Portable Bluetooth Speakers

what is a good thought for the day

Embark on a Quest with what is a good thought for the day

Step into a world where the focus is keenly set on what is a good thought for the day. Within the confines of this article, a tapestry of references to what is a good thought for the day awaits your exploration. If your pursuit involves unraveling the depths of what is a good thought for the day, you've arrived at the perfect destination.

Our narrative unfolds with a wealth of insights surrounding what is a good thought for the day. This is not just a standard article; it's a curated journey into the facets and intricacies of what is a good thought for the day. Whether you're thirsting for comprehensive knowledge or just a glimpse into the universe of what is a good thought for the day, this promises to be an enriching experience.

The spotlight is firmly on what is a good thought for the day, and as you navigate through the text on these digital pages, you'll discover an extensive array of information centered around what is a good thought for the day. This is more than mere information; it's an invitation to immerse yourself in the enthralling world of what is a good thought for the day.

So, if you're eager to satisfy your curiosity about what is a good thought for the day, your journey commences here. Let's embark together on a captivating odyssey through the myriad dimensions of what is a good thought for the day.

Showing posts sorted by date for query what is a good thought for the day. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query what is a good thought for the day. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Behind The 'Flame' Malware Spying On Mideast Computers (FAQ)


Behind the frame beyond the flames behind the frame walkthrough behind the frame review behind the fame behind the frame switch behind the name behind the chair behind the curve behind the music
Behind the 'Flame' malware spying on Mideast computers (FAQ)


Behind the 'Flame' malware spying on Mideast computers (FAQ)

The Flame worm that has targeted computers in the Middle East is being called "the most sophisticated cyberweapon yet unleashed" by Kaspersky Lab researchers who discovered it. Lurking on computers for at least five years, the malware has the ability to steal data, eavesdrop on conversations, and take screen captures of instant message exchanges, making it dangerous to any victim. But a possible link to malware found on computers in Iran's oil sector has experts saying it's got to be the work of a nation-state.

CNET talked with Roel Schouwenberg, senior researcher at Kaspersky, the company that uncovered the malware, to find out who is behind it and how dangerous it really is.

What is Flame?
Flame is a sophisticated attack toolkit that leaves a backdoor, or Trojan, on computers and can propagate itself through a local network, like a computer worm does. Kaspersky Lab suspects it may use a critical Windows vulnerability, but that has not been confirmed, according to a Kaspersky blog post. Flame can sniff network traffic, take screenshots, record audio conversations, log keystrokes and gather information about discoverable Bluetooth devices nearby and turn the infected computer into a discoverable Bluetooth device. The attackers can upload additional modules for further functionality. There are about 20 modules that have been discovered and researchers are looking into what they all do. The package of modules comprises nearly 20 megabytes, over 3,000 lines of code, and includes libraries for compression, database manipulation, multiple methods of encryption, and batch scripting.

The malware is named after one of the main modules that is responsible for attacking and infecting additional computers. There are multiple versions circulating, which are communicating with as many as 80 different command-and-control servers. Kaspersky has an updated technical analysis here and McAfee's technical blog post is here. This report on the malware, from the Laboratory of Cryptography and System Security (CrySyS Lab) at Budapest University of Technology and Economics, refers to the threat as "sKyWIper."

"Flame is very modular. Basically a target will get infected with the main component and then the attackers will only upload modules to the target as they see fit," Schouwenberg said. "We assume that we don't have all the modules that exist in the wild."

How does it spread?
Flame spreads within a network via a USB thumb drive, network shares, or a shared printer spool vulnerability, but spreads only when instructed to do so by the attackers. It's unclear what the initial point of entry is. "We expect to find a spear phishing e-mail with a Zero-Day exploit," Schouwenberg said.

Since we first published this FAQ, Microsoft has revealed that Flame gained a foothold by spoofing one of the company's own security certificates. Specifically, the virus tapped into rogue certificates for Microsoft's Terminal Server that appeared to be signed by the company and were therefore seen as legitimate. Microsoft has released security advisory describing the steps it's taking to remove the risk, including the issuance of a Windows patch to fix the security hole.

How long has Flame been around?
"We have the first confirmed report of Flame in the wild in 2010, but there is circumstantial evidence that dates it back to 2007 and some speculate it may go back further than that," Schouwenberg said Kaspersky Lab researchers discovered the malware several weeks ago after being asked by the United National's International Telecommunication Union for help in uncovering malware dubbed "Wiper" that was stealing and deleting sensitive information on computers in Iran's oil sector.

How does Flame relate to Wiper?
"Wiper could be a Flame module that is uploaded to a target machine when the attackers want to wipe the data from the computer. There is no evidence to link the two together, but the timing is coincidental," Schouwenberg said. "So, we have an open mind to Wiper being a Flame plug-in." Iran's National Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT), which is called "Maher," said software to detect Flame was sent to companies in that country at the beginning of May and a removal tool is ready now. Recent incidents of mass data loss in Iran "could be the outcome of some installed module of this threat," the center said, speculating that attacks in which data from Iran's gas company computers may have been linked to Flame. Officials in Iran suspect that Wiper and Flame are somehow linked, the Associated Press reports.

Why wasn't Flame discovered earlier? Whoever created Flame took extreme efforts to write the code so that it would evade detection for as long as possible. "Clearly it's another multimillion-dollar project with government funding, so one of the top priorities has been stealth," Schouwenberg said. While a later variant of Stuxnet was detected because it spread aggressively, Flame only spreads after it is instructed to do so remotely. Flame is unusually large in size and uses an uncommon scripting language, Lua, so it doesn't look malicious at first glance. "Flame authors have adopted the concept of hiding in plain sight," he said. Because Flame doesn't use a rootkit technology, free anti-rootkit tools won't be able to detect it. "Finding it is going to be more complicated," according to Schouwenberg.

Who created the malware?

