Apple aphone manufacturer? Give me a f*cking break, Mr. Anonymous Coward. You spelled Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd (Foxconn) wrong. Must be another Apple fanboi. Apple doesn't manufacture Apple phones. Manufacturing is too low-profit-margin for them. Apple is a brand. Take their product and slap a different label on it and nobody would buy it. As for data hosting and IT support, without the brand pulling people into the Apple ecosystem, that would also pretty much disappear. Kind of like what's happening with Macs losing share to Windows machines, making OSX compatability more of a "nice to have" instead of a "must have", even in graphics.
You don't know what you're talking about and are not a lawyer.
Actually, he knows what he's talking about because he listens to the judges, not the lawyers - and it's the judges who have said Uber is illegal in many many places. Only a fool listens to a lawyer's opinion when there's a bunch of judges who have already laid out jurisprudence in the matter, so don't be a fool and make reference to lawyers, be like rsilvergun.:-)
Then your city is behind the times. Here it's illegal for a taxi to refuse to accept a credit card, same as it's illegal to charge a surcharge for payment by credit card. And the taxi is available when I want it, no surge charges, no taxis over 10 years old permitted, and drivers that omit personal hygiene or have a dirty cab are fined. That's the good side of regulation - you might want to put pressure on your local government to actually get off their ass and regulate a bit in return for the revenues they collect.
It's the new definition of the "shared economy". You take the risks, they take the profits. They just copied Wall Street and "too big to fail" with their version of "sharing", where profits are private and risk is public.
Problem is that, unlike Amazon, which has huge barriers to entry (those warehouses cost money, and so do the schmoes who schlep the stock around inside), anyone can create a web app and let people post that they're looking to "share a ride from point A to point B". The drivers bear all the capital and running costs, as well as the legal risk.
You haven't been keeping up with research in other countries. The WHI results were not duplicated when proper cohort selection was done. And as I pointed out, even their numbers were misinterpreted by their own people. That's what happens when you try to fudge data to make a manufacturer's product look good - your fudge factors can really turn on you and bite you in the ass.
The studies HAVE been done in Europe, and the recommendations are clear - all women who do not have a family predisposition to cancers that grow faster when exposed to estrogen and don't have lifestyle risk factors (esp. smoking and obesity) should be encouraged to go on HRT within 5 years of signs of menopause.
The benefits to the cardiovascular system clearly outweigh the small incidental risk of stroke (and that stroke risk is mostly among people with the aforementioned lifestyle diseases). The caveat is to NOT include any forms of progestins - they are not needed, and increase risks. Straight estradiol alone is enough.
And as I pointed out, menopause is extremely unnatural among mammals. Out of all the thousands of mammals, there's just two marine species and humans. It's a genetic defect that wasn't weeded out because it's negative impact on species survival wasn't sufficient to remove it, same as many other negative genes continue to persist in the human genome.
This is a different debate question than "internet is a net-bad for society". I haven't really thought too much about that question, but off the top of my head, do you support cutting off an Iranian med student's access to internet documentation on the basis of the country they were born in being a 'bad actor'?
Let me fix that for you.
"This is a different debate question than "internet is a net-bad for society". I haven't really thought too much about that question, but off the top of my head, do you support cutting off an American med student's access to internet documentation on the basis of the country they were born in being a 'bad actor'?
Iran wouldn't be a theocracy if it hadn't been for the US overthrowing the democratic, secular government and installing the Shah of Iran.
The blocking would be done by each country. If the US were to block Iran, Iranians would still have access to 95% of the worlds population. But they wouldn't hear nearly as much noise about Donald Trump. Some people would see that as a bonus. Heck, some people would be lobbying for their individual states to block the crap coming out of Washington.
I could get behind a global filter blocking everything with the terms "Donald Trump" and "Milo Yiannoppoulos" and "Breitbart" - it would be at least as effective as dumping prozac into the water supply, and we'd be able to move the doomsday clock back a minute from midnight.
You can get a temporary ban (I wonder if it's still the "pink page of death") by having too many down-mods - even with excellent karma (go figure). I wouldn't call that censorship any more than having a comment down-modded to -1. It's just a feature of the system, same as rate-limiting, that has no permanent effect.
