Comment Re:Should walk before you run. (Score 3, Informative) 28
China should return samples from the near side first.
They did.
https://www.bbc.com/news/scien...
https://www.nationalgeographic...
China should return samples from the near side first.
They did.
https://www.bbc.com/news/scien...
https://www.nationalgeographic...
Aksoy sold hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of counterfeit computer networking equipment that ended up in US hospitals, schools, and highly sensitive military and other governmental systems, including platforms supporting sophisticated US fighter jets and military aircraft," Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Nicole Argentieri said in a statement.,
how much time for the assholes that bought "fell off the truck" shoddy counterfeit garbage off of amazon and then stuck it in "sensitive" area's?
The one thing everyone seems to universally be unwilling to do to secure systems is work. It is for example always online backups and never physically disconnected storage.
It is always stupidly massive aggregations of authority creating one rings to rule them all (e.g. AD) rather than decentralized management.
People keep piling on layers upon layers of indirection with their network segmenting and NAP shit that is of course all then centrally managed.
Random example just yesterday OpenSSL announced they were moving everything to github because it is cool or security or some such bullshit. I'm increasingly amazed by just how much opportunity/value and thereby incentive for mischief is being aggregated into the hands of so few.
There is never any real consideration given to actual isolation and decoupling. They just keep piling on top of their house of cards creating bigger and bigger incentives for mischief with increasing global consequences.
Meanwhile the low hanging basics NEVER get addressed. There is still no secure way to enter credentials into any Microsoft product. When I log into anything the one and only way I should be able to do that is by invoking SAS. That simply doesn't even exist. There to this day is still not a single secure ZKP based authentication protocol in any of Microsoft's products. The solution is ALWAYS tunneling legacy nonsense over separately secured channels while paying lip service to verifier impersonation. Yes never-mind the single biggest threat is phishing go check your email or phone app for the code you need to enter to login anyway for security... madness.
Just one giant shell game where people keep piling on layers upon layers of complexity to build ever more elaborate houses of cards with all kinds of fancy bullshit that enables them to pretend that isn't what they are actually doing.
Is there any other way to look at this law other than it's transphobic?
Well I doubt whoever passed the law regard it that way so just because you might be unable to see another way to describe it does not mean that others can't. That's the great thing about talking to people you may strongly disagree with: you learn how others see things and have someone challenge your own thinking, helping to make your own opinions far more informed.
Good journalism requires that the jouirnalist report on the facts in an unbiased manner as possible. What would have been far more helpful here is a factual description of what Utah's bathroom bill actually says for all of us who do not follow the laws that Utah passes and so have never heard of it. That way I can form my own opinion instead of just hearing what the author's opinion is about something I have no knowledge of. Indeed, even if you insist on sharing your opinion you at least need to inform the reader what the opinion is about!
Actually picking it up is easy. Just point one of these https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... at the satellite. Data transfer needs a _lot_ more. Oh, and their claim is they will be able to do that with a standard Bluetooth device on the ground to their satellite. That is pretty much impossible for a number of reasons.
To be clear they are using existing Bluetooth hardware with modified firmware.. Probably to implement something like coded PHY on steroids and dispense with connection oriented bits.
2.4ghz attenuates very quickly through atmosphere, because it also happens to be the frequency that water resonates at. (which is ALSO why it is used for microwave ovens...)
Certainly true rain and clouds are a problem as well as atmospheric attenuation but this is not a deal breaker for intermittent telemetry. To give you some idea it costs about 1 dB extra on top of normal FSPL to get through half of the atmospheres mass on a clear day at 2.4 GHz if the transmitter / receiver is directly above you. It is also transparent to ionospheric effects. Not the most ideal frequency but certainly usable.
Incidentally, they did not do surface-to-space. They did space-to-surface. The distinction is important, because while they apparently had a low-cost and light standard Bluetooth sender on the satellite,
They have a custom built phased array antenna on the satellite.
nothing was stated about the receiver on the ground. That one will likely be more like a radio-astronomy dish very carefully targeted on the satellite, with special amplifiers and detectors. Which is the whole stated use-case in reverse. Also note that there is no claim to a "connection" in the referenced story, just a claim to have detected some signals.
The only non-reversible tx/rx elements are receiver sensitivity and transmit power. One need not have big honkin antennas on both sides. It's enough to have a big one on one side. The math works out the same either way.
Not just clear sky, it needs air free from water vapor.
