When sudo is launched, that's when the malware requests root. That's one method.
There is nothing from stopping a piece of malware requesting root via the su application. The thing is that the prompt shows information on which package is requesting the elevation. In this case, only if the piece of malware could exploit the su application, could it completely undetectably masquerade as an application for which the user would allow root privileges.
Another method is to use a video overlay to put a benign looking button on top of the prompt
I would be highly surprised if su applications do not prevent this (in a way similar to how the UAC elevation prompt prevents it in Windows).
Before assuming I have no experience
That's not what I said. I said: "You obviously have no experience whatsoever with a rooted Android phone." You can Google 'reading comprehension'. Also: here is a little bit of gratuitous 'rooting experience' for you: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=eu.chainfire.supersu&hl=en
Note you're also implying Steve Kondrick doesn't know what he's talking about.
I'm most certainly not. I support his idea of creating more fine grained powerful permissions. There are a number of applications that I have given access to root privileges because there is no other way. An AdBlocker that needs to modify the hosts file needs root, but I would rather just give it access to only that specific file.
His motivations are obviously the implementation difficulties of root privileges in SEAndroid: "+Koushik Dutta and +Chainfire are working hard to permit root in some way on 4.3, but I feel that anything done at this point might severely compromise the security of the system and we should start considering better options. "
You obviously have no experience whatsoever with a rooted Android phone. Even if malware were to call the su-application, the su-application would still prompt the user asking for privilege elevation. Now if that su-application is exploitable and the prompt can be avoided by malware, then that would be a pretty bad security risk.
It greatly increases your attack surface for security vulnerabilities.
As far as I understand, 'rooting your Android phone' generally allows elevation to root privileges, access to which is handled by an SU-application. That means that if you never allow anything to have root privileges, you face no increased risk at all.
Wow, that looks so much more useful. They should switch from the stupid circular map in the article to this one;-)
Seriously, though. The reason they didn't include this map in the article was probably because it is so obviously better than the circular one. They had to juxtapose the circular one with nothing to make it look like it's worth anything.
My wife, a corporate professional of 20+ years will re-download the same.doc from the link in her email instead of going and finding the one she originally downloaded in her downloads folder.
Because it is easier. Not necessarily because she doesn't understand the concept of file management.
I redownload small files all the time. Why try to remember some (obscure) filename of a PDF of some article that takes maybe a second to download and look for it in the most unorganized directory in my entire filesystem when I can remember how I got it in the first place and redownload it? When I want to save a certain file for posterity, then I copy or save it to its proper place in my local storage. Until then it is 'Unprocessed' and may as well not exist on my hard drive.
She has no interest in learning how a computer works, or increasing her skill set. She, like most of humanity, wait for us to make it stupid simple for them.
Does she organize her physical things? Ask yourself what is keeping her from organizing her digital things, or better: ask her how she organizes her digital things. My bet is that she sees her email client as a method of organization. I would be surprised if she didn't already use various forms of hierarchical organization in different aspects of life, which leads me to saying that I don't like the idea of 'abstracting the file system away'.
What I think is going on is that 'file systems' have generally been littered with all kinds of things users did not put there. Instead of being faced with a nice clean desk and empty closets to put their stuff in, people have been confronted with piles of unrecognizable at that time meaningless shit among which they could find (or be told of) a place for their own things.
You're still leaving out details, though. What other effects could there be? (Bleach also has anti-microbial properties, and even ignoring the effect on taste I'd still prefer to add herbs to bleach.) How does either anti-microbial agent break down in the stomach, or, if they don't, affect our gut bacteria? (Could you pass the penicillin?)
Very valid points. One could imagine that the symbiotic relation we have with our gut bacteria has evolved both us, our friendly gut bacteria strains and our friendly bacteriophages ( http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/350573/description/Viruses_and_mucus_team_up_to_ward_off_bacteria| ) to adapt to the diet we've always generally had. General antibiotics obviously kill off more than is good for us and to be honest: who knows which strains of bacteria are affected by any 'antimicrobial' additive? Thinking about it now, it's obvious: the term 'antimicrobial' is just way too broad to base a classification of good or bad on for a herb/additive. It seems I'm half guilty of doing what started this discussion in the first place:-)
On the other hand, one could make the case for the antimicrobial effects of additives outside the body. F.i.: adding a lot of pepper to a dish helps kill off a plethora of bacteria before you eat the dish, but it will also kill friendly gut bacteria after having been ingested. Considering that the distribution of different bacteria strains in the food is very probably skewed towards unfriendly bacteria and the distribution of gut bacteria towards friendly bacteria, the net effect of the killing would be positive. If this has any truth to it, the best thing to do (from an antimicrobial point of view) would be to douse food in herbs, spices etc and remove them before ingestion. Not a good idea from a phytonutrient/vitamin/mineral point of view, of course.
It does look like I have to acquiesce that I'm standing on shaky ground on this general idea. However, I have found some evidence that some vitamin or mineral deficiencies can affect dietary preference for supplemented feed in rats [nih.gov], sheep [nih.gov], and hens [nih.gov]. While this behavior may not represent a "craving" as addressed by the above articles you linked to, it does support the idea that food selection can be driven by nutritional need. Now, all I need to do is ask those researchers to repeat the experiments when sugar was added to all of the tested feeds. I'll get back to you on that one...
That is pretty solid evidence, right there. Now I'm interested in the sugar experiment as well:-)
just that there are perceptual differences that can occur due to a sufficiency or deficiency of various nutrients via their action in all systems in the body, and that if there's a signal, the brain will learn to use it.
True, though a question that rises is: how much training material does it need and how good is it at linking (back-propagating) feelings of (dis)comfort to the input signals? If a nutrient deficiency only has long-term effects such as increased risk of certain types of cancer, the only mechanism I see incorporating a response to that deficiency in our bodies is good old natural selection.
Of course, your point does hold for deficiencies with short-term effects (as the animal research showed).
Overall, the results imply that mixture suppression favors perception of sweet carbohydrates in foods at the expense of other potentially harmful ingredients, such as high levels of sodium (saltiness) and potential poisons or spoilage (bitterness and sourness).
