Similar statements could be made for desktops, where tray icon pop-ups for updates, email and chat notifications distract and interrupt workflows.

Maybe both for desktops and cars, this problem can be solved by detecting whether the user is currently focussed (on the road or a task) or relaxed/idle, and may be interrupted. Mylyn is a very impressive demo of thinking in this direction, I would like to see more of it.

Do you have any reasons for your presumption, or are you just babbeling? Maybe they were falsely convicted as rapists and murderers, the ruling overturned and they do not want to be called rapists and murderers every time someone types their name into Google, for the rest of their lives. The fraction of falsely accused rapists is somewhere between 10-40%, and that stigma does not go away.

http://www.zdnet.com/article/l...
http://www.itwire.com/business...
covered here http://linux.slashdot.org/stor...

He has spoken out on systemd, and his words were approximately "I don't hate it, I think it's fine."

Well, do you know how much money they are making from Office and Exchange?

Alternative version of roll-your-own: Host at some provider, use their client (or if you do not trust them, put a encrypted file system on top).
Mount that on a Linux machine.
Share that filesystem via SMB, so Android and Windows can access the files.

Maybe it's not an evil plan by Dice? I suspect it is some newly-appointed, over-eager IT dude that tries to "improve" the website and make it more 2.0, and perhaps also make some tasks easier for them (site management, statistics). The guy hasn't given up yet ;) but he is learning to make smaller steps.

That would require changing bookmarks, and habits, both of which is hard! *whine*

By the way, that soylentnews site is looking for someone to make their page (slashcode) more web 2.0. How ironic.

It is already largely decentralized. There is a relatively fixed set of subsystem maintainers, which collect patches and merge from contributors. Then there are top figures like Greg and Linus, and the individual Linux distributions which maintain their own kernels by merging across. All Linus really does (well, he probably does more) is take and drop patches and every other week declare a certain merge set a version. Anyone can do that for their own kernel, but the central naming makes it "Linux" and focussed (e.g. for bug reporting).

That's at least my understanding.

I bet this is misreported and what they demand is that all searches originating from France be censored, regardless of whether a Frenchman goes to google.fr or google.com -- this easy Google to implement. This does not affect anyone outside of France.
" France Claims Right To Censor Search Results Globally " -- rubbish
" France Claims Right To Censor Search Results Locally " -- corrected

Also, even if true, US-Americans are not really allowed to cry about it because "US Claims Right To Wiretap Globally".

Is it though? I would bet that the number of Firefox installations is growing, just the rate of other installations is growing faster.

Who uses NFS anyways :P (over wifi!) If this is for a desktop machine, mount nfs through nautilus/gvfs

That is not a systemd bug (as discussed in the bug), but a problem in redhats packaging of components or initialisation scripts.

Apparently a bug in libselinux, not in systemd. Anyways, hardly a show-stopper to have the wrong audit log entry.

This is the only one that is probably a systemd bug, or at least requires the workaround implemented in systemd.

Here is why you are wrong: http://grist.org/climate-energ...
Essentially, because the current climate change is 10x faster than the 100k year changes known.

PS: we were not designed.

TFA says they calibrated the buoys data with the ship-based data. The offset is not chosen by hand as you claim, but fitted to make the two types of measurements, which should be measuring the same thing, consistent with each other. That is justifiable to remove systematic errors. Another study by IPCC found the same offset value.

The paper says:

Changes of particular importance include: (i) an increasing amount of ocean data from buoys, which are slightly different than data from ships; (ii) an increasing amount of ship data from engine intake thermometers, which are slightly different than data from bucket sea-water temperatures; and (iii) a large increase in land-station data that enables better analysis of key regions that may be warming faster or slower than the global average. We address all three of these, none of which were included in our previous analysis used in the IPCC report

The details on the calibration are:

First, several studies have examined the differences between buoy- and ship-based data, noting that the ship data are systematically warmer than the buoy data (15–17). This is particularly important, as much of the sea surface is now sampled by both observing systems, and surface-drifting and moored buoys have increased the overall global coverage by up to 15% (see supplemental material for details). These changes have resulted in a time-dependent bias in the global SST record, and various corrections have been developed to account for the bias (18). Recently, a new correction (13) was developed and applied in the Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature dataset version 4, which we use in our analysis. In essence, the bias correction involved calculating the average difference between collocated buoy and ship SSTs. The average difference globally was 0.12C, a correction which is applied to the buoy SSTs at every grid cell in ERSST version 4.

Second, there was a large change in ship observations (i.e., from buckets to engine intake thermometers) that peaked immediately prior to World War II. The previous version of ERSST assumed that no ship corrections were necessary after this time, but recently improved metadata (18) reveal that some ships continued to take bucket observations even up to the present day. Therefore, one of the improvements to ERSST version 4 is extending the ship-bias correction to the present, based on information derived from comparisons with night marine air temperatures. Of the 11 improvements in ERSST version 4 (13), the continuation of the ship correction had the largest impact on trends for the 2000-2014 time period, accounting for 0.030C of the 0.064C trend difference with version 3b. (The buoy offset correction contributed 0.014C dec1 to the difference, and the additional weight given to the buoys because of their greater accuracy contributed 0.012C dec1. See supplementary materials for details.)

Third, there have also been advancements in the calculation of land surface air temperatures (LSTs). The most important is the release of the International Surface Temperature Initiative (ISTI) databank (14, 19), which forms the basis of the LST component of our new analysis. The ISTI databank integrates the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN)–Daily dataset (20) with over 40 other historical data sources, more than doubling the number of stations available. The resulting integration improves spatial coverage over many areas, including the Arctic, where temperatures have increased rapidly in recent decades (1). We applied the same methods used in our old analysis for quality control, time-dependent bias corrections, and other data processing steps (21) to the ISTI databank to address artificial shifts in the data caused by changes in station location, temperature instrumentation, observing practice, urbanization, siting conditions, etc. These corrections are essentially the same as those used in the GHCN–Monthly version 3 dataset (22, 23), which is updated operationally by NOAA’s NCEI. To obtain our new global analysis, the corrected ISTI land data (14) were systematically merged with ERSST version 4 (13), as described in the supplemental materials.

I think TFA does not a good job of conveying this scientific article. They just say "Hey, we 'corrected' our analysis, now what you saw before is gone, believe us now that we did it right". They would be much better to show (1) the raw data, (2) their calibration problem (e.g. temperature measurements of the buoys, how they are offset from the ships), (3) the raw data with the new calibration and finally (4) the new trend compared to the old trend. Poor science communication IMO. I don't see a problem with the study there.

Dark refers to not interacting with the electromagnetic force, i.e. not producing or reflecting light/radiation. We "see" dark matter through its gravitational influence.