That and "Ebola" sounds like E. coli, causing people to confuse the two.
Seriously?
Wow, the world is several points more stupid on average than I'd thought, and I'm still astonished that people are astonished that half of all people are of below average intelligence.
Any seasoned geologist can do that these days, we've known about earthquake predictors for quite some time and given the measurements,
Citation required.
If this is true (which I strongly doubt) then the geological press would be more full of it than if NASA launched a faster-then-light space ship and came back with a pointy-eared Buddha. Because there has already been a Buddha, but an effective earthquake prediction methodology would be something startlingly new.
Citation required. Journal name, volume and page number.
I don't know if they stated those predictions in public.
If it's not stated in public, then it is not worth the 30-m high letters in which it wasn't painted on the side of a building in down town Geneva.
Actually, there is a fair point there : there is no recognised forum for posting such predictions. And there are a lot of internet kooks out there who all think that they've got the perfect solution, but not one of them is willing to stand by a "prediction".
Some ground rules have been proposed about what constitutes a prediction. And then the kooks get involved and turn it into a kitten-in-a-washing-machine-with-a-broken-bottle experience for anyone who is in the least bit serious. Little things like : the prediction should be specific with respect to period to which it applies, magnitude of the earthquake predicted, and region that the prediction covers ; secondly, the prediction should be sufficiently precise that the pre-existing records for the area concerned would not predict that event just on statistics. "A magnitude 4.0 in southern California in the next 6 months" isn't a prediction, it's a racing certainty. "A magnitude 5.0 + on the eastern English Channel within the next 6 weeks" is a prediction (there was such an even in the late 17th century, IIRC, and hasn't been one since. So the occurrence of a predicted earthquake there would be pretty remarkable.) And finally, ALL your predictions need to be made public, and your method will be judged on the results of ALL of your predictions. (Some of the kooks use the "predict everything, everywhere, all the time" approach, and think that is effective.Your failed predictions will be counted along with your successes.)
Even getting agreement on these basic points - it's the kitten and the bottle into the washing machine again.
While all geological services are interested in such questions (including the BGS, in whose balliwick the Channel quake mentioned above falls), none of them see any reason for any general system to work. Why? Because they're geologists. As am I. So I can explain why they don't expect a generic system to work:
An earthquake occurs in a natural material which is inhomogeneous - in fact it has a structure that varies on scales ranging from the sub-millimetre to the multiple kilometre (I work at the sub-millimetre to sub-centimetre scale - people pay me to describe that inhomogeneity). The strength of such materials can be predicted in compression reasonably well - to within 20 to 50% ; but not so well in tension ; shear, combining tension, compression and structural homogeneity (absent - see above) is rather more difficult still. Earthquakes can occur because of either tension, compression or shear ; most often shear since it combines the others. Moving from the materials in which the failure occurs, consider the forces involved. They are, oddly enough, variable, because the distribution of forces depends on the action of large scale forces (weight, plate movements, tides, weather (including the last few centuries of rainfall and the last few minutes of barometric pressure)) which are delivered to the rock units that fail by a cascade of intermediate units, each one of which varies in stiffness (Young's modulus, for starters), in it's time variance of behaviour (some rocks "creep", others don't ; look up pictures of "chocolate boudinage", if you want to get a handle on how much rocks can vary).. oh, and did I mention that the properties vary on scales form sub-millimetre to multiple kilometre?
So, how are we going to attack the problem. Clearly we need to map the rocks and the forces. But there is a problem. You see, rocks are generally opaque. Opaque to visible light ; opaque to anything with a shorter wavelength (and therefore able to measure the small scale variations), unless you can get the rock into a synchrotron beam or industrial X-ray machine. And them do the same for the next couple of millimetres, and then the next
What trace will we leave behind now that everything has gone digital?
What makes you think that everything has gone digital? We still make machines, build buildings, carve up the landscape. Those are going to last. The "plastic layer" in the rocks is metaphorical, but we as sure as hell are going to leave a major geochemical mark. And a shorter-live radiological trace. We've started a major climate change which shows every sign of being as significant as the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, which we've understood for a bit more than a decade now, but we've recognised for more like one and a half centuries.
