It's definitely better then not open source, but still I'd love to know more about those "world's best" developers and who pays them.
Open source is the necessary but not the sufficient condition. It needs to be reviewed by independent people, otherwise the open source part is useless.
Why, even the Spiegel article says right at the beginning that it's just playing with words for the sake of elections:
"But for this change of course to be more than just an election ploy, the government should however advocate a change in the EU Directive in Brussels. Which prescribes a six-month storage of traffic data - and the Union confirms in other parts of its election manifesto that it holds onto the fundamental goal to implement the Directive. "Minimum retention period" is spoken in the Union for two years already - and means nothing but data retention."
So, where can you sign up as an open source / creative commons artist? There are a lot of great hobby artists, but who will introduce the artists to the projects?
Whenever I see photos of suffering children in a political context for me it is the "look at those poor children, clearly the [opposing group] are poor evil" argument. Which is not about the children anymore, it's about diverting your attention from the cause of the problem. And this argument is used over and over on any occasion. How can you not become numb to that?
What's more despicable about killing children than about killing people of other ages?
Yet it's the children that are frequently used for political arguments. And that is disgusting.
I doubt that parents abusing their kids or the kids being abused are even aware that some people would think of the relationship as abusive. What if it's just verbal bullying? And I suppose it's mostly psychological abuse. Maybe when the child grows up it will realize that the parent was wrong, but not at 10 years or younger.
Oh yes.
Even with documentaries which should usually be better researched there is so many inaccuracies on the subjects I do know something about that I'm careful to remind myself that the stories on subjects I don't know about are probably equally inaccurate.
I don't have TV at home and don't read any news online, except maybe once a month while procrastinating. I rarely find anything that really concerns me there and if I do I usually skip right to the comments for the broader range of opinions or search the internet for more information.
> It doesn't have anything to do with financial security. Look, if your man is spending three months worth of salary on a piece of shiny rock, he is exercising poor financial judgment and that is a signal against future financial security.
I don't get it. Why would you even want to be engaged with women so stupid to want a shiny rock no matter what. If anything I'd want a man-made diamond, because it's cooler.
I never even heard of the rule that you have to get a diamond ring for engagement, guess that's a USA thing. Well, my BF still bought me a good monitor, which is much more useful.
> By the way, being able to publish is especially necessary to receive public funding in the first place.
Being published in Nature gives you bonus points when it comes to funding. Which I don't quite understand, cause Nature is like the last journal where I'd look for newest information on my subject.
My professor argued that keeping even publicly funded research and data behind paywalls will keep at least some of the people who have no idea about the scientific method from doing dangerous nonsense with it. I don't share this opinion.