This is a flaw in Java, which isn't an Apple or "Unix" product. Apple is only responsible for it insofar that they bundle Java with their OS, which is going to end with their next major release of OS X.
Not quite. Apple has been porting their own implementation of Java. Updates for java are delivered through the "Software Update" functionality of OS X. The flaw was fixed well in advance of it being exploited on the Mac, putting the responsibility square on Apple. This was outside the control of Oracle, whom had already resolved the issue, and made a patch available to anyone not using OS X.
If Apple didn't insist on this level of control, I would be inclined to agree with you, but they took responsibility when they chose to port their own Java.
Unless you know you need Java, disable it. Also, install something like Noscript for whatever browser you use.
This, regardless of your OS. I work in both Win and OSX environments, little things like noscript will hold off many common attacks, as well as suppressing the unwanted behavior of some obnoxious but commonly used (or needed) websites.
Why? Why would Apple want to do this, aside from some insane take over the world theory? They are certainly pushing for signed applications running in nice sandboxes and they're using the Mac store as one way to do it, but why would they want to disable other applications entirely?
To charge their customary 30% for every Mac OS X application?
If money is the motive, you should know they make so little on both stores put together (including music and movie sales) that it is barely a blip on their radar. Apple is a razor not a blade business model. The stores are purely there as ways to make hardware more attractive and increase hardware sales.
and I'm sure you've got the citations to back this up? I seriously doubt that Apple make as little on the App Store as you'd like us to believe.
I know some slashdoters with very outdated 1990s knowledge think you are fine without any anti virus package as long as you do not click attachments are in a rude awakening.
The good old days of common sense avoidance have been over for quite awhile. Used to be that you'd have to go looking for a virus, but now they find you. I almost feel sorry for new Mac adopters, in the coming years they're going to be in same virus situation many of them switched to get away from.
I said windows is, by design, more secure that Mac OS
Comparing apples and oranges. Different approaches in security seldom compare naively along one axis. There are many good approaches in windows, and many good approaches in OS X (it hasn't been called Mac OS for a decade now, maybe if you'd get up to speed...)
The issue is more often implementation, where both MS and Apple blunder. But don't forget that it took a decade of heavy fire from pretty much everyone before MS finally woke up and put a focus on security. Before that, their crap contained the most shoody fuck-ups you can imagine and more. I sincerely hope that Apple doesn't require that kind of wake-up call. But they definitely need one, given that they don't even use, say, sandboxing on all of their own applications.
...and thus began the age of Apple "stealing" from Microsoft's OS. Things that had been common in Windows now started to show up in the Mac OS, much to the chagrin of many a Microsoft fan boy. (Yes, they do exist)
I e-mailed that address and got a response from a security engineer. Perhaps Dr. Web is holding it wrong.
Just like when you go the Apple Store and get a "Genius". Chances are the "security engineer" you got was a minimum wager working off a script. How many times were you asked to turn off the mac and check the cables? =D
Ever seen the ads that begin with:
"I'm a Mac"
"I'm a PC"
Apple seems to think that Macs are not PCs
Yes, but the Reality Distortion Field has been decreasing in strength as of late. Apple's own moderation of Java updates allowed this one to flourish, the Apple devout can't pass the buck onto another vendor this time. It's foolish to presume that a large installed base of users unconcerned with security would go ignored forever.
I think it's quite interesting to see people in the U.S. complain about a congress that gets nothing done, each side staunchly refusing to compromise, loudly announcing how right they are, and wrong anyone else is. The "my way or the highway" mentality. Here it is on display.
Make sure that ALL technology purchases require IT department approval and evaluation. This is what we do. Also, we report to the business dept, not curriculum, which works better since the CBO has a better grasp of "technology" (K12-speak for IT/DP/Stuff with das blinken lights).
There can also be a disclaimer to this: "All technology purchases NOT approved by IT are unsupported." Although making the rule, and enforcing it are two different things.
