Very true. I feel that at least a quarter of the time in lab meetings where I am presenting are taken up by questions and explanations about what I meant when I said X instead of XYZ.
Of course, they also find time to gloat of the death of "sceptics", etc. etc. All classy stuff.
"Science" indeed.
Classy =/= science. Most of us are real jerks and or have major social problems when it comes down to us.
Privately taking some evil delight that an opponent has suffered a tragedy or died isn't exactly unique to science anyway. Hell, I've talked to senior citizens in assisted living who callously laugh when "that bitch who always cheats at bingo" finally dies.
In fact, name me one field, scientific or otherwise, where there aren't some people who would take joy at the misfortunes of their opponents. Just one. Clergy do it. Biologists do it. Retirees do it. Programmers do it. Politicians obviously do it. The RIAA would probably have a kegger if one of our heroes on slashdot were to kick the can.
Not to say it's good, but scientists are obviously going to suffer from the same human foibles that everyone else does. Doesn't make their work invalid. Although I would like to apply that reasoning to lawmakers and RIAA sometimes.
Rarely do I have enough time to generate 61 MB (let alone 61 compressed MB) of data, code and e-mails that serves my political/religious purposes.
I gathered that it wasn't 61 mb of data supporting the idea that it's a hoax, I thought it was 61 mb of data with a few quotes that sound suspicious. The place confirmed the leak so at least some of it is probably real, that doesn't mean it hasn't been altered. Take 61 mb of real data, it would be trivial to drop in a few false e-mails or edits to make it seem suspicious.
The only question is why did he choose the words "hide" as opposed to "correct" and "decline" as opposed to "error" which the skeptics (of this breach) are trying to imply, that "hide the decline" has the same meaning as "correct the error".
Because it was in a private e-mail and people don't parse their words that carefully in private e-mails.
Perhaps it was even said tongue-in-cheek and the recipient would have understood from previous conversations that it was a joke. I could imagine two colleagues talking
A: "This data shows a decrease!" B: "Yes, but if you look at it like this, it becomes clear that is an artifact." A: "Oh. Well then how would I present that" B: "I read a paper that had a technique that seemed useful, I'll email it to you when I get back to the office" A: "You're sure it's not actual signal and the technique you are thinking of will just hide it" B: (joking)"Well yeah, after all, Al Gore would -kill- us if we didn't 'hide' the true data to support the hoax!" A&B: "Ha ha ha"
Email from B: "Here's how we could hide the data."
"Not only did I get hit with mine shrapnel, it was covered in gross glowing e.coli. I nearly crapped myself from the mine explosion. Later, I -did- crap myself because of the diarrhea it caused."
What a rip off, solution, in one transaction, move your entire paycheck from account to another bank account, thus avoiding the $2.00 fees for additional transactions related to the cards.
Of course they would then put in an artificially low maximum that would prevent you from transferring / withdrawing your account in one transaction.
Transferring it with that one transaction is probably exactly what they and the company would point to if called out on it. I didn't read far enough to see if there was anything about a maximum, after reading the 2$ for every transaction afterwards I understood what type of scam it was and was on the phone with personnel. I'm assuming the overdraft charges were also a scam, likely measured in "fold" rather than "percent" and a balance inquiry to be sure you don't transfer more than your paycheck counts as your free transaction.
Go into any barbershop in a shadier part of town and while you're getting a fantastic $12 haircut, mention to the oldest barber that you are working on security consulting to help people avoid getting into trouble with the law, especially in regards to keeping phone calls and information private.
I don't know, there aren't a whole lot of trees here, I'm going to have a hard time identifying the "shadier" part of town.
At $150 a pop to "consult" with a man in a nice suit, you can easily remind him that his phone and laptop aren't secure, even offer him advice on what he can do and what he can buy to keep his tracks concealed better.
You mean some company doesn't either do direct deposit, or cut you a check?
Yes. Mark of a company that hates hates HATES its employees. After undergrad I was working at gamestop when they decided to go this route. For some reason, they were incapable of processing a direct deposit for me, so checks were fine. Then these cards came. They give your paycheck to a different company. Said company gives it to you. The fine print in the information pamphlet they handed out: one free transaction a month. After that, $2 fee for using the debit card for anything.
They undoubtedly made a killing from many high school kids on that one. And gamestop no longer had to print and distribute paychecks, saving the company untold hundreds of dollars a month. Since that was one of the least annoying things gamestop did to it's employees, morale probably wasn't a factor.
some of these viri are designed to do harm if disabled improperly, and some of these computers could be in situations where their failure could cause the loss of lives.
Wow. What is the motivation behind this? Hoping that people will be afraid to run cleanup on their infected computers, keeping the botnet from shrinking? Some bullshit like "my victims deserve to be screwed over so I'm going to make sure to do as much damage after I'm done with them?"