See? I told you sugar was evil:-)
Silly me, I focused on the effect of salt on sweetness and forgot to think about the effect of sugar on saltiness
The problem with online comments is that once you get a certain number of people commenting they just turn into a lowest common denominator sophistic mess.
Well, that is the way it is in a lot of systems currently.
I'm pretty sure that including things like automatically calculated scores for comments based on correct spelling, grammar, word use, sentence length, etc. would help allow filtering out a lot of crap. Make filtering on the score optional and there's no harm done, just the providing of an extra tool. Sure, it may filter out some insightful comments that happen to be written in a terrible way, but in my experience those are very rare. Something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_essay_scoring#Criteria_for_success
Also, as mentioned before, the inclusion of a system to increase the salience of or ease of access to 'good' hyperlinks to other material would also greatly aid the speed with which the highest quality content on a subject can be found. Let's be honest: it's not seldom that TFA (or any news article anywhere) is a terribly crappy and limited version of the story. If I could see a list of the five 'best' links (containing the original research or best description of it, the most insightful blog-post on the matter, etc.) submitted in the comments, I'd probably never need to RTOriginalFA again.
I see I accidentally double pasted in my previous post. Woops.
Some summary sources suggest that spicec and herbs have been in use since early hunter times, with documented uses as early as roughly 2000 BCE ([1] [mccormicks...titute.com], [2] [wikipedia.org]; and I'm half of Chinese descent).
I guess all the evidence points to using copious amounts of herbs is a good idea, health-wise. On the other hand it doesn't really make a case for avoiding synthetic preservatives. In fact, if we focus on the anti-microbial properties of herbs and spices, synthetic (anti-microbial) preservatives should also sound like a good idea. If on the other hand herbs and spices are beneficial due to vitamin and mineral content, synthetic preservatives lose out completely.
I don't really know either. I've heard about things like red-meat cravings for people with mild anemia
Returning to the point about evolution and nutrients, one wonders what humans generally consume in a primitive society. From what I can find, modern day tribes in Africa and the Amazon mainly hunt animals, grow starch-rich 'vegetables', and pick fruit, nuts and some herbs. Apparently, growing leafy vegetables isn't all that 'natural'. On the other hand, if herbs are beneficial to health due to vitamin and mineral content, it kind of makes sense to cultivate something that is almost all leaves and easily edible. As much as I like herbs, I'm not going to eat 200 grams of them each day.
I didn't mean that present nutrients would be less absorbed or that other nutrient signals wouldn't still exist, just that those signals would get bundled up with there always being a sugar reward no matter the food source, and we might learn to seek out food largely on this anticipated reward.
This argument would work if we would experience rewards from eating things with certain other nutrients (vitamins, minerals and such), which I believe is not or hardly the case. I.e.: I'm not so sure those other signals even exist.
Well if you want to go ahead and taste-test corn-starch slurries with varying degrees of starch and salt, you go right ahead. And tell me the results:-)
I believe that means we have arrived at a stalemate here;-) We need a volunteer to test this for us. For science!
Another idea that I've heard that I guess may be related to the taste inhibition idea (maybe you've alre
What I really want is a unified commenting service for news stories and then one that increases the salience of comments that add to the story. Slashdot comment system-like, but better. One of the most useful additions to me would be increasing the salience of (upvoted) user-contributed links (accompanied by a small description) and comments of the "Informative" kind.
As much as people may hate them, something like Google+ / Facebook could be good platforms for this. They aren't yet, as their simple like/+1 moderation scheme also allow information-free populistic one-liners to thrive.
After brief conversations with some of the Internet Service Providers that will be implementing the UK's "pornwall" we've established a little bit about what it will be doing. [...] The essential detail is that they will assume you want filters enabled across a wide range of content, and unless you un-tick the option, network filters will be enabled. [...] EDIT NOTE: the category examples are based on current mobile configurations and broad indications from ISPs [...] The precise pre-ticked options may vary from service to service. [...] We can't say precisely what categories each ISP will provide – but they will be (as I say something like this above.
The key is the first screen, with the pre-ticked "enable parental filters" box: you will be encouraged to walk through to enable filters across a range of content, not just porn."
I imagine the 'brief conversations with some of the ISPs' went like this: - "So how are you going to implement the porn filter?" = "Well, I guess we'll make a webpage where people can opt out of the filter." - "Something like TalkTalk Homesafe?" = "Yeah, something like that."
So you're editing a file. You press: 'save'. Which leads to the device saving the file from memory to SD-card. Which can be performed in the background, just like 'saving to [cloud service]'
Remember that you are defending iCloud as a replacement for an SD-card (which is pretty fucking ridiculous to begin with, but let's not get into that).
Certainly I have none, other than the not-too-convincing argument that we've been eating pepper and cumin for millenia. Plus they taste good:-)
Apparently MSG-laced foods taste good as well;-)
To me, there's something to the idea that human societies co-developed with and around these sources of food
Well, if you're from European descent, things like pepper haven't been part of your family line's diet for too long. 2000 years, max. I'm not sure to what extent other herbs and spices (with perhaps similar properties) were ever part of European (or going further back: our primate ancestors') diets. I suspect that our preference for them may be epigenetic or even just cultural (which both mean that our bodies aren't evolutionarily adapted to consuming them).
I don't think you can make the argument about how our digestive systems evolved based on an average that includes infant mortality.
That's really interesting. I never realized that infant mortality had such an influence on the numbers. Life expectancies at age 21 were pretty comparable to modern numbers!
The point, though, was just that nutrient absorption is not a linear system, and the response to a sum of inputs (nutrients) is different from the sum of the responses to those isolated inputs. So I take any biochemical nutritional analysis with a grain of salt, just as we should all take our calcium with a dose of vitamin D [nutrition.org]
True, true. But let's not forget that the human body has a lot of dynamic balances and buffers going on. The linked study mainly deals with vitamin D-deficient subjects and the positive effect of supplementation of vitamin D on calcium absorption. I'm not debating whether consuming certain compounds together influences what effect they have on the body, just suggesting that for some (maybe many?) combinations buffers allow for separate ingestion.
The contribution of smell to taste must play a pretty large role, though, and I don't think smell has much to do with why sugary food tastes "good".
