This article is an ouroboros of self-citation and speculation. The lead author, McCullough, is a known proponent of Hydroychloroquine, denier of asymptomatic spread of covid, and a paid, invited speaker at right wing and anti-vaxx conferences (see his Wikipedia for citations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_A._McCullough). This "research" paper offers lots of speculation, and very little data. The number of times these authors made unfounded and spurious confusion spurious is too high to mention all of them. I'll call out one example -"There were 3,657 cases of anosmia (loss of smell), clearly
demonstrating that the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein from the injec-
tion in the arm was reaching the olfactory nerve." None of the authors are qualified to make this claim, the authors made no attempt to rule out confounding factors like prior Covid-19 infection, and no direct evidence for thistle claim was presented. Tl;Dr - the article is bad science and should be ignored
From wiki "McCullough has contradicted public health recommendations ... by suggesting that healthy persons under 30 had no need for a vaccine".
How many people do you knew personally under 30 and dead because of covid? According to official statistic in my country, it is 0,0048% dead people under 30 with positive PCR (not necessary dying only because of covid). 48 dead people under age 30 in 2 years of pandemic. So this wiki text is irrelevant and McCullough has data for his statement.
Can we hold the rushed and botched safety trials that “prove” that the vaccine is safe and effective to the same standards as this article is being held to?
Yeah, we actually do that. Here's the Phase III trial for Pfizer's vaccine where they did a RCT of 43,000 people. They published their efficacy and safety end points (as well as criteria for stopping the trial if they found safety issues) before enrollment and show the results as well. They're following the same patients for two years to assess long-term safety as well:
The trials were not botched, and we have an absolutely enormous amount of information about the safety of the vaccines now from many different studies.
They have studies that fertility is not effected in the short term, but that is it. Nothing about how the pregnancies actually progressed.
Basically their evidence they have for the vaccines safety for pregnancy is lack of evidence of harm (which is not even true as there are studies that indicate the mRNA might be harmful in this regard). This is completely backwards. They should be on the hook for proving safety, not the other way around.
I personally cannot trust the safety data of the mRNA vaccines. I anecdotally know a handful of people that have suffered harm after vaccination. This on it's own means nothing, but the part that bothers me is that all their doctors don't want to entertain the idea that their problems were caused by the vaccine, because the vaccine is "safe and effective". None of their issues were even entered into VAERS. This is completely backwards.
I'm a little confused why the NHMFL home page ended up in my hacker news RSS feed, but I received my PhD here and thus feel obligated to comment and upvote...
PhD in molecular biophysics here (did virology rotation in grad school also). There's not enough time to go into how bad the "science" is in this paper. Evidence is cherry-picked, and circumstantial at best. Lots of non-sequitors presented that are unconnected to the actual science. I've read earlier claims that are similar to this and basically they see low alignment similarity to commercially available vectors and claim "AHA it must be engineered". But anyone who has studied molecular biology knows that vectors are almost always derived from natural viruses. Also, while viral linkages are normally linear, crossover between viri in hosts is well documented and does occur "rarely". That's say it's rare compared to normal genetic drift, but common enough that it's not particularly surprising to see genetic material from another "vector" in the wild. It does not have to be lab derived to see the mutations observed. Once you call into question this fundamental premise, everything else looks like the scientific trash that it is.
The major (and really only) criticism of Finder is a lack of an "address" bar. I would really like a bar where I can change directories quickly instead of doing ALL navigation using mouse clicks. Yes, I know you can invoke a Command-Shift-G to do this in a secondary menu, but Explorer has this built in. Having an address bar with tab completion and unix file-system shortcut support (i.e. "~", ".", "..") would be great!
This may help. One little-known feature: if you drag a folder to a File Open/Save dialog, it'll navigate to that folder! (This is unlike Windows, where it would move that folder.)
If you have the folder already open in another Finder window, you can drag its icon next to the title in the titlebar (top of window.)
You can also drag a folder (or that icon) to Terminal to grab the path.
Since I always seem to have a Terminal window or three open for one reason or another, I quite often find myself just typing (e.g.) "open ~/physics/books/" when I need that sort of thing. If you don't have Terminal up, it's more of a pain. (Spotlight isn't as handy for that use, though it can be pretty effective in other ways.)
The "Go to Folder" input box does support command completion (e.g., type Command-Shift-G, enter "~/Doc", and type Tab), but it's super lame compared to what you get on the command line: Finder only gives you the first possible completion. So if you want to open up "~/Library/Application Support", you have to type all the way up to the "u" before hitting tab, because "~/Library/Application Scripts" is the first match.
Agreed. I think that Apple wants to keep things simple, but this is a reasonable option for power users. Heck, I would settle for being able to enter paths in the search widget! It would be trivial to interpret searches starting with forward slash to be interpreted as "go to that path".
The best way I've found to mimic an address bar is to use Command-Shift-G to open the "Go to this address" dialog. It gets the job done well enough when I do end up using Finder over Terminal.
