Seriously, if I were the judge I'd just up the stakes at this point. Something along the lines of
"You have proven yourselves incapable of modifying the front page of your website in compliance with the court order. To avoid any further misunderstandings or evasions, we are providing this 800x1200px PNG containing the exact text we wish you to display. Your site shall serve this up as the only content of the front page for the next week, or we'll begin seizing assets.
Here's the paper. What's the fucking point in open access if nobody bothers linking or reading the research?
Five links in the summary, NOT ONE OF THEM TO THE FUCKING PAPER THAT REPORTED THE RESEARCH. Naturally the Telegraph article doesn't link to it either. Apologies for shouting, but this really fucks me off. Yeah, I know, if I hit the fourth link in the summary, there's another link three screens down that page which would take me to the article. Whoopee.
Would it have killed The Telegraph, Hugh Pickens, or Timothy to do us this small courtesy? As it is, the Telegraph sensationalizes the abstract, Slashdot sensationalizes the inaccurate Telegraph article, and 1000 idiots then argue about completely irrelevant points suggested by free-association from the title, because they couldn't be arsed to read the summary.
Henceforth I shall be tagging these stories "wheresthefuckingpaper".
Sorry I'm so grumpy folks, haven't had my coffee yet:-). I'm off to read the paper now -- why not join me?
GeeksPhone are doing pretty much what TFA claims is impossible. Why haven't they been sued? Too small to be worth the trouble? Jolla (50 employees) aren't exactly a behemoth either. OK, so Jolla haven't released anything yet and thus can't be sued, but the fact that the company was formed implies that they don't consider the 250,000 patents a problem. (Yeah, I know, not Android, but the same principles apply.)
I think the reactions are mainly against the OTT fawning tone of the article and summary, spilling over into attacks on the man himself. I mean, I've nothing against Musk, but when I read
paradigm-shifting industry disruption... not just Steve Jobs but also John D. Rockefeller and Howard Hughes all wrapped in one... genius generalist with “huge steel balls”...
my gut reaction is oh FUCK OFF. However, I direct that at the writer rather than Musk. Musk could be a Jobs-level asshat for all I know or care -- I'm never likely to meet him -- but I heartily approve of what he's doing.
(aside to the writer: "all wrapped in one"? Wrapped in one what, cretin? Tarpaulin? XXL muumuu? Soft taco shell?)
The strained relations between Braben and Bell seem to be connected with some things Braben did on F:FE, after which Bell made some uncomplimentary comments in this interview, after which Braben sued Bell for libel. The original issue does seem to be in part some kind of glory-claiming, but I neither know nor care who's in the right... who knows, perhaps they've kissed and made up by now.
was confirmation of my opinion that "political correctness" now means "any kind of attitude or phenomenon that I don't like, but I can't be bothered to articulate a proper argument against". A bit like "inappropriate", really.
Yeah, I wondered that too. Initially I thought they were demolishing the mall, or something. But apparently he took a photo of the mall security tackling some other guy to the ground.
Now that everyone's got a phone camera, I can envisage more "knock-on" incidents like this. Just imagine if someone else had photographed this guy being taken down, at which point security would have to go for the person #3 as well... pretty soon you're going to run out of security guards. It's probably good if everyone gets into the habit of filming police takedowns, precisely in order to swamp their capability to punish such actions.
Just don't move unless they tell you to move, is it that hard?
I think you're missing Jane Q. Public's point, which is that they shout "stop resisting" even if you are not moving, to give the impression that their violence is justified.
Of course, once there's more than one, they can employ the classic technique of stretching a pedestrian.
Amen. I use Ubuntu and am happy (on a pragmatic level) to have a set-up that's maybe 98% free software. I would sooner punch myself in the nuts than switch to Trisquel, but I'm keenly aware that were it not for RMS's single-mindedness, I would probably be using a set-up that's 98% non-free (or, more likely, doing something entirely different because the world of computers wouldn't interest me as much).
For me the language is less important than the goal: Write Once Run Everywhere (& Test Everywhere, this is the real world after all).
Indeedy. But these days you can use the Java platform without using the Java language. Next time I'm writing something for the JRE, I'm going to give Scala a shot. (And if it's riddled with gotchas, I can always come back to Java...)
There is no way to ever produce enough to replace gasoline.
Who are you arguing with? Neither TFA nor TFS makes that claim. It's a description of a technique for turning a particular class of waste into a useful product, not a turnkey solution to the energy crisis.
If they released an Android phone with no extra shit, just plain old vanilla Android on their hardware I'd buy it, and I suspect many other old Nokia fans would.
You and me and ten million others. But Elop won't allow that kind of sanity.
