"the Justice Department was discussing how to proceed in a continuing criminal investigation in which a federal judge had approved a wiretap, but investigators were stymied by WhatsApp's encryption"
Sounds like a team on a stakeout discussing the frosted glass in one of the suspect's windows.
It's a Security update that contains non-security updates including an ad for Windows 10.
So it looks like it does one kind of thing and it's claiming it does that kind of thing, but it's also doing another kind of thing that doesn't conform to what was claimed it would be doing. Sounds trojan to me.
It's Security update that contains non-security updates including an ad for Windows 10. So it's claiming to do one kind of thing but it's also doing another kind of thing that doesn't conform to what was claimed would be done.
"The FBI does not know if the erase feature is enabled"
Doesn't matter. If on the 10th try nothing is erased continue testing PINs. If after 10 tries it erases the key then swap in a backup of the chip and continue testing PINs.
But seriously, I'd go for preventative measures that reduce to a minimum the likely hood of that kind of 'armed' behavior happening in the first place, and if need be with the effective threat containment and deescalation measures carried out by well trained and competent individuals.
"The article has about as much science as the Discovery channel"
Indeed
Enhance, delete, incept: Manipulating hippocampus-dependent memories : "whether science is able to one day “catch up” to science fiction remains to be seen"
"The rat used in the experiment you cite all die from cancer at the age they died at, due to known genetic limitations of the breed. Their death rate was no different than the control, thus there was no effect"
The experiment was fine, and has been republished. The only reason it was retracted according to the publisher was because it could be hard to understand by the general public. The GMF fed rats did develop significantly more tumors, and the species of rats they used is the industry standard for toxicity.
What the paper really shows is that a better funded experiment with more subjects is needed because the first experiment was too small to draw solid conclusions.
"Moreover, the scientists in question probably got their funding from some element of the Italian food industry, which is death on GMOs partly because they'd lose market-share to the dreaded Americans if Nebraskan GM corn were legal in Italy. They certainly hope to get future funding due to the notoriety they gained by fighting the good fight for the non-GM Italian agricultural sector."
Possibly, though it's companies like Monsanto that have by far the most funds at their disposal to promoted their interests.
"I'm not gonna gonna bother dancing around it for ten pages in case it turns out to be bullshit"
I feel it most likely already has, because:
1) Nature doesn't spell out what information was leaked to the press.
2) Italian is not one of my languages but La Rebublica seems to be saying that the leaked results from the university committee are that after evaluation there's no evidence of any problems with the images, but I could easily be misreading it.
3) As the popsci link said Bucci's image software flags 25% of papers as suspicious, that's much too wide of a net, so you then need humans to look at the images.
4) After Bucci posted some of Infascelli's gel slides his software considered suspicious, the concerned journals were advise in September 2015. And so far, after human analysis of the images, only one paper has been found problematic because of an honest error that doesn't affect the validity of the papers results.
But for now I'm just going to wait and see how all this turns out, I'm not even sure we're going to hear anything more about it, and between you and me my personal impression at this point is that if any more of the papers haven't been retracted by now it's unlikely any more will.
"I'm not gonna gonna bother dancing around it for ten pages in case it turns out to be bullshit"
No problem. I think it most likely already has.
"Read the links at the bottom of the article"
I did, and agreed on that, Bucci's software is useful but not accurate, it spots intentional manipulation, simple mistakes, and lots of false positives:
"My definition of evidence is any data-point that indicates indicates you better have a good explanation"
Ok, but for me that definition leaves too much room for mischief.
"the consultant [nature.com] who ran the software has used it to get a a previous researcher from the same University for faking evidence with copied images in the past"
Yes, and it found this too: "the 2013 Food and Nutrition Sciences paper was retracted, with a citation of “self-plagiarism”. However, the journal noted that the results were still valid and that it considered the issues an “honest error” -- Nature.com
But even with those results it doesn't change the fact that the software isn't enough to go on by itself because it produces way too many false positives to be able to rely on its results alone.
