Join our Folding@Home team:
Main F@H site
Our team page
Support us: Subscribe Here
and buy SoylentNews Swag
We always have a place for talented people, visit the Get Involved section on the wiki to see how you can make SoylentNews better.
According to a recent article in El Reg, "Microsoft has flipped the switch to activate stronger encryption on its OneDrive and Outlook.com cloud services as part of a broader effort to make it harder for the NSA and other spying agencies to snoop on its customers' data." Specifically, Outlook.com has begun using TLS for both incoming and outgoing connections whenever possible. Microsoft has also added support for PFS, or Perfect Forward Secrecy, for key exchange whenever possible.
Technically, that means any email sent using the service will be fully encrypted during transit, from end to end. But for that to actually happen, the receiving mail server must also support TLS encryption. Many don't.
To that end, Microsoft has been working with major email providers to ensure that they get TLS up and running on their servers. In a Tuesday blog post, Matt Thomlinson, VP of Redmond's Trustworthy Computing group, named Deutsche Telekom, Mail.ru, and Yandex as three examples of companies that have partnered with Redmond in this effort.
A good move by Microsoft here.
The Subaru Telescope on Mauna Kea has a mirror over 8 meters in diameter. Last year, it began to take images with a new wide-field digital camera, Hyper Suprime-Cam. The camera produces 870 Megapixel images 1.5 degrees in diameter, making it one of the most powerful ground-based astronomical instruments. In the past week, a new project has used Hyper Suprime-Cam to find distant supernovae, using software which automatically compared images taken this July 2-3 with images of the same area of the sky taken several years ago.
These objects have yet to be confirmed as supernovae, but this early result suggests that the project may discover many very distant supernovae over the next few years. If some can be identified as one particular type of exploding star, called Type Ia Supernovae, they may be used as
standard candles
to measure the distance to high-redshift galaxies and help to pin down the expansion of the universe.
Two pieces of news about Windows 9 (codenamed Threshold) showed up today:
First, Windows 9 will morph to fit the device it's running on which is good news for everyone who thought that Metro/Modern interface on a device with a keyboard and mouse didn't make sense.
Meaning, if you're on a traditional desktop or laptop using a mouse and keyboard, Threshold will boot directly into the Windows desktop you know and love. The Live-tiled Start screen may return for people using touch-based machines like tablets and convertible laptops.
Second, Windows 9 Preview May Arrive Later This Year, although the final released isn't expected until 2015.
I won't go as far as to say that Microsoft has learned from their mistakes, but they at least seem to moving towards what the market wants from them.
ZDNet report a update in NATO policy regarding cyber-defence:
Reflecting how all international conflicts now have some digital component, NATO has updated its cyber defence policy to make it clear that a cyber attack can be treated as the equivalent of an attack with conventional weapons.
The organisation's new cyber defence policy clarifies that a major digital attack on a member state could be covered by Article 5, the collective defence clause. That states that an attack against one member of NATO "shall be considered an attack against them all" and opens the way for members to take action against the aggressor - including the use of armed force - to restore security.
That NATO is updating its cyber defence strategy now shows how rapidly cyber warfare has jumped up the agenda. While defence strategies are usually expected to last a decade, its last cyber strategy was only published three years ago.
It seems like everyone is trying to learn to code: Code.org has celebrities like Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and Chris Bosh telling you anyone can code; CoderDojo's are springing up all over the country; the UK has made it part of their official curriculum for all grade school kids.
I think this is slightly misguided. Don't get me wrong - I do think the world would be better off if everyone had some familiarity with coding - but coding itself should not be the goal. Computers and programming are just tools. They are a means to an end. The real goal should be to teach people a new way to think. In other words, we should be trying to teach computer science and not just coding. In this blog post, inspired by Simon Peyton Jones' wonderful TED talk Teaching Creative Computer Science, I'll explain the difference between the two, and why focusing on the right one is critical for the movement to succeed.
Most robots are powered by electrical motors that are big, bulky, heavy, and if they break, you have to replace them. Animals, on the other hand, use a biological motor - a muscle - that also requires electricity, but is far more efficient and, given a chance, can repair itself. We're just starting to be able to manipulate biological structures like these in clever enough ways to let us harness their awesomeness, and engineers at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign have worked them into a tiny little "bio-bot" that uses muscle cells to walk.
This work represents an important first step in the development and control of biological machines that can be stimulated, trained, or programmed to do work. It's exciting to think that this system could eventually evolve into a generation of biological machines that could aid in drug delivery, surgical robotics, 'smart' implants, or mobile environmental analyzers, among countless other applications.
