The Technology Thread - Part 1

Free Apps May Be Tracking Your Phone Without Your Consent

1235989147969718417.png


Free Android apps are getting a bit promiscuous. That, at least, is the conclusion of a group of security researchers, who find that poorly vetted apps on Google Play are connecting to a massive number of ad and tracking sites—without user being any the wiser.

While Apple rigorously vets everything that appears in its app store, Google Play is much more open, only excluding apps that are obviously malicious. Many of us love the wild west app environment Google has cultivated, but a wider quality range can leave room for apps that play fast and loose with their users. That’s why security researchers at Eurecom in France have conducted a massive sweep of free apps, monitoring the sites they connect to unbeknownst to the user. MIT Tech Review describes their recent study:

Vigneri and co began by downloading over 2,000 free apps from all 25 categories on the Google Play store. They then launched each app on a Samsung Galaxy SIII running Android version 4.1.2 that was set up to channel all traffic through the team’s server. This recorded all the urls that each app attempted to contact.

Next they compared the urls against a list of known ad-related sites from a database called EasyList and a database of user tracking sites called EasyPrivacy, both compiled for the open source AdBlock Plus project. Finally, they counted the number of matches on each list for every app.​

All in all, the 2,000 apps in question connected to a whopping 250,000 urls across almost 2,000 top-level domains. Most of these apps were minor offenders, only trying to connect to a handful of ad or tracking sites, but roughly ten percent of the apps in question connected to over 500 different urls. (Unsurprisingly, 9 out of the 10 most frequently contacted ad-related domains are run by Google.) Top offenders include “Music Volume EQ,” which connects to over 2,000 distinct URLs, and Eurosport Player, which hooks up with 810 different user-tracking sites.

Thankfully, the researchers are also working on a solution: A new Android app, called “NoSuchApp” that monitors outgoing traffic from a user’s phone, revealing exactly which external sites your apps are attempting to contact. Keep an eye out for NoSuchApp in the Google Play store—this NSA, at least, promises it won’t spy on you.

http://www.technologyreview.com/vie...cretly-connect-to-user-tracking-and-ad-sites/

Nothing is ever truly free
 
Everything You Need to Know About CRISPR, the New Tool that Edits DNA

1240705157459338923.jpg


CRISPR, a new genome editing tool, could transform the field of biology—and a recent study on genetically-engineered human embryos has converted this promise into media hype. But scientists have been tinkering with genomes for decades. Why is CRISPR suddenly such a big deal?

The short answer is that CRISPR allows scientists to edit genomes with unprecedented precision, efficiency, and flexibility. The past few years have seen a flurry of “firsts” with CRISPR, from creating monkeys with targeted mutations to preventing HIV infection in human cells. Earlier this month, Chinese scientists announced they applied the technique to nonviable human embryos, hinting at CRISPR’s potential to cure any genetic disease. And yes, it might even lead to designer babies. (Though, as the results of that study show, it’s still far from ready for the doctor’s office.)

In short, CRISPR is far better than older techniques for gene splicing and editing. And you know what? Scientists didn’t invent it.

CRISPR/Cas9 comes from strep bacteria...

CRISPR is actually a naturally-occurring, ancient defense mechanism found in a wide range of bacteria. As far as back the 1980s, scientists observed a strange pattern in some bacterial genomes. One DNA sequence would be repeated over and over again, with unique sequences in between the repeats. They called this odd configuration “clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats,” or CRISPR.

This was all puzzling until scientists realized the unique sequences in between the repeats matched the DNA of viruses—specifically viruses that prey on bacteria. It turns out CRISPR is one part of the bacteria’s immune system, which keeps bits of dangerous viruses around so it can recognize and defend against those viruses next time they attack. The second part of the defense mechanism is a set of enzymes called Cas (CRISPR-associated proteins), which can precisely snip DNA and slice the hell out of invading viruses. Conveniently, the genes that encode for Cas are always sitting somewhere near the CRISPR sequences.

