Agreed. One of the sad side effects of Idiot America is that the new generation doesn't appreciate amazing guitarwork or groovy bass lines or solid time or meaningful lyrics. Guitarists once were asked how often they practiced; nowadays they're asked how they manage to get on the radio so much.
Support artists who don't bow down before the RIAA. There are people, like me, that only publish under Creative Commons and won't ever sign a record contract. Find them, listen to them, support them. Odds are they sound better than anything you'll find on the radio.
Above all, stop buying the music! Most music is not worth the cartel's price of $20 a CD. Hell, I could get three weeks of gas to commute to university and work for $20. The RIAA is still making roughly $40 billion a year. Maybe you working alone can't make a difference. That's fine. There's more than just a few of us. We are already clear enough on our position and large enough in numbers that it is scaring the shit out of these fat-cat businessmen, and forcing them to react in a rather panicked manner.
They aren't suing people for the hell of it, and they aren't suing people to recoup money. They're doing it to instill fear. Show them that you aren't afraid to defy them.
Well, cable television was becoming more prevalent, yes, but wasn't detection of autism and recognition of its status as a disorder also becoming more acknoledged?
Oh, and exactly what debate is there about autism? I think I missed something here.
Actually, because of the GFDL, every single page taken from Wikipedia will have to have a nice, big notice somewhere on it that says, "Original content courtesy of Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." Heh.
First off, trademark law prevents similar names. I can't really have Barbie's roast beef sandwiches, or Nintel Umptium microprocessors, and expect not to confuse people. Freefox or Firefaux are far too similar in naming to Firefox. Iceweasel is different enough that it won't get confused.
Second, childish? What's so childish about the name Iceweasel? Do you not like weasels? They're fuzzy and cute and fairly well-behaved if domesticized. Not any worse than foxes.
Third, the longest-running debate in the Linux world is either the Hurd argument, microkernel vs monolithic kernel, which started ages ago and hasn't died yet; or the louder and much more violent GNU vs BSD argument...both of those topics far eclipse the small problem of what to name a browser.
Fourth, are you daft? You say Firefox is the most important FLOSS application for the desktop. Well, I can't argue with Firefox's badass power, speed, and devilishly good looks, but I can say that there's already a more important application out there. It compiles on Windows, Mac OS X, and all POSIX systems; it produces better output than any of its competitors, it's fast and simple, and it utilizes one of the most popular formats out there. I am, of course, talking about Lame, the MP3 encoder.
Fifth, I expect that Firefox and its artwork will be moved to non-free as soon as Iceweasel is introduced. So, y'know, if you absolutely have to have a browser with red on its icon, you can "apt-get install firefox" and everything will be just fine.
I don't know if you realize this, but the entire point of free software is that it is FREE. Free to copy, free to modify, free to redistribute, free to examine. Free.
Firefox is a piece of free software. The artwork that accompanies the code should be free as well. If the Mozilla Foundation is not going to follow the principles of free software then I see no reason why the Debian people should have to put up with their bullshit.
"Does this comprimise [sic] the distribtion [sic] in any way?"
Yes, yes it does. Do you know what "kernel taint" is? I would hope you do, seeing as how you use Nvidia drivers. This is just like a tainted kernel. The Mozilla Foundation's proposed "quality assurance" set of hoops would not only be a pain in the ass for Debian package maintainance, but would also compromise the freedoms guaranteed by the project. If we jump through those hoops in order to keep the word "Firefox" in Debian, we will no longer have the freedom to modify and redistribute the entire distribution as we see fit. Understand?
Ubuntu people don't think about this much, since their repositories are labeled "Universe" and "Multiverse," not "contrib" and "non-free." We keep non-free software, like the ATI and ZD1211 drivers I need for my laptop, in a different repository from the stuff we are allowed to copy and modify, for a reason.
"Luckily, Ubuntu will still ship with Firefox so not an issue (for me.)"
