Unfortunately WHO confused a lot of people with that news. They are distinguishing between those who never get symptoms (asymptomatic) and those who eventually do, pre-symptomatic. About 20% of the people who get the virus are asymptomatic. For those who do eventually develop symptoms, it looks like 40-60% of them spread the virus prior to symptoms.

Sadly, this will not make headlines. The damage is done.

Obviously the comment is a pretty eye rolling, but it isn't something that even needs debate. With a small investment we could test just how viable this is and not have to argue it's merits in the abstract.

Incorrect. Any mutation, by definition, is new information. Simply because you do not understand how things work, doesn't mean you are justified in inserting spurious claims as a result. You should, instead, start with "I don't know" and then do the work necessary to understand. One can do this by taking classes in biology, or by using the internet to find credible sources of information to help you understand better. This, of course, requires you are sufficiently equipped to understand what is credible and what is not.

Whenever the word 'code' is used in biology, such as in describing DNA, it throws needless confusion into the mix. Chemical processes are not code. Code is written by, and with purpose, by a coder... or a creator. And that is not what this is. The waters just get muddied for anyone clinging to nonsensical religious machinations about the origin of life.

I mean, this headline was obviously coming the moment they decided to 'crack down' on bad stuff. I wonder if people with enough technical wisdom even exist at tech companies anymore to ever prevent stuff like this from happening. You'd have to be pretty myopic not to know your dragnet was going to unintentionally snag a hell of a lot of innocent collateral. Is it just me, or is our collective ability to do anything technically becoming worse over time rather than better?

Aircraft that are inherently unstable without automation is nothing new. And even with that, the system was merely (when working as designed) adjusting the flight dynamics to match the earlier 737. It was a minor tweak to how the aircraft operated.

The problem was not the physical engineering but rathe all software. The author is correct that something went way off the rails on the software engineering front. For systems where peopleâ(TM)s very lives are at stake, the shoddy implementation and vetting of this behavior is shocking.

I require more discipline in my software development process than this and we merely make games. But even then we constantly ask ourselves âoewhat can ho wrongâ to avoid embarrassing conflagrations. When you operate live services a bug can affect every customer simultaneously. But at least no one is physically harmed.

Note that far more complex bugs have killed people in other industries such as the run away cat scan due to a race condition. But what is what is disturbing here is the lack of care in the implementation and even design of this feature. It was inevitable that people would die.

Moreover, I am appalled the Boeing also nickel and dimes buys on safety features that seem to have no significant expense associated with them. Such as the indicator for when the two AOA sensors disagree. Somehow that is an expensive upgrade. Seriously?

Coinbase is struggling to keep up with demand. And while that's going on, it's a mess. Wire transfers go missing, and customer support is a joke. Is your $90K in limbo? No problem, just call their... oh wait, the people who answer the phone have zero power to do anything. Anything at all.

Oh, so just submit a support ticket. Good luck getting a replay. Or, like me, watch your case just vanish into the ether.

No, Coinbase cannot be trusted with your money. Not at the moment.

I'm amazed that software engineers work on online games and do not understand that you can never trust the client.

I get that mistakes can be made, but this is generally a software design and architecture problem.

Having said that, today we found a flaw in our server that let someone sneak in number that caused an overflow in one of our APIs for our online mobile game. The net result was a huge positive value in virtual currency. Of course we found it because of rule #2: Make sure you have systems that detect anomalies on anything important. The easiest of which is something like virtual currency spikes, so that stood out like a sore thumb.

Clever game hackers know to fly under the radar, but their impact (even if they get away with it) is therefore limited. But even then you can detect exploits with more mysterious mechanisms, which I will not name. :)

The FlyVPN service will let you connect to a lot of different servers in China and experience what it's like.

We use it to test our path out of China for various mobile games as they prepare to launch with our partners in China.

One can nit-pick all they want, but this is a really great move by Microsoft. We happen to use Azure already, so it's like free cookies (the yummy kind, not the browser kind).

IP Trolls are a significant threat to any business, and anything that helps is extremely welcome.

Obviously they didn't do this just out of the pure kindness of their hearts... it gives them a potential competitive advantage in the rapidly expanding cloud market. But a pretty smart one at that.

Well my circumstance is a little more complex than being just Dumb Mr. Consumer:

I own a shit ton of both... because I make mobile games. So, regardless, I'm going to be buying the latest iPhone no matter what. I prefer iPhones, so that's what I carry. And this is the only major issue I have had with it... whereas Androids... well... that's a whole other thing.

And, incidentally, considering how much money I've made off of making games on these things.... no amount of hassle will ever make this a net negative for me.

I hate to break it to Apple et al, but this symptom is not new. Had this on on our iPhone 6 going back over a year with my wife's 6s.

Apple, which has usually been good about these things, refused to replace the phone. I had the same issue on my last 6... I just held out until the 7 came out since I didn't feel like arguing with an Apple employee about it AGAIN.

My 7 has not had the issue... yet. But not I'm wary it will return since, if this story details are accurate, we're talking about software not hardware issues.

It's still a bit stunning to me how few people understand the whole concept of "Freedom of Speech". Even this anon doesn't seem to understand what it is all about. There is nothing in the First Amendment about you or me impinging on anyone's freedom of speech, only on congress passing laws that would do so.