Here is how they work together to disable viruses, as Carl Zimmer elegantly explains in Quanta:

As the CRISPR region fills with virus DNA, it becomes a molecular most-wanted gallery, representing the enemies the microbe has encountered. The microbe can then use this viral DNA to turn Cas enzymes into precision-guided weapons. The microbe copies the genetic material in each spacer into an RNA molecule. Cas enzymes then take up one of the RNA molecules and cradle it. Together, the viral RNA and the Cas enzymes drift through the cell. If they encounter genetic material from a virus that matches the CRISPR RNA, the RNA latches on tightly. The Cas enzymes then chop the DNA in two, preventing the virus from replicating.​

There are a number Cas enzymes, but the best known is called Cas9. It comes from Streptococcus pyogenes, better known as the bacteria that causes strep throat. Together, they form the CRISPR/Cas9 system, though it’s often shortened to just CRISPR.

[YT]2pp17E4E-O8[/YT]

It is a more precise way of editing the genome...

As this point, you can start connecting the dots: Cas9 is an enzyme that snips DNA, and CRISPR is a collection of DNA sequences that tells Cas9 exactly where to snip. All biologists have to do is feed Cas9 the right sequence, called a guide RNA, and boom, you can cut and paste bits of DNA sequence into the genome wherever you want.

DNA is a very long string of four different bases: A, T, C, and G. Other enzymes used in molecular biology might make a cut every time they see, say, a TCGA sequence, going wild and dicing up the entire genome. The CRISPR/Cas9 system doesn’t do that.

Cas9 can recognize a sequence about 20 bases long, so it can be better tailored to a specific gene. All you have to do is design a target sequence using an online tool and order the guide RNA to match. It takes no longer than few days for the guide sequence to arrive by mail. You can even repair a faulty gene by cutting out it with CRISPR/Cas9 and injecting a normal copy of it into a cell. Occasionally, though, the enzyme still cuts in the wrong place, which is one of the stumbling blocks for wider use, especially in the clinic.

...and way more efficient...

Mice whose genes have been altered or “knocked out” (disabled) are the workhorses for biomedical research. It can take over a year to establish new lines of genetically-altered mice with traditional techniques. But it takes just few months with CRISPR/Cas9, sparing the lives of many mice and saving time.

Traditionally, a knockout mouse is made using embryonic stem (ES) cells. Researchers inject the altered DNA sequence into mouse embryos, and hope they are incorporated through a rare process called homologous recombination. Some of first generation mice will be chimeras, their bodies a mixture of cells with and without the mutated sequence. Only some of the chimeras will have reproductive organs that make sperm with mutated sequence. Researchers breed those chimeras with normal mice to get a second generation, and hope that some of them are heterozygous, aka carrying one normal copy of the gene and one mutated copy of the gene in every cell. If you breed two of those heterozygous mice together, you’ll be lucky to get a third generation mouse with two copies of the mutant gene. So it takes at least three generations of mice to get your experimental mutant for research. Here it is summarized in a timeline:

1240705157605953963.gif


But here’s how a knockout mouse is made with CRISPR. Researchers inject the CRISPR/Cas9 sequences into mouse embryos. The system edits both copies of a gene at the same time, and you get the mouse in one generation. With CRISPR/Cas9, you can also alter, say, fives genes at once, whereas you would have to had to go that same laborious, multi-generational process five times before.

CRISPR is also more efficient than two other genome engineering techniques called zinc finger nuclease (ZFN) and transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs). ZFN and TALENs can recognize longer DNA sequences and they theoretically have better specificity than CRISPR/Cas9, but they also have a major downside. Scientists have to create a custom-designed ZFN or TALEN protein each time, and they often have to create several variations before finding one that works. It’s far easier to create a RNA guide sequence for CRISPR/Cas9, and it’s far more likely to work.

...and can be used in any organism

Most science experiments are done on a limited set of model organisms: mice, rats, zebrafish, fruit flies, and a nematode called C. elegans. That’s mostly because these are the organisms scientists have studied most closely and know how to manipulate genetically.