And yet in everyday life it doesn't make a difference. Power steering, power brakes, and soon self-driving cars and trucks. Many jobs don't require sheer muscle mass any more. Besides, most men seem to be incapable of generating enough muscle effort to even change the roll of toilet paper (a stereotype that's nevertheless based on plenty of observation).
The "scandal" with ERT (Estrogen Replacement Therapy) was bullshit of the first degree. The Women's Health Initiative study was seriously flawed, used horse estrogen and horse progestins with over 50 impurities exclusively that would not be approved under current FDA rules (not human-identical estrogens), had a strong selection bias towards women who were far from good candidates (far too many older, obese women than representative of the population, most had been post-menopausal for a LONG tim), and the mathematical analysis, when redone by the Brits, gave different numbers.
We now know that HRT for women protects bones as well as the cardiovascular system in general. The risk of stroke is mostly for those who are +10 years menopausal when they start HRT, take progestins as well, smoke, and are obese. For women who do not meet these criteria, it's now recommended again, except in North America, where retractions of erroneous studies never receive the bad publicity they deserve. Throw in lower risks of depression and demantia and HRT should be on every woman's preventative healthcare checklist before it's too late.
The "grandfathering" of equine (horse) hormones for the treatment of menopause in humans isn't going to change because of the $$$$ the company still makes off it, even though there's a known liver risk that isn't present with human estrogens.
BTW, menopause is not a "normal part of life." There are only humans and 2 species of whale (out of more than 80) that go through menopause. It should be treated as the genetic disorder that it is.
We talk about osteoporosis in women, where 34% of all women will at one point in their lives break a hip, but in men it''s far worse - 56%. And 1 out of 10 people who fractures their hip never goes home. If taking a pill can avoid spending the rest of your life in long-term care, it's probably worth the risks. Quality of life is paramount.
The easy way to find out is get a bone density scan on your spine and femur. (the ones that just do the forearm or heal are bs in comparison). It will alert you to osteopenia as well as osteoporosis.
More studies are needed because the effects of hormones can vary greatly depending on the individual, as well as at what point in their life they're at. Identifying those who would benefit while ruling out those at greatest risk (or better yet, treating them like adults and letting them make the decision after being given all the information - you know, "informed consent", rather than "no, we've decided it's too risky for you, take our word for it").
1. Moonlight can be bright enough to read a book by. But it's not brightness that's the problem, or just closing your eyes would eliminate the "problem." It doesn't, because the problem is between the ears, not an actual real effect.
2. Turn on the room lights and the relative brightness of the monitor becomes a non-problem, People working in dark rooms are retarded.
3. Also, buy a better monitor and you'll be able to dim it. However, that's not the problem, as per 2. Again, turn on the room lights to a decent brightness.
House LED lighting is irrelevant to the issue of blue lights and computers in rooms with adequate daylight. More relevant to a good night's sleep would be getting away from the keyboard and taking the dog for a walk before going to bed, instead of taking your phone or tablet or laptop into bed. Nowadays bosses expect us to be "on" 24/7, and almost as bad, we see it as a badge of honor to be always on top of things. Stupid, self-defeating, self-destructive behaviour, but that's how low high tech has sunk.
The real issue is work/life balance. Get that right and "blue light" won't interfere with your life.
Humans don't need complete dark to sleep. We evolved on the African plains, and there's this big thing called the Moon that regularly lights up the night sky - and that light is pretty rich in blue when the moon is high in the sky. Don't take my word for it - go out some night and look.
Or take a nice lazy nap in the middle of the day with the sun shining bright. You can get a nice sunburn doing that at poolside. The bright light didn't keep you from falling asleep or you would have noticed you've cooked yourself.
We evolved for this sort of situation. If blue light were a problem, we'd have an inner eyelid to filter it out, like Vulcans, or have an adaptation where it's not a problem (which, all SciFi aside, is what really happened). But people will believe all sorts of crap rather than see what's literally in front of their eyes, because people WANT to experience the frisson that comes from "knowing something new that someone else doesn't" - same as gossip and fake news.