It's unclear who wrote and distributed the malware, but Schouwenberg said researchers believe it was a nation-state or someone hired by a nation-state because of the advanced nature of the threat. Just because the code is in English does not mean that an English-speaking country is behind it, he said when asked if he thought the U.S. and/or Israel are behind this malware as is believed with Stuxnet. Meanwhile, liberal Jewish blog Tikun Olam

cites an unidentified "senior Israeli source"

as confirming that Israeli cyber warfare experts created Flame to "infiltrate the computers of individuals in Iran, Israel, Palestine and elsewhere who are engaged in activities that interest Israel's secret police including military intelligence."

Is it related to Stuxnet and Duqu? Flame shares some characteristics with two previous types of malware that targeted critical infrastructure systems and which used the same technology platform: Stuxnet and Duqu. Schouwenberg thinks the same entities are behind Flame. For instance, Flame and Stuxnet both spread via USB drive using the "Autorun" method and a .LNK file that triggers an infection when a directory is opened. Flame also can replicate through local networks using a Windows-based shared printer vulnerability that was exploited by Stuxnet as well. Kaspersky hasn't uncovered Flame using any previously unknown vulnerabilities, called "Zero-Days," but since Flame has infected fully patched Windows 7 systems through the network, there may be a high-risk Zero-Day being exploited. "We are operating under the assumption right now that basically Flame and Stuxnet were two parallel projects commissioned by the same nation-sate or states. The Stuxnet platform was created by one team or company and Flame by another tea m or company, and both teams had access to this common set of exploits," he said. Flame is 20 times larger than Stuxnet, which was previously believed to be the most sophisticated piece of malware ever.

How serious is this?
Kaspersky researchers believe there is much more to Flame than they know now. "We operate on the assumption there are other modules we don't know about, which could elevate Flame from cyber espionage to cybersabotage," Schouwenberg said. "Given the conservative method of spreading, we assume that the vast majority of infections we are seeing are intended targets ... The amount of manpower required to maintain this operation is very significant. Flame uses more than 80 C&C (Command and Control) servers, which we haven't seen before. This shows the amount of resources committed to this project."

Who is being targeted with Flame?
The highest proportion of infections are in Iran, followed by "Israel/Palestine," Sudan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, according to Kaspersky. Symantec says the primary targets are in "the Palestinian West Bank, Hungary, Iran and Lebanon." "With Flame, we haven't been able to say what binds all the targets together other than that they are in the same geographical region," Schouwenberg said. "We are trying to work with incident response teams globally to contact these victims and find out more, but right now we don't know what type of data has been stolen." Victims include educational institutions, state-related organizations and individuals.

How widespread is Flame?
So far there are only estimates as to how widespread Flame infections are. Kaspersky researchers have seen between 300 and 400 infections on customer computers reporting back to them, but researchers speculate there could be more than 1,000 infected computers worldwide. Most of the infections are in Iran and other countries in the Middle East. There are a few in the U.S., and Schouwenberg said those could be due to someone in the Middle East using a virtual private network based in the U.S. to circumvent Internet filters in that country as opposed to genuine infections on U.S.-based computers. "We're looking into sinkholing (taking control of) some of the Command and Control servers and getting data from there to have a more accurate reflection of infections," Schouwenberg said.

Here are the countries with the most Flame infections discovered by Kaspersky.
Here are the countries with the most Flame infections discovered by Kaspersky. Securelist

Does it affect me?
Most of the major antivirus software now detects Flame, so updating your security software will protect you. Kaspersky also has offered tips for manually removing the malware. The software is not designed to steal financial data and does not seem targeted at consumers, so chances are your computer is safe.

What does this all mean?
While Flame represents another sophisticated cyber espionage attack, it's not exactly a harbinger of cyberwar. Countries have been conducting cyber espionage for years, but it wasn't until Stuxnet, with its links to the U.S. and Israel, that a Western country was fingered by researchers. Stuxnet is believed to have been designed to sabotage Iran's nuclear program after diplomatic and other efforts had failed. That said, Flame does show that sophisticated attacks on critical infrastructure are happening, and succeeding. "The good news is that like Stuxnet, Flame appears to be highly targeted," Eric Byres, chief technology officer and co-founder of Tofino Industrial Security, writes in a blog post. "But the bad news is that this worm clearly indicates that industry, especially the energy industry, is now a key target in a rapidly growing world of sophisticated, government sponsored malware."

"You could call it military-grade malware, which is obviously a class above (other malware) and generally these are covert operations so remaining stealth is top-most priority," Schouwenberg said. "In the end, it was anti-malware that found this type of attack."

Editors' note: This FAQ was originally published May 30 at 2:40 p.m. PT. It has been updated since then with additional information, including on May 30 the Tikun Olam report of a source saying that Israel is behind Flame, and on June 4 with with details on Microsoft's security advisory to address the spread of Flame through rogue Microsoft security certificates.


Source

https://tiramishu-love.blogr.my.id/

.

Which Smart Home Gadget Should You Buy First?


Top smart home gadgets top smart home gadgets newest smart home gadgets which smart home system is best smart home devices which smartphone should i buy which smartphone has the best camera 2022
Which smart home gadget should you buy first?


Which smart home gadget should you buy first?

Smart home tech is nothing new -- hobbyists have been geeking out over home automation for decades now -- but in recent years, it's marched closer to the mainstream than ever before. In recent years, high-profile connected home gadgets like the Amazon Echo, the Nest Learning Thermostat and the Ring Video Doorbell have all become breakout hits by offering attractive designs and tangible benefits, many of them at prices that aren't unreasonably high.

The result? A mainstream smart home market with an awful lot of momentum. In 2018, a GfK study found that over half of US households now include at least one smart home gadget. Over a third of them include two or more.

Of course, that leaves about half of us who still haven't bought in. Many might be put off at the thought of connecting everything under their roof and sharing data picked up by sensors, security cameras and microphones with Silicon Valley -- but with a wide variety of smart devices available in your local hardware store, others simply might not know where to start. To that end, here's a look at how to answer a not-so-simple question: Which smart home product should you buy first?

Disclosure: CNET may get a share of revenue from purchases made through the links on this page.  