In the terminal (iterm2 of course), I find vim with the solarized theme (http://ethanschoonover.com/solarized) combined with he right plugins to be a beautiful and useful text editor. In the gui, I really love sublime text (http://www.sublimetext.com/). Atom is also quite nice, so you really can't go wrong with that
I assume you want a desktop computer? Dell has great hardware support for debian/ubuntu and RH/Cent OS. I (think) you can purchase a desktop without an OS from their SMB store. Definitely get something with a spinning platter and pop in your own SSD. It will save you a lot of money.Why not build your own desktop? If you want to get the best deal and guaranteed hardware support, read some component reviews on http://www.phoronix.com/ and put it together yourself. Good luck!
I just tried this in zsh 5.0.6 (x86_64-apple-darwin13.3.0). It reports vulnerable as well.
edit: Yes, this feature works when formatted correctly for zsh as "function ls () { echo vulnerable }". However, I was wrong in that zsh -c will not run the function (of course running "ls" in the same session will). I'm going to call this not a problem.
edit: When trying this one-liner in zsh: "env x='() { :;}; echo vulnerable' zsh -c 'echo hello'" (as suggested by https://superuser.com/questions/816622/does-the-shellshock-b...), the output indicates my shell is vulnerable. Could someone please try and replicate?
This is how you define a shell function and then use it in sub-scripts.
As the author noted, using this as an exploit requires control of the variable names, and common tools (httpd, dhclient, etc) that set variables in environment have explicit naming conventions in place to prevent this.
To be clear: I'll change my tune if someone finds a way to exploit this remotely.
Yes, if you have full control over the environment you can make all sorts of havoc ($PATH, $LD_PRELOAD, ...) What made shellshock special is that you only needed to control the value of a variable, not its name.
I don't see how this qualifies as much of a vulnerability. Maybe now that bash's imported-function feature is better known we'll see it leveraged as part of a multi-step attack though.
Good call. I posted an edit to my original comment. zsh -c won't run the function outside of the current session. The "extra step" needed to add functions to the environment variables seems to make zsh much more secure than bash in the context of this discussion (perhaps?). This SE thread was really helpful to me in clarifying: https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/33255/how-to-define...
I posted an edit to my original comment. I meant that the equivalent defining of a function (in zsh) does work, but zsh -c won't run the function unless you permanently add the function to your env.
I'm running OSX mavericks 10.9.5, use zsh as my default shell, and have a patched version of bash build from homebrew repo set as secondary in /etc/shells (on the occasion I need bash, I like to have completions). System bash is still vulnerable. With my current configuration, how worried should I be?
Yes, you are still vulnerable. I happen to be on Mountain Lion instead of Mavericks, but you can easily check yourself.
$ /bin/sh --version
GNU bash, version 3.2.48(1)-release (x86_64-apple-darwin12)
Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
As long as you have a /bin/sh or /bin/bash that is of a vulnerable version, then any shell script which begins with #!/bin/sh or #!/bin/bash, and is executed in an environment that could have environment variables set by an attacker, could leave you vulnerable.
Installing a version via homebrew and setting it up in /etc/shells doesn't help. What you need to do is replace /bin/sh and /bin/bash. I don't know what effects this will have; it will likely work fine, but if you were to try it, I'd recommend backing up the old buggy versions first, so you could replace them if something went wrong. I'd recommend replacing them with a version as close as possible to what you were replacing, with just the one patch applied, as there may be scripts which behave subtly differently in Bash 4 vs Bash 3 that ships with OS X.
I'm not completely sure, but from what I understand unless you have some cgi shell scripts on a webserver running on your machine (or another way for someone to invoke bash with custom environment vars) I think you're fine.
This really depends on how practical you want to get. One of the biggest problems in hospitals is (lack of) staffing. Having a robot that could go around the rooms and check on low-level, treatment related problems would be a huge improvement in patient care. Imagine using CV to check on IV pumps for flow rate, how much of the drug is left, is it leaking, does the patient need more IV fluids, does the name on the drug label match the patient's, etc. These are low level problems that can lead to injury and death of patients in hospitals, and usually handled by overworked nurses. Seems like a perfect application of CV to me.
Interesting idea, thanks! gonna think on how rfid or similar tagging can help to avoid adding complex CV algorithms where much easier alternatives could be offered. There are some robots moving around trolleys with items already there, so staff and patients are getting used to see machines sharing same corridors
New rfid applications would be great and by means pursue them! The reason I think this is a great problem for CV is that right now, only a nurse would be able to tell if there is a puddle on the floor from a leaking IV, patient's puke, overflown catheter bag, etc. Also is there air in a line, does the label on the drug match the prescription in EMR? These are common sense, cheap to fix / prevent problems that I'm not sure rfid could solve. RFID would be great for matching drug labeled with rfid with chip in patient's armband. One could think of lots of implementations for that sort of thing!
I guess it really comes down to what sort of focus you want your project to take, and what idea you think your PI will be interested in considering. Good luck!