God bless slashdot. Anywhere else I would be feeling stupid and immature for reading that and thinking immediately of that joke. On slashdot? It's the first post.
As for Beck's show, I think it's worth watching. I would not have known that Mr. Jones wants to take my money and give it to Indians ("give them the wealth") or that he believes whites are poisoning blacks ("dumping their pollution in black neighborhoods") or tat he used to be not just Obama's right hand man, but also a communist. ----- I would not have known about the ACORN scandal where they advise their customers to cover-up illegal prostitution houses, and file false claims with the IRS. ----- I would not have known that Obama's Communication Director considers Mother Teresa and Chairman Mao her favorite philosophers, and that she admire how Mao overthrew the Democratic Chinese government.
Most of that is trivia even if it wasn't taken out of context. A someone who admires a commie? In the government? OH GOD NO! THE SOVIETS ARE BACK AND IN OUR GOVERNMENT! We would have had a bolshevik revolution on our hands had Beck not outed them.
The ACORN thing, what do you mean you wouldn't have heard about it? It was all over the news. MSNBC, CNN etc didn't cover it? I can't say I watch cable news at all, so maybe, but I'm pretty sure it was even on an episode of southpark, it was everywhere. The stuff about the communism, sure, those other networks may not have covered them. Good for them, it's about as newsworthy to me as brittney's latest undergarment scandal.
People who primarily want to do research should principally not take jobs that involve teaching unless they are willing to commit the kind of time and effort to teaching that it demands. I'm sure there are plenty of research institutes and corporations that would gladly hire them and spare them the torture of having to teach.
You're sure? Some research areas yes, there are non-academic positions. If you want to make an incremental improvement for Viagra for instance, I'm sure there's a position for you at pfizer or any drug company. If you want to research something less applied, more long-term useful than short term, and thereby less immediately profitable for a company, there are significantly fewer job opportunities that don't involve teaching.
For example, kinetochore assembly is important for cell division. Researching how kinetochore assembly occurs could give you some leads as to how to fight cancer, but more basic fact finding research, which parts of which proteins interact with each other to form the kinetochore, that's not going to be something companies can patent and profit off of that knowledge. That knowledge however might give you some insight as to drugs that might affect the process, and using that knowledge you might eventually be able to come up with a drug that fights cancer. A drug company would definitely be willing to employ you if you could promise that second part, but might be more hesitant if you admitted that you could in no way guarantee that second part, since you couldn't. But even if you couldn't, the research into kinetochore assembly isn't useless, it's valuable data which could lead to more research and eventually a cure for diseases.
I probably could have chosen a better example, since especially with cancer, a lot of companies are willing to fund more basic research. I don't mean to imply that companies won't spend a buck if they can't immediately profit off of them, that's not true, but there is less money for it. Also, I don't know a whole lot about kinetochore assembly, it may have already been worked out completely.
There are also research institutions where you can head your own lab and not do teaching. Seems to me though that most researchers at said non-teaching institutions have already established themselves at less lucrative, teaching institutions.
So, from my perspective, universities are some of the only places you get to do basic research, and teaching is a necessary part of that.
I mean its cool and all, but I'm not sure I see where this is going. Can someone enlighten me?
Sure. Picture this: you really need some uracil, but don't have a lot of scratch to buy it. You're out of luck, right? WRONG! Got some pyrimidine, ice, and a source of UV light? Guess what? THAT'S ALL YOU NEED!
With all the money you'll save with this, maybe you could treat yourself to some fancypants store-bought cytosine.
Actually I think absurdist's post had it, this is all just him repeating the lie enough times that he can get his followers to back him up and then challenge fair use entirely.
Similar tactics of repeating lies until people believe them worked with the "liberal media conspiracy" and the "fox news is fair and balanced" lines, at least in some circles.
What else do you expect from a man in charge of a company that nearly sued itself over the one show that singlehandedly kept the network from dying an early death?
Slashdot Mirror
Very true. I feel that at least a quarter of the time in lab meetings where I am presenting are taken up by questions and explanations about what I meant when I said X instead of XYZ.
Of course, they also find time to gloat of the death of "sceptics", etc. etc. All classy stuff.
"Science" indeed.
Classy =/= science. Most of us are real jerks and or have major social problems when it comes down to us.
Privately taking some evil delight that an opponent has suffered a tragedy or died isn't exactly unique to science anyway. Hell, I've talked to senior citizens in assisted living who callously laugh when "that bitch who always cheats at bingo" finally dies.
In fact, name me one field, scientific or otherwise, where there aren't some people who would take joy at the misfortunes of their opponents. Just one. Clergy do it. Biologists do it. Retirees do it. Programmers do it. Politicians obviously do it. The RIAA would probably have a kegger if one of our heroes on slashdot were to kick the can.