But with CRISPR/Cas9, it’s theoretically possible to modify the genomes of any animal under the sun. That includes humans. CRISPR could one day hold the cure to any number of genetic diseases, but of course human genetic manipulation is ethically fraught and still far from becoming routine.

Closer to reality are other genetically modified creatures—and not just the ones in labs. CRISPR could become a major force in ecology and conservation, especially when paired with other molecular biology tools. It could, for example, be used to introduce genes that slowly kill off the mosquitos spreading malaria. Or genes that put the brakes on invasive species like weeds. It could be the next great leap in conserving or enhancing our environment—opening up a whole new box of risks and rewards.

With the recent human embryo editing news, CRISPR has been getting a lot of coverage as a future medical treatment. But focusing on medicine alone is narrow-minded. Precise genome engineering has the potential to alter not just us, but the entire world and all its ecosystems.

http://gizmodo.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-crispr-the-new-tool-1702114381/+leahfinnegan

This new tech is freaking awesome
 
Fossil fuels subsidised by $10m every minute, says IMF

‘Shocking’ revelation finds $5.3tn subsidy estimate for 2015 is greater than the total health spending of all the world’s governments

Hopefully the end of the use of fossil fuels will come sooner rather than later. It's outrageous how much they are subsidized and still we pay an excessive amount of money while they reap massive profits off of us.

Fossil fuel companies are benefitting from global subsidies of $5.3tn (£3.4tn) a year, equivalent to $10m every minute of every day, according to a startling new estimate by the International Monetary Fund.

The IMF calls the revelation “shocking” and says the figure is an “extremely robust” estimate of the true cost of fossil fuels. The $5.3tn subsidy estimated for 2015 is greater than the total health spending of all the world’s governments.

The vast sum is largely due to polluters not paying the costs imposed on governments by the burning of coal, oil and gas. These include the harm caused to local populations by air pollution as well as to people across the globe affected by the floods, droughts and storms being driven by climate change.

Lord Nicholas Stern, an eminent climate economist at the London School of Economics, said: “This very important analysis shatters the myth that fossil fuels are cheap by showing just how huge their real costs are. There is no justification for these enormous subsidies for fossil fuels, which distort markets and damages economies, particularly in poorer countries.

Stern said that even the IMF’s vast subsidy figure was a significant underestimate: “A more complete estimate of the costs due to climate change would show the implicit subsidies for fossil fuels are much bigger even than this report suggests.”

The IMF, one of the world’s most respected financial institutions, said that ending the subsidies to fossil fuels would cut global carbon emissions by 20%. That would be a giant step towards taming global warming, an issue on which the world has made little progress to date.

Ending the subsidies would also slash the number of premature deaths from outdoor air pollution by 50% – about 1.6m lives a year.

Furthermore, the IMF said the resources freed by ending fossil fuel subsidies could be an economic “game changer” for many countries, by driving economic growth and poverty reduction through greater investment in infrastructure, health and education and also by cutting taxes that restrict growth.

Another consequence would be that the need for subsidies for renewable energy – a relatively tiny $120bn a year – would also disappear, if fossil fuel prices reflected the full cost of their impacts.

“These [fossil fuel subsidy] estimates are shocking,” said Vitor Gaspar, the IMF’s head of fiscal affairs and former finance minister of Portugal. “Energy prices remain woefully below levels that reflect their true costs.”

“When the [$5.3tn] number came out at first, we thought we had better double check this!” said David Coady, who heads the IMF’s fiscal affairs department. But the broad picture of huge global subsidies was “extremely robust”, he said. “It is the true cost associated with fossil fuel subsidies.”

The IMF estimate of $5.3tn in fossil fuel subsidies represents 6.5% of global GDP. Just over half the figure is the money governments are forced to spend treating the victims of air pollution and the income lost because of ill health and premature deaths. The figure is higher than a 2013 IMF estimate because new data from the World Health Organisation shows the harm caused by air pollution to be much higher than thought.

