Engadget reports: The Wall Street Journal has learned that Google is considering "severe penalties" against internet giant IAC (InterActive Corp) over allegedly deceptive practices in its Chrome extensions. The browser extras reportedly promise features that never materialize, point users toward additional ads, or even trick users into installing them. A Google audit reportedly found that some of IAC's voting ads not only didn't take users to voter info, but installed the Ask.com toolbar and changed users' default home pages. IAC kept running those ads even after Google told the company to stop. The full range of potential punishments isn't clear, but Google is considering banning them, according to WSJ sources and leaked documents

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Engadget reports: The Wall Street Journal has learned that Google is considering "severe penalties" against internet giant IAC (InterActive Corp) over allegedly deceptive practices in its Chrome extensions. The browser extras reportedly promise features that never materialize, point users toward additional ads, or even trick users into installing them. A Google audit reportedly found that some of IAC's voting ads not only didn't take users to voter info, but installed the Ask.com toolbar and changed users' default home pages. IAC kept running those ads even after Google told the company to stop. The full range of potential punishments isn't clear, but Google is considering banning them, according to WSJ sources and leaked documents

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Engadget reports: The Wall Street Journal has learned that Google is considering "severe penalties" against internet giant IAC (InterActive Corp) over allegedly deceptive practices in its Chrome extensions. The browser extras reportedly promise features that never materialize, point users toward additional ads, or even trick users into installing them. A Google audit reportedly found that some of IAC's voting ads not only didn't take users to voter info, but installed the Ask.com toolbar and changed users' default home pages. IAC kept running those ads even after Google told the company to stop. The full range of potential punishments isn't clear, but Google is considering banning them, according to WSJ sources and leaked documents

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

All the videos have now appeared online for the talks at this year's virtual EmacsConf 2020, "the conference about the joy of Emacs, Emacs Lisp, and memorizing key sequences." And among them are an appearance by 67-year-old Richard Stallman, reminding the audience he'd created the first Emacs editor in 1976 "with some help from Guy Steele," then created GNU Emacs in 1984. Stallman was there to tell the history of the GNU Emacs Lisp Package Archive (and the licensing issues involved) — and how it's ultimately led to the creation of the NonGNU ELPA. "The fundamental plan of NonGNU ELPA is that we won't ask for copyright assignments for those packages, so we won't be able to put them into core Emacs, at least not easily — but we will have some control over how we distribute them. We can put any package into NonGNU ELPA as long as its free software. "If we like it, we can set up that way for users to get it. We can put the package in exactly as it is, if there's no problem at all with it. We can make an arrangement with the package's developers to work on it with us and maintain it directly for distribution by NonGNU ELPA. But if they are not interested, we can put it in ourselves, and if we need to make any changes we can do so. So NonGNU ELPA is not meant to be just a way that others can distribute their packages. Its meant at least in a minimal, technical sense to work with GNU Emacs, and we will make changes if necessary so that it works smoothly with GNU Emacs... "The idea is to have a single Git repository where you can download various packages, but they won't be maintained there. Each of those packages will be copied automatically from some other place, probably some other people have the right access to work on it. This way we can avoid giving a gigantic number of people access to it. "So far NonGNU ELPA is just a plan. We need people to implement the plan, so if you'd like to help, please write to me. I think this is a very important step for progress, and it's got to be implemented. Thanks, and happy hacking." Stallman provided a status update on NonGNU ELPA as part of the 46-minute Q&A that followed. "The creation of it has started. There's an archive and you can download packages. There's a repository to put it in... Still working out the procedures, how to make the arrangements with developers, etc." But he also answered questions on other topics. Some highlights: Q: Which distro of GNU/Linux do you use? guix? or something else? RMS: Trisquel. Q: If you knew that you would get hit by a bus tomorrow, say because of a fortune-teller, what would you leave behind in terms of advice for stewardship of Emacs and its future? RMS: Focus on keeping the community strong in defending freedom. If given the choice to have more people developing the software or defending the software, choose the latter. Guard your soul carefully... :P Q: Would you mind sharing your Emacs configuration files? RMS: Configuration files are personal and will not be shared.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

By the 2040s most of southern England may no longer get sub-zero days, new Met Office data suggests.

By the 2040s most of southern England may no longer get sub-zero days, new Met Office data suggests.

By the 2040s most of southern England may no longer get sub-zero days, new Met Office data suggests.

