"The correlation results showed a negative association between lithium levels and altitude. The regression confirmed a negative association of lithium levels and suicide mortality. Altitude was found to be positively associated with suicide mortality. On the other hand, lithium effects on suicide mortality were found to be moderated by altitude. In lower altitude regions the effect turned out to be negatively related to suicide mortality, while lithium had a positive association in high-altitude regions. These results provide evidence for the fact that the relationship between lithium, altitude and suicide rates is more complex than hitherto assumed."
Perhaps they should be forced to release keywords versus clicked links data to other companies like Duck Duck Go, just like Microsoft was forced to document things like SMB for Samba and the various Office formats.
I'll bite the troll in the off chance you're serious.
Wait, Open Source is magically free of bloatware? OpenOffice, Firefox, KDE?
Try running a modern Linux desktop distro like Ubuntu on a 10 year old machine or a 5 year old netbook. Open ten tabs with sites like Gmail, YouTube etc. in Firefox on that machine and then get back to us.
And since Windows 7, the minimum requirements have been steady and boot time has been pretty fast.
>The need to change passwords arose in April, when the Heartbleed vulnerability was revealed. Heartbleed makes systems vulnerable to data theft since attackers can use it to gain access to systems and then proceed to access and steal information without leaving a trace.
>Even though our central IT systems are protected against Heartbleed, any accounts that have already been stolen still pose a security risk. Almost 20,000 members of the McGill community did change their McGill Password, but thousands more did not, and so additional actions have become necessary.
So, ff the people who got the passwords read this post then all they need to do is double the passwords they got with HeartBleed to gain access?
>The brightest minds aren't programming on Microsoft platforms if you look at colleges and conferences worldwide. This cannot be reversed; Open Source products are now technically superior, the community is very well organized, and it is free.
All I see at colleges and conferences worldwide are Macbooks. How is OS X Open Source? It actually seems to be worse, since it's legally tied to expensive hardware.
Also, Open Source products aren't really technically superior for a number of categories. I am sorry but Photoshop, Office, Exchange etc. are definitely technically superior. Software like Windows Server and SQL Server are competing with free products and still doing very well.
Imagine how much marketshare they would have if they were free of cost and MySQL/PostgresSQL and Linux cost the same as SQL Server and Windows Server now. How many would buy them instead of the free MS products? How many would pay the same as Office costs now for OpenOffice if Office was free?
How is this technically superior?
Also, Azure runs Linux and other open source products quite well.
>All I see at colleges and conferences worldwide are Macbooks.
I know anecdotal evidence does not equal real data, but I'm a sophomore/junior (switched majors) in college and I prefer to use Linux over OS X or Windows.
Also, IMO open source products are usually better than their closed source counterparts. I know what is actually running on my computer. I can alter the program how I need. Everyone who contributed to the project did so out of their own enjoyment. Being open source means experts in different fields can make the product better, safer, further optimized.
Gimp does the job for me, I personally use Google Docs because I switch computers a lot. Microsoft Office is just as bad LibreOffice in terms of usability, so I wouldn't call either superior. Don't quote me on this, but I'm sure lots of technically superior closed source products are developed with the help of open source software.
If Linux came at the cost of SQL Server... that's a weird question. How does something open come at cost to the consumer? I can see donations being greatly appreciated, but not required payment. There's to many rabbit holes I could go down here.
But I could be completely wrong, I'm just a 20 yr old dude trying to figure out if Computer Science is even the right degree for me.
OS X provides a user friendly interface on top of a unix like system. It's easy to develop for linux and unix-like systems in general on OS X. Not so much on Windows. Also, we like bash/zsh, and PowerShell doesn't appeal to many of us. Many of us also don't see much of a difference between running a Linux distribution and running OS X, other than the desktop user interface. The differences in the underlying layer get blurry. With Windows, no.
PowerShell isn't the only option available for Windows. You can install Cygwin or other alternatives and have your bash and linux-y environment on Windows.
True. But if you spend most of your time in and around cygwin, it makes sense to switch to some kind of Unix -- while cygwin is marvelous, the nearly perfect Posix layer comes with a non-trivial performance cost - e.g., fork() is horribly slow in cygwin, as are many forms of I/O.
It isn't, but a lot of people develop on open source environments running on OS X. E.g. Python/Django. Because OS X is a Unix, moving between it and Linux for web development is easy.
> Azure runs Linux and other open source products quite well
This may be the case, but there is the perception (possibly an unfounded one; I've never used Azure) that Linux will always be a second-class citizen on Azure.
>I never saw Chrome as the way for Google to ascertain that the general public can have unfettered access to Google properties, I saw - and see - Chrome as a way to extend the Google eco-system onto the end users device, and to gain access to URLs that otherwise would remain hidden from Google to reduce the 'dark web' as seen through Google as well as a way to track users on pages that don't have Google Analytics installed. When technically speaking it really shouldn't matter what browser the users uses, as long as it is standards compliant it should simply work.
Agreed, things like Chrome and Android appear to be moats against a new search engine not being able to compete on a level playing field. For example, on Android, in order to get access to the Play Store and other Google APIs, OEMs are forced to ship only Google as the default search provider.
>The agreement is basically a laundry list of "dos and don'ts" for licensing Google apps. The terms at the time covered the "Set-up Wizard, Google Phone-top Search, Gmail, Google Calendar, Google Talk, YouTube, Google Maps for Mobile, Google Street View, Contact Sync, Android Market Client (not products downloaded from Android Market
>The most important clause states that "Devices may only be distributed if all Google Applications... are pre-installed on the Device." Google apps are an all-or-nothing affair. If you want Google Maps or the Play Store, you must also take things like Google+ and Google's network location provider
>Google's Network Location Provider must not only be included, but set as the default network location provider; this is no doubt the clause that triggered a lawsuit from rival location company Skyhook.
The practice originally seemed to be in place to give discretion to officer to deal with druglords and people like that since proving everything is court is very hard, but since the incentives are all wrong(departments keep the proceeds), it seems to be quite abused.
A quick fix would be to use the proceeds for charity or to pay down the national debt. That way the incentives are atleast reduced somewhat.
I read in a comment on a related article yesterday that this was tried in Utah, in fact here's the link[1], tldr it was not successful at all.
The operative question would seem to be, how does one write a blank check to law enforcement to seize property with no judicial oversight or lawful reason required, but then make them promise by law to give it away rather than simply use it for their own personal/departmental reasons?
If you want to empower someone to be a thug and take peoples stuff, you have to recognize that Robin Hood was actually a work of fiction and consider that maybe nobody is going to actually do that. Apparently in Utah, everyone ignored the new law -- police, prosecutors, judges, the press, and even the voting public who passed the original ballot initiative, failed to hold anyone to account when the next election time came around.
