Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Now using TOR after WH threats to invade homes (Score 1) 277

by Gr8Apes (#48931123) Attached to: EFF Unveils Plan For Ending Mass Surveillance

I live in a relatively small town and know how many police officers are on duty at one time. If I know where all those police offices are I also know where they are not.

That's easy enough to know, if the town is small enough. By your reasoning, any small town with a maximum of 1 or 2 police officers should be a veritable hotbed of criminal activity.

Sorry but your "scenario" misses a huge piece. People do not go to jail for having beer spilled on their shirt. If the police can not prove alcohol over the limit in the person's body they do not go to jail.

Sorry, hate to pop your bubble, but I've witnessed this issue first hand. Friend got to a party, some nimrod spilled beer on him, he was driving home to change when he got pulled over for one of those "general checks". Spent the night in jail and had to go through court to get it thrown out. Oh, and police don't have to prove alcohol over the limit, that's just there to help them, not you. You thought breathalyzers were there for you? How cute. If it's the policeman's opinion that you're impaired, off to jail you go. At least he was lucky enough to get it thrown out of court.

You also completely missed the point that even if someone gets tracked an pulled over the general public was not privy to the exact location of that person.

Finally, do you realize the manpower needed to put that chain of events together? Sorry but a DWI charge is not enough to justify that amount of manpower to any police force.

You're missing the point that we live in a big data world. All that's needed is for the policeman to scan your license along with the reason for you being pulled over. 5s later the various systems have correlated the data and stated that you're an AA member and thus likely to be drunk - no warning should be given. After all, what good is data if you're not going to use it?

Comment: Re:Now using TOR after WH threats to invade homes (Score 1) 277

by Gr8Apes (#48926663) Attached to: EFF Unveils Plan For Ending Mass Surveillance

All it does is notify you when police are known to be nearby.

One of the deterrent effects of police is never knowing where they are.

Strongly disagree. The main deterrent is knowing the police are in an area. Otherwise it falls into the category of being anywhere, so why not commit crime x here?

Another issue is that mass storage and scanning of communications does not lead to public disclosure of an individual's location.

Also incorrect, mass scanning of communications including metadata gives you not only locations of people, but patterns of movement. So every Tu evening at 7pm, you truck over to the YMCA for what appears to be an AA meeting, since there are several convicted and recently released DWI people there. How do we know they're DWI people? Because we know where they sleep every night and have cross-referenced that information against our criminal DB. The sad part? That's the only day you're free to meet John for racquetball. But now, thanks to that inconsequential scanning of communications, when you're pulled over next Sun coming home from Joe's house watching the Superbowl, and having a beer spilled on you, you're now heading for a DWI and prison because you've been tagged. You're innocent? Prove it.

Comment: Re:First Sale (Score 1) 459

Are you kidding? Have you played the latest Assassins Creed?

Nope, and I have no interest in it either. My interests lay with developers like Black Isle, iD, Valve, and Bioware in the distant past and a bunch of independents today are more likely to get my dollar. I'm not interested in massively online game play, unlike most, because I simply have 0 time available for such game play. Heck, even posting on /. takes too much time some days.

Comment: Re:First Sale (Score 1) 459

While games with DRM based on online codes is at least semi-problematic for reasons that have been listed ad-nauseum, my original writing off of Ubisoft was due to the always on DRM stance they took a long time ago. Apparently they've retracted that stance in 2012, but after reviewing their game list for the past few years, I see why I was unaware of it - not a single one is on my potential "to-play" list so no interest in anything related to Ubisoft. Honestly, I was surprised they were still in business.

Comment: Re:Vote against Ubisoft with your dollars (Score 1) 459

Wow, I just went through the list. It's like someone went through the game catalogue and listed every game I don't own nor want to own. How is Ubisoft in business? Except for one game from 2009, there's not a single title on the list that I own or have played or wanted to play that Ubisoft was involved with since 2002 (and they were merely distributors for that one). That's absolutely amazing. I stopped in the late 90s, it appears a long string of losers as far as I'm concerned. (I will mention that I own Far Cray, but that came as part of a graphics card package, was never installed, and Crytek was the owner/publisher at the time.)

