So a program designed to write fake papers to unmask sham journals and conferences gets used to write fake papers to prop up sham degrees? Some what ironic; although in fairness to the authors of the paper writing program they never intended it to be used in such a manner. It would seem, as Springer acknowledged, that they should do a good peer review; which would eliminate the need to run paper through a hoax detector unless they started getting so many fake papers that their peer review process was overwhelmed. In that case, a first run through a program would be justified. A more subtle point in the article is that claimed publications from some countries, such as China, should be viewed with suspicion.

As a side note, the sham conference industry is interesting. I periodically get, via LinkedIn, invite stop attend an "important conference" and speak and get a "prestigious award" based on my "outstanding accomplishments and renowned expertise" in my field. Funny how, when I send them my speaking fee requirements they never get back to me nor mail me the award as I request if I am unable to make the conference.

Exactly. When I left a job I had my lawyer review the non-compete. His response: "Ignore it. It's unenforceable and the chances of them trying to stop you in court are nil." He said that the law is constantly changing and what is enforceable today may not be tomorrow, and unless you are senior enough or worked on a very sensitive area it's not worth the trouble to sue you; and if you were in those situations you should have a very specific non-compete, with compensation for the time you can't compete to ensure it is enforceable. The general rule is if they try to prevent you from working in an area where you have experience it will be unenforceable unless they pay you to not compete and even then it has to be for a reasonable period. Of course, IANAL and YMMV depending on jurisdiction. HAND

Actually, it's more of a signaling argument where a college degree indicates a willingness to put in effort and learn and thus will probably apply those characteristics in the job. It's not a perfect signal as there are plenty of educated derelicts and smart, talent people without a degree but as a first cut it is easy and thus used.

You have hit on one of the key reasons why trying to implement human reasoning in an emergency; especially since it's usually a subconscious reaction to avoid hitting the bigger, scarier thing. yo can train people to make calm decisions in an emergency situation but that takes a lot of simulator time and practice; something most drivers sorely lack before getting a license. If you wanted to follow the human reasoning it would simply be "CRAAAP.... AVOID HITTING THE BIG THING...DAMN... A PEDESTRIAN ... OH WELL IT ISN'T THE BIG THING...."

They can and will. The issue is not the current ability to keep track of things but having to update the electronic records once the system is back. The electronic record is used to compile transcript, verify required attendance, select valedictorians, etc. Depending on how long it takes to restore from a backup it will take a while to catchup. Now, if the system lost the master records then they have a much bigger problem but even then a proper backup scheme would minimize the impact of such a loss.

Excellant point. The question to me is how long do you retain the data? At some point where does the potential value of having the record cease to exceed the potential damage from privacy concerns?

While I appreciate your point of view I also think that having drivers maintain some sembelance of situational awareness is worthwhile. I can fairly accurately guage my speed and inly occasionally need to look at the speedometer to validate my assessment. However, as drivers turn over more functions to automation they become less aware of what is happening around them as the come to rely on the automation to take care of things. As a result when things go wrong they may not realize it in time to take effective corrective action. In essence, automation can lull them into a sense that all is well when in reality it is not. Automation should assist, not replace, human actions.

They'd like a few thousand installed in all their employees' homes. Fon't worry about after install support we'll take care of that.

Some really nice photos. Hard to believe their still was an A4 on a stand in 1996; it looks like it was kept up as a display. This also brings up my frustration with Kickstarter. There a lot of cool projects I'd back if only I could find out about them in time; usually I find out about them when I read a 'Kickstarter funded" tag line in an article and the funding period is over.

Yea, I realized after I hit submit I should have used Mirror Spock and Khan or the Borg and Doomsday machine...

Your argument is the moral equivalent of saying Stalin is a good guy because he wasn't as bad as Hitler. If that's your position, then fine, we simply disagree.

As a side note, I never criticized Putin for what he did but rather said he is acting in his own interests and that once Snowden ceases to be useful Snowden may find himself out in the cold.

SWAT: Smokes Whiskey and Tattoos

Sergei Magnitsky Pussy Riot Alexander Litvinenko Stanislav Markelov Anastasia Baburova

The list goes on and on...

Free press? Human rights? Rule of law? Only as long as it doesn't threaten his position.

Ask yourself this, if the rule of law was so strong why do oligarchs move as much cash as possible out of Russia? What do they fear?

I'm not sure why you are a Putin apologist but his actions speak volumes about him. Then again, as a KGB officer he learned a thing or two about survival.

So, my conclusion is he only will care about Snowden as long as Snowden is useful, and afterwards Snowden will simply be a pawn to sacrifice for some new advantage or benefit.

Putin's actions to date in many areas have shown him to look after Putin first; thus it is reasonable to assume he is acting, in Snowden's case, in the same manner. So yes, I agree you judge on actions and am doing so in this case. You appear to judge based on a single action, i.e. He gave Snowden temporary permission to remain in Russia, while I prefer to judge what he does in the larger context of how he has acted in many situations. Thus I think it is naive to think, or believe, he is acting out of some desire to help, or cares for, Snowden beyond how he useful to advance Putin's agenda. So let me ask the question differently since you seem to be hung up on the word believe: What in Putin's actions makes you conclude Putin is not acting in his best interests but out of some great concern for Snowden?

No worries, I forgot to properly use the sarcasm tag anyway, Cheers...