The article, frustratingly, doesn't specify which fatty acids are involved. It just talks about "good" and "bad" fatty acids. There are many fatty acids. The "good" one may be Omega 3, but most fatty acids are "good" for something or other, and who knows which one is "good" in this case? Even if we assume that the good fatty acid is Omega 3, is it DHA, EPA, or ALA?
And what about the "bad" fatty acid? No clue given. Omega 6 is nothing more than a wild guess. Just about any fatty acid would be "bad" if your body can't metabolize it normally.
Why are they being so cryptic about which fatty acids they're talking about? Trying to protect intellectual property? I find that very uncharacteristic of good academic research. Much more characteristic of someone planning a snake oil product launch. Makes me suspicious.
My unique Ameritrade address was leaked before 2005-10-31, and a different unique Ameritrade address was leaked between 2005-11-24 and 2006-8-11.
My unique Ameritrade email address also started receiving stock-related precisely on the same day (2005-10-31). Clearly the same incident. I changed the email address the following day, and reported the issue to Ameritrade. After several layers of denials, the message finally got through to someone aware of the incident, who replied:
Ameritrade has received reports of clients receiving spam at e-mail addresses that were only provided to Ameritrade. We are currently investigating this situation in order to put a stop to it as soon as possible....
No more spam to the new email address for almost 8 months, then it started receiving spam on 2006-07-28. So the second leak must have been between 2005-11-24 and 2006-07-28, probably toward the end of that period. Again consistent with your report.
Getting back to the question of whether a company should go public about a security breach, I think it would depend on the circumstances. If publicity would hinder an undercover investigation or sting operation, a delay could be justifiable.
For what it's worth, on another occasion last year, Ameritrade did lose a data backup tape containing customer account information during shipment back in February 2005, and went public about it two months later (http://www.networkworld.com/news/2005/0420ameriwa rns.html) after notifying customers who may have been affected.
And here's an extensive blog entry about the Ameritrade incidents-- with many corroborating comments pointing to the late July early August 2006 timeframe: http://www.billkatz.com/node/77.
There doesn't seem to be a consensus among energy researchers on whether ethanol and biodiesel production methods in North America provide more energy than they require.
Turning plants such as corn, soybeans and sunflowers into fuel uses much more energy than the resulting ethanol or biodiesel generates, according to a new Cornell University and University of California-Berkeley study.
"There is just no energy benefit to using plant biomass for liquid fuel," says David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell. "These strategies are not sustainable."
Pimentel and Tad W. Patzek, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Berkeley, conducted a detailed analysis of the energy input-yield ratios of producing ethanol from corn, switch grass and wood biomass as well as for producing biodiesel from soybean and sunflower plants. Their report is published in Natural Resources Research (Vol. 14:1, 65-76).
A prominent USDA/DOE study shows for every unit of fossil fuel used to make biodiesel, 3.2 units of energy are gained in energy output. That's a 320% increase and includes soybean planting, harvesting, fuel production and transportation.
Note that the report by Pimentel and Patzek limited itself to North American crops. The energy balance and economics are more favorable for sugar cane.
Slashdot Mirror
The "refrigerator mom" theory was debunked 30 years ago. Don't bother trying to resurrect it. It only exposes your ignorance and misanthropy.
The article, frustratingly, doesn't specify which fatty acids are involved. It just talks about "good" and "bad" fatty acids. There are many fatty acids. The "good" one may be Omega 3, but most fatty acids are "good" for something or other, and who knows which one is "good" in this case? Even if we assume that the good fatty acid is Omega 3, is it DHA, EPA, or ALA?
And what about the "bad" fatty acid? No clue given. Omega 6 is nothing more than a wild guess. Just about any fatty acid would be "bad" if your body can't metabolize it normally.
Why are they being so cryptic about which fatty acids they're talking about? Trying to protect intellectual property? I find that very uncharacteristic of good academic research. Much more characteristic of someone planning a snake oil product launch. Makes me suspicious.
Getting back to the question of whether a company should go public about a security breach, I think it would depend on the circumstances. If publicity would hinder an undercover investigation or sting operation, a delay could be justifiable.
For what it's worth, on another occasion last year, Ameritrade did lose a data backup tape containing customer account information during shipment back in February 2005, and went public about it two months later (http://www.networkworld.com/news/2005/0420ameriwa rns.html) after notifying customers who may have been affected.
And here's an extensive blog entry about the Ameritrade incidents-- with many corroborating comments pointing to the late July early August 2006 timeframe: http://www.billkatz.com/node/77.
Says no:
Says yes: Note that the report by Pimentel and Patzek limited itself to North American crops. The energy balance and economics are more favorable for sugar cane.