Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... (Score 1) 1251

This is a very broad statement, and is not entirely accurate. The word "satanism" is often ambiguous, as it is used as a blanket term for a group of diverse theological or philosophical systems. Many satanists do not worship Satan as a deity (e.g. the followers of LaVeyan satanism).

Comment: Re:Nice thing about red dwarf stars (Score 3, Insightful) 132

by arcctgx (#42811109) Attached to: Kepler: Many Red Dwarfs Have Earth-SIzed Planets Too

On the other hand, such stars have deeper convection zones which makes their magnetic dynamos much stronger than in the Sun. The resulting magnetic activity may manifest itself in very strong flares. If the magnetic field of the planet is not strong enough, such phenomena could adversely affect the evolution of complex life forms.

Comment: Some more important questions (Score 3, Insightful) 198

by arcctgx (#40283717) Attached to: Lessons Learned From Cracking 2M LinkedIn Passwords

We all know that people tend to choose weak passwords, this is not really newsworthy. Ever since the database was leaked, many people, including professionals, have performed various analyses of cracked passwords. This is fine, but I think there are more important things we need to know right now:

1) When exactly was the database leaked? It seems that it's been floating around the internet for some time before it hit the news last week.
2) What the attack vector was?
3) What security measures have been taken by LinkedIn to ensure this will not happen again?

And perhaps one more: is there a relation between LinkedIn, eHarmony and database leaks? Did the same person/group do this?


+ - Dysfunction in Modern Science?->

Submitted by eldavojohn
eldavojohn (898314) writes "The editors of Infection and Immunity are sending a warning signal about modern science. Two editorials (1 and 2) published in the journal have given other biomedical researchers pause to ask if modern science is dysfunctional. Readers familiar with the state of academia may not be surprised but the claims have been presented today to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) that level the following allegations: "Incentives have evolved over the decades to encourage some behaviors that are detrimental to good science" and "The surest ticket to getting a grant or job is getting published in a high profile journal, this is an unhealthy belief that can lead a scientist to engage in sensationalism and sometimes even dishonest behavior to salvage their career." The data to back up such slanderous claims? "In the past decade the number of retraction notices for scientific journals has increased more than 10-fold while the number of journals articles published has only increased by 44%." At least a few of such retractions have been covered here."
Link to Original Source

Stellar rays prove fibbing never pays. Embezzlement is another matter.