Not at 2.45 GHz. Clouds and rain fade isn't a huge problem at that low a frequency, it gets to be a problem only at higher frequencies. There's graphs of microwave absorption vs frequency all over the web, but this one shows the different components of absorption: https://ars.els-cdn.com/conten...
Note that the axis is db/km. Here's the data more specifically for the low frequencies, at a humidity of 30 gr/m3 (which corresponds to 100% humidity at 30 degrees C, sea level pressure). 2.45 GHz is way down on the left side, where water absorption is nearly ignorable: https://ars.els-cdn.com/conten...
Because BT frequency is the same that water resonates at.
A common misbelief, but no, water doesn't resonate at 2.45 GHz any more than any other nearby frequency. In general, the shorter the wavelength, the more absorption by water.
(source for the images: https://www.sciencedirect.com/... )
I also used to think that microwave ovens heated water molecules by resonance but this is a common myth
Resonance, no. But dielectric heating in a microwave oven works with polar molecules. The principal one for this application is water.
Right. But there's nothing special about 2.45 GHz; that frequency is no more highly absorbed by water than any other frequency in the neighborhood.
2.45 GHz is used for microwave ovens because it's the industrial, scientific and medical band, and you don't need a license. And it's easy to make high-efficiency magnetrons at that frequency.
this is being used as a justification by for-profit hospital systems
Well, there’s your problem.
How much money does a parrot typically earn
I empathise with the nurses. It will be like Microsoft's level one help centre.
You: I'm having an issue with my Arm. Whenever I try to lift it, it falls off.
Support: Oh no, that sounds really frustrating! I can imagine how annoying it must be to have your work disrupted like that. But don't worry, I'm here to help and we'll get through this together.
You: Okay, what should I try to fix it?
Support: I totally understand your eagerness to resolve this quickly. Having arm issues can be such an inconvenience in our busy lives. But before we jump into troubleshooting, would you mind taking a deep breath with me? These kinds of problems can really raise our stress levels.
You:
Support: You're absolutely right, let's focus on the task at hand. I don't want to make this any more difficult than it needs to be. I'm picturing how frustrated I'd feel if I were in your shoes. But please know I'm giving this my full care and attention. Have you tried rebooting your arm since the crashes began?
They will push the AI angle until maybe 1.5 years from now, when it falls out of fashion.
My knowledge of customer feedback from the spate of AI helpers from Microsoft, Google and others is that they kinda work sometimes and that mostly, customers hate it. It's like turning on FSD in the middle of a city in my Tesla. You put more effort into monitoring and checking the AI's output than you would just driving.
Similarly with writing a document, or writing code. There is no AI that can help me write the stuff I write. It's mired in company secrets that no AI is trained on and the AI can't put together cogent technical arguments that cover more than a single sentence. It's like having an illiterate child writing over your sheet of paper.
This isn't a value prop for customers and it won't turn out to be one. AI will bury itself in the fabric of the world in the form of classifiers, human language parsers and image/data enhancement but no one is going to pay for that, it'll just be an additional cost on businesses that need to have these convenience functions to feature match the competition.
So you are claiming the correlation is not there?
I don't think anyone is doubting the correlation exists. The issue is what factor(s) are causal.
Your commentary was focused on causation. "Obviously, cardiovascular diseases do not cause more PFAS. That leaves one option for non-causation: a common thing that causes more cardiovascular diseases _and_ more PFAS."
These types of inferences whether or not A caused B or B caused A depend on credible isolation of a specific cause and sufficient accounting of confounding variables to rule out other cause(s). When a study is rigorously conducted with appropriate controls to account for known confounders and fully explain and explore (rather than ignore) contradictory evidence then it is possible to build confidence in linkages between observations. In the absence of such confidence the study is unable to usefully answer the question.
In this particular study there is an obvious issue that multiple large scale studies have found deteriorating health including substantial statistically significant increases in cardiovascular disease, obesity, diabetes and cancers linked to modern lifestyle choice. Using 1980 as a baseline for reasoning about health impacts presume the people of the 1980s are equivalent to subsequent decades when such assumptions are well known to be false is exceedingly problematic.
Even more depressing is that the study actively dismisses conflicting evidence in the form of no signal of reduced harms well after PFAS pollution was mitigated. They conclude without evidence the persistence of elevated health outcomes are caused by "posttraumatic stress disorders caused by the severe psychologic trauma"
Are you going for a Big Lie? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie)
This place just isn't big enough for all of us. We've got to find a way off this planet.