An article in the Daily Mail reveals the 'secret' behind certain action scenes.
Rather than using a fan, commercial and movie studios sometimes employ 'greenscreen fluffers' - people dressed in chroma key gimpsuits who stand behind models and painstakingly flick their hair.
And it's not just haircare commercials that secretly feature these odd-looking helpers; even Superman gets the greenscreen fluffer treatment during flying scenes.
The accompanying gifanim is a meme in the making.
The deliberate practice model (DPM) of expertise holds that talent does not exist or makes a negligible contribution to performance, and that initial performance will be unrelated to achieving expertise and that 10 years of deliberate practice is necessary. A study looked at the performance of sprinters before formal training to see whether the model applied and found that in almost all cases, world class sprinters were exceptional already before any training.
Our studies are the first to systematically show that: (1) a strong predictor, probably a precondition, for elite sprinting performance is exceptional speed prior to formal training, (2) this exceptional ability is at least partly specific to sprinting, and (3) many elite sprinters reach world class status in far less than 10 years, although they usually make modest improvements even after that.
In January, a team of scientists from the RIKEN Institute in Kobe, Japan, and Harvard University published two high-profile papers in the prestigious scientific journal Nature (paper 1, paper 2), in which they reported the discovery of a simple method for reprogramming somatic cells (e.g., skin cells, blood cells, etc.) to a totipotent state (i.e., like an early-stage embryo, capable of forming a new copy of the donor organism (a.k.a., a "clone")). The method, which they termed "STAP" (for Stimulus-Triggered Acquisition of Pluripotency) involves using a mildly acidic solution to stress cells taken from any of a variety of tissues (skin, blood, etc.). After stressing, the cells are grown under standard culture conditions for several days, at which point, with no further intervention, the cells become totipotent.
The discovery was celebrated for its broad clinical potential (the resulting cells have all of the capabilities of embryonic stem cells they can be directed to differentiate in culture into any cell type (neurons, bone cells, cardiac cells, etc.)). However, unlike therapies that use embryonic stem cells, because STAP cells are patient-derived, STAP-cell therapies would not carry a risk of transplant rejection. Also, STAP cells are free of the ethical and logistical (i.e., limited supply) issues that plague embryonic stem cell methods.
The reported technique is amazingly fast, shockingly efficient, astoundingly simple, and... wait for it... completely unreproducible. Both papers have now been formally retracted (retraction 1, retraction 2).
However, the bottom line is that this entire episode has affected research elsewhere:
Scientists in the stem-cell field (like this submitter) will recognize that the news here is not (i) that papers purporting to demonstrate a new method for producing stem cells were rushed through the peer-review process (the Nature editor handling these manuscripts could easily have requested evidence of independent replication before publishing), nor (ii) that a new high-efficiency and supposedly simple cell-reprogramming method is, in fact, irreproducible (high-profile protein-based reprogramming method: yet to be reproduced, high-profile microRNA-based reprogramming method (paywalled, sorry): yet to be reproduced, high-profile (one of Science Magazine's Top-Ten Breakthroughs of 2010) messenger RNA-based reprogramming method : yet to be reproduced (PDF)).
What makes this story unusual is the ferocity of the public's response (in Japanese) to what are, quite frankly, levels of data falsification, data fabrication, and plagiarism that are not atypical in this field (see below). As a direct result of this public outcry, the lead author of both papers, Dr. Haruko Obokata (who, since questions about her work first arose in February, has been hospitalized because, according to her lawyer, "her mental and physical condition is unstable") was formally investigated by a committee established by RIKEN comprising senior scientists. In May, the investigative committee found Dr. Obokata guilty of three counts of scientific misconduct. As a telling, and also borderline-farcical aside, during the investigatory committee's investigation of, among other things, alleged image manipulation in one of the papers, an investigative committee was formed to investigate alleged image manipulation in published papers authored by the chair of the original investigative committee, who, unsurprisingly, was forced to step down from his chairmanship as a result. As perhaps the clearest reflection of the overall state of the field, the committee chair was replaced, not by another scientist, but by a lawyer, as apparently no trustworthy scientists could be found.
To restore public trust, the RIKEN Institute tasked an outside panel of experts with (i) investigating the culture at the Center for Developmental Biology (CDB) at RIKEN, where the STAP-cell work took place, and (ii) recommending any policy or structural changes that could be made to help ensure that the science produced at the CDB meets an acceptable level of integrity moving forward. The panel recently concluded that the best course of action would be for the CDB to be "dissolved as soon as possible".
