Sites like that (without flashy Street View pictures bound to be wrong anyways) have been around for a very long time, many are provided by VPN providers to let their customers check how good they are hidden. It simply showed Amsterdam for me, which is my current VPN-Server, so no surprises there.
What I mostly use to check such things https://ipleak.net/
What he does is only getting the location information and simply cross-referencing it with Google Street View / Google Maps Data. That being said: It's an art installation http://bengrosser.com/projects/tracing-you/ to provoke questions about privacy in a more closely connected world than ever. Noble idea.
"First it looks up the IP address using ipinfo to obtain geolocation. This is represented as a latitude/longitude pair (e.g. 48.8631831,2.3629368) that identifies a precise location on the earth. The latitude/longitude is sent to Google, where it queries the Street View, Static Maps, and Javascript Maps data services."
One more thought: I seriously hope the artist clarifies the shortcomings of his approach when presenting it! It wouldn't be right to suggest to people that the locations are highly accurate.
I can imagine a non-technical relative/friend of mine seeing such an installation, then telling me that you can track down every internet user accurately and even show the building he is living in and me having to explain why that is not the case and a ridiculous notion.
No matter how noble the cause, deception is wrong. After all, I don't tell my kids their heads may explode if they take illegal drugs...
Nobody is being deceptive. From the "about" link on the site:
"... Sometimes what this image shows is eerily accurate; other times it is wildly dislocated. ... How accurate are the system’s data sources and when might they improve?"
And more from the artist's page about the project:
"... How close it gets is very much dependent on how networks are built, configured, operated, and distributed where you are, which network you use, and the accuracy of the data associated with those networks."
Quite aware of that, but I was referring to something different: I hope the same information is available to the people seeing (that is: experiencing live) the art installation (or past tense because it already happened?!).
I don't know how it was/is/will be presented to those people.
I also want to clarify that I did not accuse anybody of any wrongdoing, just said "I seriously hope ..." based on my experience with non-technical people misinterpreting technical stuff (or non-scientific people misinterpreting science,... and so forth).
Then feeding the latitude and longitude into Streetview it gives me (after granting location permission) the front door of the building next door.
Note that if you can come up with a convincing explanation for why an unsuspecting user should click the location request popup, this'll defeat the VPN as a means of hiding your location... "Click here and allow location access to see hot girls ready to meet in your area!"
I second https://www.brainpickings.org/ and also would like to add http://nextdraft.com/ (though it is more "general news") - other than that I can't help, because I actually prefer to use rss-feeds over Newsletters.
(PS: You can also get rss-updates about new entries in Youtube-Playlists (google it) and if you use Twitter and follow some interesting people, that might also be a good way to stay up to date)
On a side note: A very cheap solution to mimic a standing desk:
Use your ironing board, mine does the job. It goes barely high enough, I put an additional book under the Notebook and now it's the right hight, enough room for Notebook, Lamp and a Book and it's next to my desk so I can easily switch back to it if I want.
Actually it does such a good job, that I don't think I'll buy a standing desk now, good that I don't iron my clothes anyway ;)
I find that when I stand in front of a laptop, either the keys are too high or the screen is too low, and I bend my back a lot. Of course the proportions are the same when sitting, but in a chair, my lower back is supported so it's not so bad. But when I stand, my posture is awful. How do you deal with this?
British workplace safety rules essentially prevent use of laptops for any sustained use. (These rules apply to employees working from home, adhering to them is a barrier to allowing working from home.)
"when using a laptop without additional equipment (laptop stand, full sized keyboard and mouse), it is advisable that its use is restricted to spells of 30-40 minutes with significant task breaks between
"A laptop should not be used where a standard DSE [Display Screen Equipment] workstation set up can be reasonably provided" [1]
If you can't buy a monitor you could get a laptop stand ("Bräda") from Ikea, to improve the angle of the display [2]. Or make one.
I don't know of any alternative to a separate keyboard and mouse.
I have a Thinkpad T520 and can bend the display back all the way (~180 degrees), so that takes care of this problem. Also maybe consider a pair of running shoes for inside only? They help maintaining a good posture and standing might be more comfortable for you.
Get an extra mouse and keyboard. Even a cheap $15 mouse/keyboard are often more comfortable to use than a laptop trackpad and built-in keyboard (IMO at least)
IKEA has a $10 living room table that is available worldwide (I believe it is part of the Malm series). It is about 45cm high, which is exactly the distance between a desk and a standing desk.
Some other solutions: use shoe boxes, coke cans, thick books, etc to prop up your monitor and keyboard. Alternatively, you can get a chair that encourages movement and circulation. At minimum, with no desk/chair changes, get up and walk around every 45 minutes (many apps will give you a timer for this purpose)
We know far less about nutrition than we think we do. So if you know about risks and are careful about it, as far as I am concerned, there is nothing wrong with trying out various things. Regarding meat though, a lot of it is panic.
