3401
Living Room / Re: silly humor - post 'em here! [warning some NSFW and adult content]
« Last post by IainB on December 03, 2013, 07:40 PM »Caught napping:
Recent Posts
Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.
So it begins. ...And what has ensued seems to have had all the elements of a sort of pantomime:
____________________-40hz (June 22, 2013, 10:10 AM)
"You can't have your privacy violated if you don't know your privacy is violated." - a US Representative, one Mike Rogers.
UK Parliament Makes A Mockery Of Itself Interrogating Guardian Editor
from the sad dept
The UK Parliament is presenting itself as a complete joke. Rather than looking into controlling the GCHQ (the UK's equivalent to the NSA), it has instead held a hearing to interrogate and threaten Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger for actually reporting on the Snowden leak documents and revealing the widespread abuses of the intelligence community. The hearing included the insulting and ridiculous question: "do you love this country?"Committee chair, Keith Vaz: Some of the criticisms against you and the Guardian have been very, very personal. You and I were both born outside this country, but I love this country. Do you love this country?
Alan Rusbridger: We live in a democracy and most of the people working on this story are British people who have families in this country, who love this country. I'm slightly surprised to be asked the question but, yes, we are patriots and one of the things we are patriotic about is the nature of democracy, the nature of a free press and the fact that one can, in this country, discuss and report these things.
_____________________
Perhaps equally ridiculous: after UK Prime Minister David Cameron ordered the destruction of Guardian hard drives, urged the Parliament to start this very investigation and flat out threatened news publications for reporting on government abuse, folks in Parliament have the gall to suggest that it's Rusbridger who broke the law in sharing some of the Snowden docs with the NY Times? Maybe if Cameron hadn't done everything he could to try to stifle a free UK press, the Guardian wouldn't have felt the need to share documents with a competitor.Conservative MP Michael Ellis: Mr Rusbridger, you authorised files stolen by [National Security Agency contractor Edward] Snowden which contained the names of intelligence staff to be communicated elsewhere. Yes or no?
Rusbridger: Well I think I've already dealt with that.
Ellis: Well if you could just answer the question.
Rusbridger: I think it's been known for six months that these documents contained names and that I shared them with the New York Times.
Ellis: Do you accept that that is a criminal offence under section 58(a) of the Terrorism Act, 2000?
Rusbridger: You may be a lawyer, Mr Ellis, I'm not.
_____________________
And from there it took a turn to the bizarre as Ellis started talking about how Rusbridger might reveal that GCHQ agents were gay. I'm not kidding.Ellis: Secret and top-secret documents. And do you accept that the information contained personal information that could lead to the identity even of the sexual orientation of persons working within GCHQ?
Rusbridger: The sexual orientation thing is completely new to me. If you could explain how we've done that then I'd be most interested.
Ellis: In part, from your own newspaper on 2 August, which is still available online, because you refer to the fact that GCHQ has its own Pride group for staff and I suggest to you that the data contained within the 58,000 documents also contained data that allowed your newspaper to report that information. It is therefore information now that is not any longer protected under the laws and that jeopardises those individuals, does it not?
Rusbridger: You've completely lost me Mr Ellis. There are gay members of GCHQ, is that a surprise?
Ellis: It's not amusing Mr Rusbridger. They shouldn't be outed by you and your newspaper.
[Brief inaudible exchange in which both men are talking]
Rusbridger: The notion of the existence of a Pride group within GCHQ, actually if you go to the Stonewall website you can find the same information there. I fail to see how that outs a single member of GCHQ.
Ellis: You said it was news to you, so you know about the Stonewall website, so it's not news to you. It was in your newspaper. What about the fact that GCHQ organised trips to Disneyland in Paris, that's also been printed in your newspaper, does that mean if you knew that, information including the family details of members of GCHQ is also within the 58,000 documents – the security of which you have seriously jeopardised?
Rusbridger: Again, your references are lost to me. The fact that there was a family outing from GCHQ to Disneyland … [CUT OFF]
_____________________
There was much more in the hearing, with multiple UK members of parliament making statements that suggest that they are ignorant of a variety of things, including how encryption works and the nature of a free and open press.
But, really, just the fact that they're spending time investigating Rusbridger in the first place, rather than looking more closely at what the GCHQ is doing, makes a complete mockery of the UK Parliament.