Plan for a purpose-driven smart home

Ask yourself: What do you want from your smart home? As a guy who listens to pitches for the latest smart home technology day in and day out, I can assure you that you've got lots of options. Do you want to keep an eye on things with a do-it-yourself security system and camera feeds you can check from your phone? Do you want simple conveniences like voice controls for your lights and thermostats? Do you want artificial intelligence and cloud-connected appliances to help freshen things up in the kitchen?

To figure out what you want, think about the things you do at home on a daily basis and look for improvements that you'd find meaningful. Do you tend to wander from room to room before bed turning off lights that the kids left on? Smart bulbs that you can turn off with a single voice command or tap on your phone might make sense. Do you shop online a lot, and worry about thieves stealing packages off your porch while you're at work? A video doorbell with a feed you can view remotely might be a good fit.

For my money, I think smart lighting is a sensible starting point for almost everyone. After all, we use the lights in our home more than just about anything else -- adding in things like motion-activated lights for the exterior of your home or automatic wake-up fades that sync with your morning alarms make a lot of sense, because you'll enjoy them day in and day out. For more on why it's a great time to try smart lights, click here.

Value versatility

If nothing specific jumps out at you and you just have a general curiosity about what the smart home might have to offer, then look for flexible, multifunctional devices that you can use in lots of different ways. A small smart speaker like the Amazon Echo Dot or Google Home Mini is a great way to see what artificially intelligent in-home helpers like Alexa and Google Assistant are capable of, and neither one will cost you more than $50. The WeMo Mini smart switch from Belkin is even cheaper, and it'll let you automate anything you plug into it -- lamps, desk fans, crock pots, space heaters, you name it.

belking-wemo-switch-mini-product-photos-1.jpg

The WeMo Mini Smart Switch from Belkin is a versatile little gadget that automates anything you plug into it. Available for just $30, it's a good, low-risk step into the smart home.

Tyler Lizenby/CNET

As always, when in doubt, start small. Once you find a product that you like, you can start to build around it by adding in other, compatible gadgets capable of making it even smarter and contributing some unique appeal of their own. Our smart home compatibility tracker can be a really helpful tool to that end.

Ponder your platform options

If you're buying a new computer, you'll need to decide which operating system you'd like to use -- Mac, Windows, Chromebook, etc. Smart home tech is similar in that a majority of the most popular gadgets are designed to work within a wider ecosystem of devices -- the most common being voice control platforms like Amazon Alexa, Google Assistant and the Siri controls that come with Apple HomeKit. Control hubs from names like Wink and Samsung SmartThings offer dedicated platforms capable of helping different devices get along, too. You could also keep things working together by sticking to gadgets that work with IFTTT, a free, online automation platform.

Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of each of those options can go a long way toward helping you build out a smart home setup that makes sense for you, particularly if you're planning on using multiple types of gadgets. The smart home is just better when things work together.

That said, most devices offer their own dedicated apps and controls, and can be used independent of any broader platforms right out of the box. That means that you don't necessarily need to make any commitments right away. On top of that, a growing number of products support multiple platforms. Starting with smart devices like those can help you keep your options open if you're undecided for now.

I'll add that each platform has its own security certification process designed to keep insecure, vulnerable hardware out of the mix -- that means that a product that works with multiple platforms has essentially gotten multiple passing grades from names like Apple, Amazon, Google and Samsung, all of which have a lot at stake when it comes to keeping their respective platforms secure. 

Here are a few quick suggestions that fit the bill:

Available with two bulbs or four, Philips Hue's white-light smart bulb starter kit is relatively affordable, and it's easy to use and build upon -- plus, it works with just about everything you could imagine.

Ry Crist/CNET

Smart lights

idevices-switch-product-photos-1.jpg

Along with automating whatever you plug into the side of it, the iDevices Switch will monitor your energy use and double as a multicolor nightlight, and it works with Apple HomeKit, Amazon Alexa and the Google Assistant.

Tyler Lizenby/CNET

Smart plugs

Available for $100 and packed with helpful features, the Honeywell Lyric T5 is one of our favorite smart thermostat value picks, and it works with a wide variety of platforms.

Chris Monroe/CNET

Smart thermostats

kwikset-obsidian-product-photos-4

The Kwikset Obsidian is a keyless smart lock that supports a number of platforms, including Amazon Key for in-home package delivery.

Tyler Lizenby/CNET

Smart locks

I'd also add that if you have any interest in voice controls, then starting off with either an Amazon Echo Dot or a Google Home Mini is one of the smart home's biggest no-brainers. Even if you ignore the smart home integrations that let Alexa or the Google Assistant control things like lights and thermostats, each device is arguably worth the $50 asking price for the voice-activated music, podcasts, news headlines and cooking timers alone.

Do your homework

The best way to pick the right gadgets for your home is to understand what all of the different options have to offer and narrow things down accordingly. With such a huge variety of alternatives battling it out in a complex arena of competing platforms and standards, doing so can get confusing in a hurry.

But hey, that's where we come in! Our product reviews, best-of lists, buying guides, how-to content, explainer posts and featured dispatches from the CNET Smart Home are all aimed at helping you understand what a more connected living space has to offer (and where it falls short). If you're looking for ideas as to how you might put a smarter home to work, we'll help you brainstorm. If you're stuck trying decide between two seemingly identical gadgets, we can help with that, too. If you want to dive deeper into privacy and security concerns before buying in, we've got you covered.

Bottom line: There's never been a better time to try your hand at home automation. Explore your options, and you'll find plenty of ways to start your smart home off right.


Source

Apple Watch: It's Been 5 Years Since My Original Review, And It Holds Up


Apple Watch: It's been 5 years since my original review, and it holds up


Apple Watch: It's been 5 years since my original review, and it holds up

I'd love to say that when I first put on the Apple Watch, I'd never seen anything like it before. But of course, that's not true. By late 2014 I'd been surrounded by smartwatches for a few years. So when Apple announced it was making its own watch, my thought (as so often with Apple) was: finally.

