theclearlydope

theclearlydope:

WORTH SEEING: My buddy Scott reviewed some frozen pizzas for Buzzfeed. He’s just great.

scottspizzatours:

I tasted a bunch of different frozen pizzas for BuzzFeed in an effort to answer one of the most common questions I get on pizza tours: WHAT’S THE BEST FROZEN PIZZA ON THE MARKET? 

Of course videos like this are made to be funny, but I want to clarify some technical questions that might pop into some of the more inquisitive pizza minds:

1. We baked each pizza according to the instructions on the box, so if a pie looks funky you can blame the pizza company. 

2. This does not represent every brand on the market, so don’t freak out because we didn’t try Tombstone or Freschetta or whatever your favorite frozen pizza may be. BuzzFeed brought 8 pies but one was microwave only (we only had an oven) and one got cut for time (Amy’s Organic, which I usually like but did not on this tasting). 

3. I grew up eating Ellio’s so I enjoyed it during this taste test even though I would never go out of my way to eat it.

4. I gave each pizza a rating out of 5 stars but none made it over 3.5 so they didn’t include them in the edit. 

5. Obviously frozen pizza should be judged on a different scale than fresh pies but since some these companies claim they deliver quality comparable to pizzeria products we really should hold them accountable. 

smithsonianlibraries

smithsonianlibraries:

The Cooper Union Museum for the Arts of Decoration, now known as the Cooper Hewitt, Smithsonian Design Museum, held an exhibit in the ’40s about the cat in history and art. Nine Lives, its exhibit catalog, is available in our collection of digitized books, and was used as a reference in the Wikipedia article on the cultural depiction of cats.

If you’re curious, the Smithsonian Collections Search can point you to over 100 objects in the Cooper Hewitt about cats.

futurejournalismproject

futurejournalismproject:

Via Gizmodo:

Tor, the network used specifically for privacy and anonymity, just warned users of an attack meant to deanonymize people on the service. Anyone who used Tor from February 2014 through this July 4 can assume they were impacted.

Who’s behind the attacks? It appears researchers from Carnegie Mellon. Via The Verge:

The Tor team suspects the CERT division of Carnegie Mellon University’s Software Engineering Institute (SEI). Earlier this month, CERT abruptly canceled a Black Hat conference talk called “You Don’t Have to be the NSA to Break Tor: Deanonymizing Users on a Budget.” The NSA has famously attempted to break Tor, to limited success.

So what’s the big deal?: If it was the team from CERT, consider the attack a proof of concept. If they can get in, so to can more malicious actors. According to The Guardian, the CERT talk at the Black Hat conference would explain “how anyone with $3,000 could de-anonymise users of Tor.”

Somewhat related: US Government increases funding for Tor, via The Guardian.

Tor, the internet anonymiser, received more than $1.8m in funding from the US government in 2013, even while the NSA was reportedly trying to destroy the network.

According to the Tor Project’s latest annual financial statements, the organisation received $1,822,907 from the US government in 2013. The bulk of that came in the form of “pass-through” grants, money which ultimately comes from the US government distributed through some independent third-party.

Sorta Somewhat Related, Tinfoil Hat Edition: Back in January, Reuters reported that the NSA funneled $10 million to RSA, a computer security firm whose encryption tools are an industry standard. The Reuters report indicates that the funding helped ensure that a less secure encryption system was used as the default setting in an RSA “software tool called Bsafe that is used to enhance security in personal computers and many other products.”