Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Yawn ... (Score 2) 228

by bytestorm (#48885277) Attached to: Eric Schmidt: Our Perception of the Internet Will Fade
Argument failure on my part. After reading subsequent posts you made clarifying your position, no, I don't see any advantage for the common consumer to go out and replace all their old things with new ones. Someone like me might like that I can use my phone to one-click reconfigure my tv and receiver to play video games or select a movie on netflix and have the tv switch inputs to whatever and just start playing it--heck I can do this now, but IoT should make it much easier. Granted there are a crapload of privacy concerns exactly like you and other commenters have cited that are of serious concern. That stated, given the low incremental cost of enabling IoT on a device, it's pretty damn likely to end up in all products whether you like it or not.

Comment: Re:Yawn ... (Score 2) 228

by bytestorm (#48885115) Attached to: Eric Schmidt: Our Perception of the Internet Will Fade
I think you're going to wake up one morning and realize the internet-of-things revolution happened quietly around you. Either that or you're going to get dragged kicking and screaming into an internet-of-things world much like the textile workers of the early 1800s who opposed industrialization.

For the most part, the necessary tech artifacts you're talking about already exist. You can already order a mesh-routed, IPv6 aware radio IC for pretty cheap (6LoWPAN, example part by TI). It's been 4 years since NXP Semi demo'd occupancy-aware lighting modules. For me at least, intelligent lighting is a big deal because lighting costs are the third highest contributor to my electric bill.

The hardest parts, in my opinion, are pushing for standardization of interfaces to keep complexity and cost down, and ever-important though higher-visibility now, security and access control. There are already significant working groups dedicated to these tasks, for example, the goog/nest, ARM, samsung, et.al. in the Thread group. But there are a ton of different and incompatible ways to do the same thing; ANT+, bluetooth LE, zigbee, and 6lowpan are just the low power ones I can think of off the top of my head. And that's just the physical through network OSI layers, it doesn't begin to address announcement of features (zeroconf, etc.) to each other or standardized interface presentation to the user (????).

So where are the products? Well, Nest gen2 thermostat is IoT-enabled. Fitbit monitors all wirelessly update your stats and profile. Apple's [i]watch and the moto360 smart watch are both network-aware. Even companies outside of the consumer electronics sphere are getting invested, like Chevorlet's automotive lte/wifi.

Granted, these aren't the groundbreaking, for-every-person products you're talking about, but the tech infrastructure is coming into its own. Product development takes time and age is only going to make the baseline models cheaper, more capable, more standard, and more prevalent. There's a lot of work to be done yet, but given the number of people and companies invested in IoT consumer electronics industry-wide, it's hard to imagine a world where everyone simply gave up on the tech instead of working out the problems.

Comment: Re:Fuck Me (Score 3, Insightful) 553

by bytestorm (#48815227) Attached to: SystemD Gains New Networking Features

A services manager, actually. It starts and stops services on the system, and if they go down, it optionally restarts them. The fact that many services need to start when the system starts is somewhat incidental to the purpose of systemD.

The task you have described seems like something that could be sanely done outside pid1 without worrying that a defect in its significantly larger-than-average-init codebase could cause the entire system to reboot.

Though I guess some might consider that a feature; at least you know you'll never be running without systemd.

Comment: Re:computer with a phone add-on (Score 0) 170

by bytestorm (#48613515) Attached to: Verizon "End-to-End" Encrypted Calling Includes Law Enforcement Backdoor
Seems like there is some research out there about this sort of thing already, found this in one try: Digital Communication over Speech Compressed Channel (Sverrisson 2008). I think the main problem would be that the baseband processor generally has direct control of the microphone, so you'd have to do some trickery, or use a phone where this simply isn't true.

Comment: Re:Why is he worried (Score 1) 583

by bytestorm (#48242381) Attached to: Elon Musk Warns Against Unleashing Artificial Intelligence "Demon"
Hi, it looks like you're trying to edit a document. Would you like to turn autocorrect on?

Yes | Of course!
------
(X_X) Sorry, the application Life Support has ended abnormally! Dicarbon Monoxide synthesis failed.

Ignore | Retry | Fail
------
(X_X) Sorry, the application Send Error Report has ended abnormally! Could not connect to report server.

Ignore | Retry | Fail
------
Feb 28 05:05:08 lifesupport.mars kernel: Fatal trap 12: clippy runtime error while in kernel mode
Feb 28 05:05:08 lifesupport.mars kernel: cpuid = 0; apic id = 00
Feb 28 05:05:08 lifesupport.mars kernel: panic: user error, replace user, then press any key.

Comment: Re:Ob (Score 1) 229

by bytestorm (#48148021) Attached to: The Subtle Developer Exodus From the Mac App Store
It can't unless it is sold in volume. Quality software takes time (read: money) to write, support, and bugfix. If you want anything with a limited market segment, by its very nature it has to be expensive to be of reasonable (and useful) quality or you are relying on the generosity of a not-for-profit software development organization.

Comment: Re:forgettiing (Score 1) 554

But such a constraint makes the comparison apples to apples. To further stretch the illusion of comparability consider an i7-4700MQ or similar. Same market segment (you find them in MS Surface Pros, that's a tablet, right?) but without the power constraint, at 45W that thing blows away pretty much any chip in either ARM or Atom lines. i7, atom, and arm are all different optimizations of price, performance, power. From what I gather, in the mobile segment, performance/power is pretty much king.

Comment: Cheap, old, high density dell stuff. (Score 1) 287

by bytestorm (#47944567) Attached to: Slashdot Asks: What's In Your Home Datacenter?
Racked at the house...
Dell C6100, 4x { 2x L5639, 32GB ram }
Dell C1100, 2x L5639, 48GB ram
Dell Powerconnect 5324 with a permanent fan error because I unplugged it, the noisy bastard.
Ubiquiti ERL-3

Maybe half full of SATAs, most of which are spun down. Further sliced into VMs because I like to play around with KVM/ESXi. Mostly used for ADC, media serving, local backup, test build environments, autodeployment script tests, etc. It'll draw 6-8A @110V easy with everything spinning max load, but it usually idles around 1.2-2A as I only wake 3 of the C6100 sleds on-demand. Config exactly mirrors my colo, which pays for both, but is not my job.

Workstation's notable components are the G530, GTX460, a cheap-as-it-comes asus MB, and 3x displays.
Half a dozen or so ARM SBCs (rpi, udoo, beaglexM, etc) doing menial things like RTP audio endpoints, ethernet-attached GPIO, openelec.

Comment: Re:Here come the Samsung fanboys... (Score 1) 110

by bytestorm (#47834767) Attached to: NVIDIA Sues Qualcomm and Samsung Seeking To Ban Import of Samsung Phones
That sounds amazingly convoluted and backward, but I don't doubt that's how it works.

However, if Qualcomm sells Samsung a part without licenses and separately licenses/sells/supports the driver software without licenses (I am dangerously assuming Samsung didn't write their own), conditionally saying the driver cannot be used with the part because that would be in violation of the patent, then Samsung uses them together and distributes it, why would not Qualcomm go to town on Samsung in the spirit of cover-your-ass? They'd have to be in collusion to commit patent fraud. But if Qualcomm licensed the driver to Samsung for use with the part, the two together seem like patent exhaustion would have to apply, unless, like you said, Samsung assumed responsibility for paying Qualcomm's patent royalties and fees. Samsung wouldn't be using the patent directly, Samsung would be using a part that uses the patