Clinton probably didn't lie to the FBI, whether you call what she did lying or not she did it publicly. In her interview with the FBI I guarantee you everything she said they felt was the truth.
Outside of the fine Patraeus got off light. I know someone who is in federal prison for lying to the FBI about whether they hit someone or not. IIRC he got 5 years in prison, plus a fine, plus lost a major lawsuit with the victim.
These vehicles generally have electronic power steering. If you think you're screwed when your mirror goes out wait till you see what it's like to suddenly have the full force of the steering wheel unexpectedly
I've never opened my door and use my side mirror to do so. I turn my head and look. Since my ignition is off that means I'm not driving my car. Since I'm not driving my car that means I can turn my head fully.
There are water intrusion proof usb ports and headphone ports. The only reason ip68 phones have limits like 30 minutes is cheaping out on the ports and using little fiddly doors and flaps instead.
Whether or not drug use goes down, the crime the cartels bring will go down. By reducing profitability and killing the market drug dealers and drug cartels operate in we get rid of a TON of violent crime. We also get rid of the pressure to pursue new drugs and methods of creating drugs. If meth can be bought safely, cleanly and cheaply then meth users stop doing bad meth that kills them or trying to make meth and blowing up their homes.
It's a moo point, according to visa this is doing full tokenization and not just a dumb serial number. The trick is antenna orientation not size You kind of do an awkward fist bump ensuring the ring makes an O facing the terminal otherwise its unreliable at best.
For many consumers, part of the hesitation to embrace new technologies surrounds security, or their perception anyway that these solutions are somehow less safe. For its part, the Visa payment ring prototype takes advantage of “tokenization” technology similar to what is used in the Apple Watch. A unique digital identifier is used to process payments without exposing actual account details on the ring itself.
So according to visa they do in fact contain a microprocessor and according to the videos they work with standard terminals using the standard contactless payment methods.
but doing so requires a larger antenna (roughly the size of a credit card, conveniently enough).
You should look into the yubikey neo. They're significantly smaller than a credit card and include nfc as well as usb connectivity for u2f. Powered passively by the reader.
I don't think a ring can carry a large enough antenna to draw power from the terminal
http://nfcring.com// Those draw power from nfc terminals. Wireless payments are done via NFC, they just use one time tokens. Old tech been around quite some time. They inject them into animals even.
1% of the population in the us vs 5% of the population in the uk, that's a big difference. That said I don't think muslim is the problem here. It's just a shield to hide their own personal violence behind.
Trump may come in on a wave of fear and flag waving but his power will be limited by his office. I predict that once he is in office he will accomplish little to nothing because the other branches will reign him in. I predict that trump will be a one time president who's term in office will be little more than a foot note on history.
My fear with Trump is the damage he will do to foreign relations. True he will be very limited at home, but the presidential office is a major figurehead for foreign relations. Obama is doing nothing but foreign relations with those who had reason to dislike us, and it's barely making a dent, but he his trying. If the next few presidents keep on with the same thing eventually we will see positive traction on that front. Trump has plainly state it is his goal to undo all of that. He is claiming he wants an isolationist attitude. That is what my fear with trump is.
The government cannot require or prohibit any specific design or operating system for any covered entity to use in complying with a court order.
She explicitely says the restriction you refer to only refers to the system used in complying with a court order. Not that you can avoid complying with it if your encryption doesn't allow you to, but that
Covered entities are responsible only for the information or data that they (or another party on their behalf) have made unintelligible.
they just can't be told how they have to comply.
Pretty simple, from the words of dianne herself. Or are you going to call her a liar about her own bill as well?
Nothing in this Act may be construed to authorize any government officer to require or prohibit any specific design or operating system to be adopted by any covered entity.
Pay attention to the bolded part. It doesn't require a specific design but it does require you to be able to provide it in an intelligible format. A warrant is going to specify a time frame, fail to do it and you run afoul of the law and face contempt of court. It's pretty easy to read the law.
This bill was about establishing a legal framework to get tech companies to follow court orders. It has nothing to do with encryption. The bill even explicitly states they cannot mandate that software be designed a certain way. So design your products so they are secured in a decentralized way so even you can't get into them and you're fine. Design your products so theyre breakable and highly centralized like Apple and you might have to share the punch. This is completely reasonable. If breaking into iphones is possible, why should apple have the exclusive privilege to do so? And why all the misinformation and hyperbole? This has all been very very strange. It screams of an Apple propaganda campaign more than any real reasoned debate over what will be an important issue in the future.