Well, us Debian users have Firefox too. We might just call it something else from now on. No big loss.
Um, no. Potassium iodide will protect your thyroid from radioactive iodine. It won't protect you from an explosive coated with cesium or americanium, and it won't protect you from a nuclear warhead.
First off, Linux is only a kernel. Did you somehow forget what else comes with a GNU/Linux distribution? The shells? The binary utilities? The network managers?
Last time I checked, Linux was best built with a GCC toolchain. That's right, a GNU C compiler is used to build Linux. Oh, and you should be using GNU make to configure it.
The FSF and its GNU project provide support utilities for virtually every Linux distro out there right now. Sadly, most of them, excepting Debian and its derivatives, have thrown away their acknoledgement of GNU and its importance in making Linux work. That is exactly how you talk -- as if GNU has done nothing for Linux.
What I hear from you is nothing more than fanboy's prattle. You honestly believe that Linux owes nothing to the FSF? NOTHING?
Without GNU, I would not have the following utilities:
aspell
autoconf
automake
bash
bison
denemo
diff
gparted
gpg
grep
grub
gzip
less
libtool
lilypond
m4
make
nano
screen
sed
tar
wget
...as well as the entire GNU compiler collection, assembler/linker suite and command-line utilities, and readline library. Oh, and GNOME. Oh, and the C/C++ standard library for Linux.
Still feel that Linux doesn't need the GNU project or the FSF? Well, fine. Just don't call me an "uncompromising, radical, neo-Bolshevik extremist" anymore.
I have a few computers. One of them has a handful of TrueCrypt containers on it. Given that I can plausibly deny that the files are indeed containers full of encrypted data, and also given that it will take a LONG time to test whether or not there's anything worth seeing in there, is there really any way for them to compel me to unlock the containers if I deny their existence/significance?
I would say that the line, "Ubuntu could not exist without Debian," is not an opinion. It is fact. Does this mean that Ubuntu owes anything to Debian? Not really. Other than the GPL obligations, there really isn't anything that Debian could or should ask for in return from Ubuntu.
Anybody who has worked with Debian already should have a deep and profound respect for the fact that Debian is plain and broad. When you sit down at a Debian computer, you are seated before a gateway to what might be the most customizable distribution in existence. All of the packages are roughly as far away as "$ sudo aptitude", and it is all but guaranteed that no matter how complicated or convoluted the package you want is, it will be downloaded and installed, along with dependencies, and you don't have to worry about a damn thing. (If you've ever compiled your own VLC or GIMP, you know what I'm talking about.)
The problem is that people would like to see specialization in Debian. Debian is not for specialization. It's for everybody to make what they want. Taking that away from Debian compromises the entire goal of the project...
GameFAQs has a very interesting policy which perhaps might save sites like Xanga and MySpace from getting reamed with fines. Anytime somebody on GameFAQs makes a post which implies or states that the user is underage, their account is immediately suspended pending verification of age. If the person really is underage, then their account is suspended until they are old enough.
Go get LAME from http://lame.sf.net/ and most Linux players will work fine. The reason LAME can't be included in the distro, if I remember correctly, is that the MP3 patent in the USA forbids distribution of alternative (non-Fraunhofer) MP3 codecs.
So, what he's saying is that Linux people aren't trying hard enough to make closed software available on Linux?...
I almost feel like Obviousman here. Linux can't accomodate closed-source software easily BECAUSE IT'S CLOSED AND THUS IMPOSSIBLE TO INTEGRATE SEAMLESSLY INTO OTHER APPLICATIONS. Linux has no obligations whatsoever when it comes to compatibility -- they've published all their docs, spotty though they may be, and they use standards. Microsoft, Adobe, and now-defunct Macromedia have done neither, with some exceptions such as SWF and PDF formats.
If this guy wants more integration, he should stop bitching at Linux, which has an open kernel API; he should stop bitching at GNU, which is completely and totally open. He should be directing his trolling at Microsoft, who has made no efforts to make their software work on top of Linux kernels.