True. Smell is obviously a more fine-grained approach to food-selection. Apparently, olfaction is also considered to be the first sense by some.
For example, there is a proposed mechanism by which we learn the association between certain foods and their nutritive (or at least caloric) content
Well, rats do. We just look at what's on the box;-)
I suspect that relying too consistently on the taste of sugar to make food taste "good" may interfere with our body's regulatory mechanisms for seeking out other nutrients (cravings?)
I don't know about that. If I'm not mistaken, sugar consumption and cravings is more a matter of blood sugar/insulin levels and to what extent things that slow down digestion have been consumed together with the (large) amount of sugar. Let's be honest, for a lot of essential stuff such as vitamin C, we obviously never have cravings.
Related: the only cravings I had/have are cravings for MSG/umami foods. Even though I don't really eat a lot of MSG-containing food, I still feel the craving regularly. This to me signifies that my body actually requires the glutamate, which could make sense, considering it is one of the most (if not the most) important neurotransmitters in our body: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10736372
Dosing everything with sugar to make it all taste good may also mask our body's other signals relating to important micronutrients.
But dosing everything with a lot of lard is harmless?;-) Seriously, though, I wouldn't doubt adding sugar to a dish if you feel that the taste would benefit from it. I can hardly imagine that our body would be some
Really, now? So when talking about processed food, everybody also mentally includes: "Cornmeal that was ground and dried, referred to as pinolli, [...] used by [Aztec] travelers as a convenience food in this manner." "Convenience foods can include products such as candy; beverages such as soft drinks, juices and milk; fast food; nuts, fruits and vegetables in fresh or preserved states; processed meats and cheeses; and canned products such as soups and pasta dishes. Additional convenience foods include frozen pizza, chips such as potato chips, pretzels and cookies."
Only if we're talking about the mobile version. The desktop version does not have a 'make available offline' function. Neither does the web version. It wouldn't really make sense.
(2) The fact that almost all of them work that way doesn't mean it's good.
Well, I've been annoyed with the way the mobile versions work too (which is why I use DropSync), but the rationale for it apparently is that it is hard to sync a lot of files without sucking the battery dry very fast. See Grady O.'s last comment here: https://www.dropbox.com/votebox/613/add-sd-card-syncronisation-for-android-phones#votebox:1 (This, even though Dropbox tells us it has to do with minimizing our data usage on their website: "This prevents Dropbox from consuming all of the bandwidth and space for your mobile device.")
I assume you're familiar with this [phdcomics.com]?
I didn't even have to follow the link to see the comic;-)
Still, a question I have is, not considering severe digestive issues, are there detrimental effects of the types and levels of artificial preservatives on nutrient absorption? [...] while i have little basis for telling others that they are "bad", I'm just as happy avoiding these additives when i can do so without too much hassle.
I'm not sure, but let's be honest here: isn't eating random herbs (natural 'additives') from all over the planet equally unwise? How odd would it be to tell people to avoid putting garlic/pepper/salt/oregano etc. in their food? What evidence is there that the natural preservatives aren't ten times as 'dangerous' as synthetically produced preservatives?
Are there other mechanisms of nutrient loss beyond simple oxidation that are harder to control? For example, does cellular metabolism in plant material, which i believe continues long past harvest, lead to breakdown of nutrients even in the packaging, either directly or as a result of byproducts created in the process? This is, of course, all speculation at this point. Still, I intuitively believe that the blueberries I'm adding to my breakfast might be more nutritionally valuable than the freeze-dried ones in a box of cereal. I enjoy them more, at the very least.
They might very well not be, depending on when they were picked. See the frozen/fresh discussion. Another question is how long the packaged goods are stored before you eat them. As far as I know, producers really don't like having unnecessary stockpiles and try to do JIT deliveries as much as possible. What would be more nutrient-rich, the quickly extensively packaged/frozen product or the 'fresh' product, given the same time from harvest to store? (If the JIT delivery stuff isn't reality though, then it may very well be that month-old 'processed foods' have lost a lot of nutrients)
and the still poorly understood role of co-occuring chemicals may interact with nutrient absorption [bioperine.com]), and, again, lack of trust that manufacturers care about anything more than an FDA approval. So I conclude that it's likely that a pasteurized-and-refortified food is not nutritionally equivalent to its freshly-made counterpart, and one potential argument for eating foods that are,by some intuitive measure, more similar to the foods that we evolved to consume (but, yes, I know that modern crops are considerably different from their wild ancestors).
Talking about trust, that link is to a PDF trying to sell some kind of supplement. I do kind of agree with the latter. I like (and follow for 70%) the 'primal' diet, but at the same time I am aware that during pretty much all our evolution we did not live past the age of 40. That could mean that our primal diet and digestive system were tuned for a live hard, die young existence.
An interesting question is: since preference is purely subjective, if I think I prefer one scotch over another, isn't it necessarily true?
Well, it's often said that there's no discussing taste, but I beg to differ. If your taste or distaste for something is mainly driven by some memory, feeling or state of mind, it is almost certainly less stable than a taste or distaste originating in your biological make-up. The latter is also something you can use when preparing food for others (as opposed to the other factors).
Their google drive is about the worst possible way to implement remote files. I REALLY hate how google constantly tries to blur the edges of offline/online. No i dont want to 'make available offline' I want the file put HERE, now. Illusion of simplicity.
What are you talking about? Google Drive works just like Dropbox or probably pretty much every other syncing service out there (except for Bittorrent Sync, which has a proper Android app out now).
You have to wait whilst it saves to SD card. There's no waiting to save to iCloud. Thats the difference between file system saving and background syncing.
Please be joking, please be joking..
Let's join hands and pray, my fellow Slashdotters.
One last little point, I think such studies are often overstated but not necessarily deliberately so--rather, with the genuine belief that the assumptions and generalizations being made are valid.
Yeah, probably at least in part. For the record, though: I was referring to how PR departments and the media in general spin pretty much every nutritional study into what amount to either flat out lies or terribly misleading statements. Using 'X linked to Y' in the headline leads most people away from the commutative nature of the relation, but I guess headlines like 'X and Y associated with each other' sell less ads.