_____________________
Has science lost its way?
by Judith Curry
Posted on December 1, 2013 | 405 Comments
“The journals want the papers that make the sexiest claims. And scientists believe that the way you succeed is having splashy papers in Science or Nature — it’s not bad for them if a paper turns out to be wrong, if it’s gotten a lot of attention.” – Michael Eisen
...(Read the rest - here.)
Anti-GMO crop paper to be forcibly retracted
Journal editor recognizes extensive flaws, says the paper shouldn't have run.
by John Timmer - Dec 1, 2013 6:00 pm UTC
Last year, a French researcher made waves by announcing a study that suggested genetically modified corn could lead to an increased incidence of tumors in lab animals. But the way the finding was announced seemed designed to generate publicity while avoiding any scientific evaluation of the results. Since then, the scientific criticisms have rolled in, and they have been scathing. Now, the editor of the journal that published it has decided to pull the paper despite the objections of its primary author.
The initial publication focused on corn that had been genetically engineered to carry a gene that allowed it to break down a herbicide. French researchers, led by Gilles-Eric Séralini, fed the corn, with and without herbicide, to rats. Control populations were given the herbicide alone or unmodified corn. The authors concluded that the genetically modified corn led to an elevated incidence of tumors and early death.
But even a cursory glance at the results suggested there were some severe problems with this conclusion. To begin with, there were similar effects caused by both the genetically engineered crop and by the herbicide it was designed to degrade. None of the treatments showed a dose effect; in some cases, the lowest doses had the most dramatic effect. And, if the treatment populations were combined, in some cases they were healthier than the controls. Tests of whether the results were statistically significant were completely lacking.
And, since then, the scientific response has been withering. The German and EU food regulators looked the results over, but found them inadequate. The paper itself has accumulated a host of Letters to the Editor attached to it. And a different journal published an entire paper devoted to outlining its deficiencies.
All of these criticisms of the study could have been incorporated into the original press coverage, except for the fact that the people behind the study manipulated journalists to ensure that they were unable to obtain any outside evaluations of the paper. Nevertheless, even as the criticisms rolled in, the researchers remained defiant, and anti-GMO activists continued to promote the paper as evidence of the dangers posed by genetically modified crops.
Now, the editor of Food and Chemical Toxicology, the journal in which this study was published, has decided its flaws are so severe that including multiple Letters to the Editor with the study just won't cut it. In response to the initial complaints, he had set up a panel that looked over the paper and the additional data provided by Séralini. According to one letter from the editor, obtained by an anti-GMO activist group, "The panel had many concerns about the quality of the data and ultimately recommended that the article should be withdrawn." The editor has agreed with this recommendation and has already written a statement that will replace it.
Séralini has been asked to get in touch to discuss the details of the paper's withdrawal, but he has announced that he stands by his conclusions. This will ultimately force the editor to withdraw it over Séralini's objections.
This sort of retraction is a bit unusual. In one heavily publicized past example, a research group described bacteria that could supposedly replace phosphate with arsenate. Despite a large number of problems with that paper (including a failure to reproduce the original results), Science still hasn't pulled it. In contrast, a paper linking Chronic Fatigue Syndrome to a virus has been pulled, perhaps because there were more serious questions about the scientific procedures used to generate its results.
For the GMO paper, the situation is complex. According to the publisher, Elsevier, there is no evidence of any fraud or data manipulation. However, the number of animals used was insufficient to support any conclusions, and the paper certainly drew some. This goes against the journal's guidelines, and thus they seem to be admitting the paper should never have been published in the first place. That would seem to be a failure of editorial process and peer review, yet Elsevier states, "The peer review process is not perfect, but it does work."
(An additional problem that could justify retraction, noted by one of the papers linked above, is that animal welfare rules call for animals that develop tumors to be euthanized, while Séralini let the tumors grow to horrific sizes.)
If the precise grounds for retraction aren't entirely clear, the response of the groups campaigning against genetically modified foods is. A statement released by the group GMWatch basically says that the paper was fine, the editor is being unethical, and Monsanto might be behind it all. So, it seems that Séralini's paper will continue to be brought up long after it's removed from the formal scientific literature.
@IainBAh, I think I see what you are on about.
The Streisand Effect strikes again and by question I meant "It's a really clear infograph - no?"
I am trying (sometimes failing) to stay away from climate type debates, things won't happen in my lifetime and I don't have kids, so it's fine. Main reason I posted was wondering why it is in the humour thread.-rgdot (December 02, 2013, 12:43 AM)
James Lovelock: The UK should be going mad for frackingIt's an ironic situation really, because the only available options to nuclear that are left become "the elephant in the room" - i.e., so-called "renewable" energy, that the REA would clearly rather no-one mentioned or publicised, and which is so big that it was literally filling up that infograph.
