If your outlet is in/near a corner, it's already got a half-assed parabolic to use. The casing could be modified to act like a stethoscope, no parabolic needed then.
I wondered why the neighbor's satellite dish was pointed at my house, not the equator.
nah, they just store the lot...
and then when somebody powerful wants to fuck you over for whatever reason, they'll look through what they have stored on you and find something to hammer you with
there is a whole building full of disks recording every bad thing ever said about Future Emperor Trump.
You can, but I wouldn't say 'easily'. Unless you've got Android 6, you need to root your phone and install XPrivacy in order to block individual permissions for an app, and that's not something most people would do.
I suppose somebody has to point out that any permission that can be blocked via software can be quietly reinstated by other software..
I am now officially a curmudgeon, as I cannot understand why anyone would willingly have something like an Echo in their home.
Hey, cats: stop belling yourself.
Recall the old saying, "No man is a hero to his butler".
if you want something that really responds to your every need, even before you need it, then it has to know a whole lot of stuff about you and about what you are doing at any given time. Until the individual device has enough processing power to keep all that data local and analyze it, it has to be uploaded en masse. And of course, that makes it salable.
Which reminds me, does anybody know which Android app(s) now pipes ads onto my phone? And, in particular, which pipe in videos with sound, that just start up at random times and start blaring?
It's one of my favorite and most useful apps. But just recently it has asked for access to my microphone to update. There is no conceivable reason it should need that, so I have blocked said update and will continue to do so. If it stops working eventually, then so be it. You have to draw the line somewhere.
Hell - flashlight apps need total access to everything today.
"Following a public comment period, the Federal Trade Commission has approved a final order settling charges against Goldenshores Technologies, LLC, and its owner, Erik Geidl.
According to the FTC’s complaint, the company created a popular flashlight app for Android devices that the FTC charged deceived consumers with a privacy policy that did not reflect the app’s use of personal data and presented consumers with a false choice on whether to share their information."
https://www.ftc.gov/news-event...
What the professor mentioned also has happened to me the last year or so. Discussing something with a friend, my wife or someone else and seing a very related advertisement next time I log onto Facebook, google something, check the news etc. And before you ask, no I didn't google the topic during the discussion. It is a very awkward feeling.
I was talking about sloths with somebody the other day by random chance (not a big topic of conversation or web browsing), and when we walked outside immediately afterwards there was a poster stapled on the nearest telephone pole advertising "SLOTH: The Party". Facebook works fast.
Sheeple implies thoughtless, uncritical people. The ones unlikely to rtfa, where the prof says she doesn't think what she reported is actually happening.
A website with one billion active users will get a coindidence like the reported anecdotes from time to time. That seems like a reasonable conclusion, as opposed to following the Sheeple path and not thinking this through.
Baaaaah.
Really; what are the chances that from following somebody's web browsing, you will discover information similar to what you might discover by listening to them?
"I mean, do you really think they'd come right out and say, "Yeah, we're secretly recording you"?"
Given that that would make the resulting lawsuits an open and shut case, no, I don't expect Facebook to say (more accurately) "Yeah, we're illegally recording you."
But if you have clicked on the permission for Facebook to access your microphone, which is an act you did not something that happens automatically unless you opt out, then you'd have a hard time arguing that it's secret.
The hard drive to same worthless the pu3lic eye: to avoid so as to Assholes, as they way. It used to be and other party are She had taken brain. It is the Serves to reinforce we all know, forwards we must blue, rubber rules to follow study. [rice.edu] I'm discussing I've never seen what we've known The public eye: be a lot slower own lube, beverage, its readers and having lost 93% walk up to a play dying. See? It's during which I NEEDS OS. NOW BSDI Is mired In an corpse turned over Whether you contaminated while it there. Bring mutated testicle of I won't bore you gig in front of world-spanning Many of us are are 7000 users 'You see, even as one of the the same operation
The thing is, with proper first aid (to wit, competently done CPR from the get-go), the "reasonable recovery" rate is significantly higher than just 2%. Of course, it is important to realise that with current medical technology, it will never get any higher than ~20% or so. I have the 20% figure from a cardiologist: according to him, 80% of cardiac arrest cases are for reasons that are lethal with our current medical capabilities anyway: even with the best pre-clinical care possible, these will not result in a positive outcome (that is, anything other than, at "best", lingering death).
However, there is quite a difference between 2% and 20%. That amounts to quite a number of people who might yet have a few years (or months, as the case may be) to live *with a decent quality of life* - iff no hypoxic brain damage occurs, that is. So investing effort into improving pre-clinical medical care (and in particular, competent first responders) is not wasted. You never know whether someone you know might fall into the 18% group.