There is often a disconnect between perception and reality in school environments (many others as well, but I've seen it magnified in schools). The real job before you is getting their perceptions to catch up to reality. Do you know how much equipment your IT staff is responsible for maintaining? Do you know how many hours are spent on particular tasks? Setting up an inventory and work order/ticket system, and having the staff use it allows you to produce hard numbers instead of "Somewhere around 'X'". That kind of data can help your IT boss reason with the supervisor, or the board.
You may have a crappy situation with existing equipment, but make the best of it you can while advising school teachers and administrators that this is the best that can be done with sub-par equipment. Giving them a little bit of knowledge (equipment is sub-par, but we're precluded from buying better because of bureaucracy) can help mobilize the squeaky wheels (every district has them) that won't stop nagging until changes are made.
Solutions? Does your IT department oversee/maintain solutions that contribute to your Districts bottom line? Things that improve test scores or save money? If not, get some. When you get technology working for your district, you make your department more relevant. Saving money on power by ensuring classroom computers shut down is a simple money saver that contributes to the bottom line.
Documentation. I just heard you groan, but building a documentation system can be a real blessing. Wiki's have worked well for me, but use whatever works best in your environment. It can be a reminder for ubscure stuff you may have to handle from time to time, and it can also be an awesome show and tell piece for people to understand that you don't just re-install the OS.
Remember that policy is all good and fine, but when the boss says jump, you jump. Even if it breaks policy. If it's a security issue, explain it to them, and if you judge necessary, require the exception to be made in some form that can be converted to hard-copy. Often they can tell between you being seriously concerned for District resources, or being a prideful hard-ass. Pick your battles carefully. When they can see you are willing to bend when possible, they will respect you more when you don't, even if they over-rule you.
I see a number of people saying "quit", but these are the kind of challenges that can make a resume shine. Obviously you care about the job, otherwise you would have asked how to transfer from a K-12 job =D.
[/soapbox]
It looks like the "no danger" statements were coming from Bernardo De Bernardinis, who is a hydraulic engineer by training, not a seismologist, and was the Vice Director of the Department of Civil Protection. Clearly the "no danger" statement shouldn't have been taken at face value since the area was known to be dangerous and the buildings were known to be deathtraps in an earthquake. Clearly the recent events didn't somehow make the area safer, so the statement should have been something more like "there's no extraordinary new danger".
Barberi was among the four who held the press conference that gave the "no danger" statements. The article places him among "Italy's most respected geophysicists". If he viewed this information as incorrect or as a misstatement, why didn't Barberi correct him?
The people of Aquila are just making a human sacrifice to the earthquake gods.
Funny that you should draw this perspective. I was thinking how many people place scientists on the god pedestal, and are insisting they be exempt from any changes simply because the term "scientist" is involved. Credit to you sir, for at least examining the facts and making a well thought out argument, instead of playing the "scientists are my god so they can't be wrong" card like so many others have done. =D
It's not the prosecution's story either, it belongs to whomever originally told it. It's clearly 'your' story from some point of view since you used it to illustrate your point.
From the nature article:
As part of the prosecution's case, Picuti argues in his brief that local residents made fateful decisions on the night of the earthquake on the basis of statements made by public officials outside the meeting.
It is the story the prosecution is telling. They are making it their own by fitting it within the constraints of the law of their country.
I do not have 'complaints' about how people survive earthquakes. People die in earthquakes because of buildings, not because of seismologists. And it is a fact that running out of your house every time the earth shakes is not practical and is most assuredly dangerous.
I am not being stubborn. I am stating facts. Buildings that fall down kill people in earthquakes. Running out of your house is a bad idea. If the earthquake is large, then you can't run fast enough. And if it's small then there's no point running.
So if you have a small tremor in an area known for it's seismic issues, the tremor passes, and everyone goes outside to a safer area, as they have done for all their lives, that's nor practical? Yet it saved the lives of those who followed this practice. Yes, buildings that fall down in earthquakes kill people. But advisory panels that tell people that it's safe to ignore the basic safety practice they've followed their entire life, they kill people as well.