@1a: The thing with preservatives is that we've actually evolved quite strikingly to like their taste. I'm specifically talking about naturally occurring preservatives like salt, pepper, garlic, onions, sugar, soy sauce and pretty much every herb in existence. See f.i.: http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/ppoint/spice.pdf and http://www.nature.com/srep/2011/111215/srep00196/full/srep00196.html#/f4 Digestive systems generally suffer from thriving colonies of 'wrong' gut bacteria (the poop transplant is becoming a more and more popular cure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecal_bacteriotherapy ) or mechanical issues (lack of fibers etc.), not necessarily from having a hard time breaking down food.
@1b: If I'm not mistaken, oxidization requires being exposed to oxygen. There's a reason why some stuff can be stored for weeks in a closed package and mere days when the packaging is opened. There's still oxygen exposure, but it is greatly reduced and fairly predictable.
With regard to the supplements: they do seem to have an effect for children with glaring deficiencies: http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d5094 We're very aware that deficiencies of certain vitamins can cause diseases or disorders, but it seems that just overloading our body with the pure versions of them has a bad effect, as per TFA. I guess that means we should exercise some.. moderation;-)
@2:
I'm sure you know as well as I that labels such as "all natural" and "heart-healthy" are little more than marketing slogans.
Oh man, don't get me started. In my country, there's a foundation that attaches certain national labels on all types of products. Its board is made up of mainly ex-(marketing)employees of Unilever, Procter & Gamble and Ahold.
Then, the less a food resembles the component ingredients, the less I know what I'm actually eating, and the more a company can, in my mind, easily get away with (whether by intentional profit-grubbing or just because money motivates shortcuts and rationalizations).
True. The upside at this point is that most of the pu
Movies haven't really changed that much over time. However you will probably see the golden age of movies are from the period you are 8-18. As you are now old enough to see a PG movie and know what is going on, and this is your first time seeing the normal formula, so it is new and exciting. After that decade is over, you see the pattern over and over again, the special effects are less interesting.
You're wrong. Watch Terminator 2 again, for instance. It is an absolutely masterful action movie compared to other action movies.
A lot of the 'newer stuff' contains absolutely lazy writing: stupid shit like hand to hand (martial art-like) combat between anything from mechs to superheroes. You know: "because whatever, fuck you." I'm not saying older movies didn't do the same, just that it seems that much harder to find ones that don't nowadays. I'm very receptive to tips of more recent movies that have little of this.
I could elaborate if you cared to read, but it's probably just fodder for tl;dr otherwise.
Actually, I would read that, as it sounds interesting.
By many folks' definitions, that is exactly what studies on fats, or carbs, or saturated fats, or trans fats, etc, are doing. Yet, advice based on any of these may potentially be equally counter-productive
Of course, but only if you deliberately overstate what the studies actually found or if you omit the 'correlation != causation' disclaimer. When 'eating carbs can rapidly increase your blood sugar levels' transforms into 'carbs are bad, mmkay' it is being done wrong. Ideally, we would all have an understanding of our digestive system, developed by public information. Instead, public information systems are generally ridden with these bits of broad and generic advice which are effectively 'trust me'-statements that teach nothing. For instance, it's sad that a lot of people haven't even shaken the idiotic 'fat makes fat' way of thinking. A child can understand that that's not the way digestion works.
But so is yours: a friend's definition of "variation" was to order different toppings on his weekly order of domino's pizza (which he kept in the fridge and ate throughout the week).
True, true, the variation bit is vague enough to be easily intentionally misunderstood. On the other hand, your friend sounds like the sort of person for which the advice was actually beneficial, assuming he didn't just vary different types of meat as toppings.
That is, of course, the beautiful progress of science, but it's led to decades of what many now call bad nutritional advice.
That is exactly the point. The advice is often not only unproductive, but counterproductive. People have to eat something, so avoiding certain types of foods means eating more of something else. The fat-shunning induced popularity of carbohydrates in the last decades of the previous century is a good example. The reverse is also true: when calling certain foods healthy, people get the idea that a diet of only fruit and vegetables is superhealthy, even though it introduces deficiencies elsewhere.
Concerning the 'boxed pre-processed foods': if there is one thing tertiary processed food is good at, it is constant and carefully managed quality. This means that a 'boxed pre-processed' version of some nutrients may be more beneficial to your health than a less processed version, simply because the less processed version has had less quality control and more exposure to unknowns. Better the devil you know, and all that.
Now it is true that things like trans fat mainly occur in tertiary processed food, so in that sense the advice to avoid the stuff could have merit to it. The problem is that it could lead people to go to their local bakery and think that they are eating trans fat free stuff. They'll probably quite smugly claim how they stay away from 'all that processed crap'. When at some point it is pointed out to them that they're still consuming a lot of trans fat, they'll feel 'had', demoralized and will lose another bit of faith in (nutritional) science.
When it comes to health, there are a couple bits of broad advice that trump pretty much everything else and are very acceptable to give in my book: regular light exercise, moderation and variation.
Slashdot Mirror
When sudo is launched, that's when the malware requests root. That's one method.
There is nothing from stopping a piece of malware requesting root via the su application. The thing is that the prompt shows information on which package is requesting the elevation. In this case, only if the piece of malware could exploit the su application, could it completely undetectably masquerade as an application for which the user would allow root privileges.
Another method is to use a video overlay to put a benign looking button on top of the prompt
I would be highly surprised if su applications do not prevent this (in a way similar to how the UAC elevation prompt prevents it in Windows).
Before assuming I have no experience
That's not what I said. I said: "You obviously have no experience whatsoever with a rooted Android phone."
You can Google 'reading comprehension'.
Also: here is a little bit of gratuitous 'rooting experience' for you: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=eu.chainfire.supersu&hl=en
Note you're also implying Steve Kondrick doesn't know what he's talking about.
I'm most certainly not. I support his idea of creating more fine grained powerful permissions. There are a number of applications that I have given access to root privileges because there is no other way. An AdBlocker that needs to modify the hosts file needs root, but I would rather just give it access to only that specific file.
His motivations are obviously the implementation difficulties of root privileges in SEAndroid: "+Koushik Dutta and +Chainfire are working hard to permit root in some way on 4.3, but I feel that anything done at this point might severely compromise the security of the system and we should start considering better options. "
Bet you were also expecting this one when you read the title: "albeit, at the moment, only at extremely low temperatures"
I know I was.