"A good explanation should be fairly trivial for the article's authors to come up with (you aren't supposed to trash all the data you use to write a paper just because it's been published), if they are actually innocent"
If you read the link to La Rebublica in Nature: "according to the Italian newspaper La Repubblica, Infascelli said that there is no substance to these allegations, and that an expert that he consulted about the papers had ruled out the possibility of data manipulation" (Nature.com), it appears the rector's investigating committee has consulted an expert on images and the expert said there was no evidence of any problems. Nature seems to have confused things a bit and its in fact the committee that's consulted the expert.
What I'd like to know, and what Nature doesn't tell us, is the content of the leak to the press: "details of the confidential findings of the investigation committee — composed of scientists in and outside of Naples — were leaked to the Italian press" (Nature.com).
"There is evidence. There's the analysis of the images. It may be evidence you dislike. It may be total bullshit. But it a) exists in the physical world in which we reside, and b) implies that these the data papers are based on shit the authors made up. That is (by definition) evidence that the authors committed both scientific misconduct and fraud."
What is your definition of evidence? I think the guys software hasn't been proven to produce reliable 'evidence' (the quote marks indicate I'm not sure how you expect the word evidence to be defined).
Slashdot Mirror
" that they all knew was used to handle classified data "
Yup, right ;)
" You're a paid Hillary! shill "
Hah!
"the Justice Department was discussing how to proceed in a continuing criminal investigation in which a federal judge had approved a wiretap, but investigators were stymied by WhatsApp's encryption"
Sounds like a team on a stakeout discussing the frosted glass in one of the suspect's windows.
"That same jerk would probably say that it's ok if someone gets evicted in San Jose because it's jut a suburb"
All I can say is that everybody's allowed an opinion.
"We should care about your problems?"
Who said you should?
"Got it. "Arts" people have rights other people don't have."
Why read it that way?
"No one has a "right" to live anywhere"
Definition "games". Ridiculous.
It's a Security update that contains non-security updates including an ad for Windows 10.
So it looks like it does one kind of thing and it's claiming it does that kind of thing, but it's also doing another kind of thing that doesn't conform to what was claimed it would be doing. Sounds trojan to me.
It's Security update that contains non-security updates including an ad for Windows 10. So it's claiming to do one kind of thing but it's also doing another kind of thing that doesn't conform to what was claimed would be done.
"The FBI does not know if the erase feature is enabled"
Doesn't matter. If on the 10th try nothing is erased continue testing PINs. If after 10 tries it erases the key then swap in a backup of the chip and continue testing PINs.
Your talking about more recent models, they have a 5C
As you did too, taking an opportunity to make a point is fine
Here you go, have a cup of tea, or would you like something else instead?
Disarm you?
With some top notch humor of course.
But seriously, I'd go for preventative measures that reduce to a minimum the likely hood of that kind of 'armed' behavior happening in the first place, and if need be with the effective threat containment and deescalation measures carried out by well trained and competent individuals.
I though you meant Israel, but state terrorism doesn't make it ok too
"Retaliatory strikes"
Retaliatory? The "they started first" argument is morally corrupt, even before considering the legal situation.
"The article has about as much science as the Discovery channel"
Indeed
Enhance, delete, incept: Manipulating hippocampus-dependent memories : "whether science is able to one day “catch up” to science fiction remains to be seen"
From: http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...
Ok, so in business altruism is ok and and at times it is the primary motive. But you mean that in capitalism the profit motive is primary.
"Not a single thing in business is ever altruistic"
So everything in business is [word] ?
"The rat used in the experiment you cite all die from cancer at the age they died at, due to known genetic limitations of the breed. Their death rate was no different than the control, thus there was no effect"
The experiment was fine, and has been republished. The only reason it was retracted according to the publisher was because it could be hard to understand by the general public. The GMF fed rats did develop significantly more tumors, and the species of rats they used is the industry standard for toxicity.