Not to say it's good, but scientists are obviously going to suffer from the same human foibles that everyone else does. Doesn't make their work invalid. Although I would like to apply that reasoning to lawmakers and RIAA sometimes.
Believe it or not (I know you won't) but not everyone who disagrees with you is on some big oil company's payroll
Of course not: many are "auditioning" before they actually get a paid position. :-)
Rarely do I have enough time to generate 61 MB (let alone 61 compressed MB) of data, code and e-mails that serves my political/religious purposes.
I gathered that it wasn't 61 mb of data supporting the idea that it's a hoax, I thought it was 61 mb of data with a few quotes that sound suspicious. The place confirmed the leak so at least some of it is probably real, that doesn't mean it hasn't been altered. Take 61 mb of real data, it would be trivial to drop in a few false e-mails or edits to make it seem suspicious.
The only question is why did he choose the words "hide" as opposed to "correct" and "decline" as opposed to "error" which the skeptics (of this breach) are trying to imply, that "hide the decline" has the same meaning as "correct the error".
Because it was in a private e-mail and people don't parse their words that carefully in private e-mails.
Perhaps it was even said tongue-in-cheek and the recipient would have understood from previous conversations that it was a joke. I could imagine two colleagues talking
A: "This data shows a decrease!"
B: "Yes, but if you look at it like this, it becomes clear that is an artifact."
A: "Oh. Well then how would I present that"
B: "I read a paper that had a technique that seemed useful, I'll email it to you when I get back to the office"
A: "You're sure it's not actual signal and the technique you are thinking of will just hide it"
B: (joking)"Well yeah, after all, Al Gore would -kill- us if we didn't 'hide' the true data to support the hoax!"
A&B: "Ha ha ha"
Email from B: "Here's how we could hide the data."
The power company will be able to determine that I sleep at night and I'm not home during the day.
And now the -rest- of us know exactly when the best time to kill you in your sleep would be, since you broadcast it on slashdot.
Or maybe I'm not home at night and I sleep during the day.
Curses! Foiled again!
Some say math is discovered. Others say it is invented.
And still others (especially those in grade school and high school) say that math should neither have been invented nor discovered.
I have this wonderful proof for this conjecture, but unfortunately the 80 char limit for sig in slashdot is too small for it.
And thus was born the famous "140Mandak262Jamuna's Last Theorem" which was not fully proven until 2367 AD.
I vote to call it "really dirty bomb."
"Not only did I get hit with mine shrapnel, it was covered in gross glowing e.coli. I nearly crapped myself from the mine explosion. Later, I -did- crap myself because of the diarrhea it caused."
We tried banning cannabis, cocaine, heroin, and a laundry list of other drugs as well
I don't know about cocaine or heroin, but I am all for banning the eating of other people, AND banning me having to do laundry.
(lame joke quota: filled... for now...)
I am amazed, sir. Simply amazed.
Hmm... either a very nerdy joke, or a the motivation of a serial killer...
What a rip off, solution, in one transaction, move your entire paycheck from account to another bank account, thus avoiding the $2.00 fees for additional transactions related to the cards.
Of course they would then put in an artificially low maximum that would prevent you from transferring / withdrawing your account in one transaction.
Transferring it with that one transaction is probably exactly what they and the company would point to if called out on it. I didn't read far enough to see if there was anything about a maximum, after reading the 2$ for every transaction afterwards I understood what type of scam it was and was on the phone with personnel. I'm assuming the overdraft charges were also a scam, likely measured in "fold" rather than "percent" and a balance inquiry to be sure you don't transfer more than your paycheck counts as your free transaction.
Go into any barbershop in a shadier part of town and while you're getting a fantastic $12 haircut, mention to the oldest barber that you are working on security consulting to help people avoid getting into trouble with the law, especially in regards to keeping phone calls and information private.
I don't know, there aren't a whole lot of trees here, I'm going to have a hard time identifying the "shadier" part of town.
At $150 a pop to "consult" with a man in a nice suit, you can easily remind him that his phone and laptop aren't secure, even offer him advice on what he can do and what he can buy to keep his tracks concealed better.
A cheaper suit for starters.
It seems like discussing anything over an unencrypted medium is asking for trouble.
Er... isn't /. an unencrypted medium? Isn't this thread discussing something that would fall under the category of "anything?"
(yes, I know what you meant, I just couldn't resist, I'm sorry.)
You mean some company doesn't either do direct deposit, or cut you a check?
Yes. Mark of a company that hates hates HATES its employees. After undergrad I was working at gamestop when they decided to go this route. For some reason, they were incapable of processing a direct deposit for me, so checks were fine. Then these cards came. They give your paycheck to a different company. Said company gives it to you. The fine print in the information pamphlet they handed out: one free transaction a month. After that, $2 fee for using the debit card for anything.
