Forgot your password?

Comment: Computer vision... (Score 1) 11

by Savage-Rabbit (#48211077) Attached to: Machine Learning Expert Michael Jordan On the Delusions of Big Data

... and despite recent claims to the contrary, we are no further along with computer vision than we were with physics when Isaac Newton sat under his apple tree.

That's true, I looked into object recognition for image classification by content. Face recognition is proceeding fairly nicely but doing stuff like just programmatically classifying/tagging images by whether they contain a car, airplane, house, tree, dog, mountain .... without even trying to do things like identifying the type of airplane/dog/car is pretty much undoable in any reasonable amount of time with human level accuracy needed on garden variety PCs and tablets which is the application I'd be interested in. The fastest and most accurate image classifier/tagger is still a human. Am still looking forward to they day that changes but I'm not sure that will be within my lifetime.

+ - CryptoWall Ransomware Infecting Visitors to Major Websites like Yahoo, AOL and M-> 1

Submitted by DavidGilbert99
DavidGilbert99 (2607235) writes "Up to three million visitors to some of the web's more popular websites — like Yahoo, AOL and — are being put at risk of being infected with the pernicious ransomware known as CryptoWall through malicious advertisements, with the criminal gang behind the campaign thought to be raking in $25,000-a-day"
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:hasn't stopped him yet (Score 1) 37

by swillden (#48209609) Attached to: Google Leads $542m Funding Round For Augmented Reality Wearables Company

so where was his "strong anti-authoritarian and anti-military streak" when he was rolling over for the NSA **for years**...

That never happened. The NSA tapped Google's fiber without Google's knowledge, but there's no evidence that Google ever willingly participated. As soon as Google found out about the taps, it accelerated a program to get the data on all those fibers encrypted, to lock the NSA out.

Google invades privacy for profit and for decades gave the NSA (and god knows who else) an unaccountable back door to all our data

Google trades the right to target ads to you in exchange for services, and enables you to opt out of the trade if you want, even providing the necessary tools for you to do it. Google has never given the NSA an "unaccountable back door". See David Drummond's numerous public statements on this issue. From my personal perspective as a Google security engineer, I think it would be virtually impossible for such a back door to exist in Google's systems without my having noticed some trace of it. Take that as you will.

You're coming to this question with a whole bunch of inaccurate assumptions, which are seriously skewing your perspective. You should take a breath, look into what really happened (as much as is public information anyway) vis a vis the NSA, PRISM, etc., and then re-evaluate.

Or not, that's your choice. I'll merely point out that time will prove me right with respect to any purported military-focused work by Google X and leave it there.

Comment: Re:Wow (Score 1) 76

by drinkypoo (#48208807) Attached to: Raspberry Pi Founder Demos Touchscreen Display For DIY Kits

but you can't really run a temperature controlled fan stoker for a BBQ pit from a tablet either, which

Of course you can. There's lots of ways to do that, including hacking into the audio hardware. I'd probably just use an old phone though, and not a whole tablet. You don't need that much screen for that job. Most devices have some GPIO on board, which can be used with some effort, but using the audio hardware is much easier. Use one of the many phones with USB OTG, and connect up a cheap MCU to do the USB-to-GPIO work.

Comment: Re:After whast happened to Odroid-w, why? (Score 0) 76

by drinkypoo (#48208791) Attached to: Raspberry Pi Founder Demos Touchscreen Display For DIY Kits

rPI is Not an open hardware project and never claimed to be.

Nonsense. They claimed to be generally open, hardware and software. Then it was pointed out that important parts of the software were so closed you couldn't even use them. Eventually it was opened up enough so that you could use them, but all the important parts except the interface (which was originally closed) remain secret sauce. They also claimed to use all documented interfaces, but provided inadequate documentation for the display and camera connectors for a seriously long time as well.

They absolutely claimed to be promoting an open platform originally. They also made lots of other claims they never came through on, like that they would release Android for the device.

All the hacking people are using it for is welcome, but wasn't what they were going after in the beginning. You can't just copy other peoples closed source hardware.

Yes, you can, unless it's patent-protected.

Comment: Re:Not right (Score 1) 560

by drinkypoo (#48208765) Attached to: FTDI Reportedly Bricking Devices Using Competitors' Chips.

Car analogy: If you bought a Frod, and took it to Ford Dealer and they put in a Motorcraft Oil Filer that damages your FROD because it isn't a Ford, is Ford Responsible because all you cared about was the Frod Car was cheaper on eBay?

but this is Ford installing a Motorcraft oil filter which was designed not to open if it was connected to a Frod, not one which just happens to not open in that condition. There's a massive difference there, and the difference is one of intent.

Comment: Re:FUD? (Score 1) 560

by drinkypoo (#48208751) Attached to: FTDI Reportedly Bricking Devices Using Competitors' Chips.

From the article, the fakes are not bricked it is just their device ID is changed to 0. FTDI are simply saying this isn't one of our chips so we won't let it work with our driver.