The people who ignored the public statement left their homes after the first tremor. They're alive. But I suppose that's not practical to you. It's probably a dangerous idea.
Well you're more then welcome to take your cute little story over there are explain that to them. My "cute little story" isn't really mine. It's the prosecution's. Applying your personal experience in your area, to those who survived the disaster in L'Aquila is shortsighted at best. Your complaints about how people survive earthquakes in other areas doesn't make them less effective. If you lived in that region, your stubbornness, along with your options "a and b" would have likely led to your death long before this disaster happened.
Earthquake prediction is hard. It's unsurprising that mistakes happen. Lynching scientists for this sort of thing is not going to make it any better in future. It will just lead all seismologists working in Italy to always predict disaster in the future.
I have no doubts of the difficulty of predicting earthquakes. I wouldn't fault the scientists for failing to predict an earthquake. This really has nothing to do with actually predicting earthquakes. It's about "the failure of government-appointed scientists serving on an advisory panel to adequately evaluate, and then communicate, the potential risk to the local population." (from this article)
They said "no danger" in area KNOWN for it's seismic reputation. This caused people to ignore basic safety procedures.
Never mind that they are scientists, they were in a position of trust, and they gave or allowed blatantly wrong advice to be given. Either their science was negligent, or their warnings were. Under no circumstances should "no danger" have been declared in this case.
Read, you mean like this quote from one of the accused scientists? "It is unlikely that an earthquake like the one in 1703 could occur in the short term, but the possibility cannot be totally excluded."
Ah, I see you are referencing an article I used in some of my other comments. Your quote was from the minutes of the meeting. Perhaps you neglected to read this tidbit:
The commission did not issue its usual formal statement, and the minutes of the meeting were not even prepared, says Boschi, until after the earthquake had occurred.
The minutes were not even prepared until AFTER the earthquake occurred. Really easy to add quotes to the minutes of a meeting AFTER the shit hits the fan.
This is a strange idea. Do you really thing people would have been sleeping in their cars if they'd been told that their houses were potentially unsafe? How long do you think they would do that for? A week? A year? That earthquake could have taken a decade to arrive, and unless someone is going to spend the billions of dollars required to re-inforce every weak building in the country, the problem isn't going anywhere. Also, sleeping in your car outside an unreinforced masonry building during an earthquake is just as much of a death-trap as sleeping inside.
From when he was a young boy growing up in a house on Via Antinori in the medieval heart of this earthquake-prone Italian city, Vincenzo Vittorini remembers the ritual whenever the family felt a seismic tremor overnight. "My father was afraid of earthquakes, so whenever the ground shook, even a little, he would gather us and take us out of the house," he says. "We would walk to a little piazza nearby, and the children — we were four brothers — and my mother would sleep in the car. My father would stand outside, smoking cigarettes with the other fathers, until morning." That, he says, represented the age-old, cautionary "culture" of living in an earthquake zone.
It may be a strange idea if you don't live in an area that is seismically active. However, this was their way of life. They would go out to a piazza and sleep in the car. Much less of a death-trap then the situation you are imagining.
Read, you mean like this quote from one of the accused scientists? "It is unlikely that an earthquake like the one in 1703 could occur in the short term, but the possibility cannot be totally excluded."
I sourced my comments from the links in the summary. I'm not finding that quote in either of the linked articles. I searched a few words from the quote without success. Care to credit your source? Lack of source means lack of context, which allows all sorts of questions to be raised. Lack of source also allows the question: "Is this quote even real?"
Was this statement made before or after the statement of "no danger"?
Is he simply stating that he said this before the statement of "no danger", or was he recorded as saying this?
If his opinion differed, why did he remain silent during the statement of "no danger"?
Quotes are great, but even elementary students are taught to credit their sources.
