SniffPass client to recover passwords and login details

https://betanews.com/2017/02/27/sniffpass-captures-email-and-ftp-passwords-from-network-traffic/

Advertisements

Uber lied about self driving cars for 4 months, Refused to pay for a $150 permit in desperate attempt to hide multiple driving infractions.

Everything about this company is underhanded, bullying, illegal, misguided, lying, cheating, and Greedy. Think about the most morally aggravating person you know. Now multiply that many tunes over, and name them “Uber”.

The cost to society, businesses, and people is not worth that $1 saved on Catching a ride. The debt is Huge – everyone that platform benefits even a cent.

http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/27/14698902/uber-self-driving-san-francisco-dmv-email-levandowski

— excerpt below —

Uber dismissed warnings about its illegal self-driving test for months, emails show

17

DMV urged Uber to get into compliance four months before it launched its short-lived self-driving experiment in San Francisco

Last December, Uber’s self-driving cars hit the rain-slicked streets of San Francisco with much fanfare. It was meant to be a watershed moment — the upstart ride-hail company bringing autonomous driving to its city of origin, years before most experts predicted we’d begin to see self-driving cars en masse.

But it turned out to be a total flop. A week after Uber’s fleet of 16 luxury Volvo XC90 SUVs started picking up passengers, the program was brought to a grinding halt. The California Department of Motor Vehicles revoked Uber’s vehicle registrations after Uber refused to obtain a $150 permit authorizing it to test driverless cars in the state. And rather than correct what on the surface seemed like a clerical error, Uber refused to get licensed, instead shipping its autonomous fleet to Arizona where it could test its self-driving cars with less public scrutiny.

It turns out that all this drama was preordained months in advance. According to a lengthy email exchange between Uber and the DMV obtained by The Verge from a public records request, Uber was repeatedly urged to sign up for the state’s autonomous testing permit, with the DMV even offering to expedite the process to make it as quick and seamless as possible. Had it done so, Uber could have saved itself a lot of embarrassment and could be offering trips in self-driving cars in San Francisco right now.

But in multiple emails to the DMV, Anthony Levandowski, vice president at Uber’s Advanced Technologies Group and the company’s top executive in charge of autonomous technology, argued that what it was doing did not meet the legal definition of autonomous vehicle testing, spurring a brain-bending debate over the letter of the law. The debate ended inconclusively, and Uber ultimately launched its doomed public pilot without ever notifying state regulators of its intentions to invite members of the public into the backseat of its self-driving cars.

WE DECIDE WHAT’S AUTONOMOUS. AND UNDER OUR REGULATIONS, IT WAS.”

“In their minds, they really thought they weren’t autonomous,” Jessica Gonzalez, assistant deputy director of public affairs at the DMV, told The Verge. “But we decide what’s autonomous. And under our regulations, it was.”

In recent days, Uber has come under intense scrutiny thanks to an explosive lawsuit filed by Google’s self-driving spinoff Waymo. Levandowski, a former Google engineer, is accused of stealing the company’s technology before starting his self-driving truck startup Otto, which was subsequently acquired by Uber for $680 million. Google is seeking to block Uber from testing its self-driving cars, while Uber has denied all the charges.

California started requiring companies testing autonomous vehicles on public roads to get permits in 2014. Since then, nearly two dozen companies have registered, including Google, Tesla, Ford, Mercedes-Benz, and Volkswagen. Companies are not required to disclose in their applications where they plan to do their testing. Nor must they reveal any details about their technology. But they must report any accidents or instances when drivers had to unexpectedly turn off the autonomous technology within 10 days to the state’s DMV.

Why did Uber launch the self-driving in pilot in San Francisco if it knew it was in violation of the law? A likely scenario was that Uber didn’t want to disclose its disengagement rate — the number of times the vehicle forced the human driver to take control because it couldn’t safely navigate the conditions on the road — or any accidents to the DMV, and by extension the public. The company referred questions about the emails to comments made by Levandowski in a call with reporters last December.

Uber first made the DMV aware that it was testing its self-driving vehicles in San Francisco at a meeting on September 16th, 2016. Four days later, Business Insider published video of one of Uber’s self-driving Ford Fusions tooling down Market Street, and made note of the fact that the company had so far failed to receive regulatory approval to test its autonomous vehicles in California.

The next day, Brian Soublet, the DMV’s deputy counsel, sent an email to Levandowski. “As you know, an autonomous vehicle cannot be operated in autonomous mode on public streets without the manufacturer holding a permit issued by the department,” Soublet wrote September 21st. “Is the vehicle that Uber has in San Francisco being tested in autonomous mode on public streets?”

Levandowski told Soublet that according to their logs, the car featured in the article “was under manual control” and simply collecting mapping data for future testing. He added that Uber had no intention of signing up for the permit because Uber’s self-driving cars required a human monitor at all times, and thus did not fit the legal definition of an “autonomous vehicle.”

The law defines an autonomous vehicle “any vehicle equipped with technology that has the capability of operating or driving the vehicle without the active physical control or monitoring of a natural person.” Levandowski argued that Uber’s cars required a human being in the driver’s seat at all times. But the law hinges on the presence of autonomous technology, not the presence of a human driver.