The first smartwatch I reviewed at CNET was the Martian Passport, an analog watch that could make phone calls. It sounds so primitive now, but it was cool in early 2013. The Pebble Watch followed, and the Steel version became my favorite: It was like a Casio watch turned into a useful little pager-assistant. It was simple and had long battery life, and it was great.

There were others, too: Samsung's first smartwatches were ambitious (a camera?). Google's first Android Wear watches arrived in 2014. Meanwhile, there were Fitbits and Jawbone trackers galore.

I say this to lay the groundwork for the Apple Watch and what its impact was. Like the iPhone wasn't the first smartphone, the Apple Watch wasn't the first smartwatch... but it made the biggest footprint. It was another step validating that a world of wearables was here to stay. 

I was able to wear the Apple Watch a month before it went on sale. I spent a ton of time with it, getting used to both how it handled phone calls, and the activity tracking rings. I looked at my heart rate measurements. I accidentally ordered an Xbox One with an early Amazon app.

The Watch was, much like the first iPhone, sometimes feature-limited. But it also had some features that already stood out.

My original review was updated a year later, which you can read here. Some parts have changed, clearly, and Apple has updated the OS. But I'll comment on what I wrote then, and how I felt, and how that's evolved. Quotes from the original review are in italics.

apple-event-apple-watch-edition-5597.jpg

The gold Apple Watch, way back when.

James Martin/CNET

An excellent design, with luxury overtones

Apple wants you to think of the Apple Watch as fine jewelry. Maybe that's a stretch, but in terms of craftsmanship, there isn't a more elegantly made piece of wearable tech. Look at the Apple Watch from a distance, and it might appear unremarkable in its rectangular simplicity compared with bolder, circular Android Wear watches. It's clearly a revamped sort of iPod Nano. But get closer, and you can see the seamless, excellent construction.

The first Apple Watch came in aluminum, steel and ramped all the way up to a gold model costing more than $10,000. Compared to other smartwatches, it screamed luxury.

Certain touches felt luxurious, too: the fine-feeling Digital Crown, which spun ever so smoothly like a real watch part, for instance. The OLED display, which was a first for an Apple product, looked crisp and bright.

The most amazing part, maybe, were the watch bands. Apple created a really nice series of specially designed straps, from a steel link to a clever magnetic Milanese mesh that were extremely expensive and impressively engineered. 

Its watch face designs were great, too, and they integrated some information from the iPhone that aimed to add at-a-glance ease of use. There was a Mickey Mouse watch face that danced! The Solar face showing sunrise and sunset, and the astronomy face that showed planetary alignments and moon phases, felt like magic. I wanted more, but Apple's assortment of watch faces was limited, and it didn't allow for third-party watch face design. That's still the case now.

A lot of the Apple Watch reminded me of the strides Apple began with the iPod Nano, which also had watch mode... and a Mickey Mouse watch face.

chronometer-92.jpg
Sarah Tew

New technologies at first: fantastic haptics, a force-sensitive display

All Apple Watches have a new S1 processor made by Apple, that "taptic" haptic engine and a force-sensitive and very bright OLED display, which is differently sized on the 38mm and 42mm models. The watch has its own accelerometer, gyrometer and heart-rate monitor, but no onboard GPS. It uses Bluetooth 4.0 and 802.11b/g/n 2.4GHz Wi-Fi to connect to your phone or your home network. There's a built-in speaker and microphone, but no headphone jack.

As I wore the watch on the first day, I felt a rippling buzz and a metallic ping: one of my credit card payments showed up as a message. Apple's "Taptic Engine" and a built-in speaker convey both a range of advanced taps and vibrations, plus sounds. Unlike the buzz in a phone or most wearables, these haptics feel sharper: a single tap, or a ripple of them, or thumps.

Sometimes the feelings are too subtle: I don't know if I felt them or imagined them. My wrists might be numbed from too many smart devices. I set my alerts to "prominent" and got sharper nudges on my wrist.

The first watch introduced some ideas that eventually made their way to other iPhones. A "taptic engine" delivered on some amazingly refined vibration effects, ranging from a purr to a ping to a gentle tap. These were way ahead of what anybody else was doing -- and they weren't just a gimmick. The notification types associated with unique vibrations felt distinct. Sometimes, the vibrating taps on the first Watch weren't as powerful as I wanted. But with later updates, the haptics made parts of the interface seem real: virtual wheels, clicking as if moving with invisible gears.

The more advanced haptics made their way to the iPhone next, making us used to them now. Other phones, game consoles like the Nintendo Switch, and VR accessories, have evolved haptics since, but the Apple Watch was the first mainstream device that upped the haptics game.

Force Touch was another wild idea: Apple made its watch display force-sensitive, meaning a deeper press could work like pushing a button. Though this idea was refined further into 3D Touch on the iPhone 6S, 3D Touch was a technology that never became as necessary as expected, and current iPhone models have dropped the pressure-sensitive display tech completely.

The Apple Watch still has Force Touch, though, and I think it always will.

chronometer-55.jpg

Digital Touch: I never used it much after that.

Sarah Tew

Lots of features. Too many features?

As you can see, this is a lot of stuff. Did I have fun using the watch? Yes, mostly, but there are so many features that I felt a little lost at times. There are so many ways to interact: swiping, touching, pressing harder into the display, a button and a clickable digital crown-wheel. Plus, there's Siri. Do I swipe, or click, or force touch or speak? Sometimes I didn't know where an app menu was. Or, I'd find getting back to an app I just had open would require an annoying series of crown clicks, swiping through apps, then opening the app again.

There's a reason I used the word "complicated" to describe my feelings using that first Apple Watch. Setting up bits of information, called complications, was slow and not always intuitive. Apps took a while to load, and were sometimes so slow that it was easier to check my phone instead. Quick glances and notifications, and phone calls, were fine. Apple Pay on the watch was clever, but would I use it? I wished the watch had more battery life.

I didn't like the overcomplicated feel. The design of the OS, and the card-like swappable mini-view apps that used to be on the Watch like a dock, changed over time. It's gotten better since.