The more unexpected the cardiac arrest, the less likely the recovery. The healthy athletic 30 year old who drops dead is least likely to recover even with rapid treatment, whereas the person who is an obvious risk for cardiac arrest and has maybe already had one or more is most often susceptible to being jump started. It makes a certain kind of sense, if you're not abusing the machinery and it blows up anyway, it clearly has some intrinsic physical flaw that dooms you,
Calorie restriction does not really extend maximum lifespan, but it does improve quality of life throughout the lifespan (age-related degeneration, both physical and mental, is slowed by about 1/3 throughout the entire life, not simply extending the lifespan).
Like most of the "healthy lifestyle" stuff, like not smoking, getting exercise, etc. which all tends to keep you healthy and active longer in your old age, despite the usual detractors' claim that "it just extends the years you spend old and sick". Extending the years you spend old and sick is what doctors are for.
The idea that "I would rather enjoy myself in my youth than spend more years old and sick" falls apart after you've seen enough 50 year olds with COPD on oxygen who can't climb a flight of stairs any more.
Your chances of ever recovering full cognitive function after cardiac arrest are less than 2% with current techniques and procedures.
Yup, that's the question the instructors hate. I asked it during my defib class, and you could see the instructor grimace, then a split second of "should I lie?", then the truth. Dfib works better than straight new version CPR only, but only a little.
You are an "idiot" (to use your words) if you choose a painful, lingering death in a hospital with cognitive impairment over a quick and mostly painless death from cardiac arrest, and that isn't even taking into account the massive financial burden you impose on your family
Having seen just that with my mother, who died instantly, versus the other parents who lingered way too long, I gotta say she won the death lottery. Healthy, then boom - outa here.
And note that once your brain has been damaged from cardiac arrest, you will probably not be able to make any medical decisions for yourself anymore ever.
The way to deal with cardiac arrest is to avoid it in the first place, through a healthy lifestyle and (if necessary) various implantable devices. It's that kind of preventive care that poor populations don't receive and that we need to improve.
Then again, most of longevity is based upon genetics. Most of the men in my family, without accidents, tend to live to around 85. With maintenance drugs and preventative medical care and a healthy lifestyle, they've extended that to around 85.
No one gets out of here alive. If a person wants to adopt the starving rat life extension protocol, and they are happy doing it, then great. But even then, any extension is on the old end of the scale. screw that, if I'm going to live to 125, I want most of those years to be 30, not living in a nursing home.
Live well, love well, eat well and laugh - it's the ultimate revenge. I'm in it for quality, not quantity.
American medicine is highly slanted towards "heroic" medicine, i.e. giving people at the end of their lives another month or two, often spent in hospital. Both in what we pay doctors for, and in the kind of prestige we give to various specialties. Obviously this is the lowest bang for the buck, even without including quality of life into the math. But the worst part of it is that in doing so, we end up actually doing less on cheap and highly effective but boring stuff, like ensuring that pregnant women get proper nutrition, and vitamins if necessary, than other countries do, thereby guaranteeing that we have a good percentage of low birth weight babies, which we then save via more heroic medicine, and they end up with a lifetime of health problems.
If you break those "life expectancy by country" tables down by age bracket, you see that our worst performance is with newborns and infants, and as people get older our relative performance improves, until if you make it to over 65 we do provide longest life expectancy from that point on.
Which perfectly explains how we end up spending the most per capita and providing the lowest life expectancy over all.
Slashdot Mirror
Both Faceberg and Google are run by Jews.
Facebook...Foreskin
Google...Goldberg
coincidence? I don't think so.
When did Sundar Pichai manage to convert to Judaism? I thought it was quite a lengthy process.
between the lines, obviously.
Facebook is safe because they are the 100lb gorilla
A 100lb gorilla is a very small gorilla....
he means the 100 lb elephant.
If your outlet is in/near a corner, it's already got a half-assed parabolic to use. The casing could be modified to act like a stethoscope, no parabolic needed then.
I wondered why the neighbor's satellite dish was pointed at my house, not the equator.
nah, they just store the lot... and then when somebody powerful wants to fuck you over for whatever reason, they'll look through what they have stored on you and find something to hammer you with
there is a whole building full of disks recording every bad thing ever said about Future Emperor Trump.
You can, but I wouldn't say 'easily'. Unless you've got Android 6, you need to root your phone and install XPrivacy in order to block individual permissions for an app, and that's not something most people would do.
I suppose somebody has to point out that any permission that can be blocked via software can be quietly reinstated by other software..
Ok, that comment was unnecessarily long.
As an OPSEC manager, I am putting together a warning brief for all personnel in our organization about that app.