Our civilisation will remain in the archaeological record, don't you worry. Your twitter feed may be gone, but that is unlikely to make it to the next decade, even without the untimely death of yourself or the civilisation that we live in.
So, even if you do consult, make sure you negotiate your terms wisely.
The submitter already stated that he (or she? I didn't notice. Damn you, English and your lack of implicitly gendered verbs!) is young, so they don't have that option available to them. Also, being young, they know that those rules don't apply to them.
Let him or her enjoy the cluebat of growing up in peace.
I don't know if a CDL is a qualifier or not but almost all non commercial insurance policies have a disclaimer stating they will not cover any commercial use of the vehicle. Pizza delivery drivers run into this all the time. They either need a special rider policy for their car or pretend the 20 pizzas in the back are there because he forgot to put them in the fridge.
Essentially the same laws in the UK too. Your regular insurance covers you for "Social, domestic and pleasure" use of your vehicle, and that's it. Commuting to work - yes, that's covered. If your work is primarily something else, but you do a lot of travelling to locations... that can be a bit iffy (a friend runs about 20 bakeries, and visits each one about once a week. Sometimes he uses his car, other times he uses the one of the work's delivery vans to double the administrative work with delivery of [whatever], and he always fills out the vehicles usage log so he can defend that the car isn't primarily being used for work ; he's had this fight with insurance companies in the past.)
Many people get caught by this every year. They sign a contract for their insurance and then go out and break the contract... and are surprised to find out that it means what it says in the contract.
(1) Being best in the world (or within the top couple of dozen) never hurts.
(2) Make sure that your skills are needed on the site of the work, and your job doesn't depend on having communications. We've lost 75% of our communicatinos because of the crane operator putting a load through one of the satellite radomes, so my work on this vessel is safe until the end of the contract.)
(3) multiple languages help. Anything other than English (I have moderate French and Spanish, a smidgin of Swahili and a dash of Russian) is an advantage against people who only have English.
(4) Get used to travelling. I'm half-way through this trip, with another month to go. Maybe more - who knows ? (No-one. Anywhere.)
Ummm, they're the main bits of advice I can give you.
What? You want to go to your home every night, and you work in communications of some sort? Well then, sir, you are in direct competition with millions of people all over the world who also intend to go home at night and work in communications. Many of them live in a lower cost economy than you do (in fact, precisely half of them live in a below-median cost-of-living economy. That is what "median" means.), and so you are, irrevocably, vulnerable to losing your job to them. It's called globalisation. Welcome to the brave new world. No, you cannot leave.
install it in a VM instead, or does it detect that one as well?
Since TFA (more than TFS) mentions that these various attacks are in response to the virus "realising" that it is running in a "sand box" type environment, then I's expect it to detect many un-stealthed VM environments too.
I read TFA for about 5 minutes before I came across something remotely interesting. I got it that the malware had substantial checks to make it *harder* for an investigator (virus researcher, forensics investigator after a break-in) to understand what the virus is doing, and that the virus writer wasn't particularly interested in hiding from the user, but in avoiding being analysed by specialists. Fixing an MBR - trivial. User's home directory encrypted - well whoopie-dee, as if that's going to faze a decent investigator (they'll probably put the home directory on the network and sniff to record write instructions but not necessarily carry them out). So that's a [SHRUG]. But this:
If Rombertik detects an instance of Firefox, Chrome, or Internet Explorer,
So, virus writers really are getting over the IE monopoly? I hadn't noticed, not having used Windows for myself for several years, and not having used IE for even longer, if at all possible to use anything else.
So the hot female receptionist had the hot female sysadmin sucking up to her ( I chose my words carefully) by repairing her computer instead of caning her pert little behind (I choose, etc) and telling her she's a naughty girl and to never do that again.
Perfectly reasonable scenario. I'm sure I've seen it in some of those "training videos".
The license plate reader image from the article shows a category for "other" along with "tax scofflaw". "Other" says nothing but fishing expedition to me. Unbelievable.
I noticed that too. Not being an American, what is a "scofflaw"? Is it an execution offence?