As a pirate AND a play-for-free advocate, I should let people know that there are two styles of playing. One is subscription play, where features are unlocked to subscribers who pay a monthly fee. I'm not one of those pirates.
The other kind, which I would expect to be more popular among Slashdotters, is dubloon pay. Dubloon oceans require pirates to purchase dubloons, a second currency, in order to gain upper-tier features. The key thing is that dubloons can either be bought with cash, or with the primary currency, pieces of eight. So, you don't actually have to pay any cash to be a famous pirate, you just have to be good at the puzzles.
a)Don't assume so much. Not all Slashdot readers are that tech-savvy. Additionally, I'm typing this from a Debian laptop. I don't dislike Debian, but I was trying to add a bit of clarity to an ambiguous term.
b)"Ambiguate" is the reverse of "disambiguate." It's what happens when somebody assigns multiple meanings to a single term.
c) Unlike this post, my first post did not contain a list.
...Anybody who didn't understand the real meaning of "compromise" needs to re-read the article, substituting "compromised" with "rooted." The attackers didn't kill the server or knock out a service. They rooted the box, and the Debian devs are trying to cover themselves somewhat by ambiguating the exact nature of the attack.
Microsoft has finally come up with a new feature to be packaged with the next version of the popular Microsoft Windows operating system, commonly known as "Windows Vista." Apparently, Microsoft plans to include a new game called "Minesweeper 2" with Vista. A Microsoft spokesman described it as "original Minesweeper, except now the mines can move around and stuff. Really, it'll be cool! We promise!"
The gaming community has had a divided response. One camp is not impressed with the new offering, and is quoted on their blog as saying, "Well, [expletive deleted] that! Where the [expletive deleted] is our [expletive deleted] Halo 2 for PC?" Other gamers were enthused about the new game, praising its innovative style and promise of quality gameplay. Says one independent reviewer, "Well, it will be here before Duke Nukem Forever, right?"
Well, of course they're suing. The global music industry would like to be able to fix prices all over the world, and it's very hard to do so when cheap alternatives like AllOfMP3 are available. Whether or not they actually have a case is irrelevant -- they have the cash necessary to pursue the suit, and will do so in order to maintain shareholder interest and control of the market.
Before liberation, shouldn't we educate the public first? Most people today know nothing about DRM, FSF, or that MP3 is a patented format. We all remember the Sony rootkit scandal, but the average consumer does not. The average consumer uses proprietary Windows formats and never considers the dangerous problems that closed systems present to free information.
As long as the ignorant masses stay complacent and docile, and as long as consumers obsesquiently gobble up DRM-laced products, there is no chance that free software will win.
I wonder why they haven't disclosed the details. Hopefully they contacted the card manufacturer in order to get a new driver prepared for the masses before they uncover the full exploit at the conference.
Actually, there's a few good reasons why forks are bad. I won't ramble about it too much, but the idea is simple. The reason why GNU/Linux is forked and splintered into many different distributions is that each distro has a different slant and purpose. Slackware, Fedora, Ubuntu, and Suse all have their uses and niches. In fact, each operating system on the market right now has its pros and cons. There is no one perfect operating system for everyone, although there are operating systems that fit individuals and certain groups of people just fine. Windows for consumers and gamers, Linux for servers, Mac OS for Apple hardware, right?
So, why fork Wikipedia? If we have two different copies of the encyclopedia, what the community is in effect saying is that there are two acceptable versions of the "truth," of the information which is supposedly accurate and verified. What happens if a pro-Nazi group forks Wikipedia? How about a pro-PETA fork? How neutral do you think they'll be?