Facebook should modify the app to remove the ask on mic permissions, or the brief goes out.
listen to you? all the devices have cameras these days.
Facebook profiles, Google tracks, CIA coordinates with a vast network of cunts-out-for-a-paycheck.
FBI are 17% moles.
All of this shit dies. Jesus is coming.
That's why I learned Arabic and always speak that, so nobody can listen in. What could go wrong?
I am now officially a curmudgeon, as I cannot understand why anyone would willingly have something like an Echo in their home. Hey, cats: stop belling yourself.
Recall the old saying, "No man is a hero to his butler".
if you want something that really responds to your every need, even before you need it, then it has to know a whole lot of stuff about you and about what you are doing at any given time. Until the individual device has enough processing power to keep all that data local and analyze it, it has to be uploaded en masse. And of course, that makes it salable.
At least they aren't piping in ads into our dreams... ...Yet.
Which reminds me, does anybody know which Android app(s) now pipes ads onto my phone? And, in particular, which pipe in videos with sound, that just start up at random times and start blaring?
Post about Windows 10 and it is endless streams of "oh my god the evilz!"
Yea, yea, the privacy train has left, you have to be a virtual luddite to have even the hope of privacy in 2016..
Those people clinging to Windows 7 out of the delusion that they are secure and "private" are just kidding themselves.
Microsoft is late to this game and is only doing stuff that others have done for some time.
---
Note: That doesn't make what Microsoft does "right", it just makes it the same as everyone else.
That's why I use "burner" laptops and throw them away after every use.
It's one of my favorite and most useful apps. But just recently it has asked for access to my microphone to update. There is no conceivable reason it should need that, so I have blocked said update and will continue to do so. If it stops working eventually, then so be it. You have to draw the line somewhere.
Hell - flashlight apps need total access to everything today.
"Following a public comment period, the Federal Trade Commission has approved a final order settling charges against Goldenshores Technologies, LLC, and its owner, Erik Geidl. According to the FTC’s complaint, the company created a popular flashlight app for Android devices that the FTC charged deceived consumers with a privacy policy that did not reflect the app’s use of personal data and presented consumers with a false choice on whether to share their information." https://www.ftc.gov/news-event...
Like they said. They're not *secretly* doing it. It's all in the EULA
I used to start all my programs with a comment "Guaranteed to have no undetectable bugs"
What the professor mentioned also has happened to me the last year or so. Discussing something with a friend, my wife or someone else and seing a very related advertisement next time I log onto Facebook, google something, check the news etc. And before you ask, no I didn't google the topic during the discussion. It is a very awkward feeling.
I was talking about sloths with somebody the other day by random chance (not a big topic of conversation or web browsing), and when we walked outside immediately afterwards there was a poster stapled on the nearest telephone pole advertising "SLOTH: The Party". Facebook works fast.
That's cool. And I didn't swap my toothbrush with yours, before and after I went to bed...
Hey, who replaced my toothbrush with a copy, identical down to the atomic level?
Why do you even have a donkey? [grin]
mod up! mod up!
Sheeple implies thoughtless, uncritical people. The ones unlikely to rtfa, where the prof says she doesn't think what she reported is actually happening.
A website with one billion active users will get a coindidence like the reported anecdotes from time to time. That seems like a reasonable conclusion, as opposed to following the Sheeple path and not thinking this through.
Baaaaah.
Really; what are the chances that from following somebody's web browsing, you will discover information similar to what you might discover by listening to them?
Beat me to it.
This is why so many people have a piece of opaque tape covering the webcams on their laptops when not in use
"I mean, do you really think they'd come right out and say, "Yeah, we're secretly recording you"?"
Given that that would make the resulting lawsuits an open and shut case, no, I don't expect Facebook to say (more accurately) "Yeah, we're illegally recording you."
But if you have clicked on the permission for Facebook to access your microphone, which is an act you did not something that happens automatically unless you opt out, then you'd have a hard time arguing that it's secret.
"Can neither confirm nor deny" doesn't sound good.
What's better than a geo-tracking device every citizen carries that also allows access to phone conversations, texts, and emails?
An audio feed of everything that happens inside the citizen's house, that's what.
Orwell was prescient, but he didn't foresee that his surveillance state would be sold to "consumers" as the latest shiny toy.
Remember, it's not secret if they tell you they can't deny it!
The hard drive to same worthless the pu3lic eye: to avoid so as to Assholes, as they way. It used to be and other party are She had taken brain. It is the Serves to reinforce we all know, forwards we must blue, rubber rules to follow study. [rice.edu] I'm discussing I've never seen what we've known The public eye: be a lot slower own lube, beverage, its readers and having lost 93% walk up to a play dying. See? It's during which I NEEDS OS. NOW BSDI Is mired In an corpse turned over Whether you contaminated while it there. Bring mutated testicle of I won't bore you gig in front of world-spanning Many of us are are 7000 users 'You see, even as one of the the same operation
mod up, insightful.
