Right now the US pretends we have the moral high ground and then shits everywhere. We should either abide by morality, or get rid of the pretense and get busy.
There is always a moral problem in dealing with an immoral enemy. In WW2 the allies did some terrible things, Hamburg, Dresden and the atomic bombs to mention just a few.
However there are some rights and wrongs here that are clear.
1. It is wrong to invent a spurious classification of "enemy combatants" and then deny them the benefits of either the Geneva Convention or Civilian Justice.
2. The article here is wrong to conflate this guy with Edward Snowden. This guy is living in a pseudo state that has de-facto declared war on the US (and in fact on most of the rest of the world). The US is already bombing that territory with conventional aircraft. ISIS is so bad that some of the captured Yazidi women have called out "if you know where we are please bomb us!". It is that bad. If you believe in war at all then this guy (as part of the command structure of that pseudo state) is as legitimate a target as Goering was in WW2. Snowden is completely different. His motivations were to improve the US government - not to replace it with a caliphate. Also he is in a country that has a stable, legitimate government and a US embassy.
This particular problem already exists in the peer review process. If you publish a paper, you had better be following in the dogma associated with your field, because if you don't you will get crucified.
Actually that is not the problem that most researchers face. The biggest issue is not about what is true - but rather about what is interesting!
Researchers tend to form cliques that self validate the importance of what they are doing. Anyone starting a new field of enquiry will have difficulty unless they are already an established "star name".
Far more papers are rejected because the reviewer doesn't think the ideas in the paper are significant than because the reviewer thinks that they are wrong.
That might be so, but how's anyone to see 'em with all the paywalled journals crowding out the Open Access ones in search results? Next time, please engage brain before fingers, all right?
The procedure is as follows
1. Search for topic, author etc.
2. Find paper you want in paywalled journal.
3. Re-type title (and/or author names) into google.
4. Find free version.
I am an active reseacher, I have done this many many times and I can assure you it works.
So your last sentence applies to you and not to me.
RFID chips get their power from the antenna signal that receives their information. You can't unplug them. And they won't be connected to the radio. And these ones will be readable by satellite .
You could probably jam them with an active signal though.
Also, reading millions of passive RFIDS by satellite just doesn't seem credible to me.
The UK has just junked the licence disc and now relies on ANPR to detect unlicensed vehicles so it seems the decision has been made to use ANPR and not RFiD
How much 'impact' can a journal have when it's behind an overpriced paywall, anyways? *shrugs*
The impact factor is a statistical measure based upon citations of papers in the journal. It is sort of self perpetuating because if you want to publish in a well known journal then it is a good idea to cite previous papers in the journal.
Even if somrthing good is proposed - nothing will come of it - compare (in the UK) the Gowers report and the Hargreaves report both of which were reform friendly but none of that was ever implemented.
"kind of like" the GPL -- if you include something with SA, it trips the licence for the whole.
That isn't even strictly true of the GPL. Aggregation of GPL programs with other programs doesn't bring the other programs under the GPL. It all depends on how closely linked together they are.
The points I made weren't directed at the particular criticisms being made in this post, they were just general points.
It just seems that anyone who questions the content of a post relating to Russia is immediately identified as being somehow part of Putin's troll army and any information they provide is dismissed as propaganda.
Another point that I notice is that there is a tendency to criticise "Russia" when you really mean "a particular agency of the Russian government or a specific politician" (and to make, for example, Putin and Russia synonomous) whereas when the USA is attacked it is almost never described as "the USA" but almost always the particular TLA or politician in question.
On the post: SciFi Headline Turns Real: US Drone Kills ISIS Hacker
DRONE?
Everything I can find points only to a regular airstrike.
On the post: SciFi Headline Turns Real: US Drone Kills ISIS Hacker
Re: Persons in support of ISIS or ISIL...
There is always a moral problem in dealing with an immoral enemy. In WW2 the allies did some terrible things, Hamburg, Dresden and the atomic bombs to mention just a few.
However there are some rights and wrongs here that are clear.
1. It is wrong to invent a spurious classification of "enemy combatants" and then deny them the benefits of either the Geneva Convention or Civilian Justice.
2. The article here is wrong to conflate this guy with Edward Snowden. This guy is living in a pseudo state that has de-facto declared war on the US (and in fact on most of the rest of the world). The US is already bombing that territory with conventional aircraft. ISIS is so bad that some of the captured Yazidi women have called out "if you know where we are please bomb us!". It is that bad. If you believe in war at all then this guy (as part of the command structure of that pseudo state) is as legitimate a target as Goering was in WW2. Snowden is completely different. His motivations were to improve the US government - not to replace it with a caliphate. Also he is in a country that has a stable, legitimate government and a US embassy.
