And what about the users of the infrastructure you manage?
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
Seriously, to those who work in IT departments... how many of the IT users know the rules? How many of them know the rules on the management levels?
How many simply ignore the rules from IT departments, assuming its not important?
Ignorance is not an excuse, but I hope no one is surprised.
Yes, because no one ever tried to produce a watch that does more than tell the time before pebble. [/sarcasm]
I do not fully agree with AC and I find he is definitely going too far. But he also speaks some truth. If it seems too good to be true, it often also is too good to be true. The problem is that for most people, the concept of risk in design is quite abstract. As an engineer, I can weight the risks not only because I know how to do that and have experience doing it, but also because I understand the technologies and problems linked with project management. So when I support a KS project, I have an idea what the risk level is and how good my investment is placed.
Now, most people cannot do this for one reason or another and their decision to invest is solely based on enthusiasms, thrust and first impression. It may be deeply driven by technological ignorance. The person have a high risk of being disappointed because they have implicit expectations of success for a project which may actually have very little chance of succeeding. This is exacerbated by the fact that project closer to the leading edge (or even to the "bleeding edge"), are those who stir the most enthusiasms and interest, even though they are also the projects with the highest risk. This is a dangerous combination when money is in play, as the investors are not fully aware or informed of the risks.
Investing only is safe and low-risk projects as the AC proposes is a solution, but it's not the best promote incubation of new ideas. But maybe better inform KS users of the risks maybe a good idea. Maybe a open risk assessment could be a solution (a bit like an open peer review of KS projects). The potential investors would then be informed of the potential risk associated with backing a project before they do so. Maybe a project with high risk hoping for 500k funding won't get 2 million USD funding anymore, but that maybe for the best as experience showed.
In the mean time, Lenovo made an official Statement on the 3rd Party "Experience Enhancement Software"...
Also listed at the end of the statement, the affected models.
G Series: G410, G510, G710, G40-70, G50-70, G40-30, G50-30, G40-45, G50-45
U Series: U330P, U430P, U330Touch, U430Touch, U530Touch
Y Series: Y430P, Y40-70, Y50-70
Z Series: Z40-75, Z50-75, Z40-70, Z50-70
S Series: S310, S410, S40-70, S415, S415Touch, S20-30, S20-30Touch
Flex Series: Flex2 14D, Flex2 15D, Flex2 14, Flex2 15, Flex2 14(BTM), Flex2 15(BTM), Flex 10
MIIX Series: MIIX2-8, MIIX2-10, MIIX2-11
YOGA Series: YOGA2Pro-13, YOGA2-13, YOGA2-11BTM, YOGA2-11HSW
E Series: E10-30
Just pull the plug and battery during the process. You'll get definitely rid of the malware.
Yes, and use only self-written OS and self-written programs.
Sorry, but this question is fully based on speculation. How can one even expect an serious answer on this one?
Point is: to ask the question, you need to speculate on what an alien invasion would be. You even need to speculate further to provide an answer. What's that worth? What do you learn out of it? How do I know if I can detect and observe something if I have no Idea what it is?
I could tell you, for example, that we will definitely be able to see the aliens come because of the huge gamma flash their flying saucers produce when they drop from hyperspace nearby Saturn. Our detection change is 100%. Or is it? My answer here is worth nothing, because I have to speculate to what an alien invasion would be. I could sit down with scientist, military analysis et politicians for week and make nice action plans based on what-ifs, but it would all be a waste. Why? Because we simply don't know anything about this topic.
A more serious question would be the same, but replacing "alien invasion" by "potentially hazardous asterioids". Now you can start an interesting discussion because you know what asteroids are and which one can be classified as hazardous. You know what you can observe and what you can't. Knowing the detection limits and methods, you can start to discuss about blind spot and detection probability. Going further you can even talk about mitigation, worst case scenarios and post-impact solutions. On this one I'd gladly sit down with other experts.
too bad we can't verify them. Especially since the thrown most of the assumed ones out of their model. It's nevertheless an interesting approach in describing the universe if you take the time to read about it. Who knows, maybe the existing models were over-constrained and it might not be bad to give them a fresh look.