It's bullshit. What it boils down to is yet another business spying on you, rather than offering a new way to mitigate the problem. Same shit that *every* antivirus player offers. None of this will prevent a well-directed phishing attack - one of the things they claim it will help against - so it's just more "security theatre." Let's face it, unless you actually pre-screen mail for threats (and this doesn't) it won't do sweet f*ck all.
He'll love the attention of being the first president around the moon (and he's well suited shince he's already a lunatic/space cadet. No way he'd cancel the budget for that!
The story says " allowed an attacker to steal 370,000 Zerocoin, which is about $592,000 at today's price". I seriously doubt 370,000 Zerocoins is worth anywhere near $592k now that the news is out and trading has been suspended. If you can't spend it, it's worth is zero, which kind of makes sense for something named Zerocoin. The name should have been warning enough.
One-time pads are unbreakable. And while the law nominally accepts faxes, you can demand the original, and if it's not produced, the fax is discarded as proof. Nothing beats physical service by a human.
You're either stupid or naive if you think that encryption protects your data. Encryption on a compromised device (and what device hasn't been compromised) is worth less than toilet paper. And that doesn't even account for the recipient either being compromised or sharing it, either voluntarily or by force. Smart people assume that ANYTHING that you put into electronic form for transmission over the net might as well be public.
As just one example where paper is better than electronic data, consider cash. Cash is still king. Try making a purchase electronically without a net connection. Try making a purchase electronically if the bank thinks it's a suspicious transaction and locks your account. Try making a purchase electronically if you lose your phone or the battery dies (or explodes).
It's also easier to forge faxes, emails, pdfs, etc. to "document" a fake sale. Paper, you still need the original signatures (photocopies are not accepted unless both sides agree, and only a fool would agree to such a stipulation). Paper is also easier to file with registry offices and you can leave a notarized paper trail. E-records are not there yet, and probably never will be, because anything electronic can be faked.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple aphone manufacturer? Give me a f*cking break, Mr. Anonymous Coward. You spelled Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd (Foxconn) wrong. Must be another Apple fanboi. Apple doesn't manufacture Apple phones. Manufacturing is too low-profit-margin for them. Apple is a brand. Take their product and slap a different label on it and nobody would buy it. As for data hosting and IT support, without the brand pulling people into the Apple ecosystem, that would also pretty much disappear. Kind of like what's happening with Macs losing share to Windows machines, making OSX compatability more of a "nice to have" instead of a "must have", even in graphics.
You don't know what you're talking about and are not a lawyer.
Actually, he knows what he's talking about because he listens to the judges, not the lawyers - and it's the judges who have said Uber is illegal in many many places. Only a fool listens to a lawyer's opinion when there's a bunch of judges who have already laid out jurisprudence in the matter, so don't be a fool and make reference to lawyers, be like rsilvergun. :-)
You're full of shit. Local taxi companies managed to develop their own apps without much trouble. Includes credit cards, etc.
Then your city is behind the times. Here it's illegal for a taxi to refuse to accept a credit card, same as it's illegal to charge a surcharge for payment by credit card. And the taxi is available when I want it, no surge charges, no taxis over 10 years old permitted, and drivers that omit personal hygiene or have a dirty cab are fined. That's the good side of regulation - you might want to put pressure on your local government to actually get off their ass and regulate a bit in return for the revenues they collect.
It's the new definition of the "shared economy". You take the risks, they take the profits. They just copied Wall Street and "too big to fail" with their version of "sharing", where profits are private and risk is public.
Problem is that, unlike Amazon, which has huge barriers to entry (those warehouses cost money, and so do the schmoes who schlep the stock around inside), anyone can create a web app and let people post that they're looking to "share a ride from point A to point B". The drivers bear all the capital and running costs, as well as the legal risk.
You haven't been keeping up with research in other countries. The WHI results were not duplicated when proper cohort selection was done. And as I pointed out, even their numbers were misinterpreted by their own people. That's what happens when you try to fudge data to make a manufacturer's product look good - your fudge factors can really turn on you and bite you in the ass.
The studies HAVE been done in Europe, and the recommendations are clear - all women who do not have a family predisposition to cancers that grow faster when exposed to estrogen and don't have lifestyle risk factors (esp. smoking and obesity) should be encouraged to go on HRT within 5 years of signs of menopause.
