Actually the "one another" is correct. https://english.stackexchange....

I saw this. What kind of crazy squirrels does America have that can digest glass? Seriously, I can't imagine it does their insides any good!

*insert high fibre diet joke here*

Sorry, here's the full text link: http://rdcu.be/bUz8

Oh, and the actual study in question had nothing to do with the Kuna people. I don't know whether the /. submitter or the CBC journalist got that wrong, though.

It's hard to judge how good the research was because neither tfs nor any of the 3 tfas actually linked to the research paper.

And I don't think you read my comment either. I never said the work was rigorous, I said there's no allegations that the research was non-rigorous or of any other improper practice (emphasis added). I was responding to the AC who seemed to think that the source of funding magically altered the quality of the research without providing any evidence. And you haven't refuted me just by disagreeing.

I'm going to go ahead and assume you have no idea how science works. For starters researching natural products, as these scientists did, is a very fertile starting ground when searching for a "cure for cancer". Unfortunately you seem to have bought into the myth that only big glamorous research is valuable, ignoring the facts that, by definition, we don't know what the outcome of research will be until we do it and that most glamorous research will probably mostly involve work that looks "mediocre" in value to you.

I love the idea that this somehow invalidates the research. The researchers investigated what they could get funding to investigate, there's no allegations that the research was non-rigorous or of any other improper practice. Presumably the results are valid and therefore valuable. Further, presumably this research wouldn't have been done otherwise so we've got some additional research we wouldn't have done otherwise. So what if it supports someone's interests? We all benefit because now we know more about the world around us and what is, and isn't, good for our bodies. Now go and take your ad hominems elsewhere.

You know, I can imagine someone saying something similar to this to the Wright brothers. Just give the scientists, engineers and time the ability to work their magic and there's every chance someone will be able to turn it into a viable business.

Second time in a day I've re-read a post I was replying to and realise I missed the point of the parent. No more /. for me until I've properly woken up in the mornings!

I just re-read your comment. And now I feel like an idiot.

Except a Time Machine is just a NAS with a custom OS. As already discussed many of these ransomwares will also encrypt files on any mapped drives you have write access too. It would certainly be possible for Apple to harden time machine against such an attack (as discussed above, by allowing write access to create new files but not to modify existing ones unless, say, using SSH or a web based interface or specifically elevating permissions after successfully challenging the user) but I've not heard anything to suggest that is the case.

Turns out, when Microsoft tried this, they really annoyed a lot of their customers and took an awful lot of stick for it. Even from people who would consider themselves fairly technical. Users don't want you to put hoops between them and what they (think they) want to do.

Typical user scenario:
Clicks malware.exe email attachment.
Email client: Email attachments of this type this type are dangerous. Are you sure you want to run it?
*yes*
MSE/Windows defender: Virus detected. Quarantine file?
*nah... seems legit*
Windows: Filez from teh internetz can be dangerous. Continue?
*Yes. How dare you question me Bill Gates!?!*
UAC: File malware.exe from some dude on the internet wants admin access to your computer. Allow?
*Stop getting in my way stupid computer*
Windows: Install unsigned drivers? Guidance: Basically no unless your plugging in exotic or old hardware.
*Get the **** out of my way piece of *** I bet that *** Bill Gates thinks he knows better than me*
MSE/Windows defender: ***DEFCON1DEFCON1***
*whatevs. I need those novelty smileys and cool web search*
Malware: Mwhahahaha installs pop ups, steals bank details, encrypts files emails child pr0ns to the police etc. etc.
*Wah.... f***cking stupid Bill Gates your software's **** I hate Microsoft. Plus whenever I want to do something it asks me questions like I'm stupid and it knows better*

They hate the dialogues etc. and just click through them. Don't get me wrong I'm all for warning dialogues, but they exist already and they don't help a large proportion of "average users".

And, before some smartypants points it out, I know MS have since said that UAC was designed to annoy users to encourage developers to write apps that don't require admin privileges. A good warning system *should* be annoying though, and hopefully fairly infrequently triggered by innocent actions (as it is now that UAC has been around for a while and developers have fixed their apps (and MS have tweaked it a little)).

It isn't hard to find the name of the company in question, though... http://slashdot.org/firehose.p...

Biology and related sciences? At my uni (not in the US, but I think our two countries are comparable) hemistry (at UG and PG level, perhaps less so above because it will take time to filter through) is 50/50. Similarly for stats and the medical schools, among others. Source: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/stati...

sounds suspiciously like... (clue: bs)