Driver to drive?

[RobertMacy]

On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 01:41:49 -0700, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 27/09/14 01:05, Maynard A. Philbrook Jr. wrote:
I would be a little concern if my nuker was overriding my Wifi that
was
at least 3 feet or more away..

Last time I looked, which was when WLANs existed but 802.11x WLANs
did not, the received wisdom was that you could expect up to 1W of
leakage from an old poorly maintained microwave oven. Yup, 1000mW.

I've taught my daughter not to peer in at cooking food, since
that means her most sensitive part, the cornea, is too near the
door for comfort.

if you do the SAR estimate, not too bad

also the body has an incredible way of cooling itself, even from localized
heating. but true that the eye parts are a bit more isolated.

 

[Maynard A. Philbrook Jr.]

In article <5425FB8D.6000507@electrooptical.net>,
hobbs@electrooptical.net says...

On 9/26/2014 6:03 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 04:59:58 +0300, Henry Crun <mike@rechtman.com> Gave
us:

FYI:
worth updating relevant Ub. versions. See:
http://www.ubuntu.com/usn/usn-2362-1/

to check whether you are vulnerable, enter:
env x='() { :;}; echo vulnerable' bash -c "echo this is a test"

(A new version of BASH came in this mornings update)


Yup. For both CentOS 6.5 and Cygwin. Not that I run any web servers
myself, of course....

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

I find it ironic that people would call it a bug since it's been
around for so long.

Just another back door exposed and another one will be created to fill
its place.

Jamie

 

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUn]

On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 12:47:02 -0400, "Maynard A. Philbrook Jr."
<jamie_ka1lpa@charter.net> Gave us:

In article <5425FB8D.6000507@electrooptical.net>,
hobbs@electrooptical.net says...

On 9/26/2014 6:03 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 04:59:58 +0300, Henry Crun <mike@rechtman.com> Gave
us:

FYI:
worth updating relevant Ub. versions. See:
http://www.ubuntu.com/usn/usn-2362-1/

to check whether you are vulnerable, enter:
env x='() { :;}; echo vulnerable' bash -c "echo this is a test"

(A new version of BASH came in this mornings update)


Yup. For both CentOS 6.5 and Cygwin. Not that I run any web servers
myself, of course....

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

I find it ironic that people would call it a bug since it's been
around for so long.

BASH has, but has the bug?

Just another back door exposed and another one will be created to fill
its place.

I think you lack a certain grasp of computer science with that claim.

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 9/27/2014 12:47 PM, Maynard A. Philbrook Jr. wrote:

In article <5425FB8D.6000507@electrooptical.net>,
hobbs@electrooptical.net says...

On 9/26/2014 6:03 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 04:59:58 +0300, Henry Crun <mike@rechtman.com> Gave
us:

FYI:
worth updating relevant Ub. versions. See:
http://www.ubuntu.com/usn/usn-2362-1/

to check whether you are vulnerable, enter:
env x='() { :;}; echo vulnerable' bash -c "echo this is a test"

(A new version of BASH came in this mornings update)


Yup. For both CentOS 6.5 and Cygwin. Not that I run any web servers
myself, of course....

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

I find it ironic that people would call it a bug since it's been
around for so long.

What's ironic about that?

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

 

On Saturday, September 27, 2014 10:48:31 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 27/09/14 14:22, RobertMacy wrote:

On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 01:41:49 -0700, Tom Gardner wrote:

Last time I looked, which was when WLANs existed but 802.11x WLANs
did not, the received wisdom was that you could expect up to 1W of
leakage from an old poorly maintained microwave oven. Yup, 1000mW.

I've taught my daughter not to peer in at cooking food, since
that means her most sensitive part, the cornea, is too near the
door for comfort.


if you do the SAR estimate, not too bad

also the body has an incredible way of cooling itself, even from localized heating. but true that the eye parts are a bit more isolated.

The cornea is the worst, because the results are visible
(literally)

Yes.

> and it has a poor blood supply.

The cornea has no vessels. It relies on the vessels inside the eyelid.

That's why it was the test case for heating damage caused by mobile
phones.

The main reason the cornea is susceptible is that GHz RF doesn't
penetrate the deep tissues--skin effect.

If you can't feel any RF heating with the back of your hand (good heat
sensitivity), I rather doubt it's a problem.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Saturday, September 27, 2014 11:21:27 PM UTC+1, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Saturday, September 27, 2014 10:48:31 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 27/09/14 14:22, RobertMacy wrote:
On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 01:41:49 -0700, Tom Gardner wrote:

The cornea has no vessels. It relies on the vessels inside the eyelid.