The bill clearly says a covered entity receiving a court order shall (ust) provide such information or data to the government in an intelligible format; or provide such technical assistance as is necescary to obtain such information or data in an intelligible format to achieve the purpose of the court order.
(2), a covered entity that receives a court order from 8 a government for information or data shall— 9 (A) provide such information or data to 10 such government in an intelligible format; or 11 (B) provide such technical assistance as is 12 necessary to obtain such information or data in 13 an intelligible format or to achieve the purpose 14 of the court order.
Note, nowhere does it say that they shall do it if possible. It says absolutely they shall provide that information or assistance. That would absolutely require a backdoor. Try reading the actual bill. It implicitly requires a backdoor
I'm not sure what version of the bill you're angry about. The only one I've seen mentions nothing about backdoors, or encryption. In fact, it explicitly states:
That line just means that they don't have to build in a backdoor to the governments specifications. It doesn't mean that they don't have to put in a backdoor.
(2), a covered entity that receives a court order from 8 a government for information or data shall— 9 (A) provide such information or data to 10 such government in an intelligible format; or 11 (B) provide such technical assistance as is 12 necessary to obtain such information or data in 13 an intelligible format or to achieve the purpose 14 of the court order.
How would a covered entity provide the information in an intelligible format without a backdoor? They must provide the data in an intelligible format or provide technical assistance master key) to the government to obtain the information in an intelligible format. That's a backdoor.
There are hundreds of papers saying so. I know this since 30 years, or 40. And personal experience confirms that, AFAICT.
There are papers saying your body reduces its burn rate but they all say by less than what you reduced your intake. Read the Minnesota Semistarvation Study (1950) I linked you to an article about it.
Did you read your link? He supports my statement. And not yours. However instead of reducing intake -- as I said -- minimum by 30%, they talk about 50%. In other words: reducing it by a fixed amount of e.g. 500 kcal usually does not work, as the body goes into "saving" mode instead of "starvation" mode.
So you're arguing that if you don't trip the bodies natural fat conservation methods and instead maintain the same BMR but just reduce caloric intake you will gain weight because your body is in some "saving" mode that causes you to not burn fat despite maintaining your original BMR? I think you may be mistaken about what the BMR is. If your BMR is 2000 kcal and you eat 2000 kcal you maintain the same weight. If you eat 1500 kcal and your BMR stays at 2000 kcal you will burn 500 kcal of reserves per day. Where people say this is wrong is they claim if you drop your intake by 1500 kcal your bmr will reset to 1500 kcal (or possibly lower) to offset the difference "starvation mode". What actually happens is your body raises its bmr to lets say 2100 for a few days and you burn 600 kcal then drops to 1900 causing you to burn 400 kcal instead of 500 per day. To run the study they used a diet restricted by 50%. However in actuality that feedback loop is going to apply at any amount. Starvation mode is just a way of preventing you from burning too many calories in a reduced nutrition situation through a feedback loop between your BMR and caloric intake. There's no alternate "Saving" mode, its all part of the same feedback loop, reduce calories by 30% your bmr goes down by 3%, reduce by 50% it goes down by 10%. I'm not sure where you got the term "saving mode" from but it appears to just be an alternate term for starvation mode, which really isn't a mode per say as it is a feedback loop. The % you reduce your diet just affects how big a swing your BMR takes. the same starvation mode feedback loop is what causes your BMR to go up when you increase caloric intake when doing endurance training and the like. It's why guys like The Rock don't quickly turn into blimps the first time they take a day off from powerlifting.
Correction: we both stumbled over a wrong web page. One hour running burns 150 kcal, not 550. No idea why my first hit confirmed your number more or less. There is basically no human activity you can do to burn 550 kcal in one hour.
Because a slice of bread is not a sandwich?! If you want to argue about how much calories or kcals a slice of bread has then say so. It is difference if I imagine a real sandwich that was 400 - 600 kcals and you simply talk about a slice of bread that indeed only has 110 - 130. Anyway, probably you are american and a slice of bread is a synonym for a sandwich:D
Now you change to an 1700 kcal diet. What you think is happening? The layman would say: the body burns 200kcal fat, or muscles if he has no fat. Truth is: the body starts saving! Nothing is happening, for a week or two weeks minimum. In other words the body prefers to adapt to the reduced kcals instead of attacking its reserves.