Furthermore, the STAP-cell fiasco has placed in jeopardy RIKEN's bid to be named a Special National Research and Development Corporation by the Japanese government (as well as the increased funding that comes with that special designation).
The aforementioned public outcry has so far been largely limited to Japan. There has yet been no indication of whether Harvard will initiate its own investigation or take any other action in this matter (Dr. Charles Vacanti, of ear-mouse fame, who is affiliated with Harvard, is an author of both retracted papers).
There are many other interesting and relevant aspects of this story that shed light on how things went so wrong, including (i) many pages of Dr. Obokata's doctoral dissertation appear to have been copied and pasted from the website of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, (ii) requirements normally associated with RIKEN's hiring practices (e.g., interviews conducted in English) were disregarded in the hiring of Dr. Obokata, (iii) RIKEN will allow Dr. Obokata to attempt to replicate her experiments, but she will be monitored by video surveillance.
This episode has cast a spotlight on the shortcomings of publicly funded biomedical research, and raises a number of important questions. Starting from the assumption that the primary goal of biomedical research is to improve peoples' health (as opposed to fundamental biology research, which has as its primary goal the generation of knowledge):
1. In light of the following three points, is it a good idea to devote public resources to biomedical research at nonprofit institutions (e.g., universities and research centers like RIKEN)?
a. While researchers at for-profit companies can face financial incentives to generate positive results, researchers at nonprofit institutions also face financial incentives to generate the positive results required to publish high-profile papers (tenure, revenue from patent-licensing, opportunities to engage in outside commercial activity (e.g., consulting, start-up companies, etc.) are all often directly linked to the publication of high-profile papers).
b. While regulatory authorities (such as the Food and Drug Administration in the U.S.) provide strict oversight of clinical research (which constitutes the vast majority of research conducted at for-profit bio-tech and pharmaceutical companies), there is little or no meaningful independent oversight of non-clinical research (which constitutes the vast majority of research conducted at non-profit institutions).
c. There is generally no requirement attached to public funding of non-clinical biomedical research that the funded research be advanced to the point of actually improving anyone's health (e.g., clinical trials). Instead, a successful endpoint is defined as a high-profile publication in a prestigious journal.
2. Can we decouple public funding of biomedical research from potentially corrupting influences, perhaps by avoiding performance-based metrics that are highly susceptible to gaming/fraud (number of publications, publishing in high-impact journals, etc.) when determining the allocation of funding? If so, what metrics, if any, should we use to determine which scientists get public funding, and how much they get (again, focusing on biomedical research, but recognizing that the same principles likely also apply to other fields of applied/commercializable research)?
3. Can we improve the peer-review system, perhaps by requiring independent replication as a matter of course, and/or by requiring papers that have not been independently replicated to carry a disclaimer to that effect (like the albeit often disregarded requirement of a conflict-of-interest disclosure statement)? Would a scientific journal that unilaterally adopts these practices thrive?
4. To disincentivize scientific misconduct, should we try to help the public understand the importance of adhering to the following basic tenets of scientific publication: a. all authors share responsibility for the entire paper, b. irreproducibility of a published method is grounds for retraction, independent of the integrity of the data (i.e., whether or not there is specific evidence of misconduct; think Fleischmann and Pons' cold fusion), and c. fabricated or falsified data in a publication are grounds for retraction, independent of the purported reproducibility of the published method.
Finally, before someone says: "Papers were published, the scientific community couldn't reproduce the results, and the papers were retracted, all within six months. The peer-review process worked! Hugs all around!", please consider the following:
Last December, this submitter's lab submitted a grant application to the U.S. National Institutes of Health, in which we proposed work on a new cell-reprogramming method. Our application was rejected in March (after the publication of the STAP-cell papers, but before the integrity of the papers had been seriously questioned) because, as one reviewer put it, "The [...] field continues to move fast [...] A case in point is the recent successes in reprogramming cells just by stressing the cells in culture" (referencing the now-discredited STAP-cell papers). The point here is that, in our current system, scarce public research funding is allocated before erroneous and/or fraudulent papers can be identified, investigated, and retracted. (btw, our resubmission application just received a great score and will hopefully be funded :), but we (and the patients who may eventually benefit from our work) still lost six months due to the initial rejection :(
A study conducted by UC Davis (Sacremento) has looked at video-conferencing with family, friends for pediatric patients:
To ease isolation during extended hospitalizations, UC Davis Children's Hospital offers secure video-conferencing for patients and families. While anecdotal accounts have suggested the Family-Link program enhances quality of life during long hospital stays, clinicians wondered if the technology also offered clinical benefits. To answer that, a team led by UC Davis professor James Marcin studied 367 children who were hospitalized for at least four days. They found that access to Family-Link significantly reduced patient stress. The study was published in the journal Pediatrics.