That's why it was the test case for heating damage caused by mobile
phones.

The main reason the cornea is susceptible is that GHz RF doesn't
penetrate the deep tissues--skin effect.

it does. Microwave cooking penetrates a fair distance into the food, peak heating does not occur on the outer surface.


NT

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 9/27/2014 4:02 PM, Maynard A. Philbrook Jr. wrote:

In article <5426F828.5020406@electrooptical.net>,
hobbs@electrooptical.net says...
Cheers

Phil Hobbs

I find it ironic that people would call it a bug since it's been
around for so long.

What's ironic about that?

As they say, it's not a bug , it's a feature.

I went and found an article on it and it appears
to operate from values in the environment variable
settings that bash should not be executing as
commands.

I have such a suspicious personality, so I think
every one is guilty of something. I can't blow this
off as mere coincidence, since it's been around for
so long.

After reading how other UNIX type OS's may have this
same problem, it looks like a lot of copy and pasting of
code!

Wouldn't you have thought that the shell would of
been fixed for other platforms using the UNIX style OS?

Jamie

People have been warning against using shell scripts for CGI since the
early days of the Web, but some folks didn't get the message.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

 

[Maynard A. Philbrook Jr.]

In article <5426F828.5020406@electrooptical.net>,
hobbs@electrooptical.net says...

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

I find it ironic that people would call it a bug since it's been
around for so long.

What's ironic about that?

As they say, it's not a bug , it's a feature.

I went and found an article on it and it appears
to operate from values in the environment variable
settings that bash should not be executing as
commands.

I have such a suspicious personality, so I think
every one is guilty of something. I can't blow this
off as mere coincidence, since it's been around for
so long.

After reading how other UNIX type OS's may have this
same problem, it looks like a lot of copy and pasting of
code!

Wouldn't you have thought that the shell would of
been fixed for other platforms using the UNIX style OS?

Jamie

 

[Maynard A. Philbrook Jr.]

In article <h9rd2a9rl35jme6ub6qp7he8bvt1jv1r0b@4ax.com>, DLU1
@DecadentLinuxUser.org says...

On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 12:47:02 -0400, "Maynard A. Philbrook Jr."
jamie_ka1lpa@charter.net> Gave us:

In article <5425FB8D.6000507@electrooptical.net>,
hobbs@electrooptical.net says...

On 9/26/2014 6:03 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 04:59:58 +0300, Henry Crun <mike@rechtman.com> Gave
us:

FYI:
worth updating relevant Ub. versions. See:
http://www.ubuntu.com/usn/usn-2362-1/

to check whether you are vulnerable, enter:
env x='() { :;}; echo vulnerable' bash -c "echo this is a test"

(A new version of BASH came in this mornings update)


Yup. For both CentOS 6.5 and Cygwin. Not that I run any web servers
myself, of course....

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

I find it ironic that people would call it a bug since it's been
around for so long.

BASH has, but has the bug?

Just another back door exposed and another one will be created to fill
its place.

I think you lack a certain grasp of computer science with that claim.

Computer science, ha. Another yuppie...

Jamie

 

[Don Y]

On 9/27/2014 1:02 PM, Maynard A. Philbrook Jr. wrote:

In article <5426F828.5020406@electrooptical.net>,
hobbs@electrooptical.net says...
Cheers

Phil Hobbs

I find it ironic that people would call it a bug since it's been
around for so long.

What's ironic about that?

As they say, it's not a bug , it's a feature.

I went and found an article on it and it appears
to operate from values in the environment variable
settings that bash should not be executing as
commands.

I have such a suspicious personality, so I think
every one is guilty of something. I can't blow this
off as mere coincidence, since it's been around for
so long.

After reading how other UNIX type OS's may have this
same problem, it looks like a lot of copy and pasting of
code!

Rather, copying of *ideas*. And, failing to see the flaws in those
ideas (or, ways of protecting against them).

Why do we still see buffer overrun problems in code? C'mon,
that's a no-brainer! Yet people still use fixed size buffers
and don't take steps to ensure only "5 pounds" gets stuffed into
that (5 lb) bag!

Wouldn't you have thought that the shell would of
been fixed for other platforms using the UNIX style OS?

 

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUn]

On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 16:03:42 -0400, "Maynard A. Philbrook Jr."
<jamie_ka1lpa@charter.net> Gave us:

Computer science, ha. Another yuppie...

You're an idiot, and not far from fitting The SlowTard's description
of you.

Try thinking before you spew. Perhaps gain a reprieve.