To forth your body to switch you need healthy food, and have to reduce kcal intake by about 1/3 below your burn rate. In other words: it is very difficult to eat less than you burn, because the body adjusts its burn and "waste" rate extremely heavy.
Usually from the sugar stored in the liver and the muscles.
The question is the "burn 2000 calories". Why do you think you burn 2000 kcal? The first thing the body is doing is: cutting down on burning. It takes a week until the body is really attacking its fat. Or in other words: if you want to burn your fat during exercises, you need to exercise long enough so that all stored sugar in muscles and liver is exhausted, that is usually between 45 - 60 mins. Only the amount of time you allot to it afterwards burns fat.
Once you are burning more calories than you are taking in you are on your way to losing weight. Once you burn more calories than the food you took in exercise has effectively earned you the ability to eat more food. It's pretty basic stuff. No you can't just run for an hour and see the fat on your stomach go down. But build up healthy habits wherein the exercise for your day meets or exceeds your caloric intake for the day and over time your stomach fat will shrink.
Then perhaps define what you want to call an "open faced ham sandwich", that number is retarded low. Sorry for the wording. I doubt you find a sandwich in any shop that has less calories than a burger, why should it have?
sandwich in a shop? what are you talking about? Take out a piece of bread, put meat on it. Why is that so difficult you would go to a store to buy it?
Slashdot Mirror
Clinton probably didn't lie to the FBI, whether you call what she did lying or not she did it publicly. In her interview with the FBI I guarantee you everything she said they felt was the truth.
Outside of the fine Patraeus got off light. I know someone who is in federal prison for lying to the FBI about whether they hit someone or not. IIRC he got 5 years in prison, plus a fine, plus lost a major lawsuit with the victim.
These vehicles generally have electronic power steering. If you think you're screwed when your mirror goes out wait till you see what it's like to suddenly have the full force of the steering wheel unexpectedly
I've never opened my door and use my side mirror to do so. I turn my head and look. Since my ignition is off that means I'm not driving my car. Since I'm not driving my car that means I can turn my head fully.
How often do you change lanes with your ignition off?
There are water intrusion proof usb ports and headphone ports. The only reason ip68 phones have limits like 30 minutes is cheaping out on the ports and using little fiddly doors and flaps instead.
Whether or not drug use goes down, the crime the cartels bring will go down. By reducing profitability and killing the market drug dealers and drug cartels operate in we get rid of a TON of violent crime. We also get rid of the pressure to pursue new drugs and methods of creating drugs. If meth can be bought safely, cleanly and cheaply then meth users stop doing bad meth that kills them or trying to make meth and blowing up their homes.
You don't know much about why we have homeowners insurance do you?
Doesn't contain the CVV number and most websites require that.
No authority to regulate the internet other than their authority to regulate communication and information services passed by congress....
Cheaper and easier to clone the cards with your eyes while standing behind someone in line.
It's a moo point, according to visa this is doing full tokenization and not just a dumb serial number. The trick is antenna orientation not size You kind of do an awkward fist bump ensuring the ring makes an O facing the terminal otherwise its unreliable at best.
Ah here we are
For many consumers, part of the hesitation to embrace new technologies surrounds security, or their perception anyway that these solutions are somehow less safe. For its part, the Visa payment ring prototype takes advantage of “tokenization” technology similar to what is used in the Apple Watch. A unique digital identifier is used to process payments without exposing actual account details on the ring itself.
Source: http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/baig/2016/06/02/visa-shows-ring-olympians-can-use-pay-rio/85308242//
So according to visa they do in fact contain a microprocessor and according to the videos they work with standard terminals using the standard contactless payment methods.
but doing so requires a larger antenna (roughly the size of a credit card, conveniently enough).
You should look into the yubikey neo. They're significantly smaller than a credit card and include nfc as well as usb connectivity for u2f. Powered passively by the reader.
I don't think a ring can carry a large enough antenna to draw power from the terminal
http://nfcring.com// Those draw power from nfc terminals.
Wireless payments are done via NFC, they just use one time tokens. Old tech been around quite some time. They inject them into animals even.
Draws power from the payment terminal like existing wireless payment systems. It's existing tech Visa just put it in a ring.
1% of the population in the us vs 5% of the population in the uk, that's a big difference. That said I don't think muslim is the problem here. It's just a shield to hide their own personal violence behind.
