It isn't clear here whether the papers in question were the pre- or post-editing versions

They are going after the final, published versions (including Elsevier formatting and all), commercial use of accepted manuscripts, systematic distribution and the like (some of which applies to academia.edu). In other words, what you said was fair game still is - you are allowed to share the accepted manuscript with others (including on your website where Google Scholar will pick it up and render it discoverable in a matter of days, so it's not like this restricts you), you (or anyone else) just can't make money off it and you can't use their typesetting.

For the accepted manuscript version, let me just quote from Elsevier's author rights:

Elsevier believes that individual authors should be able to distribute their AAMs for their personal voluntary needs and interests, e.g. posting to their websites or their institutionâ(TM)s repository, e-mailing to colleagues. However, our policies differ regarding the systematic aggregation or distribution of AAMs to ensure the sustainability of the journals to which AAMs are submitted. Therefore, deposit in, or posting to, subject-oriented or centralized repositories (such as PubMed Central), or institutional repositories with systematic posting mandates is permitted only under specific agreements between Elsevier and the repository, agency or institution, and only consistent with the publisherâ(TM)s policies concerning such repositories. Voluntary posting of AAMs in the arXiv subject repository is permitted.

So you can see how academia.edu falls foul of this while your right to share your work does not.

(Some of my papers are published in Elsevier journals - they are however also all open access. In case you're wondering.)

Having the automated car set up in a manner that it won't drive into situations it gauges to be high risk, and it offers control to the driver or pulls over to the next safe location and stops isn't hard.

Hi, some of my research is in human/car interaction and work closely with people who spend a lot of time thinking about just the problem you dismiss as not hard. It is incredibly hard. Imagine you have an unforeseen emergency (only considering foreseeable risks and avoiding them like you seemed to imply isn't very useful) arising from a complex situation and, let's be generous, 10 seconds before everyone dies to hand control back to the human who, at this moment is maybe asleep or reading the newspaper while sipping his tea. He has no clue at this point what is going on. How exactly do you not only get him in control but make sure he has the complete overview of the situation, including where and what the danger is exactly, so that he can react appropriately in the time remaining? Until there is an answer to that, until we can be sure that a human can always retake control if needed, no matter what, automated vehicles are going nowhere. And if that means the driver will continue to have to pay attention throughout, then so be it. And this is why handing control back to the driver is one of the really big research areas in automated vehicles right now.

Your brain is a computer.

Fun fact: computers were human long before they were machines.

Unless you are going to make the time lords all capable of changing sex

Meet the Corsair Also, Romana was at least once capable of choosing what she would regenerate into (though I don't think that got mentioned again since) - so I guess that if the Doctor wanted to regenerate as a woman, he could.

we know (unless they changed it since he's the last timelord), timelords only get 12 regens (making 13 total lives)

Not anymore, the Doctor has had infinitely many regenerations for a while now.

I suppose the one worry is that if someone has the ability to impersonate your e-mail and has access to your friends list, he could then impersonate you and ask *all* your friends for codes. The attacker doesn't need to know who the trusted friends are since your circle of friends would not easily be able to detect that everyone's been contacted. The attacker may mine the publicly available info on the friends to personalise the message a bit, if not, keep it short and very simple. It's not like this request would come in a long personal message anyway. It IS likely that it will come by e-mail though since you'll already be at the computer, trusted friends may be around the globe and so on. In short, you need your friends to be capable of detecting an impersonation attempt, even if brief and potentially conveying a sense of urgency. Remember, your trusted friends may be the same people who click on links that appear to be from you *because* they trust you. So in summary, while I do think this is pretty neat, I also wonder if this is not rather vulnerable to social engineering (perhaps not so much among the /. crowd - but generally)?

It used to be all the time. I was running windows and so was everyone else. I eventually switched completely to Linux (and started using the "I don't use windows anymore, no clue"... excuse) but that didn't stop the tech support calls.

Moving the family to OSX however did. That was 3 years ago and there has not been a single tech support issue since then.

is never a good idea.

I'm reminded of the Belgian who had a video of himself doing 300km/h on the motorway posted to youtube.

He was driving an Aston Marting Vantage Carbon Black edition of which only three were sold in Belgium. Didn't take the police long to figure out which one it was.

Not to disagree with anything in the paper and certainly not with the message, but personally, I would definitely have wanted to see at least one more condition: same resumes with no names at all. That should give nice baseline against which to compare both conditions (e.g. are female salaries marked down or are male salaries marked up).

Also, I wonder what would happen if one were to replace the names with simply an indication of gender (male/female). Unlike the neutral condition, I don't think this would improve the study... I'm just curious if the gender is enough or if there's something specific about reading male vs female names.

I'm a scientist. I write papers that are published in academic journals and I review such papers for journals. Journals use editorial managers to, well, manage, the entire process and you'd be surprised how often those send out automated e-mails that, helpfully, contain my login and password IN PLAINTEXT, just in case I might have forgotten (even if I did not request the password).

In general terms, if you use a website that is able to remind you of your password if you forgot, consider that password known to the world and all other accounts that use the same or a similar password at high risk of being compromised.

Oh and I have an Obligatory XKCD too.

I see your 1 and 1b and raise you:

1c Heart: to be implanted alongside my existing one so I can go to Dr Who conventions and freak the crap out of them (alt: get laid by the Amy / Rose lookalikes).

(and for other the /. angle: I do wonder what hooking up a second heart would actually do to a human - assuming it was hooked up correctly (for whatever definition of "correctly" makes sense here) and space wasn't an issue.)

I thought rule #1 was "Never let suspects stay together" (and "Never screw over your partner")...

I was secretly hoping it'd turn out they did the same thing to the scewered Bush head that Firefly did to carbonite Han Solo's (one in every episode). I'm still looking, but the boobies keep getting in the way of the bodies...

Philips has a television with a moth-eye coating (just that though; not a combination with other coatings as in Sony's approach) available. Just read the review this morning. Seems a bit fragile though - I wonder if this will also apply to Sony's new film (I guess it won't since that'd be rubbish on a smartphone, but TFA does not actually address it):

Amazingly, it works - but thereâ(TM)s a caveat. The filter requires extreme care, so much so that Philips supplies a proprietary cleaning solution to remove any thumbprint smudges. This fragility makes the screen a questionable purchase for those with young families.