You obviously have no experience whatsoever with a rooted Android phone. Even if malware were to call the su-application, the su-application would still prompt the user asking for privilege elevation. Now if that su-application is exploitable and the prompt can be avoided by malware, then that would be a pretty bad security risk.
You have no idea what you are talking about, do you?
It greatly increases your attack surface for security vulnerabilities.
As far as I understand, 'rooting your Android phone' generally allows elevation to root privileges, access to which is handled by an SU-application. That means that if you never allow anything to have root privileges, you face no increased risk at all.
Wow, that looks so much more useful. ;-)
They should switch from the stupid circular map in the article to this one
Seriously, though. The reason they didn't include this map in the article was probably because it is so obviously better than the circular one. They had to juxtapose the circular one with nothing to make it look like it's worth anything.
My wife, a corporate professional of 20+ years will re-download the same .doc from the link in her email instead of going and finding the one she originally downloaded in her downloads folder.
Because it is easier. Not necessarily because she doesn't understand the concept of file management.
I redownload small files all the time. Why try to remember some (obscure) filename of a PDF of some article that takes maybe a second to download and look for it in the most unorganized directory in my entire filesystem when I can remember how I got it in the first place and redownload it?
When I want to save a certain file for posterity, then I copy or save it to its proper place in my local storage. Until then it is 'Unprocessed' and may as well not exist on my hard drive.
She has no interest in learning how a computer works, or increasing her skill set. She, like most of humanity, wait for us to make it stupid simple for them.
Does she organize her physical things? Ask yourself what is keeping her from organizing her digital things, or better: ask her how she organizes her digital things. My bet is that she sees her email client as a method of organization. I would be surprised if she didn't already use various forms of hierarchical organization in different aspects of life, which leads me to saying that I don't like the idea of 'abstracting the file system away'.
What I think is going on is that 'file systems' have generally been littered with all kinds of things users did not put there. Instead of being faced with a nice clean desk and empty closets to put their stuff in, people have been confronted with piles of unrecognizable at that time meaningless shit among which they could find (or be told of) a place for their own things.
You're still leaving out details, though. What other effects could there be? (Bleach also has anti-microbial properties, and even ignoring the effect on taste I'd still prefer to add herbs to bleach.) How does either anti-microbial agent break down in the stomach, or, if they don't, affect our gut bacteria? (Could you pass the penicillin?)
Very valid points. One could imagine that the symbiotic relation we have with our gut bacteria has evolved both us, our friendly gut bacteria strains and our friendly bacteriophages ( http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/350573/description/Viruses_and_mucus_team_up_to_ward_off_bacteria| ) to adapt to the diet we've always generally had. General antibiotics obviously kill off more than is good for us and to be honest: who knows which strains of bacteria are affected by any 'antimicrobial' additive? :-)
Thinking about it now, it's obvious: the term 'antimicrobial' is just way too broad to base a classification of good or bad on for a herb/additive. It seems I'm half guilty of doing what started this discussion in the first place
On the other hand, one could make the case for the antimicrobial effects of additives outside the body. F.i.: adding a lot of pepper to a dish helps kill off a plethora of bacteria before you eat the dish, but it will also kill friendly gut bacteria after having been ingested. Considering that the distribution of different bacteria strains in the food is very probably skewed towards unfriendly bacteria and the distribution of gut bacteria towards friendly bacteria, the net effect of the killing would be positive.
If this has any truth to it, the best thing to do (from an antimicrobial point of view) would be to douse food in herbs, spices etc and remove them before ingestion. Not a good idea from a phytonutrient/vitamin/mineral point of view, of course.
It does look like I have to acquiesce that I'm standing on shaky ground on this general idea. However, I have found some evidence that some vitamin or mineral deficiencies can affect dietary preference for supplemented feed in rats [nih.gov], sheep [nih.gov], and hens [nih.gov]. While this behavior may not represent a "craving" as addressed by the above articles you linked to, it does support the idea that food selection can be driven by nutritional need. Now, all I need to do is ask those researchers to repeat the experiments when sugar was added to all of the tested feeds. I'll get back to you on that one...
That is pretty solid evidence, right there. Now I'm interested in the sugar experiment as well :-)
just that there are perceptual differences that can occur due to a sufficiency or deficiency of various nutrients via their action in all systems in the body, and that if there's a signal, the brain will learn to use it.
True, though a question that rises is: how much training material does it need and how good is it at linking (back-propagating) feelings of (dis)comfort to the input signals? If a nutrient deficiency only has long-term effects such as increased risk of certain types of cancer, the only mechanism I see incorporating a response to that deficiency in our bodies is good old natural selection.
Of course, your point does hold for deficiencies with short-term effects (as the animal research showed).
Overall, the results imply that mixture suppression favors perception of sweet carbohydrates in foods at the expense of other potentially harmful ingredients, such as high levels of sodium (saltiness) and potential poisons or spoilage (bitterness and sourness).
See? I told you sugar was evil :-)
Silly me, I focused on the effect of salt on sweetness and forgot to think about the effect of sugar on saltiness
The problem with online comments is that once you get a certain number of people commenting they just turn into a lowest common denominator sophistic mess.
Well, that is the way it is in a lot of systems currently.
I'm pretty sure that including things like automatically calculated scores for comments based on correct spelling, grammar, word use, sentence length, etc. would help allow filtering out a lot of crap. Make filtering on the score optional and there's no harm done, just the providing of an extra tool.
Sure, it may filter out some insightful comments that happen to be written in a terrible way, but in my experience those are very rare.
Something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_essay_scoring#Criteria_for_success
Also, as mentioned before, the inclusion of a system to increase the salience of or ease of access to 'good' hyperlinks to other material would also greatly aid the speed with which the highest quality content on a subject can be found. Let's be honest: it's not seldom that TFA (or any news article anywhere) is a terribly crappy and limited version of the story. If I could see a list of the five 'best' links (containing the original research or best description of it, the most insightful blog-post on the matter, etc.) submitted in the comments, I'd probably never need to RTOriginalFA again.