Still, he attempted to strike a friendly tone with the DMV. “These types of articles and inquiries are why we want and welcome an open channel of communication with you,” he added.

Soublet emailed back a few minutes later, noting that the mere fact that there were “logs” to check suggested the car had an autonomous mode. “By the pictures we’ve seen, the vehicle fits the definition of an ‘autonomous vehicle’ because it is ‘equipped with autonomous technology that has been integrated into the vehicle,’” he wrote. “The better course is to apply for a testing permit to eliminate any confusion about the operation of that vehicle on public roads.”

In a lengthy email to Soublet on September 22nd, Levandowski explained that the multitude of sensors, cameras, and other equipment typically seen on highly advanced self-driving cars were actually just “cool safety technology (similar to Tesla autopilot and other [adaptive cruise control] and lane keeping vehicles on the road).” In other words, the technology may look similar to the technology you’d find on a Google self-driving car (too similar, Google would say), but its just typical safety features.

An email, dated September 22nd, from Uber’s Anthony Levandowski to the DMV’s Brian Soublet

“Responding to your previous email, I politely disagree,” Levandowski wrote. “We are not an [autonomous vehicle] and getting a permit further reinforces the misperception that we are an AV.” He insisted that Uber’s self-driving cars would require human drivers for “a very long time,” and vowed to inform the DMV “before this changes.”

In a later email, Levandowski told Soublet bluntly, “We don’t do AV testing.” This directly contradicts The Verge’s own experience riding in the backseat of one of Uber’s self-driving SUVs in San Francisco prior to the public launch in December. In addition, Uber allowed reporters from dozens of publications, including The Verge, to get behind the driver’s seat in Pittsburgh and experience the technology firsthand.

In both cases, the vehicle drove itself for long stretches of the trip, deftly handling intersections, bridges, and pedestrians without human intervention. There were times when a chime would sound, signaling the driver to take control. But other than that, the car was capable of operating “without the physical control or monitoring of a natural person,” as stipulated under the law.

The idea behind these public demonstrations was to prove that Uber’s self-driving vehicles were capable of handling dense urban environments, in anticipation of one day being capable of operating without a steering wheel, pedals, or even a human in the driver’s seat. Uber CEO Travis Kalanick has described his company’s pursuit of autonomous technology as an existential threat. “If we are not tied for first, then the person who is in first, or the entity that’s in first, then rolls out a ride-sharing network that is far cheaper or far higher-quality than Uber’s, then Uber is no longer a thing,” he told Business Insider last year.

Dozens of companies from Detroit to Silicon Valley, are pursuing autonomous driving tech, but none have been so bold about it as Uber. As evidenced by the Waymo lawsuit and emails with the California DMV, the ride-hail company was willing to cut corners, split hairs, and obfuscate in its race to be the first to demonstrate the viability of self-driving cars. For Uber, being first was more important than being compliant.

A few days after it launched its unauthorized experiment in San Francisco, a self-driving Uber was caught on video running a red light. Uber claimed the car was under manual control at the time. “These incidents were due to human error,” a spokesperson told The Verge.

But that turned out to be false: the car had actually driven itself through the light, sources told to The New York Times. In fact, Uber’s self-driving cars failed to recognize five other traffic lights around the city. Had it signed up for the permit, Uber would have had to report that infraction to the DMV

Fruit and veg: For a longer life eat 10-a-day – BBC News

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-39057146

— excerpt below —

    cardiovascular disease:   800g cut the risk by 28%

     cancer:                                     800g cut the risk by 13%

    premature death:                 800g cut the risk by 31%

Eat Your Veggies. 🌽🍆🍐🍍🍌🍉

Whole Fruits and Veggies.

Not processed 

(ie not juice without pulp)

Fruit and veg: For a longer life eat 10-a-day

By James Gallagher Health and science reporter, BBC News
    23 February 2017

    From the section Health 175 comments 
Eating loads of fruit and vegetables – 10 portions a day – may give us longer lives, say researchers.
The study, by Imperial College London, calculated such eating habits could prevent 7.8 million premature deaths each year.
The team also identified specific fruit and veg that reduced the risk of cancer and heart disease.
The analysis showed even small amounts had a health boon, but more is even better.
A portion counts as 80g (3oz) of fruit or veg – the equivalent of a small banana, a pear or three heaped tablespoons of spinach or peas.
What counts as five-a-day?
The conclusions were made by pooling data on 95 separate studies, involving two million people’s eating habits.
Lower risks of cancer were linked to eating:

  •     green veg (eg spinach)
  •     yellow veg (eg peppers)
  •     cruciferous vegetables (eg cauliflower).

