Imagine tiny wireless sensors the size of a grain of sand that can be implanted in the human body to monitor nerves, muscles and organs in real time. … engineers from the University of California, Berkeley recently created these batteryless sensors, opening the door to ‘electroceuticals’ — an emerging field in which these devices are used to treat disorders like epilepsy, stimulate the immune system or reduce inflammation by stimulating nerves and muscles.
What we would give to have another chance to hear your voice, to feel your kiss and to see you grow,” wrote the Rees family in Isabella’s tribute.
At the age of one, Isabella swallowed a button battery. No one knows precisely when. It lodged in her oesophagus, and made her sick.
Her parents took her to hospital several times over two weeks, but staff didn’t pick up the presence of the battery until it was too late, the Coroners Court heard on Thursday.
She died in the morning of February, 4, 2015, from cardiac arrest, on the operating table at Sunshine Hospital.
|New Electrical Equipment Declared Articles (New Zealand)|
|Energy Safety has revised the lists of High-risk and Medium-risk Declared Articles under the Electricity (Safety) Regulations. These are published in two Gazette notices dated 17 March 2016. These notices fully supersede the previous notices issued in 2006. The definitions that apply are principally those agreed and documented in AS/NZS 4417.
Additions are being made to the list of High-Risk Declared Articles in preparation of the full implementation of the Electrical Equipment Safety System (EESS) scheme. The additions are all Australian Level 3 (the equivalent of New Zealand’s High Risk) declared articles. Energy Safety has undertaken modelling that confirms these products require intensive control in an aligned regime.
Luca Mari with assistance from Joanna Goodwin, provides a general introduction to the role of terminology in scientific and technical communication, and particularly to definitions, a critical component of standards documents
Extract from a letter from Apple to its customers about a US court order threat to its iPhone encryption:
Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.
The FBI may use different words to describe this tool, but make no mistake: Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control.
The Threat to Data Security
Some would argue that building a backdoor for just one iPhone is a simple, clean-cut solution. But it ignores both the basics of digital security and the significance of what the government is demanding in this case.In today’s digital world, the “key” to an encrypted system is a piece of information that unlocks the data, and it is only as secure as the protections around it. Once the information is known, or a way to bypass the code is revealed, the encryption can be defeated by anyone with that knowledge.
The government suggests this tool could only be used once, on one phone. But that’s simply not true. Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. No reasonable person would find that acceptable.
The government is asking Apple to hack our own users and undermine decades of security advancements that protect our customers — including tens of millions of American citizens — from sophisticated hackers and cybercriminals. The same engineers who built strong encryption into the iPhone to protect our users would, ironically, be ordered to weaken those protections and make our users less safe.
We can find no precedent for an American company being forced to expose its customers to a greater risk of attack. For years, cryptologists and national security experts have been warning against weakening encryption. Doing so would hurt only the well-meaning and law-abiding citizens who rely on companies like Apple to protect their data. Criminals and bad actors will still encrypt, using tools that are readily available to them.
Source: Customer Letter – Apple
When lithium-ion batteries overheat, they can burn through internal pockets, burst into flames, and even explode. One reason such damage can occur is the formation of dendrites—finger-like deposits of lithium that can grow long enough to pierce the barrier between a lithium-ion battery’s halves and cause it to short out.
Dendrites form when a battery electrode degrades and metal ions deposit onto the electrode’s surface. …
In their latest work, Stanford researchers used chemicals designed to prevent dendrite formation.