The University of Alaska Anchorage experience

In the fall 2005, when two faculty librarians at the University of Alaska Anchorage’s (UAA) Consortium Library realized that three people on the library staff were enrolled in library school, they saw the perfect opportunity to start a discussion group that would benefit both currently employed librarians and students entering the information field. The original three students were enrolled in the MLIS distance program at the University of Washington, working in the Consortium Library, and taking classes part-time. The two faculty librarians had been out of library school for more than ten years by then, so the intent was to organize a forum with an informal, relaxed atmosphere that would be an engaging way to keep up with current curricula, to learn about class projects the students were working on, and to hear about their experiences. While the librarians learned from the students, the students could, in turn, share their new expertise with the library faculty. That was the beginning of what came to be known as FLIP: Future Library and Information Science People.1 Now, nearly seven years later, FLIP is still going strong. What the name stands for has changed slightly—to Future Librarians and Information Professionals—and the membership has expanded to include anyone considering a career as a librarian or enrolling in an MLS or MLIS program. Characterizing FLIP as a “mentoring” program misses the mark, since so much more than just mentoring is happening. Because the benefits go both ways, we prefer the term “un-mentoring” to describe FLIP. Regardless of its definition or description, however, the original purpose remains the same: to provide an informal discussion forum that enriches library school studies with librarian expertise, advice, and insight

The Heartbleed bug : insecurity repackaged, rebranded and resold

The emergence of a post-industrial information economy shaped by and around networked communication technology has presented new opportunities for identity theft. In particular, the accidental leakage or deliberate harvesting of information, via either hacking or social engineering, is an omnipresent threat to a large number of commercial organisations and state agencies who manage digital databases and sociotechnical forms of data. Throughout the twenty-first century the global media have reported on a series of data breaches fuelling amongst the public an anxiety concerning the safety and security of their personal and financial data. With concern outpacing reliable information a reassurance gap has emerged between the public's expectations and the state's ability to provide safety and security online. This disparity presents a significant opportunity for a commercial computer crime control industry who has sought to position itself as being able to offer consumer citizens the antidotes for such ills. This paper considers how neoliberal discourses of cybercrime control are packaged, branded and sold, through an examination of the social construction of the Heartbleed bug. It demonstrates how security company Codenomicon masterfully communicated the vulnerability, the product of a simple coding error, through its name, a logo and an accompanying website, in turn, shaping news coverage across the mainstream media and beyond

What is the value of orthodontic treatment?

Orthodontic treatment is as popular as ever. Orthodontists frequently have long lists of people wanting treatment and the cost to the NHS in England was £258m in 2010-2011 (approximately 10% of the NHS annual spend on dentistry). It is important that clinicians and healthcare commissioners constantly question the contribution of interventions towards improving the health of the population. In this article, the authors outline some of the evidence for and against the claims that people with a malocclusion are at a disadvantage compared with those without a malocclusion and that orthodontic treatment has significant health benefits. The authors would like to point out that this is not a comprehensive and systematic review of the entire scientific literature. Rather the evidence is presented in order to stimulate discussion and debate