<![CDATA[Gizmodo: uh oh]]> http://cache.gawker.com/assets/base/img/thumbs140x140/gizmodo.com.png <![CDATA[Gizmodo: uh oh]]> http://gizmodo.com/tag/uh oh http://gizmodo.com/tag/uh oh <![CDATA[ Bad News: Cellphones Make Your Sperm Stupid ]]> Bad news, dudes and ladies who hope to someday be impregnated by said dudes! According to some researches from the Cleveland Clinic, cellphones wreck your sperms up, making them too stupid to knock ladies up.

Basically, because we keep phones in our pockets within a few inches of our hanging brains, there's a decent chance that the radiation emitting from them is dumbing up our balls. Or, to put it more scientifically or whatever: "We believe that these devices are used because we consider them very safe, but it could cause harmful effects due to the proximity of the phones and the exposure that they are causing to the gonads." So says lead researcher Ashok Agarwal, the Director of the Center for Reproductive Medicine. Bummer.

The study involved taking samples of semen from 32 dudes and putting half of it within a couple of inches of a phone on talk mode for an hour. It's the equivalent of people keeping their phone in their pocket while they use a Bluetooth headset. The results?

Overall, researchers found an increase in oxidative stress such as a significant increase in free radicals and oxidants and a decrease in antioxidants. Agarwal says that equals a decrease in sperm's quality, including motility and viability. Evidence of oxidative stress can appear under other conditions, including exposure to certain environmental pollutants or infections in the urinary genital tract.

"On average, there was an 85 percent increase in the amount of free radicals for all the subjects in the study. Free radicals have been linked to a variety of diseases in humans including cancer," said Agarwal. Free radicals have been linked to decreased sperm quality in previous studies.

Of course, since this experiment was done on sperm outside of the body, there's no way to know if the human body and all the skin and such between your pocket and your internal sperms do a decent job of blocking the kill-o-beams your phone emits. But hey, maybe it's time to ditch that Bluetooth headset just to be safe, eh? [CNN]

]]>
Fri, 19 Sep 2008 10:52:59 EDT Adam Frucci http://gizmodo.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5052259&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Microsoft Says Vista More Secure Than XP, OSX and Linux ]]> Uh oh. You've done it this time, Jeff Jones. As the security strategy director in Microsoft's Trustworthy Computing group, you've just made the bold claim that Vista, from a first year on the market comparison, has been more secure than Windows XP, Red Hat rhel4ws, Ubuntu 6.06 LTS, and Apple Mac OS X 10.4.

Your argument seems to break down the difference between researcher-reported vulnerabilities, the number of released patches and the amount of actual vulnerabilities left standing by the end of one year. And you gave us this sexy chart to examine.
Picture%208.png
In every category, Vista is either the lowest, or tied for the lowest. And since your argument seems to boil down to the logic: the less vulnerabilities, the less fixes, the more secure, Vista wins. Of course, from what our tiny brains make of the case, such an argument doesn't take into account factors like just how many people are trying to exploit a particular platform/vulnerability, or just how damaging each exploit can be. But from that strategic commander chair, you seems to think that these issues balance themselves out. Maybe you are right.

But I'm not waiting in the open to find out. I have an emergency bunker prepared specifically for such occasions because pissing off the Mac and Linux communities at the same time is a funeral I'm not attending...like that time you said Firefox was less secure than IE. Things got messy and someone cried. [JeffJones via darkreading]


]]>
Thu, 24 Jan 2008 09:46:23 EST Mark Wilson http://gizmodo.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=348437&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ ATTENTION LAST MINUTE ONLINE SHOPPERS ]]> Ding ding ding. You're officially fucked! If you wanted to get your package by Christmas from Amazon and a number of other online retailers, it's too late now no matter how much you spend. Time to face the crowds.

]]>
Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:02:13 EST Mark Wilson http://gizmodo.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=337112&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Coby Recalls 12,000 Units, Admits Fire is Bad ]]> coby%20recall.jpgLow End Theory megastar Coby has just announced a recall for approximately 12,000 of their DVD/CD/MP3 player/TV tuner units. The affected models are the TF-DVD170 and the TF-DVD176, which sold for between $140 and $170 over the last couple of years.

The problem is overheating, which seems to be a common trend among electronics trying to cram a lot of devices into not a lot of space. No injuries have been reported so far (though there has been some property damage), but we'd send our units back if we were you. The design of these things is an abomination before God, and He won't stand for it for long. [Coby via Oh Gizmo!]

- Josh Ziegler

]]>
Sun, 11 Nov 2007 15:35:16 EST http://gizmodo.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=321339&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Running Any Third Party iPhone Apps? Bye-Bye Warranty! ]]> You heard that the new firmware bricks unlocked iphones? Get this: Apple just confirmed to me that running any third-party app at all voids the warranty, and you won't be covered if your iPhone bricks for whatever reason. The reasoning is that Apple cannot distinguish between other third party apps and those that have been confirmed to combine with the new firmware to cause iPhone Brick-itus. (Apple specifically named iUnlock and the GUI version, AnySIM.) What I don't get is how is running an app on an OS X iPhone more dangerous than running third party apps on a Macbook running OS X? I don't know, I'm not a genius, I just play one in my diorama. I don't think there's a way to track use of unauthorized apps, so before you go in for service, restore your iPhone to a born again software virgin status. There you go, iPhone rebels playing with AppTapp—we are all bandits and too dirty for warranty.

CUPERTINO, Calif., Sept. 24 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ — Apple has discovered that many of the unauthorized iPhone unlocking programs available on the Internet cause irreparable damage to the iPhone's software, which will likely result in the modified iPhone becoming permanently inoperable when a future Apple-supplied iPhone software update is installed. Apple plans to release the next iPhone software update, containing many new features including the iTunes Wi-Fi Music Store (www.itunes.com), later this week. Apple strongly discourages users from installing unauthorized unlocking programs on their iPhones. Users who make unauthorized modifications to the software on their iPhone violate their iPhone software license agreement and void their warranty. The permanent inability to use an iPhone due to installing unlocking software is not covered under the iPhone's warranty.

[Image courtesy of callalillie and olive the cat]

]]>
Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:57:11 EDT Brian Lam http://gizmodo.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=303191&view=rss&microfeed=true