The benefits to the cardiovascular system clearly outweigh the small incidental risk of stroke (and that stroke risk is mostly among people with the aforementioned lifestyle diseases). The caveat is to NOT include any forms of progestins - they are not needed, and increase risks. Straight estradiol alone is enough.
And as I pointed out, menopause is extremely unnatural among mammals. Out of all the thousands of mammals, there's just two marine species and humans. It's a genetic defect that wasn't weeded out because it's negative impact on species survival wasn't sufficient to remove it, same as many other negative genes continue to persist in the human genome.
This is a different debate question than "internet is a net-bad for society". I haven't really thought too much about that question, but off the top of my head, do you support cutting off an Iranian med student's access to internet documentation on the basis of the country they were born in being a 'bad actor'?
Let me fix that for you.
"This is a different debate question than "internet is a net-bad for society". I haven't really thought too much about that question, but off the top of my head, do you support cutting off an American med student's access to internet documentation on the basis of the country they were born in being a 'bad actor'?
Iran wouldn't be a theocracy if it hadn't been for the US overthrowing the democratic, secular government and installing the Shah of Iran.
The blocking would be done by each country. If the US were to block Iran, Iranians would still have access to 95% of the worlds population. But they wouldn't hear nearly as much noise about Donald Trump. Some people would see that as a bonus. Heck, some people would be lobbying for their individual states to block the crap coming out of Washington.
I could get behind a global filter blocking everything with the terms "Donald Trump" and "Milo Yiannoppoulos" and "Breitbart" - it would be at least as effective as dumping prozac into the water supply, and we'd be able to move the doomsday clock back a minute from midnight.
You can get a temporary ban (I wonder if it's still the "pink page of death") by having too many down-mods - even with excellent karma (go figure). I wouldn't call that censorship any more than having a comment down-modded to -1. It's just a feature of the system, same as rate-limiting, that has no permanent effect.
Be careful what you ask for. Do you really want slashdot to start censoring posts?
And yet in everyday life it doesn't make a difference. Power steering, power brakes, and soon self-driving cars and trucks. Many jobs don't require sheer muscle mass any more. Besides, most men seem to be incapable of generating enough muscle effort to even change the roll of toilet paper (a stereotype that's nevertheless based on plenty of observation).
"Atoms are ageless"
All those hydrogen atoms being converted into helium atoms in the Sun would disagree with you. :-)
The "scandal" with ERT (Estrogen Replacement Therapy) was bullshit of the first degree. The Women's Health Initiative study was seriously flawed, used horse estrogen and horse progestins with over 50 impurities exclusively that would not be approved under current FDA rules (not human-identical estrogens), had a strong selection bias towards women who were far from good candidates (far too many older, obese women than representative of the population, most had been post-menopausal for a LONG tim), and the mathematical analysis, when redone by the Brits, gave different numbers.
We now know that HRT for women protects bones as well as the cardiovascular system in general. The risk of stroke is mostly for those who are +10 years menopausal when they start HRT, take progestins as well, smoke, and are obese. For women who do not meet these criteria, it's now recommended again, except in North America, where retractions of erroneous studies never receive the bad publicity they deserve. Throw in lower risks of depression and demantia and HRT should be on every woman's preventative healthcare checklist before it's too late.
The "grandfathering" of equine (horse) hormones for the treatment of menopause in humans isn't going to change because of the $$$$ the company still makes off it, even though there's a known liver risk that isn't present with human estrogens.
BTW, menopause is not a "normal part of life." There are only humans and 2 species of whale (out of more than 80) that go through menopause. It should be treated as the genetic disorder that it is.
Jason Stratham, Dwayne Johnson (The Rock), and Sean Connery seem to be doing just fine even with hair loss.
We talk about osteoporosis in women, where 34% of all women will at one point in their lives break a hip, but in men it''s far worse - 56%. And 1 out of 10 people who fractures their hip never goes home. If taking a pill can avoid spending the rest of your life in long-term care, it's probably worth the risks. Quality of life is paramount.
The easy way to find out is get a bone density scan on your spine and femur. (the ones that just do the forearm or heal are bs in comparison). It will alert you to osteopenia as well as osteoporosis.
