Yep, that's basically what I've been doing - tracking kcals in, use a polar HR strap and software to calc burn rate.

The numbers are pretty clear. I lose weight through diet. Not having a large McDonalds shake (880kcal) is worth more then 2 days at the gym (~800kcal). So I decide that the chocolate shake is not worth 2 days worth of gym work. Which points out the value of gym work. It lets me place a value on those calories, which resonate emotionally ('two days at the gym?!? no fscking way is that shake that tasty!")

Min

Exactly, the science for wieght is easy.

Energy in > Energy out => You gain weight
Energy out > Energy in => You lose weight

Beware of margins of error in your measuring methods and you're golden.

Lost 70 lbs in 10 months with my 'scientific' diet :)

Min

Remember here we're discussing a private space, not a public one. While I fully endorse anyone's right to express themselves (inside the rule of law, which is arguable in some of these cases, but we'll set them aside for the sake of argument) that right only extends to the public space, not a private one, be it physical or virtual.

I challenge anyone to go into Disney World, and start shouting the same sort of vitriol that takes place in the public channels of $insert_game_here and see how long it takes until you're politely, but firmly told that you are not welcome in their private space, and that you will be denied entrance in the future. Why should game companies handle unruly patrons in any different manner. All their TOSs expressly forbid many of these activities from occurring, but for years game companies have turned a blind eye with the attitude that if it bothers you, you should be the one to mute the offender.

Can anyone imagine Disney suggesting you ignore the crazy guy shouting racist slurs on the corner of main st?

It's frankly about time we as a community grew out of our collective teenagehood and developed some maturity.

Min

Security dept: (n) A deptartment in a company that if it doesn't exist will cause the development department to be directly blamed for anything that goes wrong. See also: (n) scapegoat.

Seriously, my IT dept calls us "the latex department" because if we're involved they're protected. Otherwise they get the blame.

Min

I agree there are companies out there like that. I'll say though, if a developer comes to me with security issue, it'll get addressed in my company. We (the security dept) has a seat at the decision making table when we select which tickets get worked on, and the power to red ticket a release until a security bug gets addressed.

That being said, one could argue that the reason we have that authority links back to the full disclosure movement and the impact of incidents like the Targets and the TJ Maxx ("What do you mean it couldn't happen here? Don't you think Target said the same thing a week before it happened there?").

If you don't have a security dept that will back you on these things, then someone hired the wrong ppl for the security dept.

Min

Yes, because an entry level TSA employee would know about the secret data collection centers. That'd be like saying that the NSA would allow a low level sysadmin access to top secret plans to spy on Americans... er, carry on!

Min

OK, I'm going to rant a bit here, and it's not specifically directed at the parent comment.

Hashs are NOT a form of magic pixie dust you spread on information to make them magiclly private.

Consider:
You enter your SSN, the app hashes it and then sends it to me to compare against a hashed list of SSNs from some other source. I never get your unhashed SSN.

Are you safe?

No. There is NOTHING preventing me from hashing every possible SSN and comparing them. the total number of possible SSNs (ignoring for the moment that I can narrow the attack space significantly by ruling out SSNs that have not been issued yet) is not computationally prohibitive to search, even salted.

OK, now bringing us back to the case in point.

Does hashing the DNS address provide you any useful privacy preservation benefit?

Well Valve has already said that they have a list of DNS addresses they're searching for. Ergo, they have hashed that list ot compare against your DNS. How hard would it be to hash the $(sites viewed as evil by your cultural/legal framework) and compare it to your hashed DNS list. Trivial.

Do you feel like your privacy is preserved?

Min

I read it somewhere:

We all manipulate, we ask people to please pass the salt instead of saying pass the &#(@#ing salt you *#(*$@$(*@$ing $*@$"

Me thinks that if you're going to need help with an electric bill in the future, it might help to occasionally engage in a bit of manipulation on the please pass the salt level.

Truecrypt.

Paying for something is not an implicit guarantee of quality. In point of fact we use Wickr at home for casual level messaging. Why? The guys behind it are known in the infosec community and therefore have a reputational stake in not doing dumb things. Additionally it has survived an audit by forensics professionals where snapchat failed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwW9g_SQn9Y

Min

Just dropping in to add a few facts to the rhetoric:

Point Blank, by Gary Kleck, pg 165, citing a study by Wilson and Sherman, 1961:

âoeAt least one medical study compared very similar sets of wounds (âall were penetrating wounds of the abdomenâ(TM)), and found that the mortality rate in
pistol wounds was 16.8%, while the rate was 14.3% for ice pick wounds and 13.3% for butcher knife wounds."

So a single GSW to center of mass is carries a 16.8% mortality rate.

From Wikipedia:

"In 2005, 75% of the 10,100 homicides committed using firearms in the United States were committed using handguns, compared to 4% with rifles, 5% with shotguns, and the rest with unspecified firearms.[48] The likelihood that a death will result is significantly increased when either the victim or the attacker has a firearm.[49] For example, the mortality rate for gunshot wounds to the heart is 84%, compared to 30% for people who sustain stab wounds to the heart.[50]"

OK, carry on.

Min

Hey JJ, long time :)

Arguably when a state entity espouses such a principle in their founding documents, they would have an ethical obligation to not undermine those principles through use of state organs.

I agree that the text says they will make no law abridging the right, however, I would expect an implied corollary to be "Since we believe that this right is so important we won't engage in actions which would have a chilling effect on it."

Min

You know, it's funny but I don't believe I recall seeing "...until we don't agree with your speech, at which point we'll collect dirt on you and blackmail you with it" in the first amendment. Must be in the second edition.

The Great Firewall of China begins to look like a useful protection for their citizens at this point.

(Yes, I realize that the majority of these people were not on US soil, but it's purportedly a principle, and one the US criticizes any country who does not espouse, and as such should apply more broadly then just to people standing on US soil at the time).

Min

How about this:

http://web.archive.org/web/19961025120541/http://www.lycos.com/

Want a nice copy of MIcrosoft Money anyone (ironic eh?)

Min

Yep, I saw this talk:

http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3831956/Black+Hat+Exposes+Smart+Grid+Security+Risks.htm at blackhat in 2009, so what, at least 4 years?

Min