Well, yes, all of these to various extents. Plus the need at times to be precise, when the equivalent in general language is vague. Plus when writing for your peers, it is a lot easier to use your shared language.

Any particular impenetrable paper may result from one of these causes or any combination.

It is fair to say that if an informed layperson (someone with an ongoing interest in the field, not a specialized degree) cannot get the gist of the argument, then the paper is poorly written and shouldn't have been published.

And please make things easier on yourself by setting up commands to automate your own chosen format. I have simple commands for opening a file with today's date in the name, inserting date and time into the text of the file, generating numbered lines, and so on.

Autogenerating dates and times is particularly valuable in avoiding extremely costly mistakes.

(For me, this is aliasing "mylog" to something like emacs ~/Notes/`date +"%Y%m%d"`.txt)

How can you point out that it is only MJG's work that lets Linux be more popular on new hardware than, oh, BeOS? That goes completely against the agreed-on narrative so ably established by previous posters, that Garrett is a useless whiner and who needs him. This is why it is so important to read everything before adding your own 2 cents.

Oh, you've been listening to Eugene Mallove. (Just checked Wikipedia and heard for the first time of his terrible murder, so I will limit what I say.)

Scientific laboratories are complicated places. If the people who were there say, "There is a blip in the data when we changed the settings on the something-or-other" and someone who wasn't there says "This published plot PROVES cold fusion occurred" the default should not be to believe the person who wasn't there.

The experiment is not proof that there is no cold fusion. It is proof that cold fusion is not a robust, easily obtainable effect that could be reproduced based on the information publicly available at the time.

For example, it was shown almost TWENTY YEARS AGO in Jet that the capabilities of modern experiments outstripped their ability to deal with the effects of the resulting radiation, and no one has run a large experiment using a reactor-like fuel mix since.

Since then, there has been quite a bit of evidence collected that trying to design and construct a new machine with reactor-grade shielding on a shoestring budget is not something that can be accomplished quickly.

URL bar input seems like an obvious place to do fuzz testing. Just throw random stuff at it as fast as you can, and wait for a crash.

No, the goal of every "reactor" ever built so far is to study plasma physics. To make the site ready for megawatts of flux of neutrons and gammas would cost five times as much and take 5 times as long to build. It's like testing water pumps and cooling towers for a fission plant without any uranium around--it's faster, cheaper, and safer. One device is under construction that WILL generate more power than it takes in, and the costs and building times are much higher in consequence.

The story says the bug affected all drives equally, but a linked-to article says that the bug was isolated to TRIM commands by a group that found their 5 models of Samsung drives became regularly corrupted but their 3 models of Intel drives did not. That is not confirmation bias.

Actually people are breaking in using this feature. It involves using a box with an antenna and broadcaster. When you are 100 feet away (possibly in a building), they use the box to boost the signal and make the car believe you are 2 feet away.

> its an issue of not even trying.

It's hard to disagree with this statement, although we do not know all the details. Compare to computers—we have insecure OS's running insecure servers on insecure networks, and then people realized that maybe all this should be retrofitted with security without losing a single capability or backwards compatibility. That's definitely hard. On the other hand, we have had cars secure from RF-based attacks for a hundred years, and now suddenly they become insecure without the addition of a single meaningful capability.

I could duck tape an ipad to the dash of my 10 year old car and have something more capable and more secure than a 1 year old car.

It is not clear to me that the big difference lies in the presence or absence of network access. The power lies in the ability to redirect the interface using DISPLAY. Piping through ssh relies on being able to set DISPLAY to a virtual device, e.g. localhost:0.10 and have everything work on this virtual display device disconnected from any hardware and work for every single application.

Whether the commands to the virtual device are sent to an open port 8000 or sent encrypted over an ssh link doesn't seem to be particularly important. It's the initial step of being able to connect any GUI to an arbitrary virtual display that is key. True, X with no security and an open port 8000 allows anyone to start an X client on the display with no local account needed, but I haven't seen this in use since the demise of the X terminal (good riddance. anyone want one? I need to clean out my office).

It seems likely that if Wayland compositors support a version of Xnest, then effective networking will work. But it's the initial level of abstraction that is needed.

Saying that X support will continue as long as codes support X is truly begging the question. The problem is the next time serious modifications to a code are made; in most cases, if network support doesn't happen for free, the developers will not bother.

Sounds like an old phone number. Like buying a Dell Pennsylvania 6-5000.

>Opinions about the outcome don't matter.

Yes they do. For a stable society, the public at large must believe that trials are decided justly.

When you are hanging "No Tresspassing" signs on your private property or a "KEEP OUT" sign, do you also include in big print the exception "EXCEPT AS PERMITTED BY LAW" ?

No, and that proves the point, because trespassing means entry without permission. Guests are not permitted to trespass--they are not trespassing by definition. Furthermore, "No Trespassing Signs" frequently cite specific state laws that govern their meaning and interpretation.

Is the assumption that trespassers carry a copy of the state code in their pocket? No, the purpose is to place people on notice that their behavior is governed by specific laws and they are responsible with learning and following those laws. That's all the NFL needs to do.

"You are not allowed to copy a description or account from the telecast and reuse their description or account beyond what fair use allows"

Of course. That is why the NFL is being intentionally misleading when they refer to "Any other use of this telecast or any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game." They use the phrase "any other use," not "any other use except as permitted as fair use under copyright law." A rational person, not acquainted with the ins and outs of copyright law, would assume that they have no right to repeat a syllable of what they hear.