Storing music on the watch, while it took a while to sync, was easier than attempts on Samsung Gear or Android Wear. Of course, I had to hunt for a good pair of Bluetooth headphones to connect with the watch.

Today I still forget to dive into and make the most of the apps on the watch. I just dusted off Walkie Talkie: it's cool. There's noise monitoring. One app lets me remote control my iPhone camera, which has been a huge help for my stay-at-home self-shot videos. The Remote app helps me when I lose the Apple TV remote every other day. 

Third-party apps, and the grid of options? It turns out I don't use them much at all. I don't dig down deep into the layers of functions. I prefer what's on the surface: watch faces, and their readouts. But I've come to appreciate the watch's surprising number of options and settings. It's better than not having them at all.

river-chronometer-42.jpg

The rings were the beginning.

Sarah Tew/CNET

Fitness: The ring idea was just the beginning

The Apple Watch doesn't work any fitness miracles that the rest of the wearable world hasn't already invented, and it doesn't ship with any new magical sensors that change the game. But the Apple-made integrated fitness apps, Activity and Workout, are far and away the best fitness apps on any existing smartwatch that isn't a dedicated "fitness watch" (Samsung Gear, Android Wear, Pebble and the like). A clever three-ring method of tracking daily activity, which simultaneously measures and rewards daily calorie burn, active exercise and standing up, feels like a fusion of rewards and metrics seen on the Nike FuelBand, Jawbone Up, Fitbit and others. 

I appreciated Apple's complete-the-ring motivational activity tracker, which felt inspired by wearables like the Nike FuelBand (not surprising, since Apple's head of fitness, Jay Blahnik, arrived from Nike). For the red ring's daily goals, it's great. It felt too easy to complete the blue Stand ring, and it still does.

There are tons of fitness advancements Apple has made on the Watch in the last five years: GPS, resting heart rate, workout controls, social sharing, third-party app integration, swimming, modes for accessibility, activity trends -- and I haven't even discussed Apple's massive health aspirations like adding ECG, checking for falls, monitoring elevated or irregular heart rate or women's health tracking. There is some form of coaching and motivation, too. But I'd still love to see more of that. I hit a wall when trying to be fit, and there's only so much watches seem to help.

The first Apple Watch was more of a Fitbit. Now, it's more of a health companion. Those two worlds still feel like they need to dovetail and grow. There are missing features, too, like sleep tracking, which feels like the inevitable next step.

chronometer-85.jpg

You still need an iPhone, just like in 2015.

Sarah Tew

It was, and still is, an iPhone accessory

Much like most other smartwatches, the Apple Watch isn't a standalone device -- it's a phone accessory. Android Wear, Samsung Gear, Pebble and others work the same way. But here, you must own an iPhone 5 or later to use the Watch. A few Apple Watch functions work away from the phone, but the watch primarily works alongside the phone as an extension, a second screen and basically another part of your iOS experience. It's a symbiote.

One thing I noted back then was that you needed an iPhone to use the Apple Watch. Unlike other wearables that can pair with Android or iOS, or even sync with a computer, the Apple Watch was always designed to live symbiotically with the iPhone.

That's still the case now. Even with independent cellular options, and an on-watch App Store, you can't use the Watch without pairing to an iPhone. And it still won't work with Android. It's a shame, because a fully standalone watch could be a really helpful tool for many people who don't have iPhones, and it could even be a phone alternative (for kids, maybe).

Apple's AirPods created a gadget trinity where the Watch, the iPhone and AirPods can all work seamlessly together. But that trinity is an expensive one. The entry price of the Apple Watch has dropped, at least. But it feels like an extension of the iPhone more than its own device, even now.

41-apple-watch-series-5

The Apple Watch Series 5: much better, with a few similarities.

Sarah Tew/CNET

Today: the best watch in a war of attrition

You don't need an Apple Watch. In many ways, it's a toy: an amazing little do-it-all, a clever invention, a possibly time-saving companion, a wrist-worn assistant. It's also mostly a phone accessory for now. In the months and years to come, that may change: with Apple's assortment of iPads, Macs, Apple TV and who knows what else to come, the watch could end up being a remote and accessory to many things. Maybe it'll be the key to unlock a world of smart appliances, cars and connected places. In that type of world, a smartwatch could end up feeling utterly essential.

I think back to what the Apple Watch was competing against back then: Jawbone, Pebble, Fitbit, Google's Android Wear, Samsung's watches, the Microsoft Band. A lot of competitors are gone now. Fitbit was acquired by Google. Samsung still has watches. Garmin makes lots of dedicated fitness watches. There are still plenty of more affordable relative newcomers, too.

chronometer-113.jpg

The original Apple Watch, with the Pebble Steel, Moto 360 and the original iPod Nano with wristband (clockwise from top left).

Sarah Tew

In a field of fewer alternatives, the Apple Watch's consistent addition of new features and ongoing performance improvements has made it the best option. It's Apple's commitment to gradual improvements that has made it a stand-out watch now, especially compared to the struggles of Google's Wear OS.

The Apple Watch is still an iPhone accessory. And it's still not an essential product. But it's become a really fluid and useful device, one with lots of key upgrades that work, and one that's a lot easier to use.

What's the best smartwatch now? The Apple Watch. That doesn't mean I don't want to see improvements: battery life, sleep tracking, a watch face store and most importantly, Android support and true standalone function. If the last five years are any indication, Apple will tackle these problems on its own... time.


Source

Tags:

We Really Need To Stop Using These 8 Health Buzzwords


We Really Need to Stop Using These 8 Health Buzzwords


We Really Need to Stop Using These 8 Health Buzzwords

Superfood. Detox. All-natural. These are some of the health buzzwords you come across on social media or while chatting with friends. They might seem like a harmless quirk of our vernacular, but the truth is they can be misleading and even harmful.

