Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

+ - Significant BASH vulnerability found-> 2

Submitted by SpuriousLogic
SpuriousLogic (1183411) writes "US-CERT is aware of a Bash vulnerability affecting Unix-based operating systems such as Linux and Mac OS X. Exploitation of this vulnerability may allow a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code on an affected system.

US-CERT recommends users and administrators review the Redhat Security Blog (link is external) for additional details and to refer to their respective Linux or Unix-based OS vendor(s) for an appropriate patch. A GNU Bash patch is also available for experienced users and administrators to implement.
Operating systems with updates include:
CentOS
Debian
Redhat (link is external)
Ubuntu"

Link to Original Source

+ - Astrophysicists Build a Virtual Universe->

Submitted by sciencehabit
sciencehabit (1205606) writes "In the most detailed effort yet, astrophysicists and cosmologists have modeled the evolution of the universe right down to the formation of individual galaxies. The results of the mammoth computer simulation neatly match multiple astronomical observations, ranging from the distribution of galaxies in massive galaxy clusters to the amounts of neutral hydrogen gas in galaxies large and small. The findings once again neatly confirm cosmologists' standard theory of the basic ingredients of the universe and how it evolved—a result that may disappoint researchers hoping for new puzzles to solve."
Link to Original Source

+ - Weak electromagnetic fields disrupt birds migratory patterns->

Submitted by Charliemopps
Charliemopps (1157495) writes "Scientists at Germany's University of Oldenburg have found evidence that weak electromagnetic fields disrupt birds migratory patterns. When sheltered in a hut birds tend to fly in the direction they're supposed to migrate in. While in town, they'd fly in random directions instead. Once they placed the birds inside a Faraday cage they returned to their normal behavior. They've ruled out cellphones and power lines, but other than that they are not sure which signals are effecting them or if they also effect humans."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Bad news for ecologists--new license needed (Score 2) 136

by Bueller_007 (#46340269) Attached to: Major Scientific Journal Publisher Requires Public Access To Data

Release all the papers when you release the data.

Not going to happen. You need to publish during the data collection period in order to continue getting the funding you need for data collection.

Few replication attempts are doing exactly the same thing as the original paper, for good reason.

Right, but replication of the experiment is the EXACT reason that we're making the data available. If you want to use the data for something else, that's fine, but if it's data that the original author is still using, then you should contact them about it first.

A partial solution, I think, is for a group such as yours to pre-plan the data use already when collecting it. So you decide from start to publish a subset of that data early and publish papers based on that. Then publish another subset for further results and so on.

Again, this is not realistic in the overwhelming majority of cases. One of the benefits of long-term studies are the unexpected findings. Imagine that I've been collecting data on a population of lemmings over the last 20 years. It seems to me that the lemmings have been getting smaller since I first started capturing them, so one day I decide to regress body size on year and I discover that the lemmings have indeed been shrinking, and I can show that it is probably linked to changes in vegetation driven by climate change. I shouldn't have to give away my entire 20-year data set (which I had been collecting for a different purpose) for anybody to use for any purpose in order for me to get this one study out in a timely fashion.

Besides, many researchers are already dealing with data sets that are >50 years old, and your "plan to release the data before you start collecting the data" suggestion is moot for those people with inherited data sets.

But what we really need is for data to be fully citeable.

Getting your data cited is not NEARLY the same as publishing. Not even close. To get academic positions, pay increases, grants, etc., you need authorship. No one really cares about how often your paper or your data has been cited. That info isn't even on your CV or your grant applications, so no one will even have a rough idea unless it's a particularly preeminent paper.

Comment: Bad news for ecologists--new license needed (Score 4, Insightful) 136

by Bueller_007 (#46339489) Attached to: Major Scientific Journal Publisher Requires Public Access To Data

This is bad news for ecologists and others with long-term data sets. Some of these data sets require decades of time and millions of dollars to produce, and the primary investigators want to use the data they've generated for multiple projects. Current data licensing for PLOS ONE (and--as far as I know-- all others who insist on complete data archiving) means that when you publish your data set, it is out there for anyone to use for free for any purpose that they wish; not just for verification of the paper in question. There are plenty of scientists out there who poach free online data sets and mine them for additional findings.

