Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re: Stopped reading after... (Score 1) 106

Actually no, the ME is off as far as user facing features are concerned, but if it is fully off, good luck booting your PC. The MS is always on, and contrary to Intel's public stance, when you buy a SKU with it disabled/no BIOS for it loaded/fused off (depending on whom you talk to, I have gotten all three many times), it is still there, still functional, and still not under your control.

In short 'off' means the user facing and user accessible parts are no longer user accessible, not what most people still consider off. Intel refuses to talk about or publicly document what features are there and what are still active in each of these modes. I have asked them for this information and they said no. I have been digging on the ME for literally years, and have a fair idea of what it can do and can't do in both states.

And I am scared sh*tless by what I found.

Comment Re:USSA (Score 4, Informative) 284

This is done in the US with all printers, copiers, and just about anything else that can produce digital output. They are all watermarked with the printer info, time and date, plus likely other stuff encoded in (usually) yellow dots all over the page. The EFF had a decryption project for it, not sure how it ended up but the landing page is here:

https://www.eff.org/issues/pri...

Comment Re:Deduplication anyone (Score 1) 284

Dedupe is usually done at a block level, no a file level for this specific reason. Encryption, compression, and the like will cause headaches for the hypothetical one byte changes, but that is probably a solved problem by now. I have not kept up with the minutia of dedupe lately but for an outfit the size of Google, it would probably be worth it to decompress the files for dedupe. No clue if they do though, but it is not a huge technical challenge.

Comment New concept there... (Score 1) 284

Gee, almost like the government would have a legal and legitimate (search) warrant that Google et al would likely be happy to comply with. If the government uses it's powers correctly and within the letter of the law, not to mention the spirit, why shouldn't Google et al comply? It is only when they overstep and do BLATANTLY illegal things is when they tech companies push back.

My reading of this would be the government getting a search warrant for the provider in question, and a fully legal one at that. Legal warrants override privacy concerns, that is the point, no? If the laws won't allow a search of users, a warrant naming 'does 1-x' could do the same, at least from my limited legal knowledge.

                -Charlie

HP

HP To Jettison Up To 30,000 Jobs As Part of Spinoff 273

An anonymous reader writes: Hewlett-Packard says its upcoming spinoff of its technology divisions focused on software, consulting and data analysis will eliminate up to 30,000 jobs. The cuts announced Tuesday will be within the newly formed Hewlett Packard Enterprise, which is splitting from the Palo Alto, California company's personal computer and printing operation. "The new reductions amount to about 10 percent of the new company's workforce, and will save about $2.7 billion in annual operating costs." The split is scheduled to be completed by the end of next month. "The head of the group, Mike Nefkens, outlined a plan under which it is cutting jobs in what he called 'high-cost countries' and moving them to low-cost countries. He said that by the end of HP Enterprise’s fiscal year 2018, only 40 percent of the group’s work force will be located in high-cost countries."

Comment You mean like the one Qualcomm has now? (Score 1) 30

Wow, a research project that uses Ultrasound to scan fingerprints in 3D? This would be amazing if Qualcomm didn't have a near production version (Likely showing up in phones early next year around CES) that they were showing off at MWC months ago. I played with it here, it works, it does '3D', it scans beneath the surface, it is ultrasound based, etc etc. It also does other neat tricks that they aren't making public.

http://semiaccurate.com/2015/0...

So why is this 'new' one all the rage again?

              -Charlie

Comment Why Thunderbolt? (Score 3, Interesting) 123

Why would you want Thunderbolt again? It is a badly broken (IE doesn't actually do what is promised like channel bonding and a few other things that are sort of fixed in VERY recent silicon), costs far too much, forces the use of painfully expensive active cables, and only passes PCIe or video. This last bit is problematic because if you want any functionality on the other end of the cable, you need to add full controllers there too, think expensive and wasteful of power. In essence you are hot-plugging controllers with the cable, and while it works in theory....

TB is a badly broken spec from day one, it was meant as a control point for Intel to force the use of it's silicon in phones.mobile by replacing USB with something only it could provide. Needless to say the market saw through this and didn't adopt it in droves, sans the few that drank from the Intel money hose. The second the hose was shut off, so was the design wins.

The main reason that USB3 had such a slow start was because Intel was desperate to kill it to promote TB. Since Intel had control over the USB3 cert process, things went might slow for technical minutia that would easily pass by previous spec certs. Coincidence? Nope.

TB is a bad idea on technical, cost, lock-in, and many many other reasons, not working correctly ever being a key one there. Delivered silicon is a joke, there is and always will be one supplier, and progress is glacial. USB3.1 on the other hand beats it like a drum in every regard other than single channel throughput.

Why do I want to pay for this in my next laptop again?

                  -Charlie

Comment Patents (Score 0, Troll) 217

Until they stop playing games with hidden and required patents, their talk is just BS. They have shown they have no intent to change that model time and time again, this round is no different. You can open source something that requires a DX call but if you don't open source DX and threaten anyone who does with patent suits, is there a point? It is hollow BS for all the same reasons. Don't buy the PR meant to distract, the underlying mechanics are still the same. They are antagonistic to open source and that won't change at a level deeper than the public messaging.

          -Charlie

Comment Not so fast (Score 1) 405

Before you say such things, you might want to look up the legal morass surrounging mail servers under your direct control and those not. Start with Megaupload and then follow links to the less public ones. There are DAMN good reason to keep your mail server on premises be it home or business, if you don't understand why you might want to educate yourself before giving advice.

                -Charlie

Comment Speaking as a Comcast victim (Score 1) 405

I too am a Comcast victim, business class, and I have a mail server on their static IPs. This has been the case for years and while I have seen occasional blocking during inter-company spats, nothing blaket like you are seeing. It could just be the range you are on or it could be something else. What I am trying to say is that it is not those big three blanket blocking Comcast IPs.

I would see if Comcast can give you another set of statics in another range. That may help.

                    -Charlie

Comment Re:Touch Server (Score 1) 681

It's OK, this version will change all those commands to equally long but completely different commands. According to their internal surveys, that should help sales out by giving administrators a sense of accomplishment in learning a new command set. What could go wrong?

              -Charlie

Slashdot Top Deals

If at first you don't succeed, you are running about average.

Working...