Not necessarily. In most cases at least respectable researchers have a tech-report variant on the web. Also, who checks quotes in CS?

A more accurate headline might be Jesse Jackson: Please, Pay Attention to Me!

Sure, sounds good. We used to have a 'snack tax' here in California, but retailers complained that it was complicated and it was eventually phased out.

It doesn't even take any depth. I've cited wikipedia on my website (the intent was to link to more information, not to utilize it as an exhaustive source) and later gone on to visit that link to make sure it still says what I want it to say only to find out that since I cited the article, the article cited the very page on which I had cited it. Whoever cited my page was either too lazy to check the bibliography, which was at the foot of the page as normal, or didn't care that they were potentially creating a circular reference one reference long.

Sorry, for the person I have this observation from, 1000 was actually on the lower end of what he needed. And yes, that was the right approach to the problem. He then found Java was a toy pretending to be a professional tool.

He ended up using processes and shared memory, which was a lot more complicated but did not suffer from extreme slowdown above a few hundred threads. Erlang would have been a viable alternative.

I also did say that this capability of Erlang was "special purpose". So what do you complain about?

If it's not safe in the event of a disaster, then it's not safe now. Therefore, we should be evacuating it now, at least down to a reasonable level of population. You know those maximum capacity numbers that get written inside of businesses? Florida should have one, too.

I don't have an organ donation sticker because there have been paramedics who have outright announced that they don't work as hard to save donors. I will continue to not donate until this is no longer true. If I were to join an organ donation scheme it would involve reciprocity. I might well, although I forget the name of the one I liked the look of, and of course the google results are all scientific papers. They must not have paid google for ad placement, so it's not coming up at all.

Across the country, attempts at eliminating gun rights are soundly trumping any attempt at sensible gun safety regulation.

All the target getting hacked proves is that someone thought the target was worth hacking. It doesn't mean that their [primary] goal was even to pilfer technological data, let alone useful technological data.

The author really has no clue. He also doe snot understand what static and dynamic typing means and that it is orthogonal to weak and strong typing. Or that whether you have GC or not is not necessarily dependent on the language. You can attach a GC to C and have it working reasonably well.

This article was written by an incompetent wannabe.

You will get no argument from me on that.

Yes, this joker probably meant "has a more complex type system".

You really do not get it, I agree. This metric is useless. It follows the definition of a metric, true, but it has no reasonable practical use, hence it does not deserve any special distinction, like being given a name. That is what is fake here.

The ire is because quite a few people cannot distinguish fake TV science and engineering from the real thing anymore. This "metric" is a high-quality fake and completely useless.

Really, you do not understand what makes swap slow or fast. Go play somewhere else.