Isn’t it the case that when you’re an undergraduate you do the grunt work and collect and process all the base data, and the risk is actually on the side of the supervisor?
As far as I know, writing a research paper at all as an undergraduate is unusual.
In the US, afaik, the purpose of undergraduate work is to learn the material of the field. A Phd program then teaches the student how to do research in a field and the student goes on to do actual research only then.
An undergraduate would do a research paper as independent study or a special department class I think. With the provision that advisor is doing a lot of hand holding.
So handing fake data to someone's whose effectively a complete newby and letting them process it and publish it as their first achievement, is really despicable as the article seems to describe.
The base data in this case was (supposedly) collected by the Canadian Centre for DNA Barcoding, rather than anyone in the lab. However that Centre denies having the samples in their database.
> Don't ever hire someone with recent Norton experience I their resume.
This is pretty ridiculous. I worked there and and there is much more going on internally than writing malware-like software. By the time I left they still had pretty decent engineers just trying to find a job in a better company, like me.
These sort of decisions don't come from Software Engineers and management there is known to be pretty shitty.
Also, it's not like they maliciously inserted this thing to mine crypto for Norton itself. Whatever your computer mines is yours (still a bad idea though IMO)
> it's not like they maliciously inserted this thing to mine crypto for Norton itself. Whatever your computer mines is yours
It says you're joined to a mining pool. Is this a Norton 360-only mining pool? If so, I'm guessing they have their own hardware participating in the pool as well. And if that's the case, you're helping them mine for blocks just as much as you're helping yourself. But they don't say that anywhere so who knows.
edit: and it also appears that they're taking 15% of whatever you mine.
So they've apparently:
* Set up a Norton-only pool
* Joined all their customers computers to it
* Collect 360 subscription fees to participate
* Collect 15% of everything their customers mine
* Participate in the pool themselves, further benefiting from their customers mining activity
And what happens to the unclaimed/unused wallets that they're holding for their oblivious customers in "the cloud"? If I cared enough about this to read the fine print I bet I'll find that they're reserving the right to empty those after a certain period of inactivity.
Users must explicitly agree to a Norton Crypto License and Services Agreement and activate mining before the software starts mining Ethereum. It is unlikely there would be any oblivious customers.
Bundling software like this is a malware move. I don't care if they give you the option to not install it, it's no better than the installers that add malware toolbars to your browser if you don't catch the 8th level of dropdowns you need to navigate to not install it.
When I install a pdf reader, I expect a pdf reader and nothing else. When I install anti virus software, that's the only thing I want.
This is key. I'm going to install Norton 360 on my other PC tonight and see what the process is. My concern is that they're counting on all of the senior citizens (I'm assuming that's their near exclusive user base at this point) who have been using Norton for years will accidentally install this thinking they're simply updating the program. The installation process will be very telling.
>and there is much more going on internally than writing malware-like software
that sentence doesn't exactly inspire confidence lol. So you're saying people are aware of the fact that they're partially writing malware like software and that's.. accepted? That's like an accounting firm saying "don't judge us like that, there's much more going on here than the money laundering"
I'm saying no such thing. What I am saying is that I find this 'we're just code monkeys, we don't enact policy' retort I see so frequently here incredibly annoying, because it acts like programmers are not human beings with agency in a market with typically extreme mobility.
If they're trying to leave and can't leave because nobody will hire them because they work(ed) somewhere bad (that's the original comment in this thread; never trusting a Norton employee's resume) and you're also criticising them for "choosing" to continue working there, what chance does that give them? That isn't having agency in a market.
If "the decision to work and continue working there" is a bad one, that makes the decision to leave a better decision, yes? And the person who makes such a decision, a better person. And if you want to hire people who have agency and act with integrity, someone who left Norton is a slightly higher signal than someone who never heard of Norton, isn't it?
You can't just keep repeating "saying no such thing" when you (they) are saying such a thing.
They joined in to a root comment reminding people to reject Norton employee resumes, by saying that Norton people who don't get other jobs are morally bad people and programmers are free agents who could get other jobs (by implication they would do so if they were morally good people). Under this worldview, leaving shows moral goodness so hiring them should be encouraged more than hiring a random person. Saying "nuh uh" isn't enough to wriggle out of it.