Trump may come in on a wave of fear and flag waving but his power will be limited by his office. I predict that once he is in office he will accomplish little to nothing because the other branches will reign him in. I predict that trump will be a one time president who's term in office will be little more than a foot note on history.
My fear with Trump is the damage he will do to foreign relations. True he will be very limited at home, but the presidential office is a major figurehead for foreign relations. Obama is doing nothing but foreign relations with those who had reason to dislike us, and it's barely making a dent, but he his trying. If the next few presidents keep on with the same thing eventually we will see positive traction on that front. Trump has plainly state it is his goal to undo all of that. He is claiming he wants an isolationist attitude. That is what my fear with trump is.
Let's take it a step further. What does Dianne Feinstein say about this bill?
Source: http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=EA927EA1-E098-4E62-8E61-DF55CBAC1649/
The government cannot require or prohibit any specific design or operating system for any covered entity to use in complying with a court order.
She explicitely says the restriction you refer to only refers to the system used in complying with a court order. Not that you can avoid complying with it if your encryption doesn't allow you to, but that
Covered entities are responsible only for the information or data that they (or another party on their behalf) have made unintelligible.
they just can't be told how they have to comply.
Pretty simple, from the words of dianne herself. Or are you going to call her a liar about her own bill as well?
Nothing in this Act may be construed to authorize any government officer to require or prohibit any specific design or operating system to be adopted by any covered entity.
Pay attention to the bolded part. It doesn't require a specific design but it does require you to be able to provide it in an intelligible format. A warrant is going to specify a time frame, fail to do it and you run afoul of the law and face contempt of court. It's pretty easy to read the law.
This bill was about establishing a legal framework to get tech companies to follow court orders. It has nothing to do with encryption. The bill even explicitly states they cannot mandate that software be designed a certain way. So design your products so they are secured in a decentralized way so even you can't get into them and you're fine. Design your products so theyre breakable and highly centralized like Apple and you might have to share the punch. This is completely reasonable. If breaking into iphones is possible, why should apple have the exclusive privilege to do so? And why all the misinformation and hyperbole? This has all been very very strange. It screams of an Apple propaganda campaign more than any real reasoned debate over what will be an important issue in the future.
The bill clearly says a covered entity receiving a court order shall (ust) provide such information or data to the government in an intelligible format; or provide such technical assistance as is necescary to obtain such information or data in an intelligible format to achieve the purpose of the court order.
(2), a covered entity that receives a court order from
8 a government for information or data shall—
9 (A) provide such information or data to
10 such government in an intelligible format; or
11 (B) provide such technical assistance as is
12 necessary to obtain such information or data in
13 an intelligible format or to achieve the purpose
14 of the court order.
Note, nowhere does it say that they shall do it if possible. It says absolutely they shall provide that information or assistance.
That would absolutely require a backdoor. Try reading the actual bill. It implicitly requires a backdoor
I'm not sure what version of the bill you're angry about. The only one I've seen mentions nothing about backdoors, or encryption. In fact, it explicitly states:
That line just means that they don't have to build in a backdoor to the governments specifications. It doesn't mean that they don't have to put in a backdoor.
(2), a covered entity that receives a court order from
8 a government for information or data shall—
9 (A) provide such information or data to
10 such government in an intelligible format; or
11 (B) provide such technical assistance as is
12 necessary to obtain such information or data in
13 an intelligible format or to achieve the purpose
14 of the court order.
How would a covered entity provide the information in an intelligible format without a backdoor?
They must provide the data in an intelligible format or provide technical assistance master key) to the government to obtain the information in an intelligible format. That's a backdoor.
There are hundreds of papers saying so.
I know this since 30 years, or 40. And personal experience confirms that, AFAICT.
There are papers saying your body reduces its burn rate but they all say by less than what you reduced your intake. Read the Minnesota Semistarvation Study (1950) I linked you to an article about it.
Did you read your link? He supports my statement. And not yours. However instead of reducing intake -- as I said -- minimum by 30%, they talk about 50%. In other words: reducing it by a fixed amount of e.g. 500 kcal usually does not work, as the body goes into "saving" mode instead of "starvation" mode.
So you're arguing that if you don't trip the bodies natural fat conservation methods and instead maintain the same BMR but just reduce caloric intake you will gain weight because your body is in some "saving" mode that causes you to not burn fat despite maintaining your original BMR? I think you may be mistaken about what the BMR is.
