Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment: Megacorps are hostile to the open Internet (Score 4, Insightful) 69

by Morgaine (#49046017) Attached to: LinkedIn Restricts API Usage

The Internet was founded upon the idea of open interoperation between all endpoints and federation between different instances of the same service protocol (think of SMTP and globally interoperating MTAs). These concepts were so fundamental that they are mentioned explicitly in the IETF Mission Statement as their central goal.

Then Big Business came along, and they didn't like the concept of a level playing field of unhindered interoperation and federation. Now almost every large corporation is trying to fence off their little corner of the Internet into a private realm which they guard jealously. Other companies are denied interoperation unless they pay up (or it's denied entirely), and federation between like services is virtually unknown. There is no "Facebook service" which anyone can install and then be able to federate their content to and from Facebook as peers.

Virtually all of the megacorps today are behaving this way: Facebook, Google, Amazon, Yahoo, Apple, Microsoft, and so on. They all hate the open Internet, and have closed it off at the application layers of the protocol stack so that you have to be an enrolled member of their private realm to participate. The closing of APIs is par for the course as they don't want interoperation, and federation even less. TFS is spot on.

At least we still have federated SMTP and unrestricted search engines, although probably that's only because they're data mining our email and search queries. It's no longer the open Internet we once had, but more a system of feudal lords and their private domains, and everyone else is a peasant.

It's a severe regression of Internet utility, and it's of benefit only to them.

Comment: It's an attempt at a PC-like standard for ARM (Score 2) 35

by Morgaine (#49024367) Attached to: Linaro Launches an Open-Source Spec For ARM SBCs

Does this give us anything Raspberry Pi didn't?

If successful, it would give the ARM world a PC-like, vendor-neutral standard architecture, and so it would counteract the horrible balkanization of ARM communities by every manufacturer's boards being different.

Even if this doesn't succeed, standardization is a very worthwhile goal for ARM (just as it was for x86 PCs), and it's quite important that a broadly funded organization has recognized the need. It will also usher in the days of ARM64, at last.

There is one glaring omission in the spec though, the lack of Ethernet. No Ethernet means extremely limited sales outside of mobile, and at the HiKey's price of $129 it has to be gigabit Ethernet at that.

Comment: FOSS and ham radio need fully open FPGAs (Score 5, Interesting) 51

by Morgaine (#48762111) Attached to: Learn Gate-Array Programming In Python and Software-Defined Radio

Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) has achieved immense success worldwide in virtually all areas of programming, with only one major exception where it has made no inroads: FPGAs. Every single manufacturer of these programmable devices has refused to release full device documentation which would allow FOSS tools to be written so that the devices could be configured and programmed entirely using FOSS toolchains.

It's a very bad situation, directly analogous to not being able to write a gcc compiler backend for any CPU at all, and instead having to use a proprietary closed source binary compiler blob for each different processor. That would have been a nightmare for CPUs, but fortunately it didn't happen. Alas it has happened for FPGAs, and the nightmare is here.

The various FPGA-based SDR projects make great play about being "open source, open hardware", but you can't create new bitstreams defining new codecs for those FPGAs using open source tools. It's a big hole in FOSS capability, and it's a source of much frustration in education and for FOSS and OSHW users of Electronic Design Automation, including radio amateurs.

If FPGAs are going to figure strongly in amateur radio in the forthcoming years, radio amateurs who are also FOSS advocates would do well to start advocating for a few FPGA families to be opened up so that open source toolchains can be written. With sufficient pressure and well presented cases for openness, the "impossible" can sometimes happen.

Comment: Diversity is good, especially in SciFi (Score 5, Insightful) 368

by Morgaine (#48542239) Attached to: Overly Familiar Sci-Fi

Because there is a right well to tell fictional stories?

There isn't a single right way because there are infinite possible futures, and it's reasonable to assume that inventive SciFi authors would want to explore that huge space of possibilities. There are unlimited right ways.

Nor is there a single wrong way, but if all authors narrow their horizons to describing only simplistic futures in which most cultural elements remain unchanged then clearly there is a problem of deliberate myopia which will inevitably lead to a poverty of novel material.

It's a bit like surrounding oneself with yes-men --- it doesn't promote pushing the envelope and expanding the mind in new directions. In the context of SciFi, if cultural elements are shackled to present-day norms then it creates a literary monoculture with very few interesting elements. Even worse, it's factually incorrect, since we know that cultures change strongly with time.

It is acceptable to be factually incorrect in fiction, but when a whole genre that is predicated on gazing into the future knowingly avoids addressing cultural change then there is indeed a problem, and a very big one. SciFi readers deserve better than just present day stories adorned with spaceships.

Comment: Terrific counter to Monsanto's herbicide message (Score 4, Insightful) 308

by Morgaine (#47987657) Attached to: Irish Girls Win Google Science Fair With Astonishing Crop Yield Breakthrough

The Permaculture community and advocates of companion planting have been around for decades preaching this same message, that plants grow better in messy complimentary families instead of in tidy rows of monoculture in which everything else is considered "weeds" and exterminated.

