The unix/linux bad-link problem allowing malicious URLs to run shell scripts is a bit nasty. Maybe Symantec wasn't entirely blowing smoke the other day with their warnings about Firefox not really being that much more secure than IE. The patches come out faster, but there sure are some nasty bugs in there yet.
Er, yes.
The picture they send you in the mail as proof you were speeding certainly does use visible light. The 33 feet isn't too hard of a limitation to work around. The speed cameras are usually set to take pictures of cars fairly close. At most you might need to try to optimize the system to get another 10-20 feet of range out of it.
They didn't forget anything. They are still using the BSD ftp program.
So what? That's not the same thing as the TCP/IP stack. That was what the grandparent asked about, and what I replied had been been rewritten. It's pretty common knowledge they still use other BSD code. Just not for the TCP/IP stack anymore.
The main reason plague was so bad back in the old days wasn't just from foot travel. The people believed in all sorts of crazy stuff and believed at the time that it was spread by cats. Cats being the familiars to witches who were the real root of the evil disease. Just kill all the cats and you'll be safe from the plague... Except that led to a huge increase in the mouse/rat population, which carried the infected ticks.
Now that we know the science behind it we are better armed to control it. Then again, with the right-wing extremists gaining more and more power in the country, pseudo-science (homeopathy, etc) is on the rise, we will probably be back to witch hunts soon, and plaque will rule again.
I think it's completely unreasonable if the information is revealed to prevent others from being damaged by a bad doctor, engineer, etc.
If it's revealed SOLEY to embarrass, yes, I'd agree with you. But if it's done to prevent harm/damage to others by informing them of a potential risk, then it shouldn't be protected just because it's embarrassing for you that others know that you are terrible at your job.It doesn't matter if you are 'damaged' by those statements if they are true.
Preventing folks from revealing to other patients that a surgeon has botched many surgeries is a bad thing.
Preventing folks from revealing to other patients that a surgeon likes to cross-dress in the evenings and had bad breath isn't bad.
Now that Google knows this guy is willing to mislead his former employer and take advantage of their confidential information, they should also realize he doesn't have any ethics and might turn around and do the same thing to them when he moves on to a next employer. If I were Google I wouldn't touch him with a 10-foot pole anymore. If they continue working with him, I don't know if they can continue with the 'do no evil' ethics bit.
Ummmm, this guy 'misled his former employer and taken advantage of confidential' from his former employer. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE NO-COMPETE CONTRACTS ARE THERE TO PREVENT!!!
If assholes like this didn't, in essence, do corporate espionage, no company would bother asking for you to sign a no-compete clause. Idiots doing things like this is exactly why everyone else has to sign those things. If anything, you should be more pissed at this guy for doing exactly the wrong thing that leads to the contracts we don't like.
And he's so high-profile, this is going to cause even more companies to want no-compete clauses. I can just here CEO's all over the country now... 'Look, that guy took advantage of his former employer. We need firmer no-compete contracts!'.
Science doesn't typically take papers on the causes of historical airship disasters.
For some reason I doubt they get a whole lot of papers submitted about that extremely narrow area, but they do have plenty of articles on archeology and studies dealing with past events and occasional disasters. Narrowing it down to ask for examples of articles about historical airship disasters is a bit much.
Dirigibles to Grace Skies Over Germany Once Again
Olaf Fritsche
Science 9 February 2001; 291: 973-974
Like...? The best I could come up with would be... wait for it... "Buoyant Flight"
How about AIAA Journal, or Journal of Aircraft? It's not my field, so I can't tell you the best journal for it to be targeted to, but those spring to mind as reasonable choices.
I love the double standard, too - note how nobody is asking for Bain's papers to have been published in a major journal - they were in Buoyant Flight as well.
I'd like to see those peer reviewed as well. No argument there.
Brush up on your reading comprehension. The "some guy off the street who might not have the background knowledge in the field" referred to the reviewer of the article, not the author. My whole post was about knowledgeable reviewers in response to the grandparent who asked "why don't you just read it and see if it's reasonable". I'm not sure how you got that twisted around.