The reason that Wikipedia should not fork is that we should only endorse one neutral truth which is formed by dialectic including the opinions and thoughts of as many participants as possible. If we are at all divided, we will not succeed in our goal of creating a repository of information which presents the truth as it is, neutrally and accurately. I'm sure that there are some people who would love to see forks, but the truth is that we do NOT need a Red Conservapedia and a Blue Liberalpedia, or a Prochoicepedia and Prolifepedia, or any real split in thought proceses. We need one solid, neutral, truthful, unified Wikipedia.
The semi-protection policy discourages vandalism by requiring editors to be registered with accounts at least four days old. Obviously, anyone who really wants to contribute to the encyclopedia will register and then wait four days (or, in theory, they are already contributors who have registered usernames).
Vandals are almost exclusively unregistered editors using only their IP addresses for identification. The semi-protection will block them from editing or moving (renaming) a page. However, vandalism must be VERY persistent in order for any kind of protection to be applied; typically, administrators will refuse most protection and semi-protection requests and reply, "Not enough vandalism, just revert instead."
People are making a big deal of this because they view Wikipedia, being as it is a completely new and unheard-of-before kind of information libre, as hypocritical when they block people or pages from editing. I guess they've never thought of the fact that they're only protecting ~200 articles at any given time. How many articles have Britannica and World Book opened up for editing and review?
Actually, empiricism requires dialectic and freedom to compose hypotheses. If your scientists are tied to the government and forced to work on government problems, they won't be innovative. They'll do exactly what the government tells them to, and nothing more.
The cool thing about this discovery is that we are being told about it by China through official channels. This actually means two different and very cool things. First, it means that China is not inhibiting scientists as much as they have before. Scientists are free to speak their minds and make discoveries and put their own names to the papers that they write. This wasn't always the case.
Second, it means that China is on a different path then the path they were on 50 years ago. Would Mao have cared about bird skeletons from another era? Only if they were found wearing PRC uniforms... The fact that China is sharing this discovery with the world means that they are starting to value scientific discovery as a means of advancing culture and stature among other nations, which is a lot better than showing off military might.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. One of the sad side effects of Idiot America is that the new generation doesn't appreciate amazing guitarwork or groovy bass lines or solid time or meaningful lyrics. Guitarists once were asked how often they practiced; nowadays they're asked how they manage to get on the radio so much.
Support artists who don't bow down before the RIAA. There are people, like me, that only publish under Creative Commons and won't ever sign a record contract. Find them, listen to them, support them. Odds are they sound better than anything you'll find on the radio.
Above all, stop buying the music! Most music is not worth the cartel's price of $20 a CD. Hell, I could get three weeks of gas to commute to university and work for $20. The RIAA is still making roughly $40 billion a year. Maybe you working alone can't make a difference. That's fine. There's more than just a few of us. We are already clear enough on our position and large enough in numbers that it is scaring the shit out of these fat-cat businessmen, and forcing them to react in a rather panicked manner.
They aren't suing people for the hell of it, and they aren't suing people to recoup money. They're doing it to instill fear. Show them that you aren't afraid to defy them.
Well, cable television was becoming more prevalent, yes, but wasn't detection of autism and recognition of its status as a disorder also becoming more acknoledged?
Oh, and exactly what debate is there about autism? I think I missed something here.
Actually, because of the GFDL, every single page taken from Wikipedia will have to have a nice, big notice somewhere on it that says, "Original content courtesy of Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." Heh.
Um, no. A few things.
First off, trademark law prevents similar names. I can't really have Barbie's roast beef sandwiches, or Nintel Umptium microprocessors, and expect not to confuse people. Freefox or Firefaux are far too similar in naming to Firefox. Iceweasel is different enough that it won't get confused.
Second, childish? What's so childish about the name Iceweasel? Do you not like weasels? They're fuzzy and cute and fairly well-behaved if domesticized. Not any worse than foxes.
Third, the longest-running debate in the Linux world is either the Hurd argument, microkernel vs monolithic kernel, which started ages ago and hasn't died yet; or the louder and much more violent GNU vs BSD argument...both of those topics far eclipse the small problem of what to name a browser.
