Cool ideas, seems like a more sane design (some people get hung up on RPi, "when all you have is a dick, all problems look like assholes"). Couldn't you wire all cameras with USB to a single computer via some hubs? There may be some latency in issuing the "take picture" PTP commands, but it seems like with a computer you could 1) define the delays arbitrarily in software and 2) load all the pictures immediately, saving you from reading 48 SD cards.

that's an option that I didn't consider, cheers! (probably won't check back on this thread any more and will keep the 290X)

I've just ordered a R9 290X, before I saw this (oh no!). If this effect is reducing the 290X performance, and 290X is just a higher clocked 290, could I expect similar performance on the 290 as the retail 290Xs? If so I just want to return the 290X and recoup 25 % of the cost... Advice greatly appreciated

In Norway they used the digital switchover as a chance to turn all (3 or 4ish) channels but the state broadcaster into payed channels, and they added a lot of new channels. They turned a somewhat credible free TV system with no setup cost into something useless. Now, either you like TV and have to pay, or most others don't really care and won't even bother to set up the free channel.

Digital is probably good overall, if it can free up some spectrum, but new technology certainly exposes how people can be greedy assholes. At least DVB-T can still be received with a passive receiver, which helps with privacy and stability

This is an interesting point (and new to me, would mod up if I had poitns). It's the same argument that's being cited for scientific experiments when people don't get the "it's cool and important for its own sake, how can you possibly not get that?" argument.

Some corrections are in order, hope I caught all my mistakes now..

Probably not, that was made up. there is encryption, but I don't see how they could have authentication (unless the certificate was in the *.onion name, but they're not that long)

To clarify, client & gateway be connected directly, no others computers including no internet

..including language & keyboard layout

OF course block mic. Not only can the malware *hear you speaking*, the mic probably also has a unique noise spectrum, and there may even be outside noises like trains. Speakers probably OK, but could relay information via high frequency signals to other compromised local computers

You're right about the first point, it was a hidden service which FBI took control over, sorry I completely forgot and should have checked. Hidden serivces seem to have SSL-like protection built-in, thanks to the encryption of Tor, but when the FBI controls the server that's of course moot. That's also a different threat model than I thought of before, so bad example.

I still believe it's possible to be safe, but may have underestimated the risks before. The best way seems to be to use VMs or clean installations like booting from CD. There is then a separate computer for the Tor client, blocking anything but the Tor HTTP proxy with a firewall on the interface connected to the client. The client shouldn;'t have any unique software or hardware (as malware can enumerate USB, PCI devices, display resolution, etc), so the best is to use a VM. Also the MAC addresses of the gateway and the client must be randomised frequently, and the client must of course not have access to other communication devices like WiFi and bluetooth, and webcams. (don't know audio / microphone). The client would ideally have no persistent storage (one more point in favour of VMs, real hardware has a bunch of firmwares). The link seems interesting, actually talks about Tor, will have a look

Owning exit nodes is not sufficient to reveal the identity of tor users. Owning a large percentage of relay nodes AND exit nodes could compromise the anonymity, as one could just follow the progression of any data throughout the network. If the traffic volume is small enough to be able to statistically separate the streams from various users, it may be sufficient to surveil relay and exit nodes, instead of actually owning the hardware.

There are limitations: the exit node can mess with the data at will, in both directions, and this is how the FBI owned the visitors to a pedo site. They injected some HTML (I'm not positive that it was HTML/JS, but one would assume) to make the browsers of the users connect to FBI servers outside of Tor. It was a bug in firefox that allowed this.

There are two strategies to protect against this,
1) Encrypt everything; only access SSL sites over Tor. This works in theory because the exit node can no longer mess with the data stream. The only way to reliably use this strategy is to *block* non-SSL traffic. There are so many websites with mixed content, which may pull images and ads from non-SSL streams. Also, NSA may be able to break SSL either by a proper MITM attack (completely hypothetical, no evidence exists) or by owning private keys for some CAs.

2) Block any non-tor access from the system used to access Tor. This is possible at the network level with extra hardware, VMs and possibly with SELinux. If the browser *cannot* communicate over the standard internet, only Tor, then one is moderately safe. It's still important to configure the browser to not send identifiable information for fingerprinting and tracking cookies.

By doing 1 and 2 one is quite safe. It may be fine to use a less safe setup for non-secret stuff, like checking facebook, and contributing to flood the tor network with un-interesting traffic. If the "really anonymous" mode required restarting Tor, the NSA would be able to see this from ISP logs, of course.

The summary lists the good things about bitcoins, but leaves out some important ones...
- Truly international. As opposed to most other systems, which have some friction when moving money between countries
- Free! You only pay for the bandwidth, and the CPU for verifying hashes (not talking about mining)
- Universally accessible. I suppose the article touches on this, but it's quite important that it's available to anyone who wants it. Not like credit cards which can shut down someone like wikileaks at will. You don't need a credit history etc to pay on line

Not really "secure", but I wish my phone would work better on its own. Granted, it's a communication platform, but it's also a powerful computer, and I should be able to install applications and use other local features more easily, without signing up for anything. (It's not quite Android's fault -- a major problem is that people don't make APKs available even for free apps). I wish it was also easier (or just possible) to disable all cell radios.

For someone who is not an expert in the field, what is the efficiency of the conductor? It seems to refer to the fact that no charge is lost (dissipated) between the ends of the conductor, but it's not clear.

I assume since no one used the word "superconductor" that it has a finite resistance; does anyone know what the resistance is? (would large bundles of these conductors be useful for energy transport?)

Good to point out hypocricy, but BAD to bring up "The Hurt Locker". The company made absolute arses of themselves with their rhetoric against file sharers. Most of Hollywood manages to somewhat maintain their dignity while speaking out against piracy.

As for slashdot being hypocrites (ignoring that the people commenting pro-Morel in this story aren't necessarily the same as those who come out against Hollywood), I think it's mainly a subjective moral judgement. There are many substantive differences between the cases, like the pirates doing individual infringement vs. Getty selling the image, and the predatory practices of Hollywood companies, but in the end it may not be possible to construct an all-encompassing slashdot-approved framework for what is bad infringement and what is bad enforcement. I known it when I see it. Sorry, I don't like these fuzzy standards either, but it's not like it mattters, the law is the law.

Lost of good suggestions here. If you have some time you can harass them by being annoying, doing roleplaying, rickrolling them or playing other sounds, or use a Duke Nukem soundboard like in this dubious classic http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE3KdcTgrno

Even if the whole files take up more than the cache, the filters and algorithms running on them may need to access only a part of the image/video (e.g. a access a frame of the video multiple times). The benefit of caching is highly dependent on the algorithms used

As this is not (mainly) about the system RAM, it's about the CPU caches, I wonder if any attempt is being made to correct the errors, and if it's worthwhile. One would just need to reset the node on any sign of an error, so the capactiy penalty would be small compared to ECC. On the other hand, the errors could just as well happen in the actual logical units, and at some point it's impossible or very expensive to protect everything. Because the SRAM takes up a large fraction of the CPU area, it may be useful to add something to protect the caches.

For some workloads you can do consistency checks in software, but for many computations that would require you to run the computations twice -- which is very expensive. Maybe statistical methods can be used to include a term for gross numerical errors -- different from the small floating point errors. It would probably be close to impossible to model the effect of such errors on the results though. Another option is to shield the datacentres from cosmic rays, if those are indeed the culprit.