Bullshit. If you start charging every negligent mechanic with manslaughter then no one will want the job. You have to understand that everyone makes mistakes and if screwing up 1 in a 100 jobs leads to manslaughter charges then no one will be willing to do the work. Then everyone's car will break down.
People died because an earthquake occurred. The scientists were not responsible for the earthquake. And their "prediction" was probably just about as good as any available.
In press interviews before and after the meeting that were broadcast on Italian television, immortalized on YouTube and form detailed parts of the prosecution case, De Bernardinis said that the seismic situation in L'Aquila was "certainly normal" and posed "no danger", adding that "the scientific community continues to assure me that, to the contrary, it's a favourable situation because of the continuous discharge of energy". When prompted by a journalist who said, "So we should have a nice glass of wine," De Bernardinis replied "Absolutely", and urged locals to have a glass of Montepulciano.
The suggestion that repeated tremors were favourable because they 'unload', or discharge, seismic stress and reduce the probability of a major quake seems to be scientifically incorrect.
It's one thing to fail to predict an earthquake. However, they didn't fail to predict an earthquake, to the contrary, they predicted that there was "no danger". Basically, no earthquake.
Now consider this: had the scientists told people that there is always a risk of earthquakes, what preparations would the victims have made that might have saved their lives? I'll tell you: precisely zero.
Wrong again. The same article points out the routine the residents in the area had of leaving the homes when a small tremor occurred, and sleeping outside. Those residents, pacified by the "no danger" statement of the panel, ignored the tremors and lost their life.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a flaw in Java, which isn't an Apple or "Unix" product. Apple is only responsible for it insofar that they bundle Java with their OS, which is going to end with their next major release of OS X.
Not quite. Apple has been porting their own implementation of Java. Updates for java are delivered through the "Software Update" functionality of OS X. The flaw was fixed well in advance of it being exploited on the Mac, putting the responsibility square on Apple. This was outside the control of Oracle, whom had already resolved the issue, and made a patch available to anyone not using OS X.
If Apple didn't insist on this level of control, I would be inclined to agree with you, but they took responsibility when they chose to port their own Java.
I'll also be much more strict about keeping everything up-to-date, and all the other basic security practices.
This practice would be much more effective if Apple had the same commitment to keeping things up to date as you do.
Unless you know you need Java, disable it. Also, install something like Noscript for whatever browser you use.
This, regardless of your OS. I work in both Win and OSX environments, little things like noscript will hold off many common attacks, as well as suppressing the unwanted behavior of some obnoxious but commonly used (or needed) websites.
Why? Why would Apple want to do this, aside from some insane take over the world theory? They are certainly pushing for signed applications running in nice sandboxes and they're using the Mac store as one way to do it, but why would they want to disable other applications entirely?
To charge their customary 30% for every Mac OS X application?
If money is the motive, you should know they make so little on both stores put together (including music and movie sales) that it is barely a blip on their radar. Apple is a razor not a blade business model. The stores are purely there as ways to make hardware more attractive and increase hardware sales.
and I'm sure you've got the citations to back this up? I seriously doubt that Apple make as little on the App Store as you'd like us to believe.
I know some slashdoters with very outdated 1990s knowledge think you are fine without any anti virus package as long as you do not click attachments are in a rude awakening.
The good old days of common sense avoidance have been over for quite awhile. Used to be that you'd have to go looking for a virus, but now they find you. I almost feel sorry for new Mac adopters, in the coming years they're going to be in same virus situation many of them switched to get away from.
You know a Time Machine isn't good when even Doctor Emmett Brown won't use it...
I said windows is, by design, more secure that Mac OS
Comparing apples and oranges. Different approaches in security seldom compare naively along one axis. There are many good approaches in windows, and many good approaches in OS X (it hasn't been called Mac OS for a decade now, maybe if you'd get up to speed...)