If your BMR is 2000 kcal and you eat 2000 kcal you maintain the same weight. If you eat 1500 kcal and your BMR stays at 2000 kcal you will burn 500 kcal of reserves per day.
Where people say this is wrong is they claim if you drop your intake by 1500 kcal your bmr will reset to 1500 kcal (or possibly lower) to offset the difference "starvation mode". What actually happens is your body raises its bmr to lets say 2100 for a few days and you burn 600 kcal then drops to 1900 causing you to burn 400 kcal instead of 500 per day.
To run the study they used a diet restricted by 50%. However in actuality that feedback loop is going to apply at any amount. Starvation mode is just a way of preventing you from burning too many calories in a reduced nutrition situation through a feedback loop between your BMR and caloric intake. There's no alternate "Saving" mode, its all part of the same feedback loop, reduce calories by 30% your bmr goes down by 3%, reduce by 50% it goes down by 10%.
I'm not sure where you got the term "saving mode" from but it appears to just be an alternate term for starvation mode, which really isn't a mode per say as it is a feedback loop. The % you reduce your diet just affects how big a swing your BMR takes. the same starvation mode feedback loop is what causes your BMR to go up when you increase caloric intake when doing endurance training and the like. It's why guys like The Rock don't quickly turn into blimps the first time they take a day off from powerlifting.
Correction: we both stumbled over a wrong web page. One hour running burns 150 kcal, not 550. No idea why my first hit confirmed your number more or less. There is basically no human activity you can do to burn 550 kcal in one hour.
One mile of running burns 150ish kcal. One hour of running burns over 500 kcal
ashttp://www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist3.htm/ seen http://www.runnersworld.com/fitness-calculators/calories-burned-calculator/ on http://www.cosmopolitan.com/health-fitness/advice/a29580/workouts-that-burn-more-calories-than-jogging// websites http://running.competitor.com/2015/03/training/many-calories-running-burn_123951/
You're the one mixed up here.
Because a slice of bread is not a sandwich?! If you want to argue about how much calories or kcals a slice of bread has then say so. It is difference if I imagine a real sandwich that was 400 - 600 kcals and you simply talk about a slice of bread that indeed only has 110 - 130. Anyway, probably you are american and a slice of bread is a synonym for a sandwich :D
Now you change to an 1700 kcal diet. What you think is happening? The layman would say: the body burns 200kcal fat, or muscles if he has no fat.
Truth is: the body starts saving! Nothing is happening, for a week or two weeks minimum. In other words the body prefers to adapt to the reduced kcals instead of attacking its reserves.
Drop your diet to 1700 kcal and your body go into saving mode and burn 1800 kcal per day.
see https://www.caloriecount.com/forums/weight-loss/truth-starvation-mode//
To forth your body to switch you need healthy food, and have to reduce kcal intake by about 1/3 below your burn rate. In other words: it is very difficult to eat less than you burn, because the body adjusts its burn and "waste" rate extremely heavy.
Except there is no peer reviewed scientific paper out there that says that. In every single study the body reduces its burn by less than the caloric reduction. Once again see https://www.caloriecount.com/forums/weight-loss/truth-starvation-mode//
Usually from the sugar stored in the liver and the muscles.
The question is the "burn 2000 calories". Why do you think you burn 2000 kcal? The first thing the body is doing is: cutting down on burning. It takes a week until the body is really attacking its fat. Or in other words: if you want to burn your fat during exercises, you need to exercise long enough so that all stored sugar in muscles and liver is exhausted, that is usually between 45 - 60 mins. Only the amount of time you allot to it afterwards burns fat.
Once you are burning more calories than you are taking in you are on your way to losing weight. Once you burn more calories than the food you took in exercise has effectively earned you the ability to eat more food. It's pretty basic stuff. No you can't just run for an hour and see the fat on your stomach go down. But build up healthy habits wherein the exercise for your day meets or exceeds your caloric intake for the day and over time your stomach fat will shrink.
Then perhaps define what you want to call an "open faced ham sandwich", that number is retarded low. Sorry for the wording. I doubt you find a sandwich in any shop that has less calories than a burger, why should it have?
sandwich in a shop? what are you talking about? Take out a piece of bread, put meat on it. Why is that so difficult you would go to a store to buy it?