Hmmm, "exactly" the same? Well, if the person producing the PDF remembered to include the appropriate parts of the fonts. (I was trying to make head or tails of a PDF from a geology journal last night. All the diagrams completely labelled with uninformative square "don't have a glyph" glyphs.)
Pretty much every day for me too, since I got an account with Linked-In (of course I don't let them rape my address books!)
Every one gets blocked with a flg of spammer, and a rude return email to the effect "you didn't read my CV you fucking incompetent idiot. Because it says clearly and in black and white "I am not job hunting and will report any recruiters who contact me as being spammers."
About one in ten actually apologise ; the rest I take it, really are spammers.
What is the submitter's beef? Or cheese cake, or whatever the current slang is? Or does he/ she/ it/ they not actually have enough of a complaint to express what they're complaining about?
Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal maximum. The most recent example of what happens if you dump petagrammes of carbon (as hydride (methane) or carbon dioxide) into the atmosphere in a few millennia, and as such the best estimate we have of the near-future climate of the Earth.
People don't seem to understand that it takes decades for the global climate system to reach a new (warmer) equilibrium following the introduction of a force into the system.
Mere decades. It'll take decades of millennia for the Earth's natural systems to bring matters back to something approaching the previous conditions. Of the order of 120,000 years for the PETM.
Natural gas valves could be shutoff at the building or even better at the substations.
What is the blowdown time for your pipework system?
You might be surprised to learn that the flammable fluids industry has some experience in these matters. The last time I was in a position to hear a major gas plant blowing down, it took about a half hour to dump the flammables inventory into the flare stack. (Well, you could leave the gas blowing in the wind. Until it finds an ignition source and flashes back to the source.)
Since gas distribution networks run a low (hundreds of Pa) pressures, their blowdown times are going to be correspondingly long.
Don't forget (8) and upwards : people use something other than Android. Even something from outside the country, or at least outside the reach of the US govt.
Recent navy research has shown it may be easier to concentrate oceanic C02 than atmospheric, meaning we could eventually retrofit old oil platforms with a nuclear core and fill up tankers with synthetic fuels.
Oceanic???
I'm pretty dubious about your un-sourced "navy research" assertion, but I'll let that pass on the assumption that you're talking about it being easier to "mine" large areas of wind. Or something similar. I can envisage there might be a basis to that.
But as someone who is approaching my 30th year working at sea in the oil and gas industry, I don't see how you can associate "oceanic" with "oil platforms". The huge majority of offshore development is very close inshore, and in very shallow water. I'd been working for 5 years before I worked a well in water depths more than 400ft, and nearly 20 years in the game before I went into water over a thousand feet deep. (Today, I'm on an exploration well in [classified] water. Deeper than Macondo.)
As a geologist we could sit down and argue the definition of "oceanic" on water depth until the cows come home, but until you're in ultra-deep (8000ft +) off the coast of Angola, you're really stretching the limits of the geologist's definition which is based on the nature of the crust under the sea. If it's mafic (sheeted dykes over gabbros/ cumulates, with a kilometre or so of sediments), then you're talking about "oceanic" ; otherwise, you're just on the wet bits of continents.
I've done the months of waiting-on-weather to be able to get to work in borderline oceanic situations (4 hours helicopter from base, with two refuelling stops en route ; work out the go/ no-go conditions for that flight if you like). There is not a lot of real oceanic oil exploration equipment out there. And because of the mechanical constraints of steel legs, cable anchor line and so-on, the large majority of the coming UDW prospects are going to be developed from subsea manifolds producing through a flexible riser to an FPSO (Floating Production Storage and Offloading facility). When the flow rates from the field fall too low for economics, it'll be anchors a-weigh! for the FPSO for re-fit onshore for the next project, in with the UDW drilling rig to plug and abandon the wells, retrieve the jewellery (sub-sea trees etc) and crash cages, then off to the next location. Nothing left behind apart from a thin skin of rock cuttings on the seabed.