As the popularity of applications like Skype and FaceTime have increased, so has the number of patients interested in using these applications to communicate with family and friends. UC Davis Children's Hospital pioneered the Family-Link program, which provides patients with laptops, web-cams and secure internet connections. Overall, children who used Family-Link experienced a greater reduction in stress than children who did not use Family-Link. Oddly, this effect was even more pronounced for children who lived closer to the hospital and had shorter hospitalizations. This group experienced a 37 percent stress reduction when using Family-Link.
In addition to the stress survey, families were also asked about the quality of the video, audio and overall Family-Link experience. The responses were uniformly positive with the majority of parents rating the program excellent or good.
"This study shows that we have another tool to help children during their hospital stays", said Yang. "The improvement in stress scores shows that Family-Link is really helping many children and might possibly be improving outcomes."
Two Germany-based Tor Directory Authority servers, among others, have been specifically targeted by the National Security Agency's XKeyscore program, according to a new report from German public broadcaster ARD. Tor is a well-known open source project designed to keep users anonymous and untraceable-users' traffic is encrypted and bounced across various computers worldwide to keep it hidden.
This marks the first time that actual source code from XKeyscore has been published. ARD did not say how or where it obtained the code. Unlike many other NSA-related stories, the broadcaster did not specifically mention the information being part of the trove leaked by whistleblower Edward Snowden.
Way back in 2010, Gliese 581g made waves as "the Goldilocks planet". It was the first planet scientists found within the habitable zone - the region around a star where it's not too hot and not too cold for liquid water to endure on a planet's surface. But after the initial excitement about finding a planet that could potentially support life, some scientists started to seriously doubt whether Gliese 581g was really there, because the signal was weak. Despite all the debate, lots of astronomers listed Gliese 581g as the top spot to look for alien life. Now, new research says that Gliese 581g doesn't actually exist.
Astronomers can't actually see the planets in the Gliese 581 star system. Instead, they detected the planetary candidates by monitoring the star's light. As a planet orbits, its gravity tugs on the star and distorts the light coming off it, changing the wavelengths and thus the color of light that reaches telescopes here on Earth. (Here's a longer explanation of the radial velocity technique, if you're interested.) The problem is that the star also moves, and as it rotates its sunspots and other solar activity also distort the light coming off of it.
Reuters reports:
Goldman Sachs Group Inc said a contractor emailed confidential client data to a stranger's Gmail account by mistake, and the bank has asked a U.S. judge to order Google Inc to delete the email to avert a "needless and massive" breach of privacy.
The breach occurred on June 23 and included "highly confidential brokerage account information," Goldman said in a complaint filed last Friday in a New York state court in Manhattan.
Ars Technica reports:
At the request of investment bank Goldman Sachs, Google has blocked access to a sensitive e-mail that the bank mistakenly sent to a random Gmail account. Google confirmed to Goldman Sachs that the e-mail had not yet been opened by the recipient, according to a report late Wednesday from Reuters.
The e-mail in question, filled with confidential brokerage account information, was accidentally sent to a gmail.com address instead of a gs.com address by a contractor on June 23. Goldman Sachs tried to contact the e-mail account holder and then got in touch with Google, which initially said it would not take action without a court order. Goldman Sachs then filed for such a court order in a New York state court.
In a number of studies people were left alone with their thoughts and no outside activities. Most reported they did not like it and found it uncomfortable.
The period of time that Wilson and his colleagues asked participants to be alone with their thoughts ranged from six to 15 minutes. Many of the first studies involved college student participants, most of whom reported that this "thinking period" wasn't very enjoyable and that it was hard to concentrate. So Wilson conducted another study with participants from a broad selection of backgrounds, ranging in age from 18 to 77, and found essentially the same results.
"That was surprising — that even older people did not show any particular fondness for being alone thinking," Wilson said.
He does not necessarily attribute this to the fast pace of modern society, or the prevalence of readily available electronic devices, such as smartphones. Instead, he thinks the devices might be a response to people's desire to always have something to do.
A further study allowed participants to self-administer an unpleasant electric shock. Over half of the men and a quarter of the women did this.
Most people seem to prefer to be doing something rather than nothing, even if that something is negative.
Abstract is available here.