Many of these terms are marketing tactics with no science to back up their claims. Research has proven how easily people believe they're eating healthier because they follow buzzwords on food packaging ("fat-free" and "all-natural," for example). The terminology makes you think you're eating something that's better or safer for you without any actual evidence. 

Those ultra-common health buzzwords are just the tip of the iceberg. There are many others that are frequently used or misused. Keep reading to learn which ones you should drop for good.

Read more: 10 Popular Fitness Myths Debunked

Clean eating

The term "clean eating" is often used in reference to a diet that has minimally processed foods and instead focuses on foods closest to their natural state. It sounds harmless, because aren't we constantly being told to eat more fruits and vegetables?

The problem with this term is that it places foods in "good" and "bad" categories (after all, the opposite of clean is dirty) and indicates that there is a right and wrong way to eat. It also disregards those who don't have access to fresh fruits and vegetables because of where they live and their income level. 

Not to mention the vague term is completely made up since there isn't an actual scientific definition for clean eating. It can also lead to an obsession with healthy eating and put vulnerable populations (such as young adults) at risk for disordered eating. So let's reserve the term clean eating to refer to foods that have been thoroughly washed and cleaned before consumption. 

gettyimages-634475045
Getty Images

Superfoods

Growing up in a Latinx household, I was exposed to traditional foods that I didn't think much of until I was older. I later learned that some foods I was eating, such as quinoa and chia seeds, were suddenly being labeled "superfoods." Superfood is another term that has no real scientific basis, but is used to describe foods that are thought to have powerful healing properties, like preventing disease or aging.

You may have seen this term splashed across magazine covers, health segments on TV or in your social media timelines. While these foods may provide some health benefits linked to their nutritional content, there isn't enough research to back the claim that a single food can perform miracles like curing someone's illness. 

Calling something the next "superfood" has become a popular marketing gimmick in a wellness industry that knows how to target people to make a quick buck. A better option is to make sure your diet includes a wide array of nutritional foods instead of focusing on the latest fad ingredient. 

Detox and cleanse

People usually turn to detoxes and cleanses for a quick weight loss fix under the guise of flushing so-called "toxins" out of the body. These can come in the form of detox teas, meal replacement shakes, green juice fasting and other methods that require you to eliminate large food groups and consume very few calories. They may not use the word "diet," but that's exactly what they are, and not a healthy or effective one either.

There is no scientific evidence to prove that cleanses and detoxes work. Instead they're an unsustainable (and even dangerous) method to lose weight or "reset" your body. Isabel Vasquez, a licensed dietitian and nutritionist at Nutritiously Yours and Your Latina Nutritionist, says that most of these cleanses may make you feel good initially, but the feeling is short-lived. "These are not sustainable and when we consume excess amounts of certain vitamins, we just excrete them in our urine," she explains. 

Instead of going on an extreme cleanse or diet, Vasquez suggests hydrating adequately and adding fruits and vegetables into your diet for digestion and your overall health. 

Your body also doesn't need a detox, because your kidneys, liver and other organs help with cleansing on a regular basis. But if you think your organs aren't doing their cleansing duties correctly, it's best to see a doctor who can run tests and give you a proper diagnosis. 

gettyimages-1265660906
Getty Images

Processed foods

Processed foods are products that have been changed (e.g. washed, cut, milled, frozen) or infused with additives to preserve freshness and improve taste. These foods can include a range of items you'd find in your local supermarket, such as cereal, canned beans, milk, fresh fruits and vegetables, olive oil and your favorite cookies. 

The issue with the term "processed foods" is that it's generally used as an umbrella term implying everything you eat that's processed is bad for you. Most people, when they think of processed foods, think about fast foods that are higher in calories, fat, sugar and additives. 

While it's true that these foods are processed and should be consumed mindfully, some foods need to be processed to preserve their freshness, boost their nutritional value and make them easily accessible. Some processed foods, like frozen fruit or oatmeal, are perfectly safe and healthy to eat in abundance. Being processed isn't inherently bad or good. Therefore you can ease your fears about processed foods and instead enjoy them all in a well-balanced diet. 

Cheat day or cheat meal

The terms "cheat day" or "cheat meal" basically mean you're planning on breaking your diet by eating a highly caloric meal or meals that you normally wouldn't have. They sound like harmless terms, but they can ultimately affect your relationship with food. Gabriela Barreto, a registered sports dietitian, says, "This can set people up for a binge-restricted cycle where they restrict certain foods to only be eaten at a certain time and in a large amount."

Even more concerning is if an individual already has a history of food addiction since it can exacerbate those issues for them. Barreto adds, "This kind of restriction we know doesn't work and by setting unhealthy relationships with foods we are more likely to weight cycle when we can no longer uphold those restrictions."

Instead she recommends eating a balanced diet that includes foods that you enjoy as well as foods that promote health without restriction, learning to listen to your body's needs intuitively, and working on your relationship with food.

gettyimages-108821364
Peter Dazeley/Getty Images

'Good' and 'bad' foods

Putting foods into categories such as "good" or "bad" further contributes to diet culture and causes people to tie the way they eat to their self worth. These terms are also interchangeably used to describe an individual's eating behavior as being bad or good based on what they ate. "Assigning moral value to food only creates more guilt and shame around certain food choices," says Miriam Fried, a NYC-based personal trainer and founder of MF Strong. She elaborates, "Guilt leads to restriction and restriction often leads to unhealthy behaviors around eating and a negative relationship with food."

Although foods are made up of different caloric content, nutritional and flavor profiles, the body uses it all for energy. Some foods do have more nutritional value than others, but it doesn't mean you have to restrict yourself to just those foods. "Can we acknowledge that a piece of broccoli might have more nutrients than a cookie without making the cookie "bad"? Food isn't good or bad, it simply is," Fried points out. The more you understand that all of these foods can fit into your diet, the easier it will be to stop labeling them as good or bad. 

All-natural

When the term "all-natural" is used, it suggests that the food you're eating has been minimally processed and is therefore safer. The truth is this word doesn't determine if a food is safer for us to eat (as we saw above, processing can be a good thing). In fact, the US Food and Drug Administration doesn't even regulate this term. 