 

[Maynard A. Philbrook Jr.]

In article <95172049-db8b-46ea-95d7-2230541a62b4@googlegroups.com>,
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com says...

and it has a poor blood supply.

The cornea has no vessels. It relies on the vessels inside the eyelid.

That's why it was the test case for heating damage caused by mobile
phones.

The main reason the cornea is susceptible is that GHz RF doesn't
penetrate the deep tissues--skin effect.

If you can't feel any RF heating with the back of your hand (good heat
sensitivity), I rather doubt it's a problem.

Cheers,
James Arthur

Is that your choice of tools to measure microwave leakage?

Jamie

 

On Saturday, September 27, 2014 7:46:43 PM UTC-4, Maynard A. Philbrook Jr. wrote:

dagmargoo...@yahoo.com says...

and it has a poor blood supply.

The cornea has no vessels. It relies on the vessels inside the eyelid.

That's why it was the test case for heating damage caused by mobile
phones.

The main reason the cornea is susceptible is that GHz RF doesn't
penetrate the deep tissues--skin effect.

If you can't feel any RF heating with the back of your hand (good heat
sensitivity), I rather doubt it's a problem.

Is that your choice of tools to measure microwave leakage?

No. But if it doesn't *warm* your hand is it going to *cook* your
cornea? Highly doubtful.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Saturday, September 27, 2014 7:52:37 PM UTC-4, meow...@care2.com wrote:

On Saturday, September 27, 2014 11:21:27 PM UTC+1, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Saturday, September 27, 2014 10:48:31 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 27/09/14 14:22, RobertMacy wrote:
On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 01:41:49 -0700, Tom Gardner wrote:

The cornea has no vessels. It relies on the vessels inside the eyelid.

That's why it was the test case for heating damage caused by mobile
phones.

The main reason the cornea is susceptible is that GHz RF doesn't
penetrate the deep tissues--skin effect.

it does. Microwave cooking penetrates a fair distance into the food, peak heating does not occur on the outer surface.

That's a good point; flesh isn't all that conductive, so the skin-effect
isn't limiting and microwaves can travel deeper.

I stand corrected. Thanks.

Accordingly, the cornea intercepts only a fraction of the incident
microwave energy and will experience a lower temp rise than if it
absorbed all the microwave energy.

That makes it even harder to understand how something you couldn't
feel on your skin could somehow cook your corneas.

James Arthur

 

[Maynard A. Philbrook Jr.]

In article <92ie2alohict18qm8mdslsh9n2bh789fep@4ax.com>, DLU1
@DecadentLinuxUser.org says...

On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 16:03:42 -0400, "Maynard A. Philbrook Jr."
jamie_ka1lpa@charter.net> Gave us:


Computer science, ha. Another yuppie...


You're an idiot, and not far from fitting The SlowTard's description
of you.

Try thinking before you spew. Perhaps gain a reprieve.

Oh I did all thinking that was required, you're still a yuppie!


Jamie

 

[Neon John]

On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 15:48:31 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

The cornea is the worst, because the results are visible
(literally) and it has a poor blood supply. That's
why it was the test case for heating damage caused by mobile
phones.

The risk is highly overstated.

http://www.neon-john.com/images/micronuke.jpg

John
John DeArmond
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.fluxeon.com
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
See website for email address

 

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUn]

On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 21:00:38 -0400, "Maynard A. Philbrook Jr."
<jamie_ka1lpa@charter.net> Gave us:

In article <92ie2alohict18qm8mdslsh9n2bh789fep@4ax.com>, DLU1
@DecadentLinuxUser.org says...

On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 16:03:42 -0400, "Maynard A. Philbrook Jr."
jamie_ka1lpa@charter.net> Gave us:


Computer science, ha. Another yuppie...


You're an idiot, and not far from fitting The SlowTard's description
of you.

Try thinking before you spew. Perhaps gain a reprieve.

Oh I did all thinking that was required, you're still a yuppie!


Jamie

You are still retarded. I was out of school before the term was even
coined. So much for your capacity to guess weight, circus clown.

 

On Sunday, September 28, 2014 3:46:22 PM UTC+1, Robert Macy wrote:

On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 21:30:04 -0700, <dagmargoodboat@> wrote:
....snip....
I stand corrected. Thanks.

Accordingly, the cornea intercepts only a fraction of the incident
microwave energy and will experience a lower temp rise than if it
absorbed all the microwave energy.

That makes it even harder to understand how something you couldn't
feel on your skin could somehow cook your corneas.

WAIT! first if you inject energy [heat rise] INTO something the
distributed effect is that inside where something is getting hotter next
to something getting even hotter, of course the internal temp rises! the

I think the question is whether its to any significant extent. Even if you got an exceptionally dodgy 1970s oven leaking 1w, the corneas can only absorb a tiny fraction of that watt, since they only opccupy a tiny percentage of the area around the oven. So rendering any temp rise so miniscule as to be totally dwarfed by normal air temp changes.

outside will ALWAYS be cooler. Plus, as the water heats, evaporates, the
energy can go in further, and so on.

HOWEVER, there is still a decided skin effect in a water soaked something
being heated in a microwave. The outside edges get most of the heat
energy, but the 'captured' interior appears to heat more.

It does heat more. Not the centre, but an inch or so inside the surface.
Lets take the example of defrosting a slice of frozen desert. The outer edges are surrounded by warm air, the interior is surrounded by cold ice. Yet an inch in it heats as much as the surface. 2" in, less so.

to 'see' skin
depth in a microwave, scramble an egg, place in a shallow dish, and watch
as the ring of cooked egg progresses from the outside to the inside.

That simply does not demonstrate skin depth. The rf in a nuke oven is deliberately bounced all round the place to get more even cooking, so your egg is getting hit from every which way. If you put a light bulb in a nuke and power it up, you'll see how the rf energy distribution has not a whole lot to do with the kind of side firing single source you'd need for your skin depth demo.


NT

 

[RobertMacy]

On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 21:30:04 -0700, <dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com> wrote:

....snip....
I stand corrected. Thanks.

Accordingly, the cornea intercepts only a fraction of the incident
microwave energy and will experience a lower temp rise than if it
absorbed all the microwave energy.

That makes it even harder to understand how something you couldn't
feel on your skin could somehow cook your corneas.

James Arthur

WAIT! first if you inject energy [heat rise] INTO something the
distributed effect is that inside where something is getting hotter next
to something getting even hotter, of course the internal temp rises! the
outside will ALWAYS be cooler. Plus, as the water heats, evaporates, the
energy can go in further, and so on.

Next, most uWave ovens operate at 2.5GHz, the old RADAR ranges were at
what? 1.9GHZ, closer to the frequency of a water molecule bond. Radar
ranges tended to heat only the water molecule, thus they were more known
for dessicating instead of 'cooking'; going up to 2.5GHz has the advantage
of also heating the protein and fatty molecules so food cooks a bit better.

HOWEVER, there is still a decided skin effect in a water soaked something
being heated in a microwave. The outside edges get most of the heat
energy, but the 'captured' interior appears to heat more. to 'see' skin
depth in a microwave, scramble an egg, place in a shallow dish, and watch
as the ring of cooked egg progresses from the outside to the inside.

FWIW, the human body is like a bag of sea water in conductivity. Even
40kHz just penetrates. For uWave, the skin depth of 2.5GHz into flesh,
assuming a conductivity of 100 S/m [copper is 58 MS/m], is around 40 mils.
Your experience may more have related to 'fresh' water like boiling water
for tea where the less salt in the water the deeper the skin depth.

 

On Sunday, September 28, 2014 10:26:28 PM UTC+1, Robert Macy wrote:

On Sun, 28 Sep 2014 10:29:14 -0700, <meow2222@care2.com> wrote:
On Sunday, September 28, 2014 3:46:22 PM UTC+1, Robert Macy wrote:
...snip....

HOWEVER, there is still a decided skin effect in a water soaked
something
being heated in a microwave. The outside edges get most of the heat
energy, but the 'captured' interior appears to heat more.

It does heat more. Not the centre, but an inch or so inside the surface.
Lets take the example of defrosting a slice of frozen desert. The outer
edges are surrounded by warm air, the interior is surrounded by cold
ice. Yet an inch in it heats as much as the surface. 2" in, less so.

Bad example, ice is 'transparent to uWave. of course the energy will go in
a long way.
to 'see' skin
depth in a microwave, scramble an egg, place in a shallow dish, and
watch
as the ring of cooked egg progresses from the outside to the inside.

That simply does not demonstrate skin depth. The rf in a nuke oven is
deliberately bounced all round the place to get more even cooking, so
your egg is getting hit from every which way. If you put a light bulb in
a nuke and power it up, you'll see how the rf energy distribution has
not a whole lot to do with the kind of side firing single source you'd
need for your skin depth demo.


NT
Again, was showing how the outside 'shields' the inside, [cooking first]

Sure, only problem is it doesnt.

that is like skin effect.
Like a visual allegory of what is happening.

NT