It's great to see youngsters getting rewards for bringing this message to the public eye, countering Monsanto's advocacy for broad-spectrum herbicides that are effectively killing off the biosphere with each passing year. Nature is amazingly productive when allowed to do her thing, instead of undermined by highly destructive profit-led myopia.

Comment: A10-OLinuXino-LIME and BBB are both Cortex-A8 (Score 1) 183

by Morgaine (#47423065) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Best Dedicated Low Power Embedded Dev System Choice?

One of my favorites out there today is the A10-OLinuXino-LIME. ...

The Beagle Bone was good in its day, but it is kind of over the hill. The processor is underpowered compared to other ARMs

Just to be clear, the A10-OLinuXino-LIME, BeagleBone white and BeagleBone Black all contain a single Cortex-A8 core, and the TI AM3359 runs at the same 1GHz speed in the BBB as the Allwinner A10 does in the LIME.

The original BeagleBone (white) ran its AM3359 at 720MHz so its CPU performance is a bit less, but the BeagleBone Black (BBB) superceded it a year ago and at a much lower price. As a result, the reasonable current-day comparison is between A10-OLinuXino-LIME and BBB, and on CPU power their similar speed Cortex-A8 cores make them pretty much identical.

I have all of these boards and many other similar ones, and my assessment is that BBB is much more capable for embedded projects because of its additional dual realtime 200MHz PRU cores (which are quite unrivalled), while the A10-OLinuXino-LIME is more suitable as an extremely low end desktop-style "computer" because of its dual USB2 host sockets and rather more capable MALI-400 GPU.

This assessment doesn't change when the just-released A20-OLinuXino-LIME is brought into the comparison, except that the dual Cortex-A7 cores in the A20 make it a far better general purpose "computer" than its A10 sibling for a mere 3 euro more in price.

Comment: You misunderstand Idaho Stop (Score 2) 490

It doesn't matter if you SHOULD have right of way.

You misunderstand Idaho Stop, as it never gives right of way to cyclists. The most they get is right of movement when there is no conflicting traffic, in other words when there is no right of way issue. If conflicting traffic is present then that traffic always has right of way over the cyclist at a stop sign or red light.

It certainly doesn't make cyclists "own the road", as you put it, since that's synonymous with having right of way.

Comment: You miss the point --- it's about security focus (Score 3, Insightful) 163

by Morgaine (#46645979) Attached to: Vint Cerf: CS Programs Must Change To Adapt To Internet of Things

You teach core and theory and you apply it to whatever the current fad is.

He's not really saying that CompSci programmes should be tailored for Internet of Things. What he's saying indirectly but perfectly clearly to those who are aware of the appalling state of networking security in recent years is that university-level tuition needs to buck up and face the music, because the people they have been releasing into the field are totally inept at designing secure systems. The hundreds of thousands of security problems spread right across the whole Internet speak for themselves.

It's a very important message, and hopefully it will resonate with more than a few CompSci departments. IoT is just being used as an excuse for releasing a high-profile message from a respected person about the very unsatisfactory state of developer competence in the area of secure systems.

Regarding your second point about education versus vocational training, you are right about that, but secure software design and cryptogtaphy are not subjects for vocational training, but very strongly in the domain of CompSci. You have to understand the fundamentals, not just know which functions to call.

Comment: Corporations are not above the law (Score 1) 170

by Morgaine (#45859537) Attached to: Facebook Being Sued Over Mining of Private Messages

When Facebook or Google mine your data ('you are the product' as people say), you have nothing to fall back on. It's in their ToS

Only in some corporatist's wet dreams are corporations above the law. Whatever it may say on a ToS that they've pulled out of their asses, it does not change the facts one iota. The ToS cannot override the law of the land.

There is no means by which a person can sell themselves into slavery to a company by clicking on a web page. And by the same token, a company cannot decide that your personal data is theirs for them to do as they please just because it says so in the ToS they've written.

You seem to think that corporations are sovereign countries and are in their total right to own you. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. You are NOT a product of a company, no matter how much some people like that cute phrase. You are, funnily enough, a person, and your rights as a person extend to the personal data that you entrust to third parties.

Comment: The disaster of allowing software patents (Score 4, Insightful) 179

by Morgaine (#44731203) Attached to: Apple Now Relaying All FaceTime Calls Due To Lost Patent Dispute

The patents in question describe nothing more than perfectly normal combinations of Internet services that any software engineer who knows basic networking would be expected to create as a matter of course. Combining such services into higher protocols is simply algorithmic construction in network programming.

This patent suit illustrates well the chilling effect that software patents have on our ability to use computers and the Internet to best effect. When you allow software algorithms to be locked away in patents, the ability of engineers to use computers and networks as an enabling technology decreases dramatically, to the extreme detriment of our ability to improve our systems.