Scientist James Lovelock is the man behind Gaia theory, and once predicted doom for our climate. He discusses nuclear (good), wind power (bad) and why fracking is the future.
______________________
"Please make it so that we can't be seen to have successfully created an oligopoly over the energy sector that forces infeasible, highly cost-ineffective and highly damaging (economically and environmentally) power supply systems on to the taxpayers/consumers, because it is highly profitable to us."It's a HUGE business, and the pigs are all feeding at the same huge taxpayer-funded "green subsidies" trough. Even the Royal Family are hypocritically cashing in on it - e.g., here.
______________________
and the return version is Americans Try To Place European Countries On A MapErm, I have to admit that, as a Brit who was never all that interested in geography at school, I'm none too sure I could have done more than a 50% accurate/correct attempt at the European map of nations, at best. Probably much worse with the map of the American states.
subtitled: :( :( :( :( At least the U.K. office didn’t fare much better with the U.S.
and
OK, in our defense, Europe is really complicated.
- which is true - I'd have trouble with a good few countries there myself..
http://www.buzzfeed....n-countries-on-a-map-tomos (November 28, 2013, 07:35 AM)
...With that thought in mind, and getting back on topic: I installed and then uninstalled Norton Identity Safe, in a controlled environment with no Internet connection enabled, and monitored the install and the program's attempts to communication outwards. I also studied the agreement (it's an image) that you make with Norton when installing the NIS software. I shall post the agreement up here - cannot find it published on their site, so shall screen capture the details from the image at install.
It is all quite thought-provoking.
Copied here is section 10 of the agreement (from OCR of image):Spoiler10 Privacy; Data Protection:
From time to time, the Software may collect certain information from the Device on which it is installed, which may include:
— Information on potential security risks as well as URLs of websites visited that the Software deems potentially fraudulent The URLs could contain personally identifiable information that a potentially fraudulent website is attempting to obtain without Your permission. This information is collected by Symantec for the purpose of delivering the functionalities of the software, and also for evaluating and improving the ability of Symantec’s products to detect malicious behavior, potentially fraudulent websites and other Internet security risks.
— URLs of websites visited as well as search keywords and search results only if the Norton Safe Web feature is enabled This information is collected by Symantec for the purpose of providing protection and of evaluating and advising You regarding potential threats and risks that may be associated with a particular Web site before You view it.
— Executable files and files that contain executable content that are identified as potential malware. including information on the actions taken by such files at the time of installation These files are submitted to Symantec using the Software’s automatic submission function The collected files could contain personally identifiable information that has been obtained by the malware without Your permission Files of this type are being collected by Symantec only for the purpose of improving the ability of Symantec’s products to detect malicious behavior Such automatic submission function may be deactivated after installation by following the instructions in the Documentation for applicable products.
— The name given to the Device during the initial setup of such Device. If collected, the name will be used by Symantec as an account name for the Device under which You may elect to receive additional services and/or under which You may use certain features of the Software. You may change such account name at any time after installation of the Software (recommended).
— Status information regarding installation and operation of the Software This information indicates to Symantec whether installation of the Software was successfully completed as well as whether the Software has encountered an error- The status information could contain personally identifiable information only if such information is included in the name of the file or folder encountered by the Software at the time of installation or error- The status information is collected by Symantec for the purpose of evaluating and improving Symantec’s product performance and installation success rate Symantec may also use this information to optimize its web-pages .
— Information contained in email messages that you send through the Software to Symantec to report as spam or as incorrectly identified as spam These email messages may contain personally identifiable information and will be sent to Symantec only with your permission. and will not be sent automatically If you send such messages to Symantec. Symantec will use them only for the purpose of improving the detection ability of Symantec’s antispam technology. Symantec will not correlate these files with any other personally identifiable information.
— Information contained in a report that You may choose to send through the Software to Symantec when the Software encounters a problem The report includes information regarding the status of both the Software and Your Device at the time that the Software encountered the problem The status information about Your Device may include the system language, country locale, and the operating system version for Your Device, as well as the processes running. their status and performance information, and data from files or folders that were open at the time the Software encountered the problem. The information could contain personally identifiable information if such information is included in, or is a part of the name of the files or folders open at the time the Software encountered the problem This information will be sent to Symantec only with Your permission. and will not be sent automatically. The information is collected by Symantec for the purpose of correcting the encountered problem and improving Symantec’s product performance. This information will not be correlated with any personally identifiable information.