The Washington Post tells the remarkable story of how both Moderna's vaccine and the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine relied on a specially designed spike protein partially created by America's Vaccine Research Center — along with messenger RNA, "a technology never before harnessed in an approved vaccine." And also decades of path-breaking research: If, as expected in the next few weeks, regulators give those vaccines the green light, the technology and the precision approach to vaccine design could turn out to be the pandemic's silver linings: scientific breakthroughs that could begin to change the trajectory of the virus this winter and also pave the way for highly effective vaccines and treatments for other diseases. Vaccine development typically takes years, even decades. The progress of the last 11 months shifts the paradigm for what's possible, creating a new model for vaccine development and a toolset for a world that will have to fight more never-before-seen viruses in years to come. But the pandemic wasn't a sudden eureka moment — it was a catalyst that helped ignite lines of research that had been moving forward for years, far outside the spotlight of a global crisis... Long before the pandemic, [Vaccine Research Center deputy director Barney] Graham worked with colleagues there and in academia to create a particularly accurate 3-D version of the spiky proteins that protrude from the surface of coronaviruses — an innovation that was rejected for publication by scientific journals five times because reviewers questioned its relevance. His laboratory partnered with one of the companies, Moderna, working to develop a fast and flexible vaccine technology, in the hope that science would be ready to respond when a pandemic appeared. "People hear about [vaccine progress] and think someone just thought about it that night. The amount of work — it's really a beautiful story of fundamental basic research,", said Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases [of which the center is an intramural division]... The leading coronavirus vaccine candidates in the United States began their development not in January when a mysterious pneumonia emerged in Wuhan, China, but decades ago — with starts and stops along the way.... Unlike fields that were sparked by a single powerful insight, [Ugur Sahin, chief executive of BioNTech] said that the recent success of messenger RNA vaccines is a story of countless improvements that turned an alluring biological idea into a beneficial technology. "This is a field which benefited from hundreds of inventions," said Sahin, who noted that when he started BioNTech in 2008, he cautioned investors that the technology would not yield a product for at least a decade. He kept his word: Until the coronavirus sped things along, BioNTech projected the launch of its first commercial project in 2023... On Jan. 13, Moderna RNA scientist Melissa Moore came into work and found her team already busy translating the stabilized spike protein into their platform. The company could start making the vaccine almost right away because of its experience manufacturing experimental cancer vaccines, which involves taking tumor samples and developing personalized vaccines in 45 days. The Post tries to convey how meaningful this moment is for the scientists involved. Years ago one BioNTech scientist had told their spouse, "I just want to live long enough that I can help the RNA go to the patient. I want to see...at least one person would be helped with this treatment." And when the Vaccine Research Center's deputy director finally learned how effective the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine was, "I just let it all go. "I was sobbing, I guess, is the term."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

We're focusing a lot of attention on the crazy lies of one crazy person, and ignoring the truth all around us.

The Verge reports that a power component failed on the Orion deep-space crew capsule that NASA hopes to launch (unmanned) from its Space Launch System (or SLS) in late 2021, in a mission called Artemis 1. The problem? It's buried deep within one of the spacecraft's power/data units (or PDUs) within the adapter that connects the capsule to its power/propulsion trunk "service module," so there's no easy way to fix it: As many as nine months would be needed to take the vehicle apart and put it back together again, in addition to three months for subsequent testing, according to the presentation. Lockheed has another option, but it's never been done before and may carry extra risks, Lockheed Martin engineers acknowledge in their presentation. To do it, engineers would have to tunnel through the adapter's exterior by removing some of the outer panels of the adapter to get to the PDU. The panels weren't designed to be removed this way, but this scenario may only take up to four months to complete if engineers figure out a way to do it. A third option is that Lockheed Martin and NASA could fly the Orion capsule as is. The PDU failed in such a way that it lost redundancy within the unit, so it can still function. But at a risk-averse agency like NASA, flying a vehicle without a backup plan is not exactly an attractive option... If engineers choose to remove Orion from its service module, the capsule's first flight on the SLS may be delayed past its current date of November 2021. But the SLS has experienced its own set of delays: it was supposed to fly for the first time in 2017 but hasn't done so yet. It's not clear if the SLS itself will make the November 2021 flight date either; a key test of the rocket coming up at the end of the year has been pushed back, with no new target date set. So it's possible that Lockheed Martin and NASA can fix Orion before the SLS is ready to fly. Any further delays to Artemis I add uncertainty to NASA's lunar landing timeline. NASA is hoping to land astronauts on the Moon by 2024, though many experts are skeptical that such a mission can be pulled off in time. Artemis I is vulnerable to other possible delays, but the component failure adds one more level of uncertainty to when the Orion and SLS combo will get off the ground.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Andrew Shell is now blogging using an outliner.