Fourth, are you daft? You say Firefox is the most important FLOSS application for the desktop. Well, I can't argue with Firefox's badass power, speed, and devilishly good looks, but I can say that there's already a more important application out there. It compiles on Windows, Mac OS X, and all POSIX systems; it produces better output than any of its competitors, it's fast and simple, and it utilizes one of the most popular formats out there. I am, of course, talking about Lame, the MP3 encoder.
Fifth, I expect that Firefox and its artwork will be moved to non-free as soon as Iceweasel is introduced. So, y'know, if you absolutely have to have a browser with red on its icon, you can "apt-get install firefox" and everything will be just fine.
"They're being a bit anal about all this."
I don't know if you realize this, but the entire point of free software is that it is FREE. Free to copy, free to modify, free to redistribute, free to examine. Free.
Firefox is a piece of free software. The artwork that accompanies the code should be free as well. If the Mozilla Foundation is not going to follow the principles of free software then I see no reason why the Debian people should have to put up with their bullshit.
"Does this comprimise [sic] the distribtion [sic] in any way?"
Yes, yes it does. Do you know what "kernel taint" is? I would hope you do, seeing as how you use Nvidia drivers. This is just like a tainted kernel. The Mozilla Foundation's proposed "quality assurance" set of hoops would not only be a pain in the ass for Debian package maintainance, but would also compromise the freedoms guaranteed by the project. If we jump through those hoops in order to keep the word "Firefox" in Debian, we will no longer have the freedom to modify and redistribute the entire distribution as we see fit. Understand?
Ubuntu people don't think about this much, since their repositories are labeled "Universe" and "Multiverse," not "contrib" and "non-free." We keep non-free software, like the ATI and ZD1211 drivers I need for my laptop, in a different repository from the stuff we are allowed to copy and modify, for a reason.
"Luckily, Ubuntu will still ship with Firefox so not an issue (for me.)"
Well, us Debian users have Firefox too. We might just call it something else from now on. No big loss.
Too bad the in-house band can't play Dream Theater.
Part 1: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZZM04-ysM7g
Part 2: http://youtube.com/watch?v=eXstvXu5sPs
As long as we're offtopic...
Um, no. Potassium iodide will protect your thyroid from radioactive iodine. It won't protect you from an explosive coated with cesium or americanium, and it won't protect you from a nuclear warhead.
First off, Linux is only a kernel. Did you somehow forget what else comes with a GNU/Linux distribution? The shells? The binary utilities? The network managers?
Last time I checked, Linux was best built with a GCC toolchain. That's right, a GNU C compiler is used to build Linux. Oh, and you should be using GNU make to configure it.
The FSF and its GNU project provide support utilities for virtually every Linux distro out there right now. Sadly, most of them, excepting Debian and its derivatives, have thrown away their acknoledgement of GNU and its importance in making Linux work. That is exactly how you talk -- as if GNU has done nothing for Linux.
What I hear from you is nothing more than fanboy's prattle. You honestly believe that Linux owes nothing to the FSF? NOTHING?
Without GNU, I would not have the following utilities:
Still feel that Linux doesn't need the GNU project or the FSF? Well, fine. Just don't call me an "uncompromising, radical, neo-Bolshevik extremist" anymore.
Actually, if we're going by humidity as an indicator of available water, Antartica's far more desert-like. It's also bigger.
This should probably be tacked on to the parent.
I have a few computers. One of them has a handful of TrueCrypt containers on it. Given that I can plausibly deny that the files are indeed containers full of encrypted data, and also given that it will take a LONG time to test whether or not there's anything worth seeing in there, is there really any way for them to compel me to unlock the containers if I deny their existence/significance?
I would say that the line, "Ubuntu could not exist without Debian," is not an opinion. It is fact. Does this mean that Ubuntu owes anything to Debian? Not really. Other than the GPL obligations, there really isn't anything that Debian could or should ask for in return from Ubuntu.