Are you seriously proposing putting nuclear reactors on ready-for-abandonment oil platforms? The bloody things are held together by the paint keeping the rust in place! They literally do not even have scrap value. I've been woken too often by a big lurch as a big wave hits the platform and I wonder "Is this it?" ; and I'm a damned sight better at dragging on an immersion suit and looking after myself in the sea than most inanimate lumps of rusty steel.
It may be easier to take a photo than it is to get permission to publish it. If nothing else, many academic journals take a dim view of researchers publishing the gist of a paper before the paper itself is published. Prior publication may get your "original" paper dropped.
I've probably done more photography underground than you have, by several hundreds of photos. It's not actually an easy task, particularly if you're needing photos up to research standards let alone publication standard.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously?
Wow, the world is several points more stupid on average than I'd thought, and I'm still astonished that people are astonished that half of all people are of below average intelligence.
I have a bridge for sale.
Citation required.
If this is true (which I strongly doubt) then the geological press would be more full of it than if NASA launched a faster-then-light space ship and came back with a pointy-eared Buddha. Because there has already been a Buddha, but an effective earthquake prediction methodology would be something startlingly new.
Citation required. Journal name, volume and page number.
If it's not stated in public, then it is not worth the 30-m high letters in which it wasn't painted on the side of a building in down town Geneva.
Actually, there is a fair point there : there is no recognised forum for posting such predictions. And there are a lot of internet kooks out there who all think that they've got the perfect solution, but not one of them is willing to stand by a "prediction".
Some ground rules have been proposed about what constitutes a prediction. And then the kooks get involved and turn it into a kitten-in-a-washing-machine-with-a-broken-bottle experience for anyone who is in the least bit serious. Little things like : the prediction should be specific with respect to period to which it applies, magnitude of the earthquake predicted, and region that the prediction covers ; secondly, the prediction should be sufficiently precise that the pre-existing records for the area concerned would not predict that event just on statistics. "A magnitude 4.0 in southern California in the next 6 months" isn't a prediction, it's a racing certainty. "A magnitude 5.0 + on the eastern English Channel within the next 6 weeks" is a prediction (there was such an even in the late 17th century, IIRC, and hasn't been one since. So the occurrence of a predicted earthquake there would be pretty remarkable.) And finally, ALL your predictions need to be made public, and your method will be judged on the results of ALL of your predictions. (Some of the kooks use the "predict everything, everywhere, all the time" approach, and think that is effective.Your failed predictions will be counted along with your successes.)
Even getting agreement on these basic points - it's the kitten and the bottle into the washing machine again.
While all geological services are interested in such questions (including the BGS, in whose balliwick the Channel quake mentioned above falls), none of them see any reason for any general system to work. Why? Because they're geologists. As am I. So I can explain why they don't expect a generic system to work:
An earthquake occurs in a natural material which is inhomogeneous - in fact it has a structure that varies on scales ranging from the sub-millimetre to the multiple kilometre (I work at the sub-millimetre to sub-centimetre scale - people pay me to describe that inhomogeneity). The strength of such materials can be predicted in compression reasonably well - to within 20 to 50% ; but not so well in tension ; shear, combining tension, compression and structural homogeneity (absent - see above) is rather more difficult still. Earthquakes can occur because of either tension, compression or shear ; most often shear since it combines the others. Moving from the materials in which the failure occurs, consider the forces involved. They are, oddly enough, variable, because the distribution of forces depends on the action of large scale forces (weight, plate movements, tides, weather (including the last few centuries of rainfall and the last few minutes of barometric pressure)) which are delivered to the rock units that fail by a cascade of intermediate units, each one of which varies in stiffness (Young's modulus, for starters), in it's time variance of behaviour (some rocks "creep", others don't ; look up pictures of "chocolate boudinage", if you want to get a handle on how much rocks can vary) .. oh, and did I mention that the properties vary on scales form sub-millimetre to multiple kilometre?