I see I accidentally double pasted in my previous post. Woops.
Some summary sources suggest that spicec and herbs have been in use since early hunter times, with documented uses as early as roughly 2000 BCE ([1] [mccormicks...titute.com], [2] [wikipedia.org]; and I'm half of Chinese descent).
I guess the general use of spices and herbs from around the world does go back a bit further than I thought. Thinking about it a bit more, the use of potent plants for medicinal purposes also seems like something that has been around for quite a while: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_medicine
There also does seem to be evidence of genetic adaptation to certain herbs, such as coriander: http://www.nature.com/news/soapy-taste-of-coriander-linked-to-genetic-variants-1.11398
I guess all the evidence points to using copious amounts of herbs is a good idea, health-wise. On the other hand it doesn't really make a case for avoiding synthetic preservatives. In fact, if we focus on the anti-microbial properties of herbs and spices, synthetic (anti-microbial) preservatives should also sound like a good idea. If on the other hand herbs and spices are beneficial due to vitamin and mineral content, synthetic preservatives lose out completely.
I don't really know either. I've heard about things like red-meat cravings for people with mild anemia
You seem to have mentioned the 'one' exception :) ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/08/food-cravings_n_1940299.html )
They mention sugar and its connection to serotonin, which I found interesting and related, and that lead me to this:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolutionary-psychiatry/201105/sunlight-sugar-and-serotonin (most interesting bit in the last paragraph)
Also, interestingly, other mammals tend to seek out (crave for) umami food:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867403008444
Returning to the point about evolution and nutrients, one wonders what humans generally consume in a primitive society. From what I can find, modern day tribes in Africa and the Amazon mainly hunt animals, grow starch-rich 'vegetables', and pick fruit, nuts and some herbs. Apparently, growing leafy vegetables isn't all that 'natural'. On the other hand, if herbs are beneficial to health due to vitamin and mineral content, it kind of makes sense to cultivate something that is almost all leaves and easily edible. As much as I like herbs, I'm not going to eat 200 grams of them each day.
I didn't mean that present nutrients would be less absorbed or that other nutrient signals wouldn't still exist, just that those signals would get bundled up with there always being a sugar reward no matter the food source, and we might learn to seek out food largely on this anticipated reward.
This argument would work if we would experience rewards from eating things with certain other nutrients (vitamins, minerals and such), which I believe is not or hardly the case. I.e.: I'm not so sure those other signals even exist.
Well if you want to go ahead and taste-test corn-starch slurries with varying degrees of starch and salt, you go right ahead. And tell me the results :-)
I believe that means we have arrived at a stalemate here ;-)
We need a volunteer to test this for us. For science!
Another idea that I've heard that I guess may be related to the taste inhibition idea (maybe you've alre
Google News?
What I really want is a unified commenting service for news stories and then one that increases the salience of comments that add to the story. Slashdot comment system-like, but better. One of the most useful additions to me would be increasing the salience of (upvoted) user-contributed links (accompanied by a small description) and comments of the "Informative" kind.
As much as people may hate them, something like Google+ / Facebook could be good platforms for this. They aren't yet, as their simple like/+1 moderation scheme also allow information-free populistic one-liners to thrive.
The article isn't very trustworthy and that image is quite misleading. The image is of an optional filter that has existed for a while ( http://www.talktalk.co.uk/security/homesafe-demo.html ).
The original source is this: https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2013/sleepwalking-into-censorship
In that article this is said:
After brief conversations with some of the Internet Service Providers that will be implementing the UK's "pornwall" we've established a little bit about what it will be doing.
[...]
The essential detail is that they will assume you want filters enabled across a wide range of content, and unless you un-tick the option, network filters will be enabled.
[...]
EDIT NOTE: the category examples are based on current mobile configurations and broad indications from ISPs
[...]
The precise pre-ticked options may vary from service to service.
[...]
We can't say precisely what categories each ISP will provide – but they will be (as I say something like this above.
The key is the first screen, with the pre-ticked "enable parental filters" box: you will be encouraged to walk through to enable filters across a range of content, not just porn."
I imagine the 'brief conversations with some of the ISPs' went like this:
- "So how are you going to implement the porn filter?"
= "Well, I guess we'll make a webpage where people can opt out of the filter."
- "Something like TalkTalk Homesafe?"
= "Yeah, something like that."
I agree it's redonculous. Why would samsung want to do that?
The title contains the words Apple, Samsung, Google and rival. The summary is a bunch of hypotheticals and the article is non-existent.
There is not a goddamn thing to see here, Slashdot.
No. No, it wasn't.
So you're editing a file.
You press: 'save'.
Which leads to the device saving the file from memory to SD-card.
Which can be performed in the background, just like 'saving to [cloud service]'
Remember that you are defending iCloud as a replacement for an SD-card (which is pretty fucking ridiculous to begin with, but let's not get into that).
Certainly I have none, other than the not-too-convincing argument that we've been eating pepper and cumin for millenia. Plus they taste good :-)
Apparently MSG-laced foods taste good as well ;-)
To me, there's something to the idea that human societies co-developed with and around these sources of food
Well, if you're from European descent, things like pepper haven't been part of your family line's diet for too long. 2000 years, max. I'm not sure to what extent other herbs and spices (with perhaps similar properties) were ever part of European (or going further back: our primate ancestors') diets. I suspect that our preference for them may be epigenetic or even just cultural (which both mean that our bodies aren't evolutionarily adapted to consuming them).
I don't think you can make the argument about how our digestive systems evolved based on an average that includes infant mortality.
That's really interesting. I never realized that infant mortality had such an influence on the numbers. Life expectancies at age 21 were pretty comparable to modern numbers!
The point, though, was just that nutrient absorption is not a linear system, and the response to a sum of inputs (nutrients) is different from the sum of the responses to those isolated inputs. So I take any biochemical nutritional analysis with a grain of salt, just as we should all take our calcium with a dose of vitamin D [nutrition.org]
True, true. But let's not forget that the human body has a lot of dynamic balances and buffers going on. The linked study mainly deals with vitamin D-deficient subjects and the positive effect of supplementation of vitamin D on calcium absorption.