The issue is more often implementation, where both MS and Apple blunder. But don't forget that it took a decade of heavy fire from pretty much everyone before MS finally woke up and put a focus on security. Before that, their crap contained the most shoody fuck-ups you can imagine and more. I sincerely hope that Apple doesn't require that kind of wake-up call. But they definitely need one, given that they don't even use, say, sandboxing on all of their own applications.
...and thus began the age of Apple "stealing" from Microsoft's OS. Things that had been common in Windows now started to show up in the Mac OS, much to the chagrin of many a Microsoft fan boy. (Yes, they do exist)
Welcome to the newest way to catch that virus going around! High five?
I e-mailed that address and got a response from a security engineer. Perhaps Dr. Web is holding it wrong.
Just like when you go the Apple Store and get a "Genius". Chances are the "security engineer" you got was a minimum wager working off a script. How many times were you asked to turn off the mac and check the cables? =D
Macs are PCs. Don't tell me they're mainframes.
Ever seen the ads that begin with: "I'm a Mac" "I'm a PC"
Apple seems to think that Macs are not PCs
Yes, but the Reality Distortion Field has been decreasing in strength as of late. Apple's own moderation of Java updates allowed this one to flourish, the Apple devout can't pass the buck onto another vendor this time. It's foolish to presume that a large installed base of users unconcerned with security would go ignored forever.
I think it's quite interesting to see people in the U.S. complain about a congress that gets nothing done, each side staunchly refusing to compromise, loudly announcing how right they are, and wrong anyone else is. The "my way or the highway" mentality. Here it is on display.
I've been drinking coffee for 50 years. No grandchildren yet, and I intend to be around to watch them grow up.
Yeah, yeah -- not a reason most people on /. can identify with.
I on the other hand, intend to be awake *sip*.
But you still don't do it then. You have your lawyers do it.
You don't get filthy rich by paying for lawyers. Oh wait...
Is your IT department *just* a help desk?
Make sure that ALL technology purchases require IT department approval and evaluation. This is what we do. Also, we report to the business dept, not curriculum, which works better since the CBO has a better grasp of "technology" (K12-speak for IT/DP/Stuff with das blinken lights).
There can also be a disclaimer to this: "All technology purchases NOT approved by IT are unsupported." Although making the rule, and enforcing it are two different things.
There is often a disconnect between perception and reality in school environments (many others as well, but I've seen it magnified in schools). The real job before you is getting their perceptions to catch up to reality. Do you know how much equipment your IT staff is responsible for maintaining? Do you know how many hours are spent on particular tasks? Setting up an inventory and work order/ticket system, and having the staff use it allows you to produce hard numbers instead of "Somewhere around 'X'". That kind of data can help your IT boss reason with the supervisor, or the board.
You may have a crappy situation with existing equipment, but make the best of it you can while advising school teachers and administrators that this is the best that can be done with sub-par equipment. Giving them a little bit of knowledge (equipment is sub-par, but we're precluded from buying better because of bureaucracy) can help mobilize the squeaky wheels (every district has them) that won't stop nagging until changes are made.
Solutions? Does your IT department oversee/maintain solutions that contribute to your Districts bottom line? Things that improve test scores or save money? If not, get some. When you get technology working for your district, you make your department more relevant. Saving money on power by ensuring classroom computers shut down is a simple money saver that contributes to the bottom line.
Documentation. I just heard you groan, but building a documentation system can be a real blessing. Wiki's have worked well for me, but use whatever works best in your environment. It can be a reminder for ubscure stuff you may have to handle from time to time, and it can also be an awesome show and tell piece for people to understand that you don't just re-install the OS.
Remember that policy is all good and fine, but when the boss says jump, you jump. Even if it breaks policy. If it's a security issue, explain it to them, and if you judge necessary, require the exception to be made in some form that can be converted to hard-copy. Often they can tell between you being seriously concerned for District resources, or being a prideful hard-ass. Pick your battles carefully. When they can see you are willing to bend when possible, they will respect you more when you don't, even if they over-rule you.