What the paper really shows is that a better funded experiment with more subjects is needed because the first experiment was too small to draw solid conclusions.
"Moreover, the scientists in question probably got their funding from some element of the Italian food industry, which is death on GMOs partly because they'd lose market-share to the dreaded Americans if Nebraskan GM corn were legal in Italy. They certainly hope to get future funding due to the notoriety they gained by fighting the good fight for the non-GM Italian agricultural sector."
Possibly, though it's companies like Monsanto that have by far the most funds at their disposal to promoted their interests.
Remove the last comma?
"I'm not gonna gonna bother dancing around it for ten pages in case it turns out to be bullshit"
I feel it most likely already has, because:
1) Nature doesn't spell out what information was leaked to the press.
2) Italian is not one of my languages but La Rebublica seems to be saying that the leaked results from the university committee are that after evaluation there's no evidence of any problems with the images, but I could easily be misreading it.
3) As the popsci link said Bucci's image software flags 25% of papers as suspicious, that's much too wide of a net, so you then need humans to look at the images.
4) After Bucci posted some of Infascelli's gel slides his software considered suspicious, the concerned journals were advise in September 2015. And so far, after human analysis of the images, only one paper has been found problematic because of an honest error that doesn't affect the validity of the papers results.
But for now I'm just going to wait and see how all this turns out, I'm not even sure we're going to hear anything more about it, and between you and me my personal impression at this point is that if any more of the papers haven't been retracted by now it's unlikely any more will.
"I'm not gonna gonna bother dancing around it for ten pages in case it turns out to be bullshit"
No problem. I think it most likely already has.
"Read the links at the bottom of the article"
I did, and agreed on that, Bucci's software is useful but not accurate, it spots intentional manipulation, simple mistakes, and lots of false positives:
http://www.popsci.com/article/...
(Software Scans Journal Papers, Finds 1 In 4 Have Suspicious Images)
"Maybe the University also hired the same guy"
You lost me there. I must be misunderstanding you. Could you be more precise?
"My definition of evidence is any data-point that indicates indicates you better have a good explanation"
Ok, but for me that definition leaves too much room for mischief.
"the consultant [nature.com] who ran the software has used it to get a a previous researcher from the same University for faking evidence with copied images in the past"
Yes, and it found this too: "the 2013 Food and Nutrition Sciences paper was retracted, with a citation of “self-plagiarism”. However, the journal noted that the results were still valid and that it considered the issues an “honest error” -- Nature.com
But even with those results it doesn't change the fact that the software isn't enough to go on by itself because it produces way too many false positives to be able to rely on its results alone.
"A good explanation should be fairly trivial for the article's authors to come up with (you aren't supposed to trash all the data you use to write a paper just because it's been published), if they are actually innocent"
If you read the link to La Rebublica in Nature: "according to the Italian newspaper La Repubblica, Infascelli said that there is no substance to these allegations, and that an expert that he consulted about the papers had ruled out the possibility of data manipulation" (Nature.com), it appears the rector's investigating committee has consulted an expert on images and the expert said there was no evidence of any problems. Nature seems to have confused things a bit and its in fact the committee that's consulted the expert.
What I'd like to know, and what Nature doesn't tell us, is the content of the leak to the press: "details of the confidential findings of the investigation committee — composed of scientists in and outside of Naples — were leaked to the Italian press" (Nature.com).
"There is evidence. There's the analysis of the images. It may be evidence you dislike. It may be total bullshit. But it a) exists in the physical world in which we reside, and b) implies that these the data papers are based on shit the authors made up. That is (by definition) evidence that the authors committed both scientific misconduct and fraud."
What is your definition of evidence? I think the guys software hasn't been proven to produce reliable 'evidence' (the quote marks indicate I'm not sure how you expect the word evidence to be defined).