I'm not debating whether consuming certain compounds together influences what effect they have on the body, just suggesting that for some (maybe many?) combinations buffers allow for separate ingestion.
The contribution of smell to taste must play a pretty large role, though, and I don't think smell has much to do with why sugary food tastes "good".
True. Smell is obviously a more fine-grained approach to food-selection. Apparently, olfaction is also considered to be the first sense by some.
For example, there is a proposed mechanism by which we learn the association between certain foods and their nutritive (or at least caloric) content
Well, rats do. We just look at what's on the box ;-)
I suspect that relying too consistently on the taste of sugar to make food taste "good" may interfere with our body's regulatory mechanisms for seeking out other nutrients (cravings?)
I don't know about that. If I'm not mistaken, sugar consumption and cravings is more a matter of blood sugar/insulin levels and to what extent things that slow down digestion have been consumed together with the (large) amount of sugar. Let's be honest, for a lot of essential stuff such as vitamin C, we obviously never have cravings.
Related: the only cravings I had/have are cravings for MSG/umami foods. Even though I don't really eat a lot of MSG-containing food, I still feel the craving regularly. This to me signifies that my body actually requires the glutamate, which could make sense, considering it is one of the most (if not the most) important neurotransmitters in our body: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10736372
Dosing everything with sugar to make it all taste good may also mask our body's other signals relating to important micronutrients.
But dosing everything with a lot of lard is harmless? ;-)
Seriously, though, I wouldn't doubt adding sugar to a dish if you feel that the taste would benefit from it. I can hardly imagine that our body would be some
Really, now? So when talking about processed food, everybody also mentally includes:
"Cornmeal that was ground and dried, referred to as pinolli, [...] used by [Aztec] travelers as a convenience food in this manner."
"Convenience foods can include products such as candy; beverages such as soft drinks, juices and milk; fast food; nuts, fruits and vegetables in fresh or preserved states; processed meats and cheeses; and canned products such as soups and pasta dishes. Additional convenience foods include frozen pizza, chips such as potato chips, pretzels and cookies."
Fool.
(1) GP's description is pretty accurate.
Only if we're talking about the mobile version. The desktop version does not have a 'make available offline' function. Neither does the web version. It wouldn't really make sense.
(2) The fact that almost all of them work that way doesn't mean it's good.
Well, I've been annoyed with the way the mobile versions work too (which is why I use DropSync), but the rationale for it apparently is that it is hard to sync a lot of files without sucking the battery dry very fast. See Grady O.'s last comment here: https://www.dropbox.com/votebox/613/add-sd-card-syncronisation-for-android-phones#votebox:1
(This, even though Dropbox tells us it has to do with minimizing our data usage on their website: "This prevents Dropbox from consuming all of the bandwidth and space for your mobile device.")
I assume you're familiar with this [phdcomics.com]?
I didn't even have to follow the link to see the comic ;-)
Still, a question I have is, not considering severe digestive issues, are there detrimental effects of the types and levels of artificial preservatives on nutrient absorption? [...] while i have little basis for telling others that they are "bad", I'm just as happy avoiding these additives when i can do so without too much hassle.
I'm not sure, but let's be honest here: isn't eating random herbs (natural 'additives') from all over the planet equally unwise? How odd would it be to tell people to avoid putting garlic/pepper/salt/oregano etc. in their food?
What evidence is there that the natural preservatives aren't ten times as 'dangerous' as synthetically produced preservatives?
Are there other mechanisms of nutrient loss beyond simple oxidation that are harder to control? For example, does cellular metabolism in plant material, which i believe continues long past harvest, lead to breakdown of nutrients even in the packaging, either directly or as a result of byproducts created in the process? This is, of course, all speculation at this point. Still, I intuitively believe that the blueberries I'm adding to my breakfast might be more nutritionally valuable than the freeze-dried ones in a box of cereal. I enjoy them more, at the very least.
They might very well not be, depending on when they were picked. See the frozen/fresh discussion.
Another question is how long the packaged goods are stored before you eat them. As far as I know, producers really don't like having unnecessary stockpiles and try to do JIT deliveries as much as possible. What would be more nutrient-rich, the quickly extensively packaged/frozen product or the 'fresh' product, given the same time from harvest to store?
(If the JIT delivery stuff isn't reality though, then it may very well be that month-old 'processed foods' have lost a lot of nutrients)
and the still poorly understood role of co-occuring chemicals may interact with nutrient absorption [bioperine.com]), and, again, lack of trust that manufacturers care about anything more than an FDA approval. So I conclude that it's likely that a pasteurized-and-refortified food is not nutritionally equivalent to its freshly-made counterpart, and one potential argument for eating foods that are,by some intuitive measure, more similar to the foods that we evolved to consume (but, yes, I know that modern crops are considerably different from their wild ancestors).
Talking about trust, that link is to a PDF trying to sell some kind of supplement.
I do kind of agree with the latter. I like (and follow for 70%) the 'primal' diet, but at the same time I am aware that during pretty much all our evolution we did not live past the age of 40. That could mean that our primal diet and digestive system were tuned for a live hard, die young existence.
An interesting question is: since preference is purely subjective, if I think I prefer one scotch over another, isn't it necessarily true?
Well, it's often said that there's no discussing taste, but I beg to differ. If your taste or distaste for something is mainly driven by some memory, feeling or state of mind, it is almost certainly less stable than a taste or distaste originating in your biological make-up. The latter is also something you can use when preparing food for others (as opposed to the other factors).
Very much related to this and the discussion in general is this article (Yoplait is mentioned): http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/the-extraordinary-science-of-junk-food.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
If you haven't read it yet, you should (in its entirety). Like pretty much all things in
Their google drive is about the worst possible way to implement remote files. I REALLY hate how google constantly tries to blur the edges of offline/online. No i dont want to 'make available offline' I want the file put HERE, now. Illusion of simplicity.
What are you talking about?
Google Drive works just like Dropbox or probably pretty much every other syncing service out there (except for Bittorrent Sync, which has a proper Android app out now).
You have to wait whilst it saves to SD card. There's no waiting to save to iCloud. Thats the difference between file system saving and background syncing.
Please be joking, please be joking..
Let's join hands and pray, my fellow Slashdotters.