Or your OS, which will refuse to deal with the device, assuming that it has failed or is otherwise exhibiting bad behavior.

Those manufacturers that include fake chips will end up with a lot of returns and might reconsider using fakes.

Most of those manufacturers will just close their doors, change their name, and open them again, and the users will end up contacting FTDI, or just giving up.

Comment: Re:Sure, blame FTDI (Score 1) 560

by drinkypoo (#48208735) Attached to: FTDI Reportedly Bricking Devices Using Competitors' Chips.

Ok, so the cloners copy the design (that FTDI paid for),

Reverse engineering for the purposes of interoperability is critical to scientific development. Here in the USA, it is an activity which is explicitly protected.

steal the VID (that FTDI paid for),

It's not theft, because they're not depriving them of it.

and then by clear intention, use the FTDI driver (that FTDI paid for),

The user uses the FTDI driver.

and you say FTDI started a war?

Yes, but a war on users, some of whom deliberately set out to buy FTDI hardware. They won't make that mistake again.

Really? Good for FTDI. The supply chain will get purged of the counterfeit material faster this way then any lawsuit could.

That's probably true. However, they're going to have a whole lot of lawsuits coming their way in response, and those lawsuits will be from users of their chips.

Comment: Re:On the other hand... (Score 1) 560

by drinkypoo (#48208683) Attached to: FTDI Reportedly Bricking Devices Using Competitors' Chips.

No, it's because if they release a firmware that just refuses to work, the people that made these fakes will just release hacked drivers, based on FTDI's.

No, they won't. If they were prepared to do that, they would be doing it already. They're not even distributing drivers in most cases, and it's left as an exercise to the user to download it, or the manufacturer of the device which uses the chip to include it. They're counting on not getting busted for the copyright violation of marking FTDI on top of the chip, and not risking getting busted for distributing the driver.

Comment: Re:The good news (Score 1) 560

by drinkypoo (#48208655) Attached to: FTDI Reportedly Bricking Devices Using Competitors' Chips.

The FTDI FT232RL is one of the best in terms of reliability and has the best drivers, while also providing some handy bonus functionality.

Reliable? Meh. Best drivers? Definitely a lie. They screw those up all the time. Additional features? That part is very true, and it's the reason why you need a real FTDI chip anyway. A lot of stuff won't work right if you don't have one.

Comment: Re:On the other hand... (Score 1) 560

by drinkypoo (#48208621) Attached to: FTDI Reportedly Bricking Devices Using Competitors' Chips.

I'm pretty sure DMCA or friends WON'T let you, legally, make a chip that pretends to be another chip

The DMCA doesn't cover this issue. The closest it comes is explicitly protecting reverse engineering for the purposes of interoperability. Creating a chip that works just like the FTDI chip is not illegal. Putting FTDI's marks on the top of your chip is a violation of trademark law. Distributing FTDI's driver would be a violation of copyright law. Downloading FTDI's driver without permission is also a violation of copyright law, so who distributes/downloads the driver affects who violates copyright there. Finally, using the driver without permission is also a violation of copyright law. AFAIK there is no legal precedent (and certainly no applicable laws) which cover the use of someone else's USB ID, unless you are doing it with the intent to cause some kind of harm, or cause harm through negligence.

Any possible claims over these clone chips center around driver copyright or misuse of trademarks. Or, of course, patent abuse, but that seems relatively unlikely here. FTDI is in extremely well-traveled territory.

So some company makes a fake Ford, which has acceleration problems. It crashes, kills someone, and Ford is to blame because it had a Ford badge? ...

If you take your fake Ford in for service, they detect that it's a fake, and instead of telling you that it's fake (and possibly removing your emblems) they reflash your PCM, deliberately causing your car not to start, how will you feel about that? Will you solely blame the manufacturer of your fake car, or will you be angry at the dealership for disabling your car?

Comment: Re:On the other hand... (Score 1) 560

by drinkypoo (#48208561) Attached to: FTDI Reportedly Bricking Devices Using Competitors' Chips.

The solution is simple, the knockoffs need to provide a proper driver set.

There's no good reason for them to do that. Their chip implements the same interface as the FTDI chip, and applications are expecting to talk to the FTDI driver. That's a battle they can never win. But they can see what the hardware interface looks like.

Comment: Re:Is this legal? (Score 2) 560

by drinkypoo (#48208519) Attached to: FTDI Reportedly Bricking Devices Using Competitors' Chips.

And I hope FTDI wins. Eventually this should go back to whoever made the counterfeit chip.

FTDI's deliberate intent is to damage people's equipment. How is that not illegal? I'd bet that it is.

If I'm using counterfeit chips in my products and an update from FTDI stops things from working, I'm not going to be pissed off at FTDI, I'm going to be pissed off at whoever sold me a chip and told me that it was an FTDI chip,

I'm going to be pissed off at both, and I hope FTDI dies and someone else takes over for them. They're not very good at their job anyway.