Coal is the dirtiest fuel in terms of both local air pollution and climate-warming carbon emissions and is therefore the greatest beneficiary of the subsidies, with just over half the total. Oil, heavily used in transport, gets about a third of the subsidy and gas the rest.

The biggest single source of air pollution is coal-fired power stations and China, with its large population and heavy reliance on coal power, hosts $2.3tn of the annual subsidies. The next biggest fossil fuel subsidies are in the US ($700bn), Russia ($335bn), India ($277bn) and Japan ($157bn), with the European Union collectively allowing $330bn in subsidies to fossil fuels.

The costs resulting from the climate change driven by fossil fuel emissions account for subsidies of $1.27tn a year, about a quarter, of the IMF’s total. The IMF calculated this cost using an official US government estimate of $42 per tonne of CO2 (in 2015 dollars), a price “very likely to underestimate” the true cost, according to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The direct subsidising of fuel for consumers, by government discounts on diesel and other fuels, account for just 6% of the IMF’s total. Other local factors, such as reduced sales taxes on fossil fuels and the cost of traffic congestion and accidents, make up the rest. The IMF says traffic costs are included because increased fuel prices would be the most direct way to reduce them.

Christiana Figueres, the UN’s climate change chief charged with delivering a deal to tackle global warming at a crunch summit in December, said: “The IMF provides five trillion reasons for acting on fossil fuel subsidies. Protecting the poor and the vulnerable is crucial to the phasing down of these subsidies, but the multiple economic, social and environmental benefits are long and legion.”

US president Barack Obama and the G20 nations called for an end to fossil fuel subsidies in 2009, but little progress had been made until oil prices fell in 2014. In April, the president of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim, told the Guardian it was crazy that governments were still driving the use of coal, oil and gas by providing subsidies. “We need to get rid of fossil fuel subsidies now,” he said.

Reform of the subsidies would increase energy costs but Kim and the IMF both noted that existing fossil fuel subsidies overwhelmingly go to the rich, with the wealthiest 20% of people getting six times as much as the poorest 20% in low and middle-income countries. Gaspar said that with oil and coal prices currently low, there is a “golden opportunity” to phase out subsidies and use the increased tax revenues to reduce poverty through investment and to provide better targeted support.

Subsidy reforms are beginning in dozens of countries including Egypt, Indonesia, Mexico, Morocco and Thailand. In India, subsidies for diesel ended in October 2014. “People said it would not be possible to do that,” noted Coady. Coal use has also begun to fall in China for the first time this century.

On renewable energy, Coady said: “If we get the pricing of fossil fuels right, the argument for subsidies for renewable energy will disappear. Renewable energy would all of a sudden become a much more attractive option.”

Shelagh Whitley, a subsidies expert at the Overseas Development Institute, said: “The IMF report is yet another reminder that governments around the world are propping up a century-old energy model. Compounding the issue, our research shows that many of the energy subsidies highlighted by the IMF go toward finding new reserves of oil, gas and coal, which we know must be left in the ground if we are to avoid catastrophic, irreversible climate change.”

Developing the international cooperation needed to tackle climate change has proved challenging but a key message from the IMF’s work, according to Gaspar, is that each nation will directly benefit from tackling its own fossil fuel subsidies. “The icing on the cake is that the benefits from subsidy reform – for example, from reduced pollution – would overwhelmingly accrue to local populations,” he said.

“By acting local, and in their own best interest, [nations] can contribute significantly to the solution of a global challenge,” said Gaspar. “The path forward is clear: act local, solve global.”
The Guardian
 
Feel free to keep this thread going Mightmitenot, I used to post all the tech news I would find from Gizmodo on here but don't have the time anymore
 
Elon Musk’s Hyperloop is actually being built in California next year

I'm surprised it is going to happen, sort of. This is going to be interesting to see in action.

It beggars belief, but it appears that Elon Musk's Hyperloop is actually going to be built. The first test track will only be five miles long, and it won't operate at the supersonic speeds that Musk envisioned, but still, it's coming—Musk's "cross between a Concorde, railgun, and an air hockey table" really is coming.