And yes, *all* scientists papers should be reviewed by other scientists in their field. Even if that scientist is the former director of a NASA lab.
Actually if the paper were well done and interesting enough, publishing it in Science would be a possibility. Or you might at least see a blurb there, referring to it being published in another journal. There are a number of journals in the field that would be reasonable (but I don't think JAMA is in quite the same field.);)
I did. Some parts didn't seem quite as accurate to the methods used to dope the skin as the original Bain study, but it's been a while since I've seen that so I could be misremembering. The benefit of having it peer-reviewed is that the folks who review it are generally all very knowledgable in the field, not just some guy off off the street who might not have the background knowledge in the field to spot exceptions to rules, bad assumptions, tests which are tricky to do and need a control that wasn't done, unaccounted variables, etc, that the public at large (or some guy on slasdot) wouldn't.
A slashdot reader might get lucky and find a hole in the study. A professional in the field is much much more likely to. That's why when we send papers out for review from our lab, they go out to other researchers in our area and not to joe six-pack who happen to be standing on the local street corner. In science, peer reviewed papers get a lot more respect, and are taken a lot more seriously than non-peer reviewed ones. There is a reason.
Sure, bullets won't make it come down quicly, but in the Armor/Armament back and forth arms race, this simply been out there requiring a new notch to Armament. All it would take is an good sized explosive round set to detonate inside the thing. That would blow the fabric skin away from the frame and blow away the interior bulkheads. Boom, no more airship.
If this thing comes to production, expect weapons capable of easily dropping it to come out shortly afterwards.
Published in "Buoyant Flight, The Bulletin of the Lighter-Than-Air Society".
Sorry, but that doesn't sound like a peer-reviewed journal to me. How do I know this has any more credibility than the original study by Addison Bain and Richard Van Treuren?
Shoulder fired missles are not a threat. This thing will fly above them. Their range is only a couple of miles.
This is an airlift vehicle. It is ment to move large payloads. Generally, that means it's probably going to be landing in the hostile country to drop off those paloads. If one or more hostile folks with shoulder launched missles sneak up near the landing field, it could mean a very rough landing.
If you can, try to get ahold of a recording of the NPR broadcast from Sunday. A white woman who was traveling down there at the time told how she and her husband and a large group of black people were prevented from crossing the bridge to higher ground by the local police from the town across the bridge. The police were firing shots into the air to keep people back. They said they didn't want their town to turn into another Superdome. It was very disturbing. In this case, the local government was preventing people from acting for themselves.
So Mafia bosses should go to jail, while their thug enforcers who fit folks with cement shoes should just get help to find something more worthwhile to do eh? Sorry, you carry out illegal orders like that and you should go to jail.
Slashdot Mirror
The unix/linux bad-link problem allowing malicious URLs to run shell scripts is a bit nasty. Maybe Symantec wasn't entirely blowing smoke the other day with their warnings about Firefox not really being that much more secure than IE. The patches come out faster, but there sure are some nasty bugs in there yet.
Oh, wait. I forgot about the Beagle 2 probe the brits lost. Nevermind.
I sure hope the scientists didn't count that one in their age-estimating models.
Er, yes. The picture they send you in the mail as proof you were speeding certainly does use visible light. The 33 feet isn't too hard of a limitation to work around. The speed cameras are usually set to take pictures of cars fairly close. At most you might need to try to optimize the system to get another 10-20 feet of range out of it.
Better yet, protection from police speed cameras.
There are chimeras such as the chimeric mice that we create and use in the laboratory on a regular basis.
The basics of how chimeras are made
So what? That's not the same thing as the TCP/IP stack. That was what the grandparent asked about, and what I replied had been been rewritten. It's pretty common knowledge they still use other BSD code. Just not for the TCP/IP stack anymore.
The cameras, bikes, and gears look a lot cooler after you've smoked the pot.
No. It was circa NT 3.x and maybe 4.0 if I recall. They have since re-written it.
