|
To me it's weird because people charged under the law weren't under oath.
|
|
|
|
|
That does make it even weirder 
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
I still haven't seen what they're charging him with.
Your honour, the accused was offered a research job and accepted it! Lock! Him! Up!
He went outside the bounds of a "policy", not broke a law, and the guy's a total geek, so he probably didn't have a clue about it, until it was too late for such a geek to effectively negotiate a remedy for the situation.
Shirley you have to actually commit a crime, to be arrested and have your name plastered all over the news. If "taking a job in another country" is a crime, then I'm buggered all the way up the Yangtze.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
He's not been arrested for taking a job in another country, he's been arrested for lying about it:
Quote: Lieber received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Wuhan University of Technology (WUT) in China and agreed to lead a lab there — and that when US government agencies asked about his involvement with the programme he stated that he was not a participant and denied any formal affiliation with WUT.
Maybe they are trying to stop Coronavirus from affecting US researchers via email ... 
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Seriously?
You're telling me that lying is a criminal offence in the US? Well, someone oughtta be worried.
Shirley he made a perfect statement, and he did nothing wrong.
The second part of that sentence may well be true.
Accepting_a_job/a_fellowship/a_red_carpet_because_you're_a_genius != being_a_spy
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Under The Donald, it seems to be either a criminal offence or a required practice ... I just look on, and reach for the popcorn as the whole country seems to descend deeper into sitcom territory ...
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Has nothing to do with the President.... total nonsense. The man was asked specific questions, and I suspect he answered in writing...
Charlie Gilley
...Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape...
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|
|
charlieg wrote: I suspect he answered in writing
That was a mistake. Experts will tell you that you should hide documents, and avoid any scrutiny of reality.
He should have phoned, and had employees take brief notes of what he said. That's the perfect solution.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
The article leaves out a lot of details.
Here is his official charge listed as a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2).[^]
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
[...]
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
|
|
|
|
|
Whoa, so a certain-coloured person who lives in a certain coloured house will be in real trouble, when he moves out of the certain-coloured house -- he'll probably have to take up permanent residence in a more drably-coloured house.
No wonder he's trying to change the law to allow him to live their for life.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
My reading of this is that it is to do with potential conflicts of interest.
The US is very much in competition with China and there could be conflicts of interest in his work which is why he may have needed to declare his work with China.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
But arresting the guy, and probably putting the mockers on his Nobel prize?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
It has to do with the rules around federal grant money. To get it you agree to a very strict set of rules. When doing dev work for a medical research foundation, I worked on a number of federal grant funded projects. In the agreement we signed it specified that over-reporting (lying about) time worked on the project could be considered a federal offense and result in jail time.
You are also required to report if you own stock worth over a specific amount in any companies that might be affected from your work. Morals, ethics, and all that to try our best to keep research scientific and not influenced by biases. Most of it is best effort and operating under the assumption you are trying to be honest about it, slip-ups do occur, questions are asked, and if it turns out to be an honest mistake, no harm no foul but your next grant application might get extra scrutiny.
As others have mentioned, he got nailed for lying to federal authorities about money he received from foreign governments in concern with research he was conducting paid for in part by federal grants. If he had just said "Yes! I received money from them and here is why," up front I suspect he would be in the clear.
|
|
|
|
|
Good info, cheers.
The saddest part of this story is that they way this trivial "offence" (which is probably perfectly innocent, but he's just not good at dealing with confrontational situations) has been blown up, probably to score political points, his career will be pretty much in tatters, so he'll have little choice but to emigrate.
Way to give China the best Western brains, witch-hunters!
At least he'll have access to a state-of-the-art 5G network.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Amarnath S wrote: Did he not take an "Ethics 101" course?
Don't rely on that. Some do, but cheat on the final exam.
|
|
|
|
|
So I've just spent over two hours trying to figure out why one of the windows VMs on one of my machines won't allow connections (or even pings) from the others on the network, but will happily connect to all of them itself.
I went through absolutely everything I could think of: e.g. resetting the stacks and logs, setting a static IP, checking all the various sharing options, disabling the firewall, deleting the network adapter and reinstalling it, and even adding SMB 1 support (which I knew wouldn't make a blind bit of difference, but I was getting desperate).