Requiring full accessibility of data makes many people reticent to publish in such a journal, because it means giving away the data they were planning on using for future publications. A scientist's publication list is linked not only to their job opportunities and their pay grade, but also to the funding that they can get for future grants. And of course those grants are linked to continuing the funding of the long-term project that produced the data in the first place.

What is needed is a new licensing model for published data that says "anyone is free to use these data to replicate the results of the current study, however it CANNOT be used as a basis for new analyses without written consent of the primary investigator of this paper or until [XX] years after publication." Journals would also need to agree that they would not accept any publications based on data that was used without consent.

It seems to me that this arrangement would satisfy the need to get data out into the public domain while respecting the scientists who produced it in the first place.

Comment: Major companies worth less (Score 3, Insightful) 257

by Bueller_007 (#46302333) Attached to: WhatsApp: 2nd Biggest Tech Acquisition of All Time

To give you an idea of how ridiculously overpriced WhatsApp is (and Facebook as well), here's a selection of major American companies with a market cap less than what Facebook paid for WhatsApp.

Retail:
Macy’s
Gap
Bed Bath & Beyond
Tiffany & Co.
Ralph Lauren
Staples
Avon

Tech:
LinkedIn
Netflix
Xerox
Nvidia

Travel:
Marriott International
MGM Resorts
Hertz
Delta Air Lines
United Airlines
American Airlines
Southwest Airlines

Food:
Chipotle
Hershey’s
J. M. Smucker
Campbell Soup
Tyson Foods
Dr Pepper Snapple Group
Monster Beverage
Molson Coors Brewing

Other:
Harley-Davidson
Mattel
Whirlpool
Western Union
H&R Block
McGraw-Hill
News Corp
The Carlyle Group

Comment: Right wing not to be trusted on IPCC leaks (Score 5, Informative) 490

by Bueller_007 (#44857929) Attached to: Dialing Back the Alarm On Climate Change

The author of this article, Matt Ridley, is a known climate change denialist and of course the Wall Street Journal is owned by Rupert Murdoch and therefore operates under the same umbrella as Fox News.

Supposed leaks from the IPCC document have already been mischaracterized in the right-wing media. See, for example, Phil Plait's demolition of them here:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/10/climate_change_sea_ice_global_cooling_and_other_nonsense.html

Or if you prefer your demolition in video format:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lH5D9P6KYfY

I have no reason to trust the right-wing's interpretation of the IPCC document before it is officially announced and I can check it for myself. Why don't you try WAITING for it to be released before you start spreading this very likely BS.

Comment: Washington Monument (Score 4, Informative) 96

by Bueller_007 (#38746680) Attached to: Spider Silk Cape Goes On Display

Not many people know it, but the apex of the Washington Monument is made of aluminum. At the time, it was the largest piece ever crafted anywhere in the world and it was a precious metal. Only two years later, aluminum became completely worthless when the Hallâ"Héroult process for mass production of pure aluminum was discovered.

Comment: Useless Editors... Again... (Score 0, Redundant) 341

by Bueller_007 (#32909962) Attached to: The Chicken May Have Come Before the Egg
The link provided in the summary is to http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cookie_setting_error.html. Are you shitting me? I mean, come on. Don't "editors" actually bother to click on the links?

The link to the abstract of the article is here: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/123506601/abstract

It reads:

Growing a good egg: Metadynamics simulations show that the eggshell protein ovocleidin-17 induces the formation of calcite crystals from amorphous calcium carbonate nanoparticles. Multiple spontaneous crystallization and amorphization events were simulated; these simulations suggest a catalytic cycle that explains the role of ovocleidin-17 in the first stages of eggshell formation (the picture shows one intermediate of this cycle).

And for what it's worth, this article is completely irrelevant to the question at hand, and the egg came well, well before the chicken.

"Never give in. Never give in. Never. Never. Never." -- Winston Churchill

Working...