As always, "overthinking" happens when an idiot approaches a problem and doesn't think about it enough to support their conclusion.

A baseball bat is a better analogy than you realized. As with the baseball bat, if you intentionally accelerate it at somebody's head then it's a weapon. If you use it for it's intended purpose, it isn't. Duh.

tldr; if you're trying to drop it on somebody that is when it gets the label "bomb."

When a person construes being critical of the modern onslaught of low-quality papers as being "anti-intellectual" it's pretty obvious they don't read very many papers.

I guess if you never read any academic papers they all look the same!

Indeed, the idiots have always been among us, and today one of them pretended to be great defender of some sort of academic thing they don't really understand. But people with letters next to their names must be the gatekeepers of knowledge, so it was easy to know who was right.

There are so many dingbat papers that didn't need to be papers being published these days that if you choose one narrow specialty and spent 16 hours a day reading the papers within that specialty you wouldn't be able to read 10% of them.

If I was doing work in the field and there was a "white paper" version, (eg, one without the academician fluffing and that just gives the information an engineer would want) would I read it? No? Then I'm sure as **** not going to read the "paper."

As for reading the summary, you're apparently new here. Perhaps you purchased a user id, or recently awoke from a coma.

Yeah but it's IBM, so we can already infer that they'll be submitting them upstream. They're a services company now, they make more money from being the people who wrote it (and therefore the first choice for consulting) and they make nothing extra from trying to prevent distribution. The directly involved service is about security timing, so their customers will have it long before upstream can push the fixes back down.

So many "nerds" still think of IBM as being the company from the 1980s.

A lot of people are commenting on some apparent friction between IBM and the GPL crowd, but a reasonable observer should note that IBM's preferred Open Source licenses are Apache and BSD. That's the real source of the friction, and people shouldn't let the FSF trolls convince them that IBM has a poor record with Open Source. They've been one of the biggest spenders on OSS programming hours for a few decades now, many of our toys exist because they paid for them to be written.

IBM releases a lot of stuff as open source (often Apache license) that other companies would keep proprietary.

They sell services. They do a great job supporting open source because corporate users pay a lot more for support and services than for the actual software.

You've been hating IBM your whole life, but their market footprint completely changed during that time. And you haven't noticed, because you hate them too much to pay attention.

And also an idiot.

Did you even click the right post to reply to?

Sites don't use it, even just reading the summary would tell you that this is something that works in the lab when the fake users are generated by scripts and there isn't any other activity on the node. Real computers are doing lots of different shit in the background and don't have narrowly consistent timing, especially compared to other users with similar storage systems. And storage performance operates in a set of narrow performance bands. "Which of a site's 2 users are using it right now?" might be possible, but fingerprinting an anonymous user of a real web service would be a whole different issue.

The important thing is that some dingbat academician got a publishing credit.

You're old enough to know they started their nuclear program before Trump was even a politician.

"Do what I say or I'll commit a crime" is not necessarily a good negotiating tactic to protect your clubhouse. "There's dangerous illegal stuff in there, you better not ask me to submit to an inspection!"

It's a specious excuse, when you say shit like that there's no way I'm gonna believe that you don't know they're trying to build nukes.

You don't need to "run the numbers," hunger is mostly driven by interfering with access, not by supply.

The whole premise of "ending world hunger" is stupid. It would require going to war in every place that hunger, and then once you have control of security, leaving a standing army in place to guard every bowl of rice.

There's huge amounts of food that goes bad in warehouses that would be distributed to poor regions for free if there was any confidence it wouldn't get stolen.

In fact, if they had physical security in most cases they could grow subsistence gardens.

Your blah-blah is refuted by the details of the summary, though.

Most likely they would refer to that as "standard engineering practice suggests" or similar.

You should try reading some textbooks yourself, they can be very educational.

If your doctor agrees to write the prescription they're legal. Note that "doctor shopping" to find one that says yes may be illegal, depending.

Pushing harder is called "overtraining," and you don't win the race as a result.

Personally, I don't find overtraining to be inspirational. Or cheating.

The fact that he was winning is because he was doping and *not* overtraining.

And you defended him. And you were so ill-equipped to deal with cognitive dissonance that even after he admitted it you were still simping.

"I am the Walrus!"