Each new software patent just adds further bars to the prison. If this disease isn't stopped soon, the profession is going to be worthless except as a feeding pit for lawyers.

Comment: Awesome dedication to sci/eng by enthusiasts (Score 1) 37

by Morgaine (#44658359) Attached to: DIY Space Suit Testing

This is a really awesome example of dedication to science and engineering by enthusiasts.

They don't mention it (much), but these guys are risking their lives. It's certainly possible for all the tech safeguards and personal attention to safety to go wrong and for someone to die.

I bet the professionals will call this "unnecessarily risk", but that's not really accurate. Sure, it's money-limited, but that doesn't mean that the people involved aren't just as strongly concerned with safety as the professionals. As said in the video, "We have only one life". They do realize what's at risk.

Looking ahead, we will soon be a space-faring species, and that means that we will be going into space not only as a science experiment, which all NASA endeavors have been so far, but simply to go out there for whatever reasons we have. People need to make this technology their own, and that's what these enthusiasts are doing.

Comment: Google's hatred of security and privacy (Score 4, Interesting) 104

by Morgaine (#44335725) Attached to: Google Is Bringing Chrome Remote Desktop App To Android

Client-side Javascript is already a security disaster because the unvetted JS code bypasses your perimeter defenses (firewall and proxies) and executes deep inside your privacy domain. And it's not only unvetted code but also unvettable, because it changes with every page.

15 years ago, everyone knew that only the clueless download untrusted 3rd party executable code and run it. Now with JS, all that sensible security advice has been forgotten, and everyone is required to behave clueless with their security. (Software sandboxes are no solution, because all non-trivial software like JS and the browser is riddled with bugs, this is inescapable with large software systems.) Add-ons like NoScript and Ghostery help control it a little, but technically unaware people can't be expected to use them, and more and more websites don't work at all without JS.

And now, Google wants to make it especially easy for remote 3rd parties to access other people's desktops, as if JS didn't make it easy enough already (just ask any security pen-tester). It adds to the already hopeless security in Android, where users are disallowed from blocking the wide access typically demanded by an app on installation. Google doesn't want you to be in control.

The whole Google scene is a security disaster by design. It beats me how a company with so many PhDs can be so cavalier with people's security and hostile to their privacy.

Comment: MRO's images are totally awesome (Score 5, Informative) 67

by Morgaine (#44214167) Attached to: Mars Curiosity Rover Shoots Video of Phobos Moon Rising

For more immediate visual gratification appreciated by a wider audience, the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter provides wonderfully detailed images of Phobos.

That was the instrument that caught this mind-numbing image of the Phoenix lander as it was descending on its parachute. Words are really quite superfluous.

Comment: Thank you Iain, you gave us hope (Score 4, Insightful) 141

by Morgaine (#43954257) Attached to: Iain Banks Dies of Cancer At 59

On our primitive planet with its petty preoccupations over power and money, you showed us a vision of the future in which Mankind has managed to transcend the narrow blinkers of its youth, and reaches out to the stars without material greed nor lust for power.

The Culture gave millions of us hope for the future, at a time when government, business and fanaticism seem intent on moving us back towards the barbarism of earlier ages. Your vision will live on in our hearts, come what may.

Thank you.

Comment: "Switch over to IPv6" is very misleading (Score 1) 246

by Morgaine (#43936423) Attached to: One Year After World IPv6 Launch — Are We There Yet?

to expect EVERYONE to switch over to IPv6 immediately is a bit naive.

"Switch over to IPv6" is a concept that detractors have pulled out of thin air, as it bears no relationship to how IPv6 rollout was planned and expected. Adding the word "immediately" just makes the misconception worse.

IPv6 was always intended to run alongside IPv4 for the foreseeable future, because old IPv4-only equipment will be around for decades until it rots and it will need to be reachable until it is replaced. So, please don't talk about needing to "switch over" to IPv6. Wherever you got that idea from, it's wrong. Talking about it is propagating an invalid concept, and calling the expectation "naive" is just knocking down a straw man.

IPv6 service merely needs to be enabled (without touching IPv4) on an IPv6-capable dual stack home router, and ISPs who offer IPv6 provide routers with it already enabled so you just need to plug them in. (If it's an old router then you'll have to enter the new IPv6 address info that the ISP gives you of course.) Simple home systems don't even need user configuration for IPv6, because IPv6 router advertisements then handle everything. It's as simple as USB for the home user, totally plug'n'play, which IPv4 never was.

And once enabled, IPv6 works totally happily and transparently alongside IPv4 in the home network and at the server end, so there are no "switch over" issues. IPv4 continues to work exactly as it did prior to enabling IPv6. Browsers in particular just use IPv6 by default on a site that has it, and IPv4 if not. It's completely seamless for the end user.

The pain and angst of "switch over" that you describe simply doesn't exist, because switching over was never planned, expected, nor even desired.

"The Street finds its own uses for technology." -- William Gibson