That's ridiculous. You also joined the discussion; by your own flawed logic, shouldn't we also determine everything everything you have said in this thread as being in support of the argument put forth in the root comment?
What specifically do you disagree with, or consider flawed logic, or ridiculous?
1. Pick a human at random, you have no information
about their character.
2. Hurting people is bad.
3. It is possible to unknowingly hurt people, which does
not reflect on moral character.
4. Learning that you are hurting people, and then continuing
to do so is morally bad.
5. Learning that you are hurting people, and then stopping
is morally better.
6. Therefore you have more information of good moral character
about someone who has learned that they are hurting people and stopped,
than about the unknown person in 1.
7. It is not reasonable to expect every job seeking person to know
about every company reputation, or the crypto miner management might
ask them to work on at some point in future.
8. Working at a company involves learning a lot more about what they do.
9. Learning that what they do is hurting people, and leaving,
is more evidence of moral goodness than you know about
an unknown random job applicant from an unknown previous employer.
Or, alternately if you don't disagree with any of those, perhaps you disagree with the idea that someone could work for Norton not knowing in advance they would be harming people, so that counts as morally bad. Then you either think "hire morally bad people" or you agree with the root claim "remember don't hire Norton programmers".
If so, then you disagree with the parent commenter's "everyone has the freedom to get another job" because if nobody should hire them, they don't have said freedom.
>Also, it's not like they maliciously inserted this thing to mine crypto for Norton itself.
No, but it is still malicious in the sense that it:
(1) does not inform the user or ask for consent
(2) seemingly does not offer an option to disable it
While I want to apply Occam's razor here, you'd have to assume all of the people that worked on this were negligent or unqualified... when sadly the more likely scenario is that these decisions were most likely intentional.
> (2) seemingly does not offer an option to disable it
Where do you see this? As far as I can tell, it is off by default, and the user must explicitly enable it (consent) to use the miner.
See e.g. https://support.norton.com/sp/en/us/home/current/solutions/v... which mentions a License and Services Agreement that must be accepted before the miner can be used at all, and clearly says the mining status can be toggled between Active and Paused.
I'm sure you wrote this in jest, but in case people aren't aware: The "Stealth" in "Stealth bomber" refer to hiding the plane from anti-aircraft defenses like radar, infrared, acoustics and some optical visibility, but the anti-reflective paint that is used for hiding it optically is only on the underside, not on the top.
I wonder if imaging from above could actually be a threat for these planes. I mean -- stick cameras on all the SpaceX satellites and you've got an awful lot of eyeballs in LEO, right? Might at least be able to tell a ground based radar where to focus their search...
Pretty sure you need powerful lenses to do useful things though, but who knows, maybe this is workable with some image processing of multiple satellite feeds?
Yeah, I'm sure somebody is already doing good work on whatever the photographic equivalent of Synthetic Aperture Radar is. They should call it Synthetic Lens Aperture Photography, so they could use SLAP as the acronym (the most important property of a research topic is of course the ability to come up with good titles).
For example:
SLAP BASS: a Synthetic Lens Aperture Photography, Bandwidth Augmenting Sensor Suite
Does it make technical sense? I have no idea. But it sounds cool!
During the 1999 yugoslavia bombings, after the first one was shot down, there was a joking apology on the TV, something along the lines of "Sorry, we didn't see it" :)
Not just the “F” (“A” would be expected from role), also the “117” was anomalous (under the standard numbering convention, it should have been something like the 19 if it was in the F series, which is the designation that speculation about it was typically associated with before it was officially announced.)
Sort of. IIRC they take quick back to back photos with different filters that share an image sensor, so the smearing you're seeing is the combined motion vectors of the satellite and the aircraft.
you can see the engine exhaust plums, and that would be pretty bright in IR. Very hard to hide burning that much fuel. If you magnify a bit you also can see that the engine exists are pretty bright even in visible wavelength (though that isn't visible from the below and front of the plane).