So, how are we going to attack the problem. Clearly we need to map the rocks and the forces. But there is a problem. You see, rocks are generally opaque. Opaque to visible light ; opaque to anything with a shorter wavelength (and therefore able to measure the small scale variations), unless you can get the rock into a synchrotron beam or industrial X-ray machine. And them do the same for the next couple of millimetres, and then the next
What makes you think that everything has gone digital? We still make machines, build buildings, carve up the landscape. Those are going to last. The "plastic layer" in the rocks is metaphorical, but we as sure as hell are going to leave a major geochemical mark. And a shorter-live radiological trace. We've started a major climate change which shows every sign of being as significant as the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, which we've understood for a bit more than a decade now, but we've recognised for more like one and a half centuries.
Our civilisation will remain in the archaeological record, don't you worry. Your twitter feed may be gone, but that is unlikely to make it to the next decade, even without the untimely death of yourself or the civilisation that we live in.
The submitter already stated that he (or she? I didn't notice. Damn you, English and your lack of implicitly gendered verbs!) is young, so they don't have that option available to them. Also, being young, they know that those rules don't apply to them.
Let him or her enjoy the cluebat of growing up in peace.
Essentially the same laws in the UK too. Your regular insurance covers you for "Social, domestic and pleasure" use of your vehicle, and that's it. Commuting to work - yes, that's covered. If your work is primarily something else, but you do a lot of travelling to locations ... that can be a bit iffy (a friend runs about 20 bakeries, and visits each one about once a week. Sometimes he uses his car, other times he uses the one of the work's delivery vans to double the administrative work with delivery of [whatever], and he always fills out the vehicles usage log so he can defend that the car isn't primarily being used for work ; he's had this fight with insurance companies in the past.)
Many people get caught by this every year. They sign a contract for their insurance and then go out and break the contract ... and are surprised to find out that it means what it says in the contract.
(2) Make sure that your skills are needed on the site of the work, and your job doesn't depend on having communications. We've lost 75% of our communicatinos because of the crane operator putting a load through one of the satellite radomes, so my work on this vessel is safe until the end of the contract.)
(3) multiple languages help. Anything other than English (I have moderate French and Spanish, a smidgin of Swahili and a dash of Russian) is an advantage against people who only have English.
(4) Get used to travelling. I'm half-way through this trip, with another month to go. Maybe more - who knows ? (No-one. Anywhere.)
Ummm, they're the main bits of advice I can give you.
What? You want to go to your home every night, and you work in communications of some sort? Well then, sir, you are in direct competition with millions of people all over the world who also intend to go home at night and work in communications. Many of them live in a lower cost economy than you do (in fact, precisely half of them live in a below-median cost-of-living economy. That is what "median" means.), and so you are, irrevocably, vulnerable to losing your job to them. It's called globalisation. Welcome to the brave new world. No, you cannot leave.
Since TFA (more than TFS) mentions that these various attacks are in response to the virus "realising" that it is running in a "sand box" type environment, then I's expect it to detect many un-stealthed VM environments too.
I read TFA for about 5 minutes before I came across something remotely interesting. I got it that the malware had substantial checks to make it *harder* for an investigator (virus researcher, forensics investigator after a break-in) to understand what the virus is doing, and that the virus writer wasn't particularly interested in hiding from the user, but in avoiding being analysed by specialists. Fixing an MBR - trivial. User's home directory encrypted - well whoopie-dee, as if that's going to faze a decent investigator (they'll probably put the home directory on the network and sniff to record write instructions but not necessarily carry them out). So that's a [SHRUG]. But this :
So, virus writers really are getting over the IE monopoly? I hadn't noticed, not having used Windows for myself for several years, and not having used IE for even longer, if at all possible to use anything else.
Perfectly reasonable scenario. I'm sure I've seen it in some of those "training videos".
Looks like an internet kitty-video to me. So thet'd be "Ahhhh", not "Oooooh"
Does AC want a tummy rub?
Who could be so crass as to attempt to profit from someone else's pain.
Oh, of course - you use arms manufacturers for your medical care. That explains it. Bizarre, but it's your country. Just don't ask me to go there.
I noticed that too. Not being an American, what is a "scofflaw"? Is it an execution offence?
Adobe Reader can view PDFs instead of just freezing the computer solid and then crashing? Well, whodathunkit?
