Hasta La Gadget!

There are many ways to get infected by malware, but one of the ways that people end up doing it to themselves is by clicking links that they are not familiar with, whether it be sent in an email or an instant message from a friend. However it seems that malware has evolved to the point where clicking a hyperlink is no longer necessary to infect a computer.

In a report from security firm Trend Micro (via PCMag), it seems that all it takes to infect a computer these days is just for the user to hover their mouse over a hyperlink. That being said before you declare the internet dead, it seems that this exploit only works with Microsoft’s PowerPoint presentation app, and even then it will depend on the version that you are using.

For example those still using older versions of PowerPoint will get the full brunt of the malware, while those with newer versions will get a security risk warning, but users can still proceed anyway. However as Trend Micro points out, getting infected isn’t quite as easy and requires many steps involved before it is successful, so it’s not as if you should avoid using PowerPoint or open any PowerPoint files completely.

Trend Micro is also recommending that users use Protected View, a feature Microsoft enables by default, especially if this is an attachment sent by someone you’re not too familiar with, or if it seems particularly suspicious.

Hovering On A Hyperlink Could Cause Malware Infection , original content from Ubergizmo. Read our Copyrights and terms of use.

As promised, Sony has kicked off the pre-order period for its latest flagship, the Xperia XZ Premium, which will actually start shipping in a week’s time. But while avid fans of Sony’s smartphones might have no shortage of reasons to put down a pre-order for one, those who are in the market for a high-end smartphone this year should take … Continue reading

The Department of the Interior has removed almost all mentions of climate change from an agency website documenting efforts to address the phenomenon within government programs for Native Americans.

BuzzFeed News first noticed a webpage for the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ Tribal Climate Resilience Program, originally tasked with “mainstreaming climate change considerations into all Bureau of Indian Affairs activities,” was changed sometime over the past month. The program is now called simply the Tribal Resilience Program and has a mission statement noticeably less science-forward.

“The BIA Tribal Resilience Program provides federal-wide resources to Tribes to build capacity and resilience through leadership engagement, delivery of data and tools, training and tribal capacity building,” the site now reads.

An archive of the webpage from May 13 shows the word “climate” appearing on the page 61 times. The new page lists the word once, in a website header. 

The move is not a surprising one for the department, now under the stewardship of Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke.

It has made several moves to limit or eliminate mentions of climate change from its vast array of URLs since the inauguration of President Donald Trump. The DOI’s main landing page on climate change previously listed the agency’s vast efforts to combat climate change and pointed to a host of troubling effects related to the issue. In April, however, the page was scrubbed of all such information and the term climate change now appears only once.

The agency has also removed images of melting glaciers and wildfires ― both linked to climate change ― and replaced a landing page photo of a family visiting a national park with one of a giant pile of coal.

DOI’s Bureau of Indian Affairs is tasked with serving and protecting the country’s 567 federally recognized tribes. But as BuzzFeed notes, the Trump administration’s proposed budget for 2018 would eliminate $9.9 million in funding for Tribal Climate Resilience Awards.

Those proposals have prompted severe backlash among some Native American communities, who have called on Congress to restore funding to climate and welfare programs, PBS Newshour reported.

The Trump administration has worked quickly to reverse almost every major environmental effort that former President Barack Obama had made. Most recently, Trump announced the United States would pull out of the landmark Paris climate accord and he tweeted his support Monday for a new coal mine in Pennsylvania.

In March, Zinke ordered the DOI to conduct a “reexamination of the mitigation and climate change policies and guidance across the Department of the Interior in order to better balance conservation strategies and policies with the equally legitimate need of creating jobs for hardworking American families.”

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

There’s a common misconception about coffee and its caffeine content. Folks seem to think it exists in higher quantities in places where it doesn’t.Espresso, for example, is often touted as being the strongest coffee drink to order (but it isn’t, if you’re judging by serving size). Dark roast gets credit for having more caffeine than lighter roasts, when it doesn’t ― all roasts generally have the same amount of caffeine. And cold brew coffee gets a lot of love for delivering a major jolt of caffeine. But is that reputation deserved?

We got to the bottom of it, and as it turns out, it’s complicated.

Caffeine content in coffee is extremely variable.

The first thing you need to know is that the caffeine content in coffee is volatile. Energy drinks can confidently list the caffeine content found within them, but coffee drinks can sometimes have a pretty big range. For example, an average cup of Arabic coffee can contain anywhere between 84 and 580 milligrams of caffeine. This is best illustrated by the varying quantities of caffeine found in drip coffee from different coffee store chains.