Anybody who has worked with Debian already should have a deep and profound respect for the fact that Debian is plain and broad. When you sit down at a Debian computer, you are seated before a gateway to what might be the most customizable distribution in existence. All of the packages are roughly as far away as "$ sudo aptitude", and it is all but guaranteed that no matter how complicated or convoluted the package you want is, it will be downloaded and installed, along with dependencies, and you don't have to worry about a damn thing. (If you've ever compiled your own VLC or GIMP, you know what I'm talking about.)
The problem is that people would like to see specialization in Debian. Debian is not for specialization. It's for everybody to make what they want. Taking that away from Debian compromises the entire goal of the project...
GameFAQs has a very interesting policy which perhaps might save sites like Xanga and MySpace from getting reamed with fines. Anytime somebody on GameFAQs makes a post which implies or states that the user is underage, their account is immediately suspended pending verification of age. If the person really is underage, then their account is suspended until they are old enough.
Go get LAME from http://lame.sf.net/ and most Linux players will work fine. The reason LAME can't be included in the distro, if I remember correctly, is that the MP3 patent in the USA forbids distribution of alternative (non-Fraunhofer) MP3 codecs.
So, what he's saying is that Linux people aren't trying hard enough to make closed software available on Linux? ...
I almost feel like Obviousman here. Linux can't accomodate closed-source software easily BECAUSE IT'S CLOSED AND THUS IMPOSSIBLE TO INTEGRATE SEAMLESSLY INTO OTHER APPLICATIONS. Linux has no obligations whatsoever when it comes to compatibility -- they've published all their docs, spotty though they may be, and they use standards. Microsoft, Adobe, and now-defunct Macromedia have done neither, with some exceptions such as SWF and PDF formats.
If this guy wants more integration, he should stop bitching at Linux, which has an open kernel API; he should stop bitching at GNU, which is completely and totally open. He should be directing his trolling at Microsoft, who has made no efforts to make their software work on top of Linux kernels.
After all, if administrators don't block users, than the vandals win, and that's just not patriotic at all...
As a pirate AND a play-for-free advocate, I should let people know that there are two styles of playing. One is subscription play, where features are unlocked to subscribers who pay a monthly fee. I'm not one of those pirates.
The other kind, which I would expect to be more popular among Slashdotters, is dubloon pay. Dubloon oceans require pirates to purchase dubloons, a second currency, in order to gain upper-tier features. The key thing is that dubloons can either be bought with cash, or with the primary currency, pieces of eight. So, you don't actually have to pay any cash to be a famous pirate, you just have to be good at the puzzles.
a)Don't assume so much. Not all Slashdot readers are that tech-savvy. Additionally, I'm typing this from a Debian laptop. I don't dislike Debian, but I was trying to add a bit of clarity to an ambiguous term. b)"Ambiguate" is the reverse of "disambiguate." It's what happens when somebody assigns multiple meanings to a single term. c) Unlike this post, my first post did not contain a list.
...Anybody who didn't understand the real meaning of "compromise" needs to re-read the article, substituting "compromised" with "rooted." The attackers didn't kill the server or knock out a service. They rooted the box, and the Debian devs are trying to cover themselves somewhat by ambiguating the exact nature of the attack.
Microsoft has finally come up with a new feature to be packaged with the next version of the popular Microsoft Windows operating system, commonly known as "Windows Vista." Apparently, Microsoft plans to include a new game called "Minesweeper 2" with Vista. A Microsoft spokesman described it as "original Minesweeper, except now the mines can move around and stuff. Really, it'll be cool! We promise!"
The gaming community has had a divided response. One camp is not impressed with the new offering, and is quoted on their blog as saying, "Well, [expletive deleted] that! Where the [expletive deleted] is our [expletive deleted] Halo 2 for PC?" Other gamers were enthused about the new game, praising its innovative style and promise of quality gameplay. Says one independent reviewer, "Well, it will be here before Duke Nukem Forever, right?"