I'm just about to give up and throw the bluddy thing out the window, when I take one last look in the the advanced form of the network and sharing CPL -- I scroll all the way down to the bottom, to see that "Turn on password protected sharing" is checked!
Ten seconds later, pings are happily flying in all directions, and all is right with the world.
I know the fix is always in the last place you look (which could have something to do with the fact that that's the point when you stop looking), but why did I have to take so long before looking there?!
I've never understood that option, anyway. It won't allow connections without a password, but it doesn't ask you for one.
Happy Thursday, everyone, given that Wednesday ended ages ago.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: It won't allow connections without a password, but it doesn't ask you for one.
That's the ultimate protection 
"Five fruits and vegetables a day? What a joke!
Personally, after the third watermelon, I'm full."
|
|
|
|
|
I've seen that checkbox, but I don't recall ever having to mess (much) with it.
Are your VMs/other systems standalone, or work in a domain environment? Most of my systems are joined to a domain, and so as long as it knows not to use the Public network profile, sharing tends to work out of the box for me.
Although by saying this I've no doubt seriously just jinxed myself.
|
|
|
|
|
I have been wondering for a few years why copying and deleting files in Windows seems to take so darn long! "Finding files..." step seemed to last forever. Why?
Because of an exception my code threw in Visual Studio that made the most sense as corruption on my system, I reinstalled Windows and cleaned up 5 years of clutter. And after that it was still copying and deleting files slowly. As I was installing Everything, and reading about Win 10 Search being broken in IN, my mind finally subconsciously made a leap that seems to have solved it!
Just disable Search Indexing! (I did it by disabling it on D - my data drive, through the Explorer properties window.) Then copying and deleting doesn't have the 'Finding' step, which is actually sending all the filenames to the indexing service to get things straightened out on that end. A quick test and there was no 'Finding Files' stage at all - right to deleting!
You probably already knew this, but I still had to say "Hallelujah!" Almost as fast as I remember Win 3.1 being! Yippee!
|
|
|
|
|
Disable indexing (and recycling) is the first thing(s) I do with a fresh system.
I also disable 8dot3 names.
And animations.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: Disable indexing (and recycling) is the first thing(s) I do with a fresh system.
Is indexing a single/common registry entry?
I have an entire folder, appropriately named "Post-OS install must-haves", currently containing no less than 28 .reg files I've collected or created myself over the years, that each disables some specific OS setting I find to be useless (if not outright working against my wishes). I immediately apply a lot of these to new systems I put together (either physical or virtual). To give you an idea:
DisableServerShutdownEventTracker.reg
DisableThumbsDbCreation.reg
UnblockOutlookMsiAndZipAttachments.reg
GetWin7PhotoViewerBackInWin10.reg
There's a few more I always go through using Explorer options (I haven't yet tracked down the equivalent registry entries): Hiding drives, hiding file extensions (why????) hiding OS files...all things that MS enables out the of the box to "simplify" the user experience...
|
|
|
|
|
Do you have one that makes all the files in Explorer show up as detail view by default, regardless of whether they are music or pictures? If so, please share.
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, no. This is one of those settings I have to manually revisit on each new OS install. Or new user profile that's created (it's a per-user setting)...
This discussion seems to indicate it's pretty much encoded in some binary format. Whether you want to risk using some undocumented thing or not is up to you...
|
|
|
|
|
My solution: It's often quicker still to drop to a command prompt and type a del command. Of course this doesn't help here if you've been carefully selecting individual files one-by-one in Explorer with no particular discernible pattern (there's no common wildcard you can use at a command prompt).
You solution can't hurt, but I'm not sure if this helps when managing files across a LAN. Of course this might be an entirely different problem. I tend to have indexing disabled at both ends, yet it can often take a lot of time just to refresh the content of a folder that contains very few files.
As far as I'm concerned (as a general comment), search has been broken since the Windows 2000 era. I've been saying since then that the whole "web search" paradigm applied to local file search is broken, and will remain broken, until the indexing can (efficiently) be maintained in realtime. The example I always use is to edit a .txt file to add a particular string, save it, then search for the string. If it doesn't come back right away, as far as I'm concerned, it's broken. More often than not, I use Visual Studio's "Find in Files", which does not try to use that indexing system. Yes, it's slower. No, it doesn't miss a thing. Guess which is more important to me?
|
|
|
|
|
Message Closed
modified 5-Feb-20 14:52pm.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