Now that we know the science behind it we are better armed to control it. Then again, with the right-wing extremists gaining more and more power in the country, pseudo-science (homeopathy, etc) is on the rise, we will probably be back to witch hunts soon, and plaque will rule again.
If it's revealed SOLEY to embarrass, yes, I'd agree with you. But if it's done to prevent harm/damage to others by informing them of a potential risk, then it shouldn't be protected just because it's embarrassing for you that others know that you are terrible at your job.It doesn't matter if you are 'damaged' by those statements if they are true.
Preventing folks from revealing to other patients that a surgeon has botched many surgeries is a bad thing.
Preventing folks from revealing to other patients that a surgeon likes to cross-dress in the evenings and had bad breath isn't bad.
Ahh, well I already knew you folks were crazy. ;)
Crawling across that M&M.
That's kinda crazy. For some reason I thought you folks across the pond had more enlightened laws.
Yeah, but I'd feel a bit conspicuous if Target was my sponsor.
Now that Google knows this guy is willing to mislead his former employer and take advantage of their confidential information, they should also realize he doesn't have any ethics and might turn around and do the same thing to them when he moves on to a next employer. If I were Google I wouldn't touch him with a 10-foot pole anymore. If they continue working with him, I don't know if they can continue with the 'do no evil' ethics bit.
If assholes like this didn't, in essence, do corporate espionage, no company would bother asking for you to sign a no-compete clause. Idiots doing things like this is exactly why everyone else has to sign those things. If anything, you should be more pissed at this guy for doing exactly the wrong thing that leads to the contracts we don't like. And he's so high-profile, this is going to cause even more companies to want no-compete clauses. I can just here CEO's all over the country now... 'Look, that guy took advantage of his former employer. We need firmer no-compete contracts!'.
The better question is does this make "America's Army" illegal?
For some reason I doubt they get a whole lot of papers submitted about that extremely narrow area, but they do have plenty of articles on archeology and studies dealing with past events and occasional disasters. Narrowing it down to ask for examples of articles about historical airship disasters is a bit much.
Dirigibles to Grace Skies Over Germany Once Again
Olaf Fritsche
Science 9 February 2001; 291: 973-974
Like...? The best I could come up with would be... wait for it... "Buoyant Flight"
How about AIAA Journal, or Journal of Aircraft? It's not my field, so I can't tell you the best journal for it to be targeted to, but those spring to mind as reasonable choices.
I love the double standard, too - note how nobody is asking for Bain's papers to have been published in a major journal - they were in Buoyant Flight as well.
I'd like to see those peer reviewed as well. No argument there.
And yes, *all* scientists papers should be reviewed by other scientists in their field. Even if that scientist is the former director of a NASA lab.
Actually if the paper were well done and interesting enough, publishing it in Science would be a possibility. Or you might at least see a blurb there, referring to it being published in another journal. There are a number of journals in the field that would be reasonable (but I don't think JAMA is in quite the same field.) ;)
A slashdot reader might get lucky and find a hole in the study. A professional in the field is much much more likely to. That's why when we send papers out for review from our lab, they go out to other researchers in our area and not to joe six-pack who happen to be standing on the local street corner. In science, peer reviewed papers get a lot more respect, and are taken a lot more seriously than non-peer reviewed ones. There is a reason.
If this thing comes to production, expect weapons capable of easily dropping it to come out shortly afterwards.
Sorry, but that doesn't sound like a peer-reviewed journal to me. How do I know this has any more credibility than the original study by Addison Bain and Richard Van Treuren?
This is an airlift vehicle. It is ment to move large payloads. Generally, that means it's probably going to be landing in the hostile country to drop off those paloads. If one or more hostile folks with shoulder launched missles sneak up near the landing field, it could mean a very rough landing.
Soviet America indeed! :(
So Mafia bosses should go to jail, while their thug enforcers who fit folks with cement shoes should just get help to find something more worthwhile to do eh? Sorry, you carry out illegal orders like that and you should go to jail.