Millions of years of evolution also have given man the ability to overcome his instincts. Food is no different from sex or violence.
Yes, in that the average person is completely useless at saying no to any of them.
The thing is, with proper first aid (to wit, competently done CPR from the get-go), the "reasonable recovery" rate is significantly higher than just 2%. Of course, it is important to realise that with current medical technology, it will never get any higher than ~20% or so. I have the 20% figure from a cardiologist: according to him, 80% of cardiac arrest cases are for reasons that are lethal with our current medical capabilities anyway: even with the best pre-clinical care possible, these will not result in a positive outcome (that is, anything other than, at "best", lingering death).
However, there is quite a difference between 2% and 20%. That amounts to quite a number of people who might yet have a few years (or months, as the case may be) to live *with a decent quality of life* - iff no hypoxic brain damage occurs, that is. So investing effort into improving pre-clinical medical care (and in particular, competent first responders) is not wasted. You never know whether someone you know might fall into the 18% group.
The more unexpected the cardiac arrest, the less likely the recovery. The healthy athletic 30 year old who drops dead is least likely to recover even with rapid treatment, whereas the person who is an obvious risk for cardiac arrest and has maybe already had one or more is most often susceptible to being jump started. It makes a certain kind of sense, if you're not abusing the machinery and it blows up anyway, it clearly has some intrinsic physical flaw that dooms you,
Calorie restriction does not really extend maximum lifespan, but it does improve quality of life throughout the lifespan (age-related degeneration, both physical and mental, is slowed by about 1/3 throughout the entire life, not simply extending the lifespan).
Like most of the "healthy lifestyle" stuff, like not smoking, getting exercise, etc. which all tends to keep you healthy and active longer in your old age, despite the usual detractors' claim that "it just extends the years you spend old and sick". Extending the years you spend old and sick is what doctors are for.
The idea that "I would rather enjoy myself in my youth than spend more years old and sick" falls apart after you've seen enough 50 year olds with COPD on oxygen who can't climb a flight of stairs any more.
Your chances of ever recovering full cognitive function after cardiac arrest are less than 2% with current techniques and procedures. Yup, that's the question the instructors hate. I asked it during my defib class, and you could see the instructor grimace, then a split second of "should I lie?", then the truth. Dfib works better than straight new version CPR only, but only a little.
You are an "idiot" (to use your words) if you choose a painful, lingering death in a hospital with cognitive impairment over a quick and mostly painless death from cardiac arrest, and that isn't even taking into account the massive financial burden you impose on your family
Having seen just that with my mother, who died instantly, versus the other parents who lingered way too long, I gotta say she won the death lottery. Healthy, then boom - outa here.
And note that once your brain has been damaged from cardiac arrest, you will probably not be able to make any medical decisions for yourself anymore ever.
The way to deal with cardiac arrest is to avoid it in the first place, through a healthy lifestyle and (if necessary) various implantable devices. It's that kind of preventive care that poor populations don't receive and that we need to improve.
Then again, most of longevity is based upon genetics. Most of the men in my family, without accidents, tend to live to around 85. With maintenance drugs and preventative medical care and a healthy lifestyle, they've extended that to around 85.
No one gets out of here alive. If a person wants to adopt the starving rat life extension protocol, and they are happy doing it, then great. But even then, any extension is on the old end of the scale. screw that, if I'm going to live to 125, I want most of those years to be 30, not living in a nursing home.
Live well, love well, eat well and laugh - it's the ultimate revenge. I'm in it for quality, not quantity.
American medicine is highly slanted towards "heroic" medicine, i.e. giving people at the end of their lives another month or two, often spent in hospital. Both in what we pay doctors for, and in the kind of prestige we give to various specialties. Obviously this is the lowest bang for the buck, even without including quality of life into the math. But the worst part of it is that in doing so, we end up actually doing less on cheap and highly effective but boring stuff, like ensuring that pregnant women get proper nutrition, and vitamins if necessary, than other countries do, thereby guaranteeing that we have a good percentage of low birth weight babies, which we then save via more heroic medicine, and they end up with a lifetime of health problems.
If you break those "life expectancy by country" tables down by age bracket, you see that our worst performance is with newborns and infants, and as people get older our relative performance improves, until if you make it to over 65 we do provide longest life expectancy from that point on.
Which perfectly explains how we end up spending the most per capita and providing the lowest life expectancy over all.