The difference here is that I am not allowed to opt-out of the government's system.
Nor does AT&T have the power of arrest and detention.
Standing up and saying its not Big Brother doesn't make it so. The sad part is New Yorkers will probably go for this in a heart beat. All you need to do is whisper World Trade Center, and all opposition voices will be drowned out. Take it from me, my sister lords it over me every time this type of issue comes up because she was 6 blocks away on 9/11.
You still have the pocket problem... You don't want 200 watts of RF near your balls!
My balls aren't in my pocket. Most people keep a phone in their back pocket.
But I see you have fallen for the nonsense that radio transmitters, even pathetically weak ones, cause cancer. You are precisely one the people the GAO wrote this report for.
RF power eats battery anyway and longer range just means bigger areas which share the bandwidth. At the same time technology improves and can make use of lower and lower signal levels. What is the point of raising a safety limit if there isn't even a technical benefit? (Wifi power limits for example are not even meant to be safety limits but to allow everyone a fair share of a scarce resource.)
The GAO doesn't want to raise the safety limit, they want to push them lower. (requiring lower emissions).
However, they couldn't find a shred of evidence to support that, and were forced to dedicate their entire first paragraph to saying exactly that. Still, the radio-phobic lobby group pressured them into releasing a report asking the FCC to do SOMETHING, anything, and "Won't somebody please think of the children??!!!?".
Yes, phones can get away with less power today, due to better signal processing, but that just pushes us back into the same problems we faced with range limited devices of the past. And, no, wifi power limits in phones are SPECIFICALLY to address (largely irrational) concerns about specific absorption of radio waves.
Every phone goes through Specific Absorption testing, on ALL bands that they emit, and they all pass the most stringent tests, because manufacturers dont' want to have yet another thing to worry about in country A as opposed to country B, so they design for the tightest standards.
Most people don't even hold their phone to their head anymore. This was the big boogy man of the past. So now they want to worry about the phone you carry in your pocket, no doubt because of a upswing in buttocks cancer.
There is just no evidence that anything at all should be done. Trace this to the source and you find people who insist they can sense wifi routers.
But the ocean and river caffeine concentration is not coincident with population centers according to the first linked article. The fluctuations are coincident with storms.
Further no caffeine pollution is reported in New York. I doubt they drink less coffee there.
These facts point to a natural source rather than to human coffee use.
There is no reason to turn on two factor authentication for some secondary email, or even use a Gmail account for this.
You get non-descript messages with some digits in this email, and they are use-once codes. You can paste them on the bulletin board after you use them and nobody could use them again.
Once you get the Google Authentication app on your phone, you need never use this again. Lose your phone?
If you use Google Voice to receive verification codes, you can easily create a situation where you’ve locked yourself out of your account.
For example, if you are signed out of your Google Voice app, you might need a verification code to get back in. However, you won’t be able to receive this verification code because it will be sent to your Google Voice, which you can’t access.
You don't have to give them YOUR phone number, nor does the phone have to be able to receive SMS. Google will use a computer voice to read the digits to you. This number does not need to be your permanent number.
You just need ANY phone number that you can answer. You will need it exactly twice. Once to set things up on your computer. Then again to get the Google Authentication app authorized. From then on you don't need to give them your phone number.
Wait, why would any credit card digits and an address be sufficient? You hand that over every time you buy something.
Why would apple bypass their own security questions and open the account to someone who can't remember any of those? Seriously who forgets their Mother's maiden name or their first pets name?
As anyone who has been following this story from the beginning knows no real hacking took place, no encryption was broken, no keys were stolen. The man used the same password for all his logins, and the "hacker" simply talked Apple support into handing over access to his account, and once one password was known, the hacker could log in everywhere.
What amazes me is how many people posted on the original thread here on slashdot their utter disbelief about how this happened, apparently astounded that Apple would do such a thing. Yet Social Engineering is one of the primary methods of spectacular security breaches.
Still one has to ask, why this guy was chosen as a target. I suspect the attacker had just that little piece of inside knowledge that gave him just enough to nudge the Apple tech over the brink.
Holly grows in the wild in Washington State, and I suspect, Oregon. But it is never plentiful or concentrated. I rather suspect it's some unassuming ground plant that nobody pays any attention to.
A liter of espresso may contain as much as 2254 milligrams of caffeine. But when filtered through a human gut 5 to 10 milligrams/liter in urine is the usual norm for a three cup a day coffee drinker.