So it would not matter what Anonymous did, unless Anonymous happened to be the law-making body of our government (i.e. congress) that would apply. So the whole free speech part of the press release speaks really poorly of their (or that person's) understanding of this particular issue. There was no need to defend themselves from the imputed accusation that they were impinging on someone's freedom of speech, since they are perfectly free to do so if they wanted too.

But, I was seriously disappointing in the film. Not due to the book, since I have not read it. But because it gave the impression it was going to have some sort of scientifically-accurate veneer on it.

But as the story unfolded, I immediately started to shake my head and smack my forehead in disbelief at the blatant nonsense of the film from a science standpoint.

It would take an immense post to cover all of the things that wrong both scientifically, practically or procedurally. For those interested, I'll cover as many as I can before fatigue sets in. This is based on the film, not the book.

Launching a space-ship in a violent storm. So violent that it is pushing the dang thing over. Obviously one could argue it was designed for that, but I see no reason to believe it was from the movie.

Watney is hit by debris and whisked away. An astronaut asks how long he could survive if his suit was breached (or something like that). A) That question would not be asked, they would know. B) The answer is not whatever they said (1 minute or something) but rather 3 minutes (max, which is what they'd be concerned with).

Watney is in left on the surface, and wakes up the next.... day, I guess. O2 is low, apparently, but otherwise in pretty good sleep. Suit or no, he would have faced freezing to death. Quite often the film deals with cold one moment and then ignores it the next.

Funny thing... he used a normal Hero camera to do his vlogging... yet the results as shown were 3D. :)

Watney talks about the awful things that can go wrong. The final one he says something like, "... and if the hab fails... I'll implode!" Implode? You don't implode in a thin atmosphere! Or even zero-atmosphere. Your bowels and bladder would evacuate. You'd lose consciousness pretty quick, and die in 3. If you held your breath your lungs would rupture. But you don't frikin implode. He must be thinking of... the bottom of the sea or something? Mr. science astronaut guy would never say anything so lame-brained.

Hollywood's rediculous portrayal of computers, even the kind everyday people use, is on full display. Sure, some of us appreciate the shoe-horned in nod to Zork 2 and Leather Goddesses of Phobos (especially, given it's Mars), but takes nothing away form everything else shown. When Watney goes around talking about "Hex-Y-Decimal" spoken like someone who's never picked a color for a web page before, I just cringed.

It wasn't clear, but it also looks like he tried to point the communication dish at Earth? It is true Pathfinder had the ability to communicate directly to earth through both a low and high gain antenna, but the way it would work is the low-gain is omnidirecitonal, and once signal is received then they remotely determine how to orient the high-gain which is more focused. That is more of a quibble.

Some basic of Mars are wrong, like gravity. Sure, hard to get right.... but still wrong.

There were many scenes on the Hermes where EVA was treated very poorly. I was really amused when the one guy pop'd the hatch to watch the docking operation. Maybe he was going to help out instead of what was really happening.... putting himself and the mission in ridiculous danger. The whole EVA crawling around the space station was just shy of Gravity-level ridiculousness.

Basics of space wrong: There is no sound in the vacuum of space. Sure some sounds could be heard in the suits from things happening to the suit (things dinking off the helmet or whatnot) but there was way more sound than that going on.

The Hermes itself was not believable. It had these parts with gigantic glass picture windows. That's not a likely design feature. Needing a bomb to open a hatch... okay maybe, but mostly just seemed a way to try and figure out how to "science up a bomb" on screen than anything.

I'm sorry to disappoint, but poking a hole in your glove does not make you Iron Man. How do I know? Because this has happened before. Know what really happens? Your skin seals the hole, ,without much notice, and you get a little red welt that goes away later. Very non-dramatic.

Now I think the worst part for me had to be where they introduce the supposed astro-navigation socially-inept genius. Everything about that was absurd.

First, the idea of a sling-shot gravity assist to get back to Mars is not some genius plan. It is basic space vessel navigation. The idea he had to dumb it down so the head of NASA could understand it was so laughable I almost fell out of my seat. Bad plot device... BAD.

Seeing him sit in a data center with his laptop jacked into some server so it could tell him "Calculations Correct" was a laugh-out-loud moment. Guessing those servers were not on any network, huh? And, um, why would Mathmatica not run the same on both computers? :)

Nothing to do with science, but watching them try and lift every cool line they could form Apollo 13 made my eyes roll each time. They WERE cool in Apollo 13, but here they sounded desperate in an Armageddon-sort-of-way.

I didn't read the book, and it wasn't mentioned, but it looked like Watney might have had scurvy at the end there. If so, that part was a nice touch. I assume his vitamins must have run out at some point.

I must be forgetting as many gaffs as I remember.

Getting things right wouldn't make this story worse, it would have made it better. It didn't look like there was decisions made to skimp on the accuracy so much as a lack of caring. From what I understand, the opposite of the book.

David

That takes nothing away from them. In a way, it adds to them. Ask Scott Crossfield, Chuck Yeager, or a hundred other test pilots whose name you'll never know.

These people sign up knowing the risk. It's their business, and no one else's, whether they so choose. Godspeed to them.