The truth probably lays somewhere in between.
The reports comes from the NTSB, which I believe is a more trustworthy source as Engadget. See for yourself:
The reading of the GoPro video description is bluffing. how in the word did someone with such a behaviour and attitude made its way on a pilot seat, worse on an instructor seat.
Something is definitely wrong here. And with his experience he should have known better. From the report (emphasis is mine):
The pilot, age 29, held a commercial pilot certificate with ratings for single engine land, multi-engine land and instrument airplane. The pilot also held a ground instructor certificate. The pilot was issued an unrestricted first class medical certificate on August 29, 2013.
A review of the pilot's logbooks revealed that he had accumulated about 726 total flight hours, 38 hours in the last 30 days and 4.5 hours in the 24 hours preceding the accident flight. He had 27.1 hours in night conditions and 0.5 hours in simulated IMC in the last 60 days. He accumulated a total of 99 hours in simulated IMC and 14.7 hours in actual IMC.
That is not a huge experience, but definitely enough to know better. Using a mobile phone in flight is one thing. But using it in a critical flight phase? To take selfies?
This guy was an accident waiting to happen. I feel sad for his passenger.
This has nothing to do about science. I'm quite certain tha the so-called missguided generation did no get advise in scientific papers.
This is a pure marketing and product placement/capitalism problem. People get advise from TV ads and doctors. The latter have, contrarely to the general perception, nothing to do with science and their advice on diet show little to no scientific insight. Their sources are also marketing driven.
This is a society failure. Not a science failure. And failling to understand this brings you only further to solve the problem.
That is correct. Ozone can (and is) measured in microwave spectral bands. For example, the Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) on the AURA satellite retrieves Ozone around 240 GHz. Actually, every Microwave sounder that I know of can measure Ozone, so I have no doubt that Ozone signatures in the upper atmosphere (just as from other trace gases) could affect microwave space observation.
But it's not the main reason why they fly there I believe. If they want to do long duration flights, everywhere else, they will have to cross large water masses and cross various airspaces. I believe it would be difficult to do the same in the north hemisphere (crossing Russian airspace). Furthermore, in the polar summer, you do not need to worry about day-night cycles, which makes power supply system simpler. If they need sun for power (always the case I guess over a 48h float), a flight in the polar winter cannot work. The only alternative could be equatorial flight, but getting the overflight permits is complex and there are, to my knowledge, no active balloon bases in equatorial/tropical regions these days.
i'd suggest avoiding school children crossings on the autobahn.
I would't call this"missing the point", as the title of your reply says; rather "not adressing the points I believe are more important..."
What you adress are parly symtoms of a whole different and bigger problem with govermental organisation. i've seen this all over the place where I lived and worked...it's by no mean a TSA issue.
I don't assume anything... I just observe.
What I observe is that pretty much the same people (from the same security firm) screen my luggage at the airport and my bag before I get into a night club. I don't like it a clubs, but accept it. But I find it close to unacceptable at airports. I've seen a lot of incompetence, lack of respect and abuse of power at German airports (especially at FRA).
In Canadian airports, the pre-boarding screening is also partly done by private firms. The situation is hardly better. I've seen a huge difference in handling there as well. Most of the time its is very professional and the standards of CATSA at obviously higher than by the Bundespolizei. I think that a major difference, is the the on-site oversight remains under the control of the CATSA in Canada, whereas in Germany, the Bundespolizei is only there for show. They just stand there (if at all), but don't seem to supervise the screening activities. This observation may be wrong, as we, as passenger, hardly know what goes on behind the curtain, but it would explain the service quality in both countries although but employ private firms.
I couldn't care less about the screening itself; it beings little more than the feeling something is done for security for those who somehow need that feeling. What I do care about is how my belongings and myself are handled in the screening process, what ever that process may be.