Lower risks of heart disease and strokes were linked to eating:

  •     apples
  •     pears
  •     citrus fruits
  •     salads
  •     green leafy vegetables (eg lettuce)
  •     cruciferous veg

Image caption Harriet is a big fan of spinach
Harriet Micallef, from Chippenham, says she often manages eight to 10 portions a day and has multiple portions of spinach every day.
She told the BBC: “I have a lot, I don’t ever have a meal without veg or salad so eight to 10 portions is a regular thing.”
She starts her day with a veg-packed omelette containing spinach and sometimes avocado or tomatoes.
Harriet’s salad-based lunch is also packed with a mix of veg and her evening meals tend to be stir fries or stews.
Snacks during the day include blended fruit smoothies or peppers dipped in hummus.
She added: “It’s definitely healthy, if you’ve got loads of colours on your plate then you’re pretty much okay.”
The results, published in the International Journal of Epidemiology, also assessed the risk of dying before your time.
Compared with eating no fruit or veg a day, it showed:

    200g cut the risk of cardiovascular disease by 13% while 800g cut the risk by 28%

    200g cut the risk of cancer by 4%, while 800g cut the risk by 13%

    200g cut the risk of a premature death by 15%, while 800g cut the risk by 31%
The researchers do not know if eating even more fruit and veg would have even greater health benefits as there is little evidence out there to review.
Dr Dagfinn Aune, one of the researchers, said: “Fruit and vegetables have been shown to reduce cholesterol levels, blood pressure, and to boost the health of our blood vessels and immune system.
“This may be due to the complex network of nutrients they hold.
“For instance, they contain many antioxidants, which may reduce DNA damage and lead to a reduction in cancer risk.”
However, many people struggle to even eat the five a day (400g) recommended by the World Health Organization.
In the UK, only about one in three people eats enough.

Image caption Heather is a vegan who loves sweet potato curry
Heather Saunders, 24 and from Oxford, routinely manages nine or 10 portions a day since becoming vegan.
She has two pieces of fruit with breakfast, a “massive pot” of roasted vegetables at lunch and then at least four vegetables in curries or chillies in the evening.
She told the BBC: “It is about making a conscious decision, I feel fuelling myself with plant-based foods is a more healthy way to sustain myself.”
Her tips for anyone trying to eat more is to do it gently: “Maybe decide to have one or two meat-free days a week and phase more veg in, I quite like a sweet potato curry with spinach and chickpeas.”
Dr Aune said the findings did not mean the five-a-day message needed to change.
He told the BBC: “There are many different considerations if changing policy, it’s not just the health effects – is it feasible?
“But our findings are quite clear in that they do support five a day, but there are even some further benefits for higher intakes.”
    Five-a-day advice ‘unrealistic’ says new GPs’ head

    Take the test: are you getting five-a-day?
Dr Alison Tedstone, chief nutritionist at Public Health England, said: “The five-a-day target is the foundation of a healthy balanced diet and is an achievable way to help prevent a number of diseases.
“Whilst consuming more than five portions of fruit and vegetables a day may be desirable… adding pressure to consume more fruit and vegetables creates an unrealistic expectation.”

Your questions answered
Jonathan Shorney asked: “I eat a lot of apples, but that amounts to a lot of sugar. Could that amount of sugar be harmful?”
Sugar seems to have become public enemy number one in the past few years. But it is important to remember the “war on sugar” is actually a “war on free sugar”.
This includes sugars added to food as well as honey or those liberated in making fruit juices.
However, this does not include any naturally occurring sugars in fresh fruit and vegetables and the World Health Organization says “there is no reported evidence of adverse effects of consuming these sugars”.
Mike asked: “Do pulses contribute to the 10?
Yes they do. All kinds of beans from kidney to cannellini as well as lentils count as a single portion according to Public Health England.
Gary Kruger asked: “Should fruit and vegetables be heavily subsidised by the government to encourage further consumption?
This is not being seriously considered, but something kind of similar is happening.
Rather than making the healthy stuff cheaper, a sugar tax will make sugar-sweetened beverages more expensive with the aim of shifting buying habits.
There is no VAT on fruit and veg, but the British Medical Association has called for the government to go further and use the proceeds of a sugar tax to discount fruit and veg.
However, it is not clear how big a health impact there could be without knowing who it would be for (everyone or just the poor), how big the discount would be and then how that would change shopping habits.
Harriet, who started cooking family meals at the age of 12, thinks more should be done to get children eating more.
“I think it comes from schooling and the traditional British meat and two veg.
“I think if you teach children to always have something green on their plate in addition then they’ll naturally start having more.
“There’s just so many different veg that people don’t have like bean sprouts and chard.”
Not all of the 95 studies that were analysed fully accounted for other aspects of lifestyle, such as exercise levels, that could also play a role in prolonging lives.
However, Dr Aune said the conclusions were “quite robust”.


    Seven-a-day fruit and veg ‘saves lives’

    1 April 2014
Health

Uber and Otto STOLE Google’s Lidar Self-Driving Car Technology, gets sued by Google’s Waymo| WIRED

There is almost nothing legit about Uber.

They Rip off their Drivers.

They promote sexual harassment of their female employees.

They use very underhand, illegal means to put their competitors out of business. Their rates are subsidised by investors. 

They steal technology to jump into another market.

They are an EVIL company.

https://www.wired.com/2017/02/googles-lawsuit-uber-revolves-around-frickin-lasers/?mbid=nl_22517_p2&CNDID=49051027