Caffeine is metabolized in the liver by the cytochrome P450 oxidase enzyme system (to be specific, the 1A2 isozyme) into three metabolic dimethylxanthines. Further, In healthy adults, caffeine's half-life has been measured with a range of results. Some measures get 4.9 hours, and others are at around 6 hours
Caffeine is metabolized in the liver by the cytochrome P450 oxidase enzyme system (to be specific, the 1A2 isozyme) into three metabolic dimethylxanthines. Further, In healthy adults, caffeine's half-life has been measured with a range of results. Some measures get 4.9 hours, and others are at around 6 hours.
Therefore, it seems unlikely that the source of caffeine in the ocean is from human waste, since the time spent in the gut exceeds the half-life of caffeine, and when metabolized, its no longer caffeine. There is of course still some small remaining un-metabolized caffeine in urine. A liter of espresso may contain as much as 2254 milligrams of caffeine. But when filtered through a human gut 5 to 10 milligrams/liter in urine is unusual, and 15mg/l gets you bounced from most sports programs as a sign of abuse.
It seems far more likely that the coffee poured out by restaurants, offices, and households, and the disposed of grounds being used for compost and gardening are a larger source than what comes out in the urine stream. Also the water Decaffeination processes is the source of the excess caffeine in city sewage, even though caffeine thus recovered can be marketed into the soft drink business, not all small operations bother with that.
Quoting the first linked source:
Caffeine occurrence and concentrations in seawater did not correspond with pollution threats from population density and point and non-point sources, but did correspond with storm event occurrence.
So it seems to me that the caffeine is just as likely entirely natural, perhaps produced in very low quantities by some naturally occurring plants in the predominantly coniferous temperate rain forests of the area, rather than by any human activity or byproduct. Such a low production would leach out into streams and rivers during storms, but not from municipal sewers, and hence would not correspond to population density.
The fee was specifically ruled illegal by the Judge. You can tether all you want within your capped data plan. Its your bandwidth to do with what you want.
the 4g band cant have restrictions thanks to google, so while I can see them charging in 3g in 4g it should not be an issue from my understanding
Actually its only if the 700mhz band is used that the restrictions against tethering kickin. Other 4g bands are not thusly restricted. It just so happens Verizon decided to use this 700mhz spectrum for its LTE support, then tried to get the restriction removed in court.
They lost, and therefore can't limit any device or any app from being used on their LTE network (with a paid data plan) as long as it does not harm the network. Specifically exempted in the FCC ruling were unlimited data plans. You have to be on a tiered plan of some sort. This also means they can't keep NFC payment apps off their LTE network.
There are still some who think Verizon can get away with charging for tethering, but they haven't read the judges order.
In fact NASA was amazed just how much continued interest there was in the Spirit and Opportunity rovers over the years. The hits on the web site show a huge spike every time one of these rovers bump into an interesting rock, even if the mainstream media can't be bothered to mention it.
Nobody expects constant 24 7 news coverage of the slow journey of a rover across a barren plane. Nor do we watch sports super stars driving to the stadium.
This idea that there has to be 24/7 engagement of drop-jawed rapture to indicate a high level of public interest seems to be trotted out ONLY for Space explorations.
Virtually no other endeavor on earth is judged by this standard.
But is Pu-238 the only nuclear fuel source we could use?
Wiki says there are about 30 radioisotopes that could be used for this purpose, and both the US and Russians have used very small scale reactors (not just thermo-electric) on space vehicles in the past. The russians have 30 fission reactors in space on RORSATs.
If you read your own link, you will see that nobody but the Russians even tried to land, and one of their landers (Mars 3, 1971) lasted 20 seconds after touch down (or was it a crash, nobody is quite sure). Mars 6 transmitted data on descent, but was never heard from again.
So, no, the US is not the only country to put a lander on another planet.
However the US is the only country to put a lander on Mars that survived more than a few seconds.
And the only country with operational experience on another planet beyond simply receiving a few hurried photos prior to vehicle failure. It should be pointed out that Germany, France, Russia, and a couple others collaborated on the Curiosity lander.
These guys started posting doom and gloom post before liftoff. They've been at it 8 months, and even when its wheels down they still continue to nay-say.
Slashdot Mirror
The difference here is that I am not allowed to opt-out of the government's system.
Nor does AT&T have the power of arrest and detention.
Standing up and saying its not Big Brother doesn't make it so.
The sad part is New Yorkers will probably go for this in a heart beat. All you need to do is whisper World Trade Center, and all opposition voices will be drowned out. Take it from me, my sister lords it over me every time this type of issue comes up because she was 6 blocks away on 9/11.
Voice search has been on Android for about three years now.
Just because IOS users are finally getting it does not make it news.
