grep Author: | head -n 10
Author: Nikolay Sivov <nsivov at codeweavers.com>
Author: Jacek Caban <jacek at codeweavers.com>
Author: Jacek Caban <jacek at codeweavers.com>
Author: Jacek Caban <jacek at codeweavers.com>
Author: Jactry Zeng <jzeng at codeweavers.com>
Author: Huw Davies <huw at codeweavers.com>
Author: Fabian Maurer <dark.shadow4 at web.de>
Author: Vincent Povirk <vincent at codeweavers.com>
Author: Aric Stewart <aric at codeweavers.com>
Author: Nikolay Sivov <nsivov at codeweavers.com>
10 commits, 9 by CodeWeavers developpers. So much for CodeWeavers never sending back patches!
CodeWeavers commits fixes and improvements to Wine first. The benefit of using CrossOver is that it is more up-to-date than Wine Stable, but still goes through a phase of testing and stabilization before it gets into the users hands so it is less buggy than the Wine nightlies.
Also Wine is LGPL, not GPL. Not that it makes any difference in this case.
The only ad that took longer than three minutes to be approved by Facebook sought to exclude potential renters 'interested in Islam, Sunni Islam, and Shia Islam.' It was approved after 22 minutes.
The reviewer was on break for lunch?
I guess you should use this table instead of separated page link... And it shows that your number is still off a bit (France is at 93rd place with 319/mi^2 and US is at 185th place with 86/mi^2).
It really does not matter. Either way your numbers were off by a factor > 5!
This fact makes all kinds of infrastructure in the US very different than other countries. We have vast areas, millions of square miles, with very few people. France has 1,717 people per square mile, the US has 85.
Your numbers way off! The French population density is 300.4 people per square mile while the US density is 90.6 people per square mile. So instead of having density ratio of 20 it's only 3.3.