— The Internet Protocol (lP) address and/or Media Access Control (MAC) address and the Machine ID of the computer on which the Software is installed to enable the Software to function and for license administration purposes .
— Other general, statistical information used for product analysis, and for improving product functionality.
In additon to the terms and conditions above, the following terms and conditions will also apply to Your use of the Software on mobile Devices :
— The Software may access the International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) in order to generate a hash that ensures anonymity The hash is used to analyze and aggregate equipment data for statistical purposes. The IMEI is not collected or stored by Symantec. This information is used for the purpose of identifying the telecommunications device eligible to receive Content Updates for the Prerelease Software This information will not be correlated with any other personally identifiable information, such as Your account information. Alter the service has terminated the data is retained in statistical form exclusively for internal research.
Unless it is expressly defined as optional. the collected information as set out above is necessary for the purpose of the functionality of Symantec’s products
Information may be transferred to the Symantec group in the United States or other countries that may have less protective data protection laws than the region in which You are situated (including the European Union) and may be accessible by Symantec employees or contractors exclusively to be used in accordance with the purposes described above For the same purposes the information may be shared with partners and vendors that process information on behalf of Symantec Symantec has taken steps so that the collected information. if transferred. receives an adequate level of protection
Subject to applicable laws, Symantec reserves the right to cooperate with any legal process and any law enforcement or other government inquiry related to your use of this Software This means that Symantec may provide documents and information relevant to a court subpoena or to a law enforcement or other government investigation. In order to promote awareness, detection and prevention of Internet security risks. Symantec may share certain information with research organizations and other security software vendors. Symantec may also use statistics derived from the information to track and publish reports on security risk trends by using the Software. You acknowledge and agree that Symantec may collect, transmit, store, disclose and analyze such information for these purposes.
CPS / IDS 1.0 / IE
In the doco somewhere it also says that it uses your unique CPU ID, or something, to hash/encrypt data.
NIS is your Friend...-IainB (May 30, 2012, 06:19 PM)
I appreciate your vigorous defense of the website Iain. ...Actually, I was categorically not intending to "defend the website" per se, but rather addressing what was said, and protesting the seemingly preposterous and somewhat offensive (I thought) suggestions being made about the donation/registration processes.-mouser (November 29, 2013, 11:26 PM)
You make yourself appear very untrustworthy with all your hoops and road blocks. People want the opportunity to see if the site is worth while before considering upgrades. I give up and am not going to waste any more time trying. Please tell me how to cancel.Come off it. I would have been the first to object about unethical practices if I thought there were these "hoops and road blocks" that you allege. In fact, I would not have become a member.-ronjf (November 29, 2013, 07:15 PM)
Woman Facing $3,500 Fine For Posting Online Review
Posted by Soulskill on Friday November 15, 2013 @03:13PM
from the hidden-so-well-it-didn't-exist dept.
sabri writes "Jen Palmer tried to order something from kleargear.com, some sort of cheap ThinkGeek clone. The merchandise never arrived and she wrote a review on ripoffreport.com. Now, kleargear.com is reporting her to credit agencies and sending collectors to fetch $3,500 as part of a clause which did not exist at the alleged time of purchase. 'By email, a person who did not identify him or herself defended the $3500 charge referring again to Kleargear.com's terms of sale. As for Jen being threatened — remove the post or face a fine — the company said that was not blackmail but rather a, "diligent effort to help them avoid [the fine]."' The terms and conditions shouldn't even apply, since the sales transaction was never completed."
Woman Fined For Bad Review Striking Back In Court
Posted by Soulskill on Friday November 29, 2013 @05:07PM
from the jury-to-be-fined-for-unfavorable-verdict dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Here's an update to the earlier Slashdot story about KlearGear.com 'fining' a couple for a bad review left four years earlier on RipoffReport: Not only did KlearGear report this as a bad debt to credit reporting agencies, but KlearGear is hiding behind a DomainsByProxy domain name to making finding their real identities harder. Now Public Citizen is representing the couple and is going after KlearGear for $75,000. The TV station that broke this story, KUTV, now reports that RipoffReport will likely be on the couple's side. The BBB and TRUSTe say their logos were used by KlearGear.com without permission, and credit reporting agency Experian is also investigating."