You still have the pocket problem... You don't want 200 watts of RF near your balls!
My balls aren't in my pocket.
Most people keep a phone in their back pocket.
But I see you have fallen for the nonsense that radio transmitters, even pathetically weak ones, cause cancer.
You are precisely one the people the GAO wrote this report for.
One tower per home is called WIFI. Look it up some time.
RF power eats battery anyway and longer range just means bigger areas which share the bandwidth. At the same time technology improves and can make use of lower and lower signal levels. What is the point of raising a safety limit if there isn't even a technical benefit? (Wifi power limits for example are not even meant to be safety limits but to allow everyone a fair share of a scarce resource.)
The GAO doesn't want to raise the safety limit, they want to push them lower. (requiring lower emissions).
However, they couldn't find a shred of evidence to support that, and were forced to dedicate their entire first paragraph to saying exactly that. Still, the radio-phobic lobby group pressured them into releasing a report asking the FCC to do SOMETHING, anything, and "Won't somebody please think of the children??!!!?".
Yes, phones can get away with less power today, due to better signal processing, but that just pushes us back into the same problems we faced with range limited devices of the past. And, no, wifi power limits in phones are SPECIFICALLY to address (largely irrational) concerns about specific absorption of radio waves.
Every phone goes through Specific Absorption testing, on ALL bands that they emit, and they all pass the most stringent tests, because manufacturers dont' want to have yet another thing to worry about in country A as opposed to country B, so they design for the tightest standards.
Most people don't even hold their phone to their head anymore. This was the big boogy man of the past. So now they want to worry about the phone you carry in your pocket, no doubt because of a upswing in buttocks cancer.
There is just no evidence that anything at all should be done. Trace this to the source and you find people who insist they can sense wifi routers.
But the ocean and river caffeine concentration is not coincident with population centers according to the first linked article. The fluctuations are coincident with storms.
Further no caffeine pollution is reported in New York. I doubt they drink less coffee there.
These facts point to a natural source rather than to human coffee use.
"That said, social engineering is a criminal skill, not a technical one."
I know a LOT of sales people and Lawyers that will seriously disagree with you.
Sales = Social engineering.
Lawyering = Social Engineering.
You must be a politician, otherwise you would have had politicians at the top of your list.
There is no reason to turn on two factor authentication for some secondary email, or even use a Gmail account for this.
You get non-descript messages with some digits in this email, and they are use-once codes. You can paste them on the bulletin board after you use them and nobody could use them again.
Once you get the Google Authentication app on your phone, you need never use this again.
Lose your phone?
Sign up for a google voice (or voip or something) account?
Maybe with a different password.
Second point in the FAQ:
Why you shouldn’t use Google Voice to receive verification codes
If you use Google Voice to receive verification codes, you can easily create a situation where you’ve locked yourself out of your account.
For example, if you are signed out of your Google Voice app, you might need a verification code to get back in. However, you won’t be able to receive this verification code because it will be sent to your Google Voice, which you can’t access.
You don't have to give them YOUR phone number, nor does the phone have to be able to receive SMS.
Google will use a computer voice to read the digits to you. This number does not need to be your permanent number.
You just need ANY phone number that you can answer.
You will need it exactly twice.
Once to set things up on your computer.
Then again to get the Google Authentication app authorized. From then on you don't need to give them your phone number.
Customer in distress?
Forgot their mother's name?
Come on! If you are that distressed, why do you need access to your apple account? Call 911, not Apple.
Wait, why would any credit card digits and an address be sufficient?
You hand that over every time you buy something.
Why would apple bypass their own security questions and open the account to someone who can't remember any of those?
Seriously who forgets their Mother's maiden name or their first pets name?
Exactly.
As anyone who has been following this story from the beginning knows no real hacking took place, no encryption was broken, no keys
were stolen. The man used the same password for all his logins, and the "hacker" simply talked Apple support into handing over
access to his account, and once one password was known, the hacker could log in everywhere.
What amazes me is how many people posted on the original thread here on slashdot their utter disbelief about how this happened, apparently astounded that Apple would do such a thing. Yet Social Engineering is one of the primary methods of spectacular security breaches.
Still one has to ask, why this guy was chosen as a target. I suspect the attacker had just that little piece of inside knowledge that gave him just enough to nudge the Apple tech over the brink.
Holly grows in the wild in Washington State, and I suspect, Oregon. But it is never plentiful or concentrated. I rather suspect it's some unassuming ground plant that nobody pays any attention to.
Exactly.
A liter of espresso may contain as much as 2254 milligrams of caffeine. But when filtered through a human gut 5 to 10 milligrams/liter in urine is the usual norm for a three cup a day coffee drinker.