The problem is that it's very hard to conduct proper studies analysing this. 'Observational studies' are useless, because if I take a randomized group of meat-eaters versus vegans, of course the latter group will be significantly more healthy. Vegans are most likely more concerned about their health in general which means less smoking, less alcohol being consumed, healthier sleep, they buy higher quality food in general, due to lack of choice when out in public they cook more themselves (they won't stop at a fast food restaurant), et cetera ... and then there is the Placebo effect, which is very powerful and should not be under-estimated.
The scientific data is not as clear as one might think, and "nutritionists" in general are pseudo-scientists at their best since you can find a study for anything. If not with humans, then with mice, or maybe just some study with some cells. The same with internet sites by the way. And Atkins strictly speaking is not the same as the traditional Ketogenic Diet. Regarding books about nutrition for example, I happen to agree with this reviewer of "The China Study" (not the original one, you'll see) http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R3UR35AKTEYW43/ref...
If anyone wants to find serious information about nutrition, you should search for meta-studies, for example by the Cochrane Collaboration, and then you should read the abstract very carefully and not insert your wishful thinking into it.
There is a lot of damning evidence against eating animals and their products, yet none seems present against eating whole food, high-carb vegan. This much seems perfectly clear from scientific literature and has been for decades. The review you agree with has no citations, lacks credibility and makes dubious claims, like "Researchers still have trouble proving high cholesterol is associated with heart disease" which are patently false.
Well, I understand why the reviewer did not feel the need to make a scientific rebuttal out of a book review. It was not the reviewer who convinced me by the way, I had a look at this book myself. And the claims made compared to the studies cited to support those claims, it's fraudulent, I can't put it any other way.
I will not be able to convince you. Nutrition for many is such an integral part of who they are, that it is similar to criticising someone's religion and they are deep believers. If it works for you, I congratulate you (and I mean that, honestly). Nor do I want a debate in which everyone cites studies left and right that he has found on the internet, and then it is my job to go through dozens of them to find out exactly what they are saying and assess their methodological quality. I don't have the time right now, nor the motivation.
Let me just say:
Science is hard, studying nutrition is very hard and especially regarding nutrition, there are so many things to think of and to take into account. And nutrition is also an individual thing, I doubt there is a one-size fits all. I was not the one speaking of truths where in reality we should be more careful about such claims.
You can't deny the fact certain foods, like processed meat, surely have a causal relationship to cancer, probably also heart disease and diabetes. As I've said before, the evidence against animal products and processed food in general is damning, but I've yet to find a single case study of someone getting fat off eating fruit, getting cancer from tofu, or becoming diabetic from eating too many vegetables.
>You can't deny the fact certain foods, like processed meat, surely have a causal relationship to cancer, probably also heart disease and diabetes
Based on what? Your gut feeling?
>getting cancer from tofu
There aren't case studies of people getting cancer from anything. There are studies of large population behavioral patterns and comparisons of cancer rates between patterns. So to check the tofu thing, you need people that consistently eat tofu compared to people that behave the same in other regards except for the tofu. That's very difficult because someone who eats tofu is generally going to have a significantly different diet from someone who doesn't.
2 weeks in ketosis, all I can say by now (and this only applies to me of course):
1) It was far easier than I thought it would be (some fatigue 5-6 days in, but that was quickly gone)
2) I have less meals (usually 2 meals, I am totally fine with that)
3) I have no cravings (the famous midnight snack is no more)
4) No side effects so far, not even constipation which I read some people have.
5) It requires creativity in the kitchen (or else you'll be sick of eating the same things again and again).
I supplement with Calcium-Magnesium-Zink and Multi-Vitamins.
For me personally it is easier to loose weight on a ketogenic diet than with a carbohydrate-rich diet. Especially due to no cravings, that probably due to more stable blood sugar. That being said you can loose weight with any diet of course.
Interestingly Ketosis is nothing "new", it has been used for a very long time in younger patients with regular seizures, as ketosis reduces the amount of seizures significantly[1]. A lot of interesting research will follow in the near future. For example whether a ketogenic diet reduces the risk of some form of cancers (it might "starve cancer cells"), if there are significant long-term side effects, et cetera...
Go easy on the red meat; research is starting to show it can cause colon cancer in certain quantities. Use whey or soy protein for some (not all) of your protein macros.
I hardly eat any red meat. It's expensive, and there just isn't enough fat in it. Pork, fowl, and fish are more than enough options for hitting a protein target.
Ah, I forgot about eggs. Not sure how though; I eat at least one every day. They're so versatile, and they literally have all of the nutrients required to build a functional chicken. Nutrient density is an underrated metric.