I've just figured out who Elop is: The Old Man of the Sea from the voyages of Sinbad. He hops on Nokia's shoulders, clamps on like a barnacle, and uses them like a bitch till they drop dead.
At $250 I can wait for Black Friday and get a 15.6" i3 with Win 7 Home.
As far as I'm concerned, an extra 4" of screen (with attendant bulk, weight, and battery life reduction) would be a liability rather than an asset. Same goes for Windows. I realize that my needs are not everyone's, but I suspect there are a lot of people out there who don't want to lug a 15.6" machine around.
Lastly and business case is based 100% on total security. If ever it leaked that there's any kind of backdoor it would all be for naught.
Lance Armstrong is innocent. His business case is based 100% on being a non-cheating cyclist: if it ever leaked that he'd taken any kind of performance enhancers, it would all be for naught.
Part of it is keeping his work closed source, which is extra scary when talking about cryptography. Being asked to trust a security solution that you can't examine is insane.
Unless you're a crytpographer and a programmer... examining the source is pretty much pointless. It may give you a warm happy fuzzy to be able to do so, but you lack the qualifications to actually evaluate it.
The point, surely, is not that I am necessarily a cryptographer, but that the source is available to those who are. It's not necessary for every user to independently audit the code, because the skilled individuals who do audit the code can then communicate their findings.
"But why trust the skilled individuals?", you may ask. Answer: because I find it unlikely that all the world's cryptographers are conspiring to keep quiet about any vulnerabilities they find the code. At any rate it's a more sensible strategy than "assume that Zimmerman is both infallible and incorruptible".
A fitting tribute to Slashdot that garbage from the submitter was posted without any editorial oversight.
... and then corrected by a +5 informative annoyed nerd in the comments. Good thing you don't need my last modpoint, because I just spent it on someone who pointed out that
Only on the Commodore 64 was Å the last letter of the Swedish alphabet, due to the PETSCII values assigned in the nordic ROMs.
This kind of shit is the reason I keep coming back to Slashdot. The editing's always been hopeless but there's gold in them there comments.
Hmm yes, good point. So I could try to do some basic physics and figure out the equivalent volume at ground level, but given my track record thus far, maybe I'll just get me coat.
Oops, please ignore my embarrassing "cubic kilometre" miscalculation... it's about 850,000 cubic metres which of course is nowhere near. However (unless my brain's really malfunctioning today) I think I got the proportion of US usage right -- it was about 56 million cubic metres last year.
Except that medical grade helium and the crap they fill party balloons with are two different things.
No, they're the same thing subjected to different degrees of refinement. Everything from balloon helium to the highest-grade purified lab helium come from the same limited sources.
The volume of the Red Bull Stratos balloon is close to a cubic kilometre. Factoring in the practice jumps and aborted launches, I'd estimate that this project could easily be accounting for over 3% of US helium consumption this year.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask why hydrogen is not a viable alternative. There are probably some good, valid answers to that question, but I don't think that yours is one of them. And we do need a longer, louder discussion of how helium usage should be prioritized: it's neither renewable nor (in many applications) substitutable.
If you want to politicize Linux and Open Source Software, go right ahead.
If you want to de-politicize Free Software and call it "Open Source", go right ahead. And if you then want to lambast the inventor of Free Software for not following you down the apolitical route... go right ahead, I guess. But don't expect to be taken very seriously.
It's such an amazing way to start and end the day, even though it's not glamorized on TV.
Amen. On a bike I can see, hear, feel, and smell the world around me. I feel as though I'm part of the world. If I see something interesting, I can stop and check it out without worying about traffic flow or parking. In a car I'm in my own little coccoon, cut off from the world. The mental-health aspect of biking is probably at least as important as the physical-health aspect.
Unfortunately it's an experience which is intrinsically hard to glamourize, and there's little financial incentive for anyone to do so. I suppose you could say that governments have an incentive, in terms of gradually improving the wellbeing of their citizens, but that kind of long-term thinking does not seem to be popular.
Game-changing papers may encounter more initial resistance, but I have to tell you as a reviewer that most rejected papers are rejected because they're poor and/or trivial.
True, but remember that here we're not considering the set of all rejected papers; we're considering the set of rejected papers which were subsequently accepted. That probably removes from consideration a large chunk of the just-plain-awful ones.
I find it particularly entertaining because Germany seems reluctant to recognize foreign doctorates -- i.e. if you got your PhD outside Germany, you may not be allowed to call yourself "Dr.". The implication is that a German PhD is somehow intrinsically superior. The politicians seem to be doing a good job in dragging down the superior branding.
Maybe this explains the "Dr. Dr. Dr."s and "Dr. mult"s I've heard about: writing three PhDs is probably easier if you're copy-pasting:-).