Sorry, wiki only says the bit about:
Caffeine is metabolized in the liver by the cytochrome P450 oxidase enzyme system (to be specific, the 1A2 isozyme) into three metabolic dimethylxanthines. Further, In healthy adults, caffeine's half-life has been measured with a range of results. Some measures get 4.9 hours, and others are at around 6 hours
The rest was my posting error.
Wiki says
Caffeine is metabolized in the liver by the cytochrome P450 oxidase enzyme system (to be specific, the 1A2 isozyme) into three metabolic dimethylxanthines. Further, In healthy adults, caffeine's half-life has been measured with a range of results. Some measures get 4.9 hours, and others are at around 6 hours.
Therefore, it seems unlikely that the source of caffeine in the ocean is from human waste, since the time spent in the gut exceeds the half-life of caffeine, and when metabolized, its no longer caffeine. There is of course still some small remaining un-metabolized caffeine in urine. A liter of espresso may contain as much as 2254 milligrams of caffeine. But when filtered through a human gut 5 to 10 milligrams/liter in urine is unusual, and 15mg/l gets you bounced from most sports programs as a sign of abuse.
It seems far more likely that the coffee poured out by restaurants, offices, and households, and the disposed of grounds being used for compost and gardening are a larger source than what comes out in the urine stream. Also the water Decaffeination processes is the source of the excess caffeine in city sewage, even though caffeine thus recovered can be marketed into the soft drink business, not all small operations bother with that.
Quoting the first linked source:
Caffeine occurrence and concentrations in seawater did not correspond with pollution threats from population density and point and non-point sources, but did correspond with storm event occurrence.
So it seems to me that the caffeine is just as likely entirely natural, perhaps produced in very low quantities by some naturally occurring plants in the predominantly coniferous temperate rain forests of the area, rather than by any human activity or byproduct. Such a low production would leach out into streams and rivers during storms, but not from municipal sewers, and hence would not correspond to population density.
The fee was specifically ruled illegal by the Judge.
You can tether all you want within your capped data plan. Its your bandwidth to do with what you want.
I do not believe that to be entirely true
the 4g band cant have restrictions thanks to google, so while I can see them charging in 3g in 4g it should not be an issue from my understanding
Actually its only if the 700mhz band is used that the restrictions against tethering kickin. Other 4g bands are not thusly restricted.
It just so happens Verizon decided to use this 700mhz spectrum for its LTE support, then tried to get the restriction removed in court.
They lost, and therefore can't limit any device or any app from being used on their LTE network (with a paid data plan) as long as it does not
harm the network. Specifically exempted in the FCC ruling were unlimited data plans. You have to be on a tiered plan of some sort.
This also means they can't keep NFC payment apps off their LTE network.
There are still some who think Verizon can get away with charging for tethering, but they haven't read the judges order.
idiot.
Go educate yourself. It has 17 cameras.
Not true.
In fact NASA was amazed just how much continued interest there was in the Spirit and Opportunity rovers over the years.
The hits on the web site show a huge spike every time one of these
rovers bump into an interesting rock, even if the mainstream media can't be bothered to mention it.
Nobody expects constant 24 7 news coverage of the slow journey of a rover across a barren plane. Nor do we watch
sports super stars driving to the stadium.
This idea that there has to be 24/7 engagement of drop-jawed rapture to indicate
a high level of public interest seems to be trotted out ONLY for Space explorations.
Virtually no other endeavor on earth is judged by this standard.
But is Pu-238 the only nuclear fuel source we could use?
Wiki says there are about 30 radioisotopes that could be used for this purpose, and both the US and Russians have used very small scale reactors (not just thermo-electric) on space vehicles in the past. The russians have 30 fission reactors in space on RORSATs.
Apparently it worked this one time...
So, 100% success rate for this landing technique then?
If you read your own link, you will see that nobody but the Russians even tried to land, and one of
their landers (Mars 3, 1971) lasted 20 seconds after touch down (or was it a crash, nobody is quite sure).
Mars 6 transmitted data on descent, but was never heard from again.
Russian Venus missions landed and transmitted imagess.
So, no, the US is not the only country to put a lander on another planet.
However the US is the only country to put a lander on Mars that survived more than a few seconds.
And the only country with operational experience on another planet beyond simply receiving a few hurried photos prior to
vehicle failure. It should be pointed out that Germany, France, Russia, and a couple others collaborated on the Curiosity lander.
These guys started posting doom and gloom post before liftoff.
They've been at it 8 months, and even when its wheels down they still continue to nay-say.