Comment: Re:Oh like that will happen (Score 1) 459

I agree, I don't buy EA or Ubisoft. Especially nothing Sony. If it's got DRM, it's not going to run on my system (this is not merely an idealistic stance, but a realistic one - it literally most likely won't run on my system or, if it does, it will screw something else up)

Comment: Re:First Sale (Score 5, Interesting) 459

People are still buying Ubisoft? Why? That's a serious question actually, why would you pay money for some DRM infested crap that corrupts your system? There's no game so important I'll corrupt my system to play it. Any Ubisoft game can wait until it goes on sale on GOG, or be avoided forever. No loss here.

Comment: Re:life in the U.S. (Score 1) 255

by Gr8Apes (#48908803) Attached to: Verizon, Cable Lobby Oppose Spec-Bump For Broadband Definition
OK, I'm not watching 240P, I'm watching 1080P on a 55"+ screen. It's why I bought them and not a 15" B&W CRT. On 55+, everything I've seen so far streaming wise sucks, because the compressed bit rate is far too low. Based on my analysis of the stream sizes, Netflix / Hulu run between 2-3 Mbps, Dish runs 2-3 Mbps for SD, AT&T U-verse runs about 6-8 Mbps for HD, TWC runs about 5-6 Mbps for HD, and OTA runs between 8 and 15 Mbps locally. I'll note that Netflix/Hulu had horrible artifacts, TWC is very noticeable, U-verse is mediocre, and OTA has very few artifacts. For comparison, BD runs roughly between 25 and 33Mbps streams depending upon material and compression schemes and has virtually no artifacts. As you can tell from these numbers, 10Mbps is a bare minimum for streaming a single TV channel for me (up and down, since I'd like to be able to stream to the relatives).

Comment: Re: What did you expect? (Score 1) 194

by Gr8Apes (#48904375) Attached to: Google Handed To FBI 3 Wikileaks Staffers' Emails, Digital Data

Friends and family are surely tired of my tinfoil hat, they just do not seem to care about their privacy. Many say the "I have nothing to hide" line.

Many are idiots. And the tin-foil hat line seems passe now that it's been proven that quite likely even the most paranoid tin-foil hat wearer underestimated the true scope of the surveillance operations.

Comment: Re:life in the U.S. (Score 1) 255

by Gr8Apes (#48904317) Attached to: Verizon, Cable Lobby Oppose Spec-Bump For Broadband Definition

I'm on a 1M connection and can surf the web, watch movies, etc.. with no issue.

I call BS on this one. I'm on an 10+M connection, and movies are unwatchable. Then again, it has nothing to do with my connection, but the source.

The FCC would be much better off leaving the broadband definition alone and instead try to figure out how to get at least 3-4 independent providers in every area so there is real competition.

The FCC should define acceptable broadband by upload speed. 10M up would be acceptable. Down past 10 (or the upload speed) is not usable, unless we're talking 4K streams. Why up? Because when you have 20MB photos you want to print, or share with someone, or movies, no, not pirated stuff but HD home movies are still large, 70 minutes came out to 50GB, for instance. I know that after processing, I'll get that down to 10GB or so, but to share that with family is not really doable on a 3Mbps upload link where your real upload is going to be a lot less over the course of 10GB. A 10Mbps upload will at least allow some reasonable connectivity, and remove the need for an intermediate server to hold the file. Ideally we'd be on 25Mbps upload, as a minimum. There's only 2 providers that have these numbers in the US, Google, and Verizon FIOS. Neither is wide spread, and Verizon has killed further FIOS deployments.

Life is a game. Money is how we keep score. -- Ted Turner