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, if I were the judge I'd just up the stakes at this point. Something along the lines of
"You have proven yourselves incapable of modifying the front page of your website in compliance with the court order. To avoid any further misunderstandings or evasions, we are providing this 800x1200px PNG containing the exact text we wish you to display. Your site shall serve this up as the only content of the front page for the next week, or we'll begin seizing assets.
Here's the paper. What's the fucking point in open access if nobody bothers linking or reading the research?
Five links in the summary, NOT ONE OF THEM TO THE FUCKING PAPER THAT REPORTED THE RESEARCH. Naturally the Telegraph article doesn't link to it either. Apologies for shouting, but this really fucks me off. Yeah, I know, if I hit the fourth link in the summary, there's another link three screens down that page which would take me to the article. Whoopee.
Would it have killed The Telegraph, Hugh Pickens, or Timothy to do us this small courtesy? As it is, the Telegraph sensationalizes the abstract, Slashdot sensationalizes the inaccurate Telegraph article, and 1000 idiots then argue about completely irrelevant points suggested by free-association from the title, because they couldn't be arsed to read the summary.
Henceforth I shall be tagging these stories "wheresthefuckingpaper".
Sorry I'm so grumpy folks, haven't had my coffee yet :-). I'm off to read the paper now -- why not join me?
GeeksPhone are doing pretty much what TFA claims is impossible. Why haven't they been sued? Too small to be worth the trouble? Jolla (50 employees) aren't exactly a behemoth either. OK, so Jolla haven't released anything yet and thus can't be sued, but the fact that the company was formed implies that they don't consider the 250,000 patents a problem. (Yeah, I know, not Android, but the same principles apply.)
I think the reactions are mainly against the OTT fawning tone of the article and summary, spilling over into attacks on the man himself. I mean, I've nothing against Musk, but when I read
paradigm-shifting industry disruption... not just Steve Jobs but also John D. Rockefeller and Howard Hughes all wrapped in one... genius generalist with “huge steel balls”...
my gut reaction is oh FUCK OFF. However, I direct that at the writer rather than Musk. Musk could be a Jobs-level asshat for all I know or care -- I'm never likely to meet him -- but I heartily approve of what he's doing.
(aside to the writer: "all wrapped in one"? Wrapped in one what, cretin? Tarpaulin? XXL muumuu? Soft taco shell?)
The strained relations between Braben and Bell seem to be connected with some things Braben did on F:FE, after which Bell made some uncomplimentary comments in this interview, after which Braben sued Bell for libel. The original issue does seem to be in part some kind of glory-claiming, but I neither know nor care who's in the right... who knows, perhaps they've kissed and made up by now.
was confirmation of my opinion that "political correctness" now means "any kind of attitude or phenomenon that I don't like, but I can't be bothered to articulate a proper argument against". A bit like "inappropriate", really.
"First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist..."
Yeah, I wondered that too. Initially I thought they were demolishing the mall, or something. But apparently he took a photo of the mall security tackling some other guy to the ground.
Now that everyone's got a phone camera, I can envisage more "knock-on" incidents like this. Just imagine if someone else had photographed this guy being taken down, at which point security would have to go for the person #3 as well... pretty soon you're going to run out of security guards. It's probably good if everyone gets into the habit of filming police takedowns, precisely in order to swamp their capability to punish such actions.
Just don't move unless they tell you to move, is it that hard?
I think you're missing Jane Q. Public's point, which is that they shout "stop resisting" even if you are not moving, to give the impression that their violence is justified.
Of course, once there's more than one, they can employ the classic technique of stretching a pedestrian.
Amen. I use Ubuntu and am happy (on a pragmatic level) to have a set-up that's maybe 98% free software. I would sooner punch myself in the nuts than switch to Trisquel, but I'm keenly aware that were it not for RMS's single-mindedness, I would probably be using a set-up that's 98% non-free (or, more likely, doing something entirely different because the world of computers wouldn't interest me as much).
For me the language is less important than the goal: Write Once Run Everywhere (& Test Everywhere, this is the real world after all).
Indeedy. But these days you can use the Java platform without using the Java language. Next time I'm writing something for the JRE, I'm going to give Scala a shot. (And if it's riddled with gotchas, I can always come back to Java...)
There is no way to ever produce enough to replace gasoline.
Who are you arguing with? Neither TFA nor TFS makes that claim. It's a description of a technique for turning a particular class of waste into a useful product, not a turnkey solution to the energy crisis.
If they released an Android phone with no extra shit, just plain old vanilla Android on their hardware I'd buy it, and I suspect many other old Nokia fans would.
You and me and ten million others. But Elop won't allow that kind of sanity.
