'Anonymisation' schemes are a little like encryption, in that they just get monotonically weaker over time as people work out attacks. But the attacks tend to be much worse. I work in academic open data publishing, and the netflix prize (https://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0610105) hangs over our heads.
But what this illustrates to me is that researchers are just really careless, despite everything we make them agree to in data transfer agreements. It seems absurd to have little cubicles like this https://safepodnetwork.ac.uk/ (think Mission Impossible 1) but I do despair.
My (really limited) understanding is that 'British subject' was the status of people in the British empire. It's now reduced to just some people born pre-1949 in Ireland and India. They have many of the rights of citizens, and can become citizens via a simpler route than other non-nationals.
Then somebody needs to let the government know, because the relevant 1981 act is "[a]n Act to make fresh provision about citizenship and nationality". In that 'British subjects' are a quite limited subset of citizens. Most British people are citizens, not subjects.
(I can't find the 1.1 docs, but they were the same)
It's one of my favourite examples of how languages pretty much always get date and time hopelessly wrong initially. Java now has one of the best temporal APIs.
Academic publishing is _notoriously_ profitable. Authorship and the bulk of the editorial process is done by others for free, and these days you often aren't even creating a physical copy. Their overheads are really pretty minimal. What the money (subscriptions and / or APCs) gets is the kudos associated with the publication.
It is reasonable to say: well if they aren't providing anything of value then the market ought to bypass them. The reality is that the publishers have been very canny in protecting their position, and sharp practice is rife.
> Instead of journals getting revenue from subscribers, they charge authors an “Article Processing Charge” (APC)
Just to be clear this is specifically _gold open access_. There are other options like green (author can make article available elsewhere for free) and diamond (gold with no charge).
It sounds like this will include Teesworks, one of the dodgiest land deals of recent years. For a small investment two people essentially held the entire thing to ransom and secured options on an astonishing amount government money.
The article states "I currently run an Ampere Arm server in my rack with Linux and ZFS as my primary storage server" and this is just explaining how to try it out on the Pi, which I found surprisingly interesting. I am glad people like the N100s and wish they would find more relevant articles to talk about them.
> Most of my open source work followed Unix philosophy, so the packages did one thing at a time.
Nobody has suggested that libc -- to take the most obvious example -- is against the Unix philosophy. Debates occur around whether whether commands / daemons do too much (recent poster child being systemd) or aren't composable.
But what this illustrates to me is that researchers are just really careless, despite everything we make them agree to in data transfer agreements. It seems absurd to have little cubicles like this https://safepodnetwork.ac.uk/ (think Mission Impossible 1) but I do despair.