Many factors play a role in this. We’re talking coffee type, grind size, brew time, dwell time, roast level and blend. 

Despite variables, cold brew coffee drinks usually have less caffeine than regular coffee.

But it isn’t black and white, obviously. Caffeine is soluble in water, and the hotter the water used to brew coffee, the more caffeine is extracted ― meaning you get more caffeine out of the beans and into your coffee. (And there is such a thing as over-extracting with water that is too hot.)

More caffeine can be extracted from coffee beans with hot water than with cold water. This implies that hot coffee contains more caffeine than cold brew, which is made with cold water.

“Caffeine’s solubility is primary driven by temperature, such that at higher temperatures, significantly more caffeine will dissolve in solution than at cooler temperatures,”Joseph Rivera of Coffee Chemistry told The Kitchn. “If you are using the same brew-to-water ratios, the cold brew will definitely have less caffeine than hot.”

But, cold brew coffee is typically made with a higher ratio of coffee to water ― we’re talking 2 to 2 1/2 times more ― which means it is stronger than if made with a more conventional coffee-to-water ratio. However, cold brew is made as a concentrate that should be diluted with one part coffee to one part water or milk, which brings that caffeine level right back down.

Starbucks offers an example. A 16-ounce cold brew from Starbucks is reported to contain 200 mg of caffeine, while a hot 16-ounce coffee can contain anywhere from 260 to 360 mg, depending on the beans you choose. That’s a pretty big difference in caffeine content.

What does this mean for your cold brew obsession?

That you should enjoy it. Just do so knowing that you’re not drinking it for a gigantic caffeine buzz. Here are some ideas on how to get more of it in your life:

type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related… + articlesList=5772a361e4b017b379f7706a,57712f3ae4b0dbb1bbbb1238,57741242e4b042fba1cee185

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

There’s an innocent debate happening around quinoa. People can’t seem to decide whether it’s a grain or a seed.

There was a time when everyone called it a grain ― even we did back in 2013. Then there were many articles correcting the grain label, explaining that quinoa is in fact a seed ― we also did that.

We’re going to end the debate once and for all, with the help of Craig Morris. He’s the director of the USDA ARS Western Wheat Quality Laboratory and former editor-in-chief of Cereal Chemistry. 

First, we need to understand what a grain is and what a seed is.

According to Merriam-Webster, a seed is “the grains or ripened ovules of plants used for sowing” and a grain is “a single small hard seed.” One term is basically used to define the other, so what’s the difference?

“A grain and a seed are very nearly the same thing, although you can imagine that a tomato seed is not a grain,” Morris explained to HuffPost. “Once in a while we differentiate that a grain is going to be eaten, whereas a seed is going to be planted (kinda trivial).”

Since we eat quinoa, according to Morris, we can call it a grain without being wrong.

Why is there a debate about quinoa being a grain or a seed?

The Merriam-Webster dictionary, as we mentioned above, defines a grain as a “single small hard seed,” but when people talk about grains such as wheat and rice, they’re referring to cereal grains. And quinoa is not a cereal grain. 

Cereal grains ― which include oats, wheat, rice, corn, barley, rye, sorghum and millet ― are the edible seeds of specific grasses belonging to the Poaceae family. 

Quinoa is a seed that is harvested from a tall, leafy plant that is not a cereal grass ― that’s a relative of spinach, beets and chard. And so quinoa is technically classified as a pseudo-cereal grain, along with amaranth and buckwheat. Pseudo-cereal grains are seeds from a number of different plant species external to the Poaceae family that are eaten in a similar fashion to cereal grains.

So these pseudo-cereal grains are not true grains, but because they’re cooked and eaten in a similar way as other grains they all seem to get lumped into the same grain category.

Is it wrong to call quinoa a grain?

“No, I don’t believe that it is wrong,” says Morris. “Merriam-Webster includes, ‘the seeds or fruits of various food plants including the cereal grasses and in commercial and statutory usage other plants (such as the soybean).’”

Turns out, there’s a lot to know about these tiny seeds that are technically pseudo-cereal grains. But you can informally refer to quinoa as a grain. And now that you know, go cook the stuff and use it in one of these recipes below!

type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related… + articlesList=59356514e4b02478cb9d4a37,592e1cf0e4b0e95ac194de75,58189847e4b0390e69d27320,56a0edbae4b0404eb8f05c2c,55f6cd01e4b063ecbfa4c87d

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.