I've just figured out who Elop is: The Old Man of the Sea from the voyages of Sinbad. He hops on Nokia's shoulders, clamps on like a barnacle, and uses them like a bitch till they drop dead.
... surely they can change the name of YOOR a nus
Urectum?
At $250 I can wait for Black Friday and get a 15.6" i3 with Win 7 Home.
As far as I'm concerned, an extra 4" of screen (with attendant bulk, weight, and battery life reduction) would be a liability rather than an asset. Same goes for Windows. I realize that my needs are not everyone's, but I suspect there are a lot of people out there who don't want to lug a 15.6" machine around.
Lastly and business case is based 100% on total security. If ever it leaked that there's any kind of backdoor it would all be for naught.
Lance Armstrong is innocent. His business case is based 100% on being a non-cheating cyclist: if it ever leaked that he'd taken any kind of performance enhancers, it would all be for naught.
Part of it is keeping his work closed source, which is extra scary when talking about cryptography. Being asked to trust a security solution that you can't examine is insane.
Unless you're a crytpographer and a programmer... examining the source is pretty much pointless. It may give you a warm happy fuzzy to be able to do so, but you lack the qualifications to actually evaluate it.
The point, surely, is not that I am necessarily a cryptographer, but that the source is available to those who are. It's not necessary for every user to independently audit the code, because the skilled individuals who do audit the code can then communicate their findings.
"But why trust the skilled individuals?", you may ask. Answer: because I find it unlikely that all the world's cryptographers are conspiring to keep quiet about any vulnerabilities they find the code. At any rate it's a more sensible strategy than "assume that Zimmerman is both infallible and incorruptible".
A fitting tribute to Slashdot that garbage from the submitter was posted without any editorial oversight.
... and then corrected by a +5 informative annoyed nerd in the comments. Good thing you don't need my last modpoint, because I just spent it on someone who pointed out that
Only on the Commodore 64 was Å the last letter of the Swedish alphabet, due to the PETSCII values assigned in the nordic ROMs.
This kind of shit is the reason I keep coming back to Slashdot. The editing's always been hopeless but there's gold in them there comments.
Hmm yes, good point. So I could try to do some basic physics and figure out the equivalent volume at ground level, but given my track record thus far, maybe I'll just get me coat.
Oops, please ignore my embarrassing "cubic kilometre" miscalculation... it's about 850,000 cubic metres which of course is nowhere near. However (unless my brain's really malfunctioning today) I think I got the proportion of US usage right -- it was about 56 million cubic metres last year.
Except that medical grade helium and the crap they fill party balloons with are two different things.
No, they're the same thing subjected to different degrees of refinement. Everything from balloon helium to the highest-grade purified lab helium come from the same limited sources.
The volume of the Red Bull Stratos balloon is close to a cubic kilometre. Factoring in the practice jumps and aborted launches, I'd estimate that this project could easily be accounting for over 3% of US helium consumption this year.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask why hydrogen is not a viable alternative. There are probably some good, valid answers to that question, but I don't think that yours is one of them. And we do need a longer, louder discussion of how helium usage should be prioritized: it's neither renewable nor (in many applications) substitutable.
If you want to politicize Linux and Open Source Software, go right ahead.
If you want to de-politicize Free Software and call it "Open Source", go right ahead. And if you then want to lambast the inventor of Free Software for not following you down the apolitical route... go right ahead, I guess. But don't expect to be taken very seriously.
It's such an amazing way to start and end the day, even though it's not glamorized on TV.
Amen. On a bike I can see, hear, feel, and smell the world around me. I feel as though I'm part of the world. If I see something interesting, I can stop and check it out without worying about traffic flow or parking. In a car I'm in my own little coccoon, cut off from the world. The mental-health aspect of biking is probably at least as important as the physical-health aspect.
Unfortunately it's an experience which is intrinsically hard to glamourize, and there's little financial incentive for anyone to do so. I suppose you could say that governments have an incentive, in terms of gradually improving the wellbeing of their citizens, but that kind of long-term thinking does not seem to be popular.
Game-changing papers may encounter more initial resistance, but I have to tell you as a reviewer that most rejected papers are rejected because they're poor and/or trivial.
True, but remember that here we're not considering the set of all rejected papers; we're considering the set of rejected papers which were subsequently accepted. That probably removes from consideration a large chunk of the just-plain-awful ones.
I find it particularly entertaining because Germany seems reluctant to recognize foreign doctorates -- i.e. if you got your PhD outside Germany, you may not be allowed to call yourself "Dr.". The implication is that a German PhD is somehow intrinsically superior. The politicians seem to be doing a good job in dragging down the superior branding.
Maybe this explains the "Dr. Dr. Dr."s and "Dr. mult"s I've heard about: writing three PhDs is probably easier if you're copy-pasting :-).