I see a number of people saying "quit", but these are the kind of challenges that can make a resume shine. Obviously you care about the job, otherwise you would have asked how to transfer from a K-12 job =D. [/soapbox]
It looks like the "no danger" statements were coming from Bernardo De Bernardinis, who is a hydraulic engineer by training, not a seismologist, and was the Vice Director of the Department of Civil Protection. Clearly the "no danger" statement shouldn't have been taken at face value since the area was known to be dangerous and the buildings were known to be deathtraps in an earthquake. Clearly the recent events didn't somehow make the area safer, so the statement should have been something more like "there's no extraordinary new danger".
Barberi was among the four who held the press conference that gave the "no danger" statements. The article places him among "Italy's most respected geophysicists". If he viewed this information as incorrect or as a misstatement, why didn't Barberi correct him?
The people of Aquila are just making a human sacrifice to the earthquake gods.
Funny that you should draw this perspective. I was thinking how many people place scientists on the god pedestal, and are insisting they be exempt from any changes simply because the term "scientist" is involved.
Credit to you sir, for at least examining the facts and making a well thought out argument, instead of playing the "scientists are my god so they can't be wrong" card like so many others have done. =D
That's a bit mean.
I'm sorry if the facts are mean.
It's not the prosecution's story either, it belongs to whomever originally told it. It's clearly 'your' story from some point of view since you used it to illustrate your point.
From the nature article:
As part of the prosecution's case, Picuti argues in his brief that local residents made fateful decisions on the night of the earthquake on the basis of statements made by public officials outside the meeting.
It is the story the prosecution is telling. They are making it their own by fitting it within the constraints of the law of their country.
I do not have 'complaints' about how people survive earthquakes. People die in earthquakes because of buildings, not because of seismologists. And it is a fact that running out of your house every time the earth shakes is not practical and is most assuredly dangerous.
I am not being stubborn. I am stating facts. Buildings that fall down kill people in earthquakes. Running out of your house is a bad idea. If the earthquake is large, then you can't run fast enough. And if it's small then there's no point running.
So if you have a small tremor in an area known for it's seismic issues, the tremor passes, and everyone goes outside to a safer area, as they have done for all their lives, that's nor practical? Yet it saved the lives of those who followed this practice.
Yes, buildings that fall down in earthquakes kill people. But advisory panels that tell people that it's safe to ignore the basic safety practice they've followed their entire life, they kill people as well.
The people who ignored the public statement left their homes after the first tremor. They're alive. But I suppose that's not practical to you. It's probably a dangerous idea.
Well you're more then welcome to take your cute little story over there are explain that to them. My "cute little story" isn't really mine. It's the prosecution's.
Applying your personal experience in your area, to those who survived the disaster in L'Aquila is shortsighted at best. Your complaints about how people survive earthquakes in other areas doesn't make them less effective. If you lived in that region, your stubbornness, along with your options "a and b" would have likely led to your death long before this disaster happened.
Earthquake prediction is hard. It's unsurprising that mistakes happen. Lynching scientists for this sort of thing is not going to make it any better in future. It will just lead all seismologists working in Italy to always predict disaster in the future.
I have no doubts of the difficulty of predicting earthquakes. I wouldn't fault the scientists for failing to predict an earthquake. This really has nothing to do with actually predicting earthquakes. It's about "the failure of government-appointed scientists serving on an advisory panel to adequately evaluate, and then communicate, the potential risk to the local population." (from this article)
They said "no danger" in area KNOWN for it's seismic reputation. This caused people to ignore basic safety procedures.
Never mind that they are scientists, they were in a position of trust, and they gave or allowed blatantly wrong advice to be given. Either their science was negligent, or their warnings were. Under no circumstances should "no danger" have been declared in this case.
Read, you mean like this quote from one of the accused scientists? "It is unlikely that an earthquake like the one in 1703 could occur in the short term, but the possibility cannot be totally excluded."
