Jonmat

About

Username
Jonmat
Joined
Visits
5
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
26
Badges
0
Posts
24

Reactions

21Like0Dislike1Informative

  • Flaw in macOS 'Quick Look' could reveal encrypted data

    JonmatJonmat
    netrox said:
    If it was known for a decade, why was it never fixed or patched? Hmmm. 
    That´s the point everybody is neglecting to adress.

    There are few valid arguments as it stands:

    1 - They forgot about it
    2 - It is not easy to adress
    3 - Tradeoff beween usability and security
    4 - Since user access is implied, they thought it wouldn´t be that big of a deal
    5 - It is by design

    All bad.

    1 - It´s unlikely, given the detail they are know for. It would mean they don´t take security serious enough.
    2 - Not being easy is not a valid argument if they preach about security. Same as number 1.
    3 - Would have been fixed by now. It would mean they preach a false sense of security.
    4 - This would mean they dont get security.
    5 - It would mean they lie about security.
    cgWerksavon b7

  • Why you shouldn't worry about radiation from your Wi-Fi router or iPhone

    JonmatJonmat
    a

    Like I said on the podcast, another podcast, and this article: If you want to put the risk line in another place than I did, that's okay! But, the one in a million from RF in total is real. And like I said, when science changes its mind, so will I.
    We are all for science. But this kind of investigative science comes after, not before. It tends to be behind the curve as we´ve seen so many times. It´s only after something unexpected occurs that it gets a hint of what or where to look for an understanding. This is quite different from other sciences that bring about some form of breakthtough that materialize some invention, they know what they are looking for, and that is what CgWerks and others are pointing out.

    Either way, we´ll find out. There is a lot we all agree already.

    cgWerks said:

    There also needs to be some ability to think critically and a bit of a level playing field for discourse. Society, is moving away from this, and then wondering why things are getting worse.
    A great mind said that "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." That´s the playing field.
    Curious, it is, that such words come from ancient times and yet we are moving the opposite way.


    I´d encourage anyone on this topic to check Dr. Devra Davis speech on "The truth about mobile phone and wireless radiation".
    She is working with providers that care for prevention, she has great credentials, makes great points, goes deep, and she is always cautious enough to point out what we do and we dont know for a  fact. You may find that we do know more already than it is tipically brought up.
    cgWerks

  • Why you shouldn't worry about radiation from your Wi-Fi router or iPhone

    JonmatJonmat

    It isn't. In this paragraph, it's all risk management from exposure to radiation, just different kinds.

    This is closer, but still not whataboutism because it is still, literally about risk management: How about the 1 in 80 chance you have from dying in a car accident over your entire life, versus the 1 in 1,000,000 chance you have from developing any biologically noticeable event from RF exposure over that same life? Panicking about the latter because of the odds is ridiculous if you're not concerned about the former.
    Nobody is panicking. This whole thread, people arguing for more data till proper risk can se assessed have been more than reasonable, and kind, while addressing some burstings from other users.

    No panic, just enquiring minds.

    mattinoz

  • Why you shouldn't worry about radiation from your Wi-Fi router or iPhone

    JonmatJonmat


    "Are you in utterly and absolutely zero danger from RF or EMF? Scientifically, there is no way to exclude the possibility absolutely —but you're in some form of danger every minute of every day from one thing or another.

    To put things in perspective, you are in far, far more danger from a lifetime exposure to the ionizing radiation produced by the radon gas in your basement or from getting cancer from sun exposure, than you are from living in the same neighborhood as a cell tower, with twenty Wi-Fi routers surrounding your chair, and actively talking to somebody on 5G on your iPhone with it velcroed to your head for that whole life. And, the risk from the radon-laden basement is relatively low.

    If you're still worried about it, don't sit on your router, and use your speaker function on your iPhone.

    Studies continue, and will until the sun blacks out, because people are very bad at risk assessment even when given the data. But, science is true if you believe it or not. So, use that router, and get that mesh network going without fear. Break out the cell phones, and don't worry about using them."
    That is whataboutism. The case in point is RF.

    Nobody is discrediting science. People are actually just pointing that science only has, thus far , ruled out some vectors in which it appears not to be harmful and there is genuine concern in the field for allowing widespread deploy of towers with new tech that hasn´t been nowhere fully tested. That is science speaking to you and to all of us.

    What every person does to mitigate their exposure is their responsability, as is raising reasonable concern echoed by the scientific comunity. Part of it that is. And maybe that´s a part we should listen to. After all, they are part of it.
    cgWerks

  • Why you shouldn't worry about radiation from your Wi-Fi router or iPhone

    JonmatJonmat
    AppleZulu said:

    It’s not a matter of being desperate to “believe in science.” Science doesn’t care whether you believe in it or not. Science is just a methodology for looking at and understanding the world around us. New discoveries do indeed topple old paradigms, but less often than you imply. Most people who are sure they’re going to disprove a current theory fail to do so. (If they’re serious tests, those failures actually are what validate the theories they fail to disprove.)  With or without science, we are left making judgements on the best information we have. The thing about science is that its use of structured, logical thinking that is continually subject to further analysis and questioning has a real tendency to provide a more useful set of “best information” than do non-scientific observations and speculations. So scientific testing and analysis of the effects of radio waves on human biology is going to be better information than a subjective assertion that man-made radio waves are “not natural” and therefore ‘bad.’

    Dismissing scientific findings as useless because they are “not concrete” is simply a fundamental misunderstanding or misrepresentation of what science does.  Your chance of being hit by lightening in the US in a given year is one in 700,000. That means a few hundred people are hit by lightening every year, about ten percent fatally. So should you ever go outside? The science says, generally speaking, all other things being equal, go on outside. You’re not very likely to be hit by lightening, but that science is “not concrete.” Not only is there still a chance you could be hit by lightening, but it’s possible there could be errors in those statistics, and they don’t account for your specific location or for current weather conditions. On the other hand, while lightening seems like it would be dangerous, it’s also “natural,” so maybe you’ll be o.k. anyway.
    You kinda took an 180 degree turn there bud. Your last paragraph goes against what you stated in the first one.
    cgWerks