They undoubtedly made a killing from many high school kids on that one. And gamestop no longer had to print and distribute paychecks, saving the company untold hundreds of dollars a month. Since that was one of the least annoying things gamestop did to it's employees, morale probably wasn't a factor.
some of these viri are designed to do harm if disabled improperly, and some of these computers could be in situations where their failure could cause the loss of lives.
Wow. What is the motivation behind this? Hoping that people will be afraid to run cleanup on their infected computers, keeping the botnet from shrinking? Some bullshit like "my victims deserve to be screwed over so I'm going to make sure to do as much damage after I'm done with them?"
God bless slashdot. Anywhere else I would be feeling stupid and immature for reading that and thinking immediately of that joke. On slashdot? It's the first post.
As for Beck's show, I think it's worth watching. I would not have known that Mr. Jones wants to take my money and give it to Indians ("give them the wealth") or that he believes whites are poisoning blacks ("dumping their pollution in black neighborhoods") or tat he used to be not just Obama's right hand man, but also a communist. ----- I would not have known about the ACORN scandal where they advise their customers to cover-up illegal prostitution houses, and file false claims with the IRS. ----- I would not have known that Obama's Communication Director considers Mother Teresa and Chairman Mao her favorite philosophers, and that she admire how Mao overthrew the Democratic Chinese government.
Most of that is trivia even if it wasn't taken out of context. A someone who admires a commie? In the government? OH GOD NO! THE SOVIETS ARE BACK AND IN OUR GOVERNMENT! We would have had a bolshevik revolution on our hands had Beck not outed them.
The ACORN thing, what do you mean you wouldn't have heard about it? It was all over the news. MSNBC, CNN etc didn't cover it? I can't say I watch cable news at all, so maybe, but I'm pretty sure it was even on an episode of southpark, it was everywhere. The stuff about the communism, sure, those other networks may not have covered them. Good for them, it's about as newsworthy to me as brittney's latest undergarment scandal.
People who primarily want to do research should principally not take jobs that involve teaching unless they are willing to commit the kind of time and effort to teaching that it demands. I'm sure there are plenty of research institutes and corporations that would gladly hire them and spare them the torture of having to teach.
You're sure? Some research areas yes, there are non-academic positions. If you want to make an incremental improvement for Viagra for instance, I'm sure there's a position for you at pfizer or any drug company. If you want to research something less applied, more long-term useful than short term, and thereby less immediately profitable for a company, there are significantly fewer job opportunities that don't involve teaching.
For example, kinetochore assembly is important for cell division. Researching how kinetochore assembly occurs could give you some leads as to how to fight cancer, but more basic fact finding research, which parts of which proteins interact with each other to form the kinetochore, that's not going to be something companies can patent and profit off of that knowledge. That knowledge however might give you some insight as to drugs that might affect the process, and using that knowledge you might eventually be able to come up with a drug that fights cancer. A drug company would definitely be willing to employ you if you could promise that second part, but might be more hesitant if you admitted that you could in no way guarantee that second part, since you couldn't. But even if you couldn't, the research into kinetochore assembly isn't useless, it's valuable data which could lead to more research and eventually a cure for diseases.
I probably could have chosen a better example, since especially with cancer, a lot of companies are willing to fund more basic research. I don't mean to imply that companies won't spend a buck if they can't immediately profit off of them, that's not true, but there is less money for it. Also, I don't know a whole lot about kinetochore assembly, it may have already been worked out completely.
There are also research institutions where you can head your own lab and not do teaching. Seems to me though that most researchers at said non-teaching institutions have already established themselves at less lucrative, teaching institutions.
So, from my perspective, universities are some of the only places you get to do basic research, and teaching is a necessary part of that.
In soviet russia, dismantled nuke moves zig?
I mean its cool and all, but I'm not sure I see where this is going. Can someone enlighten me?
Sure. Picture this: you really need some uracil, but don't have a lot of scratch to buy it. You're out of luck, right? WRONG! Got some pyrimidine, ice, and a source of UV light? Guess what? THAT'S ALL YOU NEED!
With all the money you'll save with this, maybe you could treat yourself to some fancypants store-bought cytosine.
Actually I think absurdist's post had it, this is all just him repeating the lie enough times that he can get his followers to back him up and then challenge fair use entirely.
Similar tactics of repeating lies until people believe them worked with the "liberal media conspiracy" and the "fox news is fair and balanced" lines, at least in some circles.
I think they are trying to separate themselves to state that if you want our propaganda and lies, come to us and do it properly.
FTFY
What else do you expect from a man in charge of a company that nearly sued itself over the one show that singlehandedly kept the network from dying an early death?