Ah, I see you are referencing an article I used in some of my other comments. Your quote was from the minutes of the meeting. Perhaps you neglected to read this tidbit:
The commission did not issue its usual formal statement, and the minutes of the meeting were not even prepared, says Boschi, until after the earthquake had occurred.
The minutes were not even prepared until AFTER the earthquake occurred. Really easy to add quotes to the minutes of a meeting AFTER the shit hits the fan.
This is a strange idea. Do you really thing people would have been sleeping in their cars if they'd been told that their houses were potentially unsafe? How long do you think they would do that for? A week? A year? That earthquake could have taken a decade to arrive, and unless someone is going to spend the billions of dollars required to re-inforce every weak building in the country, the problem isn't going anywhere. Also, sleeping in your car outside an unreinforced masonry building during an earthquake is just as much of a death-trap as sleeping inside.
Another Nature article on this subject:
From when he was a young boy growing up in a house on Via Antinori in the medieval heart of this earthquake-prone Italian city, Vincenzo Vittorini remembers the ritual whenever the family felt a seismic tremor overnight. "My father was afraid of earthquakes, so whenever the ground shook, even a little, he would gather us and take us out of the house," he says. "We would walk to a little piazza nearby, and the children — we were four brothers — and my mother would sleep in the car. My father would stand outside, smoking cigarettes with the other fathers, until morning." That, he says, represented the age-old, cautionary "culture" of living in an earthquake zone.
It may be a strange idea if you don't live in an area that is seismically active. However, this was their way of life. They would go out to a piazza and sleep in the car. Much less of a death-trap then the situation you are imagining.
Read, you mean like this quote from one of the accused scientists? "It is unlikely that an earthquake like the one in 1703 could occur in the short term, but the possibility cannot be totally excluded."
I sourced my comments from the links in the summary. I'm not finding that quote in either of the linked articles. I searched a few words from the quote without success. Care to credit your source? Lack of source means lack of context, which allows all sorts of questions to be raised. Lack of source also allows the question: "Is this quote even real?"
Was this statement made before or after the statement of "no danger"?
Is he simply stating that he said this before the statement of "no danger", or was he recorded as saying this?
If his opinion differed, why did he remain silent during the statement of "no danger"?
Quotes are great, but even elementary students are taught to credit their sources.
Bullshit. If you start charging every negligent mechanic with manslaughter then no one will want the job. You have to understand that everyone makes mistakes and if screwing up 1 in a 100 jobs leads to manslaughter charges then no one will be willing to do the work. Then everyone's car will break down.
Here's 1
Here's 2
and here's 3
Seems the bullshit you proclaimed is on your face. =D
People died because an earthquake occurred. The scientists were not responsible for the earthquake. And their "prediction" was probably just about as good as any available.
Read about their "prediction" from a "Nature" article:
In press interviews before and after the meeting that were broadcast on Italian television, immortalized on YouTube and form detailed parts of the prosecution case, De Bernardinis said that the seismic situation in L'Aquila was "certainly normal" and posed "no danger", adding that "the scientific community continues to assure me that, to the contrary, it's a favourable situation because of the continuous discharge of energy". When prompted by a journalist who said, "So we should have a nice glass of wine," De Bernardinis replied "Absolutely", and urged locals to have a glass of Montepulciano.
The suggestion that repeated tremors were favourable because they 'unload', or discharge, seismic stress and reduce the probability of a major quake seems to be scientifically incorrect.
It's one thing to fail to predict an earthquake. However, they didn't fail to predict an earthquake, to the contrary, they predicted that there was "no danger". Basically, no earthquake.
Now consider this: had the scientists told people that there is always a risk of earthquakes, what preparations would the victims have made that might have saved their lives? I'll tell you: precisely zero.
Wrong again. The same article points out the routine the residents in the area had of leaving the homes when a small tremor occurred, and sleeping outside. Those residents, pacified by the "no danger" statement of the panel, ignored the tremors and lost their life.