Well, of course they're suing. The global music industry would like to be able to fix prices all over the world, and it's very hard to do so when cheap alternatives like AllOfMP3 are available. Whether or not they actually have a case is irrelevant -- they have the cash necessary to pursue the suit, and will do so in order to maintain shareholder interest and control of the market.
Before liberation, shouldn't we educate the public first? Most people today know nothing about DRM, FSF, or that MP3 is a patented format. We all remember the Sony rootkit scandal, but the average consumer does not. The average consumer uses proprietary Windows formats and never considers the dangerous problems that closed systems present to free information. As long as the ignorant masses stay complacent and docile, and as long as consumers obsesquiently gobble up DRM-laced products, there is no chance that free software will win.
I wonder why they haven't disclosed the details. Hopefully they contacted the card manufacturer in order to get a new driver prepared for the masses before they uncover the full exploit at the conference.
Actually, there's a few good reasons why forks are bad. I won't ramble about it too much, but the idea is simple. The reason why GNU/Linux is forked and splintered into many different distributions is that each distro has a different slant and purpose. Slackware, Fedora, Ubuntu, and Suse all have their uses and niches. In fact, each operating system on the market right now has its pros and cons. There is no one perfect operating system for everyone, although there are operating systems that fit individuals and certain groups of people just fine. Windows for consumers and gamers, Linux for servers, Mac OS for Apple hardware, right?
So, why fork Wikipedia? If we have two different copies of the encyclopedia, what the community is in effect saying is that there are two acceptable versions of the "truth," of the information which is supposedly accurate and verified. What happens if a pro-Nazi group forks Wikipedia? How about a pro-PETA fork? How neutral do you think they'll be?
The reason that Wikipedia should not fork is that we should only endorse one neutral truth which is formed by dialectic including the opinions and thoughts of as many participants as possible. If we are at all divided, we will not succeed in our goal of creating a repository of information which presents the truth as it is, neutrally and accurately. I'm sure that there are some people who would love to see forks, but the truth is that we do NOT need a Red Conservapedia and a Blue Liberalpedia, or a Prochoicepedia and Prolifepedia, or any real split in thought proceses. We need one solid, neutral, truthful, unified Wikipedia.
The semi-protection policy discourages vandalism by requiring editors to be registered with accounts at least four days old. Obviously, anyone who really wants to contribute to the encyclopedia will register and then wait four days (or, in theory, they are already contributors who have registered usernames).
Vandals are almost exclusively unregistered editors using only their IP addresses for identification. The semi-protection will block them from editing or moving (renaming) a page. However, vandalism must be VERY persistent in order for any kind of protection to be applied; typically, administrators will refuse most protection and semi-protection requests and reply, "Not enough vandalism, just revert instead."
People are making a big deal of this because they view Wikipedia, being as it is a completely new and unheard-of-before kind of information libre, as hypocritical when they block people or pages from editing. I guess they've never thought of the fact that they're only protecting ~200 articles at any given time. How many articles have Britannica and World Book opened up for editing and review?
Actually, empiricism requires dialectic and freedom to compose hypotheses. If your scientists are tied to the government and forced to work on government problems, they won't be innovative. They'll do exactly what the government tells them to, and nothing more.
The cool thing about this discovery is that we are being told about it by China through official channels. This actually means two different and very cool things. First, it means that China is not inhibiting scientists as much as they have before. Scientists are free to speak their minds and make discoveries and put their own names to the papers that they write. This wasn't always the case.
Second, it means that China is on a different path then the path they were on 50 years ago. Would Mao have cared about bird skeletons from another era? Only if they were found wearing PRC uniforms... The fact that China is sharing this discovery with the world means that they are starting to value scientific discovery as a means of advancing culture and stature among other nations, which is a lot better than showing off military might.