Long-time Slashdot reader sixoh1 shares "an interesting spin on biotechnology tools that we've been seeing explode lately like Crisper-CAS and mRNA." Ars Technica writes: This is in no way a route to a practical therapy, but it does provide a fantastic window into what we can accomplish by manipulating biology. The whole effort described in the new paper is focused on a simple idea: if you figure out how to wreck one of the virus's key proteins, it won't be able to infect anything. And, conveniently, our cells have a system for destroying proteins, since that's often a useful thing to do... This system relies on a small protein called "ubiquitin." When a protein is to be targeted for destruction, enzymes called ubiquitin ligases chemically link a chain of ubiquitins to it. These serve as a tag that is recognized by enzymes that digest any proteins with ubiquitin attached to them. So, the idea behind the new work is to identify a key viral protein and figure out how to attach ubiquitin to it... Unfortunately, there are no proteins that attach ubiquitin to the viral spike protein. Or, rather, there were no proteins that fit that description. But a team at Harvard has now produced one. They fed atomic-level details of the proteins' structure into software that finds the most energetically-favored interactions between proteins, simulated mutations, and eventually engineered the most promising ones to test their efficacy, ultimately cutting the presence of the viral spike protein in tested cells by 60 percent. Ars Technica ultimately calls it "A mildly insane idea for disabling the coronavirus," though "Unfortunately, it's also likely to be absolutely useless... this is likely to be a non-starter, especially given that there are promising vaccines and many other potential therapies ahead of it in the pipeline for safety testing." Yet "while the details of this work aren't really significant, the fact that we've developed all the underlying technology needed for it is worth keeping in mind."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

When we were first rolling out podcasting in the winter of 2004, we had a hard time getting anyone in established media to listen. I think people could have understood, but they didn't make the effort to listen.

It does take effort to listen, I've seen it in myself. We just have our heads down and are focused on what we do. It's even worse today, sixteen years later.

Trump stumbled across the idea we were selling, me, @ev, the other blogging and RSS folk. Trump understood it intuitively, we understood it technologically (and some of us as writers and designers).

So now this method of communication is owned by the tabloids, only worse. Real journalism is reduced to writing about the hoaxes spread in the more powerful media channel.

To win, we have to work together. The people with a vision for how the tech could help, and the people who are able to actually run the complex machinery of government.

We. Have. To. Work. Together.

In the past when that happened, when there was real collaboration, the result was explosive, in a good way.

If you haven't tried thread.center, you should. We're going to eventually figure out how to merge the outliner and Twitter. thread.center is on that path.

sciencehabit summarizes a new article from Science magazine: Attention racehorse jockeys: Start fast, but save enough energy for a final kick. That's the ideal strategy to win short-distance horse races, according to the first mathematical model to calculate how horses use up energy in races. The researchers say the approach could be used to identify customized pacing plans that, in theory, would optimize individual horses' chances of winning. The team took advantage of a new GPS tracking tool embedded in French racing saddles. The trackers let fans watch digital images of the horses move across a screen, and they gave the researchers real-time speed and position data. The scientists studied patterns in dozens of races at the Chantilly racetracks north of Paris and developed a model that accounted for winning strategies for three different races: a short one (1300 meters), a medium one (1900 meters), and a slightly longer one (2100 meters), all with different starting points on the same curved track. The model takes into account not just different race distances, but also the size and bend of track curves, and any slopes or friction from the track surface. The results might surprise jockeys who hold horses back early for bursts of energy in the last furlough. Instead, a strong start leads to a better finish, the team found. That doesn't mean those jockeys are wrong, though. Too strong of a start can be devastating as well, leaving the horse 'exhausted by the end,' one of the researchers says. Even so, "We can't truly model performance," argues a veterinarian at the University of Sydney with over 30 years of experience working at horse racetracks. But he also asks Science, "Do we really want to? "For people who love horse racing, the uncertainty provides the excitement, and the actual running of the horses provides the spectacle and the beauty."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.