Hmmm, "exactly" the same? Well, if the person producing the PDF remembered to include the appropriate parts of the fonts. (I was trying to make head or tails of a PDF from a geology journal last night. All the diagrams completely labelled with uninformative square "don't have a glyph" glyphs.)
Every one gets blocked with a flg of spammer, and a rude return email to the effect "you didn't read my CV you fucking incompetent idiot. Because it says clearly and in black and white "I am not job hunting and will report any recruiters who contact me as being spammers."
About one in ten actually apologise ; the rest I take it, really are spammers.
What is the submitter's beef? Or cheese cake, or whatever the current slang is? Or does he/ she/ it/ they not actually have enough of a complaint to express what they're complaining about?
Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal maximum. The most recent example of what happens if you dump petagrammes of carbon (as hydride (methane) or carbon dioxide) into the atmosphere in a few millennia, and as such the best estimate we have of the near-future climate of the Earth.
Mere decades. It'll take decades of millennia for the Earth's natural systems to bring matters back to something approaching the previous conditions. Of the order of 120,000 years for the PETM.
What is the blowdown time for your pipework system?
You might be surprised to learn that the flammable fluids industry has some experience in these matters. The last time I was in a position to hear a major gas plant blowing down, it took about a half hour to dump the flammables inventory into the flare stack. (Well, you could leave the gas blowing in the wind. Until it finds an ignition source and flashes back to the source.)
Since gas distribution networks run a low (hundreds of Pa) pressures, their blowdown times are going to be correspondingly long.
Don't forget (8) and upwards : people use something other than Android. Even something from outside the country, or at least outside the reach of the US govt.
(Speaking as a working geologist.)
You mena there is something more to Google Plus than email?
And there's something more to Linked-In than people spamming you about jobs you've no interest in?
Who'd have thought it?
Oceanic???
I'm pretty dubious about your un-sourced "navy research" assertion, but I'll let that pass on the assumption that you're talking about it being easier to "mine" large areas of wind. Or something similar. I can envisage there might be a basis to that.
But as someone who is approaching my 30th year working at sea in the oil and gas industry, I don't see how you can associate "oceanic" with "oil platforms". The huge majority of offshore development is very close inshore, and in very shallow water. I'd been working for 5 years before I worked a well in water depths more than 400ft, and nearly 20 years in the game before I went into water over a thousand feet deep. (Today, I'm on an exploration well in [classified] water. Deeper than Macondo.)
As a geologist we could sit down and argue the definition of "oceanic" on water depth until the cows come home, but until you're in ultra-deep (8000ft +) off the coast of Angola, you're really stretching the limits of the geologist's definition which is based on the nature of the crust under the sea. If it's mafic (sheeted dykes over gabbros/ cumulates, with a kilometre or so of sediments), then you're talking about "oceanic" ; otherwise, you're just on the wet bits of continents.
I've done the months of waiting-on-weather to be able to get to work in borderline oceanic situations (4 hours helicopter from base, with two refuelling stops en route ; work out the go/ no-go conditions for that flight if you like). There is not a lot of real oceanic oil exploration equipment out there. And because of the mechanical constraints of steel legs, cable anchor line and so-on, the large majority of the coming UDW prospects are going to be developed from subsea manifolds producing through a flexible riser to an FPSO (Floating Production Storage and Offloading facility). When the flow rates from the field fall too low for economics, it'll be anchors a-weigh! for the FPSO for re-fit onshore for the next project, in with the UDW drilling rig to plug and abandon the wells, retrieve the jewellery (sub-sea trees etc) and crash cages, then off to the next location. Nothing left behind apart from a thin skin of rock cuttings on the seabed.
Are you seriously proposing putting nuclear reactors on ready-for-abandonment oil platforms? The bloody things are held together by the paint keeping the rust in place! They literally do not even have scrap value. I've been woken too often by a big lurch as a big wave hits the platform and I wonder "Is this it?" ; and I'm a damned sight better at dragging on an immersion suit and looking after myself in the sea than most inanimate lumps of rusty steel.
I've probably done more photography underground than you have, by several hundreds of photos. It's not actually an easy task, particularly if you're needing photos up to research standards let alone publication standard.