Back in January, Elon Musk said that he planned to build a Hyperloop test track "soon" and that Texas was "the leading candidate." Curiously, nothing more has been said by Musk on the matter since. Then, in February, Hyperloop Transport Technologies (HTT)—an organisation that is unaffiliated with Musk—said that it had struck a deal to build a five-mile Hyperloop in California.

HTT is a research company that was founded soon after Musk's original Hyperloop thesis was published in 2013. The structure of HTT is somewhat interesting: it has employees, but it also uses crowdsourced engineering talent from across the US that is being paid in stock options. The CEO is a guy called Dirk Ahlborn, who founded JumpStartFund—an online platform that facilitates with building crowd-powered projects; basically, he took his own service and used it to build HTT.

Back in February, HTT said that it would attempt to raise $100 million through an initial public offering to fund construction of the five-mile (8km) test track. Agreements have been secured for a test track to be built near Quay Valley in California, in between San Francisco and Los Angeles. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2016 and complete in 2017.

A Hyperloop track consists of two tubes, affixed to above-ground pylons. Inside the tubes are pods, which can contain humans, livestock, cargo, etc. The tubes are partially evacuated by vacuum pumps, which in turn reduces drag and allows the pods to move at high speeds without consuming too much energy. (Elon Musk suggested that the power requirements would be so low that the Hyperloop could be powered by solar panels on the topside of the tube, though it's unlikely that HTT will go that way with the test track.)

Propulsion is provided via linear induction: magnets on the outside of the pod and the inside of the tube repel each other, pushing the pod forward. (That's the railgun bit.) To reduce rolling resistance, each pod has an air compressor that takes air from the front and ejects it through holes in the bottom. (That's the air hockey table bit.) For more technical details, see our original story on Musk's Hyperloop proposal.

Speaking to National Geographic, Ahlborn gave a few more details about HTT's deployment of Musk's Hyperloop tech. There will be a variety of different pods, travelling at speeds ranging from 200 to 300 miles per hour (320 to 480 km/h). “Maybe in one capsule, people would like to feel the speed a bit more and then for the 80-year-old, it’s a little softer and slower," Ahlborn said.

These speeds are far short of Musk's proposed 760mph, of course, but still a lot faster than existing US railways—and really, that seems to be the main point of Hyperloop in the first place. California is currently planning to build a high-speed rail link between Los Angeles and San Francisco at a cost of around $70 billion (~£45 billion). In Musk's original thesis, he postulated that a Hyperloop run between the two cities would only cost between $6 and $10 billion. HTT says it can't quite hit Musk's estimate, but that it could do it for around $16 billion, which is still pretty good.

Obviously, big questions remain about Hyperloop. Will the pylons that carry the tubes be able to withstand California's rather large and regularly occurring earthquakes? At such high speeds, the tubes will need to follow mostly straight paths, otherwise passengers will be subjected to stomach-churning forces—and in the US, there are lots of mountains, hills, and other topological quixotics that will be hard to build around. What happens if someone shoots a hole in a partially evacuated tube, anyway?

Many of those questions will hopefully be answered by the test track, though not all. "Unfortunately for us, it’s impossible to test everything out on a small scale,” Ahlborn said to National Geographic. To test whether Hyperloop can actually go supersonic, a longer track will be needed—and that's when things start to get difficult. Raising $100 million is one thing; raising $1 billion for a relatively unknown and immature technology is another. Ahlborn said that the first long Hyperloop might be built outside the US, perhaps in Singapore or Dubai, where there's a lot of money and "less poltiics."

Following "extensive safety testing," passengers may be allowed to ride HTT's Hyperloop test track in 2018.
Ars Technica
 
Saturn's outermost ring is H U G E compared to Saturn. 7000 times it's diameter.

o-SATURN-PHOEBE-RING-570.jpg
 
I did that and promptly lost it since I used a long password and my copy/paste back up of it failed. :o Fortunately I have almost all of them secured elsewhere so it's more an inconvience.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,273
Messages
22,078,333
Members
45,878
Latest member
Remembrance1988
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"