On the post: Drunken Monarchy Fight: King Of Beers V. Queen Of Beers In Trademark Tussle
Re: A little late...
Never bothered them with the Budweiser name itself ...(that is until the original Budweiser fought back)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budweiser_trademark_dispute
On the post: Drunken Monarchy Fight: King Of Beers V. Queen Of Beers In Trademark Tussle
Difference
Hmmm, are you sure? - Maybe you need to add "or appearing to be"
On the post: Large-Scale Peer-Review Fraud Leads To Retraction Of 64 Scientific Papers
Re: Peer review has problems
Actually that is not the problem that most researchers face. The biggest issue is not about what is true - but rather about what is interesting!
Researchers tend to form cliques that self validate the importance of what they are doing. Anyone starting a new field of enquiry will have difficulty unless they are already an established "star name".
Far more papers are rejected because the reviewer doesn't think the ideas in the paper are significant than because the reviewer thinks that they are wrong.
On the post: Large-Scale Peer-Review Fraud Leads To Retraction Of 64 Scientific Papers
Re: Re: Re:
The procedure is as follows
1. Search for topic, author etc.
2. Find paper you want in paywalled journal.
3. Re-type title (and/or author names) into google.
4. Find free version.
I am an active reseacher, I have done this many many times and I can assure you it works.
So your last sentence applies to you and not to me.
On the post: Malaysia To Introduce RFID Tracking For Every Vehicle
Re: Re:
You could probably jam them with an active signal though.
Also, reading millions of passive RFIDS by satellite just doesn't seem credible to me.
The UK has just junked the licence disc and now relies on ANPR to detect unlicensed vehicles so it seems the decision has been made to use ANPR and not RFiD
On the post: Malaysia To Introduce RFID Tracking For Every Vehicle
Re: Re: Re:
Not even close - they are very common on major roads and in city centres - but there are many miles of country roads where you won't see one.
On the post: Large-Scale Peer-Review Fraud Leads To Retraction Of 64 Scientific Papers
Re: Re:
On the post: Large-Scale Peer-Review Fraud Leads To Retraction Of 64 Scientific Papers
Re:
The impact factor is a statistical measure based upon citations of papers in the journal. It is sort of self perpetuating because if you want to publish in a well known journal then it is a good idea to cite previous papers in the journal.
On the post: Will Australian Government Use Cost-Benefit Analysis To Kill Off Fair Use Proposal Once And For All?
Re:
Umm...no...probably not.
Well actually probably yes - and then ignore the results.
On the post: Will Australian Government Use Cost-Benefit Analysis To Kill Off Fair Use Proposal Once And For All?
Gowers - Hargreaves - etc etc
On the post: PRS To Increase Members' Fees To Fund Legal Expedition Against TV Station
Re: Re: Re:
I never said it did - but sometimes least worst is your only option
On the post: Photographer Loses Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Against Mapmaker That Used His Photo With His Explicit Permission
Re: Interpretations...
That isn't even strictly true of the GPL. Aggregation of GPL programs with other programs doesn't bring the other programs under the GPL. It all depends on how closely linked together they are.
On the post: Photographer Loses Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Against Mapmaker That Used His Photo With His Explicit Permission
No excuse
The CC BY NC licence was available - and would have done what (it seems) he actually wanted.
Next time read the small print.
On the post: Legislators Send Letter To Treasury Department Demanding Release Of Funds Seized In Bogus Structuring Case
Re: Just a thought. .
That would make it a lawsuit.
On the post: Legislators Send Letter To Treasury Department Demanding Release Of Funds Seized In Bogus Structuring Case
Feelings in the Agency
What! - Agencies are supposed to be professional - they aren't supposed to have "feelings".
On the post: Ex-Kremlin Hired 'Troll' Wins One Ruble In Damages From Putin's Internet Propaganda Factory
Re: Re: Re: Hilarity ensues
It just seems that anyone who questions the content of a post relating to Russia is immediately identified as being somehow part of Putin's troll army and any information they provide is dismissed as propaganda.
Another point that I notice is that there is a tendency to criticise "Russia" when you really mean "a particular agency of the Russian government or a specific politician" (and to make, for example, Putin and Russia synonomous) whereas when the USA is attacked it is almost never described as "the USA" but almost always the particular TLA or politician in question.
On the post: Your Toner Is No Good Here: Region-Coding Ink Cartridges... For The Customers
Re: Good News...I think
On the post: Your Toner Is No Good Here: Region-Coding Ink Cartridges... For The Customers
Re: This sounds like a trade issue...
Next >>