More studies are needed because the effects of hormones can vary greatly depending on the individual, as well as at what point in their life they're at. Identifying those who would benefit while ruling out those at greatest risk (or better yet, treating them like adults and letting them make the decision after being given all the information - you know, "informed consent", rather than "no, we've decided it's too risky for you, take our word for it").
1. Moonlight can be bright enough to read a book by. But it's not brightness that's the problem, or just closing your eyes would eliminate the "problem." It doesn't, because the problem is between the ears, not an actual real effect.
2. Turn on the room lights and the relative brightness of the monitor becomes a non-problem, People working in dark rooms are retarded.
3. Also, buy a better monitor and you'll be able to dim it. However, that's not the problem, as per 2. Again, turn on the room lights to a decent brightness.
House LED lighting is irrelevant to the issue of blue lights and computers in rooms with adequate daylight. More relevant to a good night's sleep would be getting away from the keyboard and taking the dog for a walk before going to bed, instead of taking your phone or tablet or laptop into bed. Nowadays bosses expect us to be "on" 24/7, and almost as bad, we see it as a badge of honor to be always on top of things. Stupid, self-defeating, self-destructive behaviour, but that's how low high tech has sunk.
The real issue is work/life balance. Get that right and "blue light" won't interfere with your life.
Blue light is filtered out when the sun is close to the horizon - it's why sunrises and sunsets are redish-orange - so your original premise is off.
Humans don't need complete dark to sleep. We evolved on the African plains, and there's this big thing called the Moon that regularly lights up the night sky - and that light is pretty rich in blue when the moon is high in the sky. Don't take my word for it - go out some night and look.
Or take a nice lazy nap in the middle of the day with the sun shining bright. You can get a nice sunburn doing that at poolside. The bright light didn't keep you from falling asleep or you would have noticed you've cooked yourself.
We evolved for this sort of situation. If blue light were a problem, we'd have an inner eyelid to filter it out, like Vulcans, or have an adaptation where it's not a problem (which, all SciFi aside, is what really happened). But people will believe all sorts of crap rather than see what's literally in front of their eyes, because people WANT to experience the frisson that comes from "knowing something new that someone else doesn't" - same as gossip and fake news.
It's bullshit. What it boils down to is yet another business spying on you, rather than offering a new way to mitigate the problem. Same shit that *every* antivirus player offers. None of this will prevent a well-directed phishing attack - one of the things they claim it will help against - so it's just more "security theatre." Let's face it, unless you actually pre-screen mail for threats (and this doesn't) it won't do sweet f*ck all.
He'll love the attention of being the first president around the moon (and he's well suited shince he's already a lunatic/space cadet. No way he'd cancel the budget for that!
You'll notice that as the fake demand went up, so did the price. Nice scam.
The story says " allowed an attacker to steal 370,000 Zerocoin, which is about $592,000 at today's price". I seriously doubt 370,000 Zerocoins is worth anywhere near $592k now that the news is out and trading has been suspended. If you can't spend it, it's worth is zero, which kind of makes sense for something named Zerocoin. The name should have been warning enough.
You mean this?
One-time pads are unbreakable. And while the law nominally accepts faxes, you can demand the original, and if it's not produced, the fax is discarded as proof. Nothing beats physical service by a human.
You're either stupid or naive if you think that encryption protects your data. Encryption on a compromised device (and what device hasn't been compromised) is worth less than toilet paper. And that doesn't even account for the recipient either being compromised or sharing it, either voluntarily or by force. Smart people assume that ANYTHING that you put into electronic form for transmission over the net might as well be public.
As just one example where paper is better than electronic data, consider cash. Cash is still king. Try making a purchase electronically without a net connection. Try making a purchase electronically if the bank thinks it's a suspicious transaction and locks your account. Try making a purchase electronically if you lose your phone or the battery dies (or explodes).
It's also easier to forge faxes, emails, pdfs, etc. to "document" a fake sale. Paper, you still need the original signatures (photocopies are not accepted unless both sides agree, and only a fool would agree to such a stipulation). Paper is also easier to file with registry offices and you can leave a notarized paper trail. E-records are not there yet, and probably never will be, because anything electronic can be faked.