To date, the organization hasn't established a formal definition for all-natural or natural, though the basic understanding is that it means that nothing artificial or synthetic has been added to a food that normally would not be expected to be in that food, such as dye. The other issue with this term is that it doesn't account for the complex food production and manufacturing process. Importantly, "natural" doesn't equal "organic," which is a term regulated by the US Department of Agriculture. Foods with the USDA organic label must meet strict requirements surrounding the use of antibiotics, hormones, fertilizers and pesticides during the production process; natural foods do not.

According to the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, natural products aren't automatically better or safer for you. In some cases, such as in medicine, it might cause greater risk or side effects to take a natural, unregulated product than a federally regulated medication. Therefore, take this buzzword with a grain of salt or get rid of it altogether.   

gettyimages-1334509872
Luis Alvarez/Getty Images

Chemical-free

"Chemical-free" is a buzzword that's commonly tied to the saying, "If you can't pronounce it, don't eat it." When the average person uses it regarding food (or other items), they're saying that all chemicals are synonymous with being toxic and unsafe. This is easily debunked because a basic science lesson will teach you that everything that exists around you, including the foods you eat are made up of chemicals. 

That doesn't negate the fact that there are toxic chemicals that should be avoided, or that you might want to steer clear from out of caution, a food sensitivity or just personal preference. If you are concerned about ingesting pesticides, for example, you can stick to certified organic produce., But it's impossible to completely avoid chemicals in any food. Blueberries, for example, are made up of chemicals known as anthocyanins, chlorogenic acid, pterostilbene and flavonids.

Without context, these chemicals look like something the average person should fear. The truth is marketing plays a big role in fear-mongering when it comes to our food and it's helpful to have reputable resources at our fingertips to debunk these myths. 

The information contained in this article is for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended as health or medical advice. Always consult a physician or other qualified health provider regarding any questions you may have about a medical condition or health objectives.


Source

Tags:

Stellar Cosplay Warps Into Star Trek Anniversary Convention (pictures)


Star trek women cosplay star trek tos cosplay star trek enterprise cosplay star trek data cosplay star trek discovery cosplay star wars easy cosplay star wars women cosplay stellar cosplay stella cosplay
Stellar cosplay warps into Star Trek anniversary convention (pictures)


Stellar cosplay warps into Star Trek anniversary convention (pictures)

1 of 45 Amanda Kooser/CNET

Nero stalks the convention

Editors' note: this gallery is being updated throughout the convention.

The Star Trek 50th anniversary convention in Las Vegas attracts an out-of-this-world cosplay display. There are plenty of fans in Starfleet uniforms, but clever costumes also include an Orion slave girl, Santa Gorn and a strange Elvis-Trek mashup.

This spectacular Nero costume pays tribute to the villain of the first Star Trek reboot movie, from 2009. The makeup is spot on.

2 of 45 Amanda Kooser/CNET

Red-shirt dog

This service dog got into the spirit of the Star Trek 50th anniversary convention with an original-series red-shirt outfit, complete with a tiny phaser. Here, the pup posed with a collection of tribbles.

3 of 45 Amanda Kooser/CNET

Star Trek Elvis

One of the more creative cosplayers roaming the halls of the 50th anniversary Star Trek convention in Las Vegas is this very-Vegas Elvis. It's not just a '70s Elvis jumpsuit. A lot of thought went into this elaborate costume, which also features Starfleet and Klingon logos.

4 of 45 Amanda Kooser/CNET

Behind Trek-Elvis

A huge, blinged-out gold Starfleet logo adorns the back of this Elvis Presley-Star Trek mashup costume seen at the show's 50th anniversary convention.

5 of 45 Amanda Kooser/CNET

Klingons

The Star Trek universe isn't complete without Klingons. These cosplayers represent both original-series and movie versions of the famously cantankerous aliens.

6 of 45 Amanda Kooser/CNET

Santa Gorn

Is this Santa Gorn or Gorn Claus? This costume represents an unusual mix between Christmas spirit and the Gorn alien that tried to kill Capt. Kirk.

7 of 45 Amanda Kooser/CNET

Bajorans

Bajorans played a large role in "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine." These cosplayers pull off the stern look of Bajoran spiritual leaders. They even have the correct nose-bumps.

8 of 45 Amanda Kooser/CNET

Abraham Lincoln

If you're not sure why Abraham Lincoln is in attendance at the 50th anniversary Star Trek convention in Las Vegas, then you need to go back and rewatch the original series. The US president appears in an episode titled "The Savage Curtain."

9 of 45 Amanda Kooser/CNET

Royalty Trek

A group of cosplayers roam the convention floor in prince and princess-Star Trek mashup costumes.

10 of 45 Amanda Kooser/CNET

MACO troops

These cosplayers pay tribute to prequel series "Enterprise" by dressing up as Military Assault Command Operations troops.

11 of 45 Amanda Kooser/CNET

Trouble with a tribble

This original-series gold command costume is enhanced with a pesky tribble on the shoulder.

12 of 45 Amanda Kooser/CNET

'60s Trek

An impressive beehive tops this costume that pays tribute to Janice Rand. Both of these outfits are straight out of the 1960s aesthetic of early Star Trek.

13 of 45 Amanda Kooser/CNET

Longtime fans

These longtime Star Trek fans are dressed to the nines for the 50th anniversary convention in Las Vegas.

14 of 45 Amanda Kooser/CNET

The Next Generation

The Trois pose for a photo op while showing off their Betazoid sides at the Star Trek convention in Las Vegas.

15 of 45 Amanda Kooser/CNET

Glommer and a tribble

The Star Trek fan on the right is dressed in an ingenious tribble costume. The fluffy alien critters are famous for eating a lot and being cute. The creature on the left is less well-known. It's a glommer, a predator bred by Klingons to hunt and destroy tribbles. Klingons and tribbles don't get along.

16 of 45 Amanda Kooser/CNET

Taking flight

Star Trek fans show off some unusual costumes at the convention.

