Linux fréttir

MAPP program to blame?

A week after Microsoft told the world that its July software updates didn't fully fix a couple of bugs, which allowed miscreants to take over on-premises SharePoint servers and remotely execute code, researchers have assembled much of the puzzle — with one big missing piece.…

"So far, all lifeforms on Earth have a phosphorous-based chemistry, particularly as the backbone of DNA," writes longtime Slashdot reader bshell. "In 2010, a paper was published in Science claiming that arsenic-based bacteria were living in a California lake (in place of phosphorous). That paper was finally retracted by the journal Science the other day." From a report: : Some scientists are celebrating the move, but the paper's authors disagree with it -- saying that they stand by their data and that a retraction is not merited. In Science's retraction statement, editor-in-chief Holden Thorp says that the journal did not retract the paper when critics published take-downs of the work because, back then, it mostly reserved retractions for cases of misconduct, and "there was no deliberate fraud or misconduct on the part of the authors" of the arsenic-life paper. But since then, Science's criteria for retracting papers have expanded, he writes, and "if the editors determine that a paper's reported experiments do not support its key conclusions," as is the case for this paper, a retraction is now appropriate. "It's good that it's done," says microbiologist Rosie Redfield, who was a prominent critic of the study after its publication in 2010 and who is now retired from the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. "Pretty much everybody knows that the work was mistaken, but it's still important to prevent newcomers to the literature from being confused." By contrast, one of the paper's authors, Ariel Anbar, a geochemist at Arizona State University in Tempe, says that there are no mistakes in the paper's data. He says that the data could be interpreted in a number of ways, but "you don't retract because of a dispute about data interpretation." If that's the standard you were to apply, he says, "you'd have to retract half the literature."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

alternative_right shares a report from Phys.org: Driven by high temperatures in the Gulf, Hurricane Ian rapidly intensified from a Category 3 to Category 5 before making landfall in Southwest Florida on September 28, 2022. The deadly storm caught many by surprise and became the costliest hurricane in state history. Now, researchers from the University of South Florida say they've identified what may have caused Ian to develop so quickly. A strong ocean current called the Loop Current failed to circulate water in the shallow region of the Gulf. As a result, subsurface waters along the West Coast of Florida remained unusually warm during the peak of hurricane season. [...] The researchers found that if the Loop Current reaches an area near the Dry Tortugas, which they call the "pressure point," it can flush warm waters from the West Florida Shelf and replace it with cold water from deeper regions of the Gulf. This pressure point is where the shallow contours of the seafloor converge, forcing cold water to the surface in a process known as upwelling. In the months leading up to Hurricane Ian, the Loop Current did not reach the pressure point, leaving the waters on the shelf unmixed, which caused both the surface and subsurface waters on the West Florida Shelf to remain warm throughout summer. The findings have been published in Geophysical Research Letters.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.