First: thanks for putting effort in your answer.
One last little point, I think such studies are often overstated but not necessarily deliberately so--rather, with the genuine belief that the assumptions and generalizations being made are valid.
Yeah, probably at least in part. For the record, though: I was referring to how PR departments and the media in general spin pretty much every nutritional study into what amount to either flat out lies or terribly misleading statements. Using 'X linked to Y' in the headline leads most people away from the commutative nature of the relation, but I guess headlines like 'X and Y associated with each other' sell less ads.
@1a:
The thing with preservatives is that we've actually evolved quite strikingly to like their taste. I'm specifically talking about naturally occurring preservatives like salt, pepper, garlic, onions, sugar, soy sauce and pretty much every herb in existence. See f.i.: http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/ppoint/spice.pdf and http://www.nature.com/srep/2011/111215/srep00196/full/srep00196.html#/f4
Digestive systems generally suffer from thriving colonies of 'wrong' gut bacteria (the poop transplant is becoming a more and more popular cure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecal_bacteriotherapy ) or mechanical issues (lack of fibers etc.), not necessarily from having a hard time breaking down food.
@1b:
If I'm not mistaken, oxidization requires being exposed to oxygen. There's a reason why some stuff can be stored for weeks in a closed package and mere days when the packaging is opened. There's still oxygen exposure, but it is greatly reduced and fairly predictable.
In addition to that, 'non-packaged food' may also have been or be exposed to significant amounts of oxygen and other deteriorating influences. Sure, if you take stuff directly from your own garden you have total control over that, but this is not an option for daily nutrition for pretty much everyone.
Things like frozen vegetables have been indicated to be better in containing nutrients like vitamins than 'fresh' vegetables. See f.i.: http://www.smdisteel.org/~/media/Files/SMDI/Containers/Container%20-%20UC%20Davis%20Executive%20Summary.pdf
or a more popularly written one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1255606/Why-frozen-vegetables-fresher-fresh.html
With regard to the supplements: they do seem to have an effect for children with glaring deficiencies: http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d5094 .. moderation ;-)
We're very aware that deficiencies of certain vitamins can cause diseases or disorders, but it seems that just overloading our body with the pure versions of them has a bad effect, as per TFA. I guess that means we should exercise some
@2:
I'm sure you know as well as I that labels such as "all natural" and "heart-healthy" are little more than marketing slogans.
Oh man, don't get me started. In my country, there's a foundation that attaches certain national labels on all types of products. Its board is made up of mainly ex-(marketing)employees of Unilever, Procter & Gamble and Ahold.
Then, the less a food resembles the component ingredients, the less I know what I'm actually eating, and the more a company can, in my mind, easily get away with (whether by intentional profit-grubbing or just because money motivates shortcuts and rationalizations).
True. The upside at this point is that most of the pu
Movies haven't really changed that much over time. However you will probably see the golden age of movies are from the period you are 8-18. As you are now old enough to see a PG movie and know what is going on, and this is your first time seeing the normal formula, so it is new and exciting. After that decade is over, you see the pattern over and over again, the special effects are less interesting.
You're wrong. Watch Terminator 2 again, for instance. It is an absolutely masterful action movie compared to other action movies.
A lot of the 'newer stuff' contains absolutely lazy writing: stupid shit like hand to hand (martial art-like) combat between anything from mechs to superheroes. You know: "because whatever, fuck you."
I'm not saying older movies didn't do the same, just that it seems that much harder to find ones that don't nowadays. I'm very receptive to tips of more recent movies that have little of this.
I could elaborate if you cared to read, but it's probably just fodder for tl;dr otherwise.
Actually, I would read that, as it sounds interesting.
By many folks' definitions, that is exactly what studies on fats, or carbs, or saturated fats, or trans fats, etc, are doing. Yet, advice based on any of these may potentially be equally counter-productive
Of course, but only if you deliberately overstate what the studies actually found or if you omit the 'correlation != causation' disclaimer. When 'eating carbs can rapidly increase your blood sugar levels' transforms into 'carbs are bad, mmkay' it is being done wrong.
Ideally, we would all have an understanding of our digestive system, developed by public information. Instead, public information systems are generally ridden with these bits of broad and generic advice which are effectively 'trust me'-statements that teach nothing.
For instance, it's sad that a lot of people haven't even shaken the idiotic 'fat makes fat' way of thinking. A child can understand that that's not the way digestion works.
But so is yours: a friend's definition of "variation" was to order different toppings on his weekly order of domino's pizza (which he kept in the fridge and ate throughout the week).
True, true, the variation bit is vague enough to be easily intentionally misunderstood. On the other hand, your friend sounds like the sort of person for which the advice was actually beneficial, assuming he didn't just vary different types of meat as toppings.
That is, of course, the beautiful progress of science, but it's led to decades of what many now call bad nutritional advice.
That is exactly the point. The advice is often not only unproductive, but counterproductive. People have to eat something, so avoiding certain types of foods means eating more of something else. The fat-shunning induced popularity of carbohydrates in the last decades of the previous century is a good example.
The reverse is also true: when calling certain foods healthy, people get the idea that a diet of only fruit and vegetables is superhealthy, even though it introduces deficiencies elsewhere.
Concerning the 'boxed pre-processed foods': if there is one thing tertiary processed food is good at, it is constant and carefully managed quality. This means that a 'boxed pre-processed' version of some nutrients may be more beneficial to your health than a less processed version, simply because the less processed version has had less quality control and more exposure to unknowns. Better the devil you know, and all that.
Now it is true that things like trans fat mainly occur in tertiary processed food, so in that sense the advice to avoid the stuff could have merit to it. The problem is that it could lead people to go to their local bakery and think that they are eating trans fat free stuff. They'll probably quite smugly claim how they stay away from 'all that processed crap'. When at some point it is pointed out to them that they're still consuming a lot of trans fat, they'll feel 'had', demoralized and will lose another bit of faith in (nutritional) science.
When it comes to health, there are a couple bits of broad advice that trump pretty much everything else and are very acceptable to give in my book:
regular light exercise, moderation and variation.
so you knew what they meant you just ignored it for the sake of arguing about the usage of a very broad term...
Canadians are assholes. You know what I mean.