17 of 45 Amanda Kooser/CNET

A red shirt with a message

Red-shirt-wearing crew members don't always survive their Starfleet missions. This shirt reads "Don't pick me for an away mission. Pick him -->."

18 of 45 Amanda Kooser/CNET

Mirror universe

Step into the original "Star Trek" series mirror universe with these cosplayers at the 50th anniversary convention.

19 of 45 Amanda Kooser/CNET

Two Guinans

These two Star Trek fans were called up on stage with Whoopi Goldberg during the 50th anniversary convention in Las Vegas. They are both dressed as Guinan, Goldberg's wise and enigmatic character from "Star Trek: The Next Generation."

20 of 45 Amanda Kooser/CNET

Data

MAC Cosmetics has a big presence at the Star Trek 50th anniversary convention. This model was made up by professional artists to look like Data from "The Next Generation."

21 of 45 Amanda Kooser/CNET

Worf wields a bat'leth

This elaborate Worf cosplay even includes an accurate-looking Klingon weapon.

22 of 45 Amanda Kooser/CNET

Welcome to the Enterprise

An entire crew of "Enterprise" cosplayers share their love of the uniforms from the prequel series.

23 of 45 Amanda Kooser/CNET

Doctor Who?

A Time Lord can go anywhere he wants, even to a Star Trek convention. This well-dressed Tom Baker "Doctor Who" fan wore a small Starfleet pin on his jacket.

24 of 45 Amanda Kooser/CNET

Pooch and science officer

This fluffy puppy wore a science uniform to the 50th anniversary Star Trek convention in Las Vegas.

25 of 45 Amanda Kooser/CNET

Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan

It takes a lot of bravery to take on the famous Ricardo Montalban costume from "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan." This Khan really pulls off the look.

26 of 45 Amanda Kooser/CNET

Cosplaying a shuttlecraft

This Starfleet shuttlecraft cosplay is a loving tribute to the workhorse vessels that get personnel around through space.

27 of 45 Amanda Kooser/CNET

Neelix

The likable Neelix from "Voyager" gets an elaborate costume tribute.

28 of 45 Amanda Kooser/CNET

Spock lookalike

This Spock cosplayer really has the look down. He wears a uniform that matches the ones from the original-series movies.

29 of 45 Amanda Kooser/CNET

Andorian

Blue makeup sells this Andorian costume, complete with antennae.

30 of 45 Amanda Kooser/CNET

Borg-dog

The same service dog that wore a red-shirt costume earlier during the convention showed up in this Borg outfit the next day. There's no resisting its cuteness.

31 of 45 Amanda Kooser/CNET

Scotty

A Scotty lookalike cosplays as the movie-version of Montgomery Scott, the engineer who was also quite good at beaming people up.

32 of 45 Amanda Kooser/CNET

Apollo and Mudd

You might be wondering what a Greek god is doing at a Star Trek convention. This particular god is Apollo from the original-series episode "Who Mourns for Adonais?" Beside him is Falstaffian original-series troublemaker Harry Mudd.

33 of 45 Amanda Kooser/CNET

Captain Pike

Before there was Captain Kirk, there was Captain Christopher Pike. This clever cosplay rolls around and depicts Pike as seen in the original-series two-part episode "The Menagerie."

34 of 45 Amanda Kooser/CNET

Borg Vader

Star Trek and Star Wars fandoms come together in a costume that imagine what would happen if Darth Vader was assimilated by the Borg. It looks like the poor Sith Lord wasn't able to resist.

35 of 45 Amanda Kooser/CNET

Ferengi

The Ferengi starred on "Deep Space Nine." The particular Ferengi is probably thinking about the Rules of Acquisition.

36 of 45 Amanda Kooser/CNET

Borg Queen

Captain Picard and Data both had very close-up dealings with the Borg Queen. The costume on display here was one of the honorable mentions in the Star Trek 50th anniversary convention costume contest in Las Vegas.

37 of 45 Amanda Kooser/CNET

Costume contest winners

Here's betting you don't recognize these Star Trek creatures. They're the shrimp-like aliens that appeared for only a few seconds in the merely so-so original-series episode "Catspaw."

38 of 45 Amanda Kooser/CNET

The Crushers

Young Wesley Crusher and his mom Doctor Beverly Crusher take the stage during a Star Trek costume contest.

39 of 45 Amanda Kooser/CNET

Crystalline Entity

A mind-boggling amount of work went into this Crystalline Entity costume. The deadly planet-chewing entity appearing in "Star Trek: The Next Generation." Guest judge Terry Farrell (Jadzia Dax from "Deep Space Nine") admires the cosplayer's ingenuity.

40 of 45 Amanda Kooser/CNET

IDIC

The ancient Vulcan symbol of the IDIC stands for "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations." A Star Trek costume contestant took that idea and rendered in a full person-sized costume.

41 of 45 Amanda Kooser/CNET

Jaylah

Jaylah appears as a main guest character in the latest Star Trek film, "Star Trek Beyond." This cosplayer had only seen the movie once, but it inspired her to make a Jaylah outfit and don the fancy makeup.

42 of 45 Amanda Kooser/CNET

Khan as a woman

A Khan gender-swap cosplayer roamed the vendors room at the 50th anniversary Star Trek convention in Las Vegas.

43 of 45 Amanda Kooser/CNET

Star Trek Minions

Adorable Klingon and Captain Kirk Minions posed for photographs at the Las Vegas Star Trek convention.

44 of 45 Amanda Kooser/CNET

'First Contact' space suits

There's a dramatic scene in "Star Trek: First Contact" that involves spacesuit-wearing heroes venturing outside of the Enterprise. These DIY costumes replicated those suits in spectacular fashion.

45 of 45 Amanda Kooser/CNET

Tholian

As the name suggests, Tholians are from the planet Tholia. The unusual orange aliens starred in the original-series episode "The Tholian Web." The cosplayer inside this massive outfit uses a video screen and camera to navigate.


Source

Search This Blog

Menu Halaman Statis

close