They're probably not the ones who made that change though...
115 karma · joined December 10, 2014
With bribing, the power balance is in favor of the person being bribed. With blackmail, the one in charge is the one doing the blackmail.
The anarchist movement branched out from socialism and tends to be much more humanist than that.
Of course, saving one keypress on this isn't a big deal but it's nice sometimes to be able to see the command you're typing.
So if the integrity of the work is at stake, it's definitely something that might be done. But museum visitors are kinda like collectors but with less money: they want to see the real thing, not some cheap replica they could buy to put in their home.
Museums don't exist only to teach about art and its history, they exist for people who want the experience of seeing the real thing without being millionaires. Even though most people wouldn't see the difference between the original and the replica and would be subject to some sort of placebo effect if they think the replicas are the originals.
More seriously, on one hand, we have pretty good redundancy, since it's so easy to copy things.
On the other hand, the durability of the mediums we use to store information is probably not as good as writing stuff in stone or even on paper since in the worst case scenario, depending on the format used, minor corruption can make the data completely worthless.
Add to that the fact that future archaeologists will have to reverse-engineer the whole stack from hardware to software if they want to have a chance to make something of the (probably corrupt) data they have on hand. It probably puts the bar even higher than understanding Egyptian hieroglyphs.
Oh, and also add to that the signal vs. noise ratio of the data we produce today and the amount of data we produce. It would probably be interesting to see what picture future historians paint of our times with what they have on hand.
I'd say most often than not, when a government lets a protest get wild it's because they want to justify the harsh repression that's coming or at least that when the time comes for decision, they won't side with the protestors.
Or they're just in over their head but in that case, they don't let it get wild, they just loose control.
It sounds much more like a prank than a real name.
Conspiracy theorists usually show a strong belief in something pretty improbable without a shred of tangible evidence. I think it's fair to label them as "crazies" because they tend to be very vocal about it and impervious to logical flaws in their own theories. And they're annoying, when you annoy people, you can expect some kind of negative feedback, like being mocked or called names.
If they can't do that, their "theory" isn't worth my time. Now if one of the crazies keeps bugging me with his theory, I might apply critical thinking to shut him up, if I don't lose patience and punch him in the face first.
That's your opinion. It seems there's a lot of people in the software industry with a different opinion.
I'm not saying it isn't a good thing when version numbers are meaningful. But that's not always the case and even when it's the case, you'd better check what it means for a particular project. There's no generic "scientific" rule about version numbers.
> the most widely accepted explanation is that the symbol is the result of evolution
Well, maybe you are...
And since you usually need a lot of them when it's done manually, it's very probable that there's always some amount of fraud.
Now, it's probably easier to fraud if you can hack the voting machines. But let's not say that the current system really prevents fraud because it doesn't.
And you don't need to be a junior or an intern to come up with an insanely bad design.
However, getting caught and prosecuted is part of civil disobedience and your activism shouldn't stop when you get caught. A public trial is a platform that can be used to make your ideas known to a larger public.
As far as Ulbritch goes, it seems to me his "activism" was only an excuse.