Or, get your omega-3 from plant sources like flax and chia seed, and avoid eating fat-soluble industrial pollutants, like mercury and lead, found in fish.
I did a couple of months and quite liked it. Couple of downsides/notes.
1. I do a lot of sport (sprints/track & Field) and it's no good for the dynamic sports as I found out. Energy from fat explosive events because the free fatty acids can’t produce ATP quickly enough. Carbohydrate metabolism occurs faster that fat metabolism, refilling ATP stores quicker, and improving short range (10-60 seconds) recovery better than Fats. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-06/uosc-fts06021...
2. You're thirsty a lot - just keep your fluids up.
3. Your partner may not appreciate your acetone breath
4. Eat too many nuts and you'll probably get an itchy bum!
I too think measurements like that are "fair", it is one of THE events in the US, so it makes sense to take special precautions.
That being said, the NFL should pay for this 100%. They should also pay for their stadiums (not threaten local fans / politicians they will move if not being financially supported), and frankly they should pay for any security measures during any NFL games.
The government paying for it is nothing but a quite heavy subsidy they don't need. It's the same though with any big sports league around the world where police / government is handling such affairs and the league is not paying for it.
I have to agree. It's pretty disgusting how the owners threaten cities until they get a new hundreds million dollars stadium, and how the NFL, MLB, and other leagues are complacent in this.
But what's worse, far worse, is how the fans have no problem with their own governments being fleeced. Their tax dollars are used to build the lavish stadiums and then they're expected to pay exorbitant amounts just to go see a game.
The Roman government at least paid for the bread and circuses, right? They didn't ask the populace to pay for the right to pay for circus season tickets ...
The role of government is to govern it's citizens. Major social events should be assisted by the government, in my opinion - if that's what people want to congregate to do, they should be able to do so safely. You'll often see this in smaller-scale events in the form of a few police officers thrown nearby to keep tabs on things.
The NFL could handle a few less sweetheart deals in other areas though, for sure.
Reminds me of Cantrill, more so his story when they completely bricked a machine of a fellow worker once and then took a close look at the standard[1].
# rm -rf /
Among other things, it will delete the current directory. In the standard it does not say what to delete first, In their implementation it will try to remove the current directory first -> undefined behaviour -> it fails.
The logic behind it: When is it really your goal to delete your entire machine, mostly never, you don't type it out by accident, but shell scripts with unset variables might do it.
And regarding Poettering's response[2] (not trying to start a fight): It's Poettering, what do you expect? You can hate or love systemd, but part of why people hate it is his intellectual arrogance in everything he does.
> And regarding Poettering's response[2] (not trying to start a fight): It's Poettering, what do you expect? You can hate or love systemd, but part of why people hate it is his intellectual arrogance in everything he does.
I don't think it's just his arrogance, it's that it's not backed up by substance. Linus is an arrogant prick, yeah? But his kernel works pretty well, so he gets some slack. All pulseaudio ever did for me was waste my time and break my ability to output sound. Systemd wastes my time, makes my computer work different for no reason that's apparent to me, and now makes it easy for me to brick my machine if I'm not careful and I have a terrible bios[1].
[1] I've yet to meet a bios that isn't terrible, although hopefully few are terrible in this specific way.
I disagree with Poettering's technical decisions more often than I agree with them, but to be fair, some of PA is because the distros adopted it early. Heck, when Ubunutu picked it up the readme still described it as something along the lines of "The server that breaks your audio system."
You might not want to skim through the forums (though I find the discussion interesting). In the end, this actually happened and you can see a video of it here https://youtu.be/jJT_CACIZqs?t=6m18s EDIT: and rdancer also linked to the final report, see his post, thanks :)
Or spearphishing. Send a secretary something that looks like a nice business proposal, then when she forwards it to her boss it's a link to some XSS attack.
Should be the other way around. You forward an email that's "obviously" spam, and then the abuse guys go "what do you mean, this is a regular project status update!"
you can use it to send "for your eyes only" stuff.
example: send an image to Mary and tell her not to send it to anyone else. She inevitably sends it to someone else, but the image magically changes to another image that says a message, maybe it says "DAMN IT MARY, I SAID DON'T SEND IT TO ANYONE ELSE!"
What he does is only getting the location information and simply cross-referencing it with Google Street View / Google Maps Data. That being said: It's an art installation http://bengrosser.com/projects/tracing-you/ to provoke questions about privacy in a more closely connected world than ever. Noble idea.
"First it looks up the IP address using ipinfo to obtain geolocation. This is represented as a latitude/longitude pair (e.g. 48.8631831,2.3629368) that identifies a precise location on the earth. The latitude/longitude is sent to Google, where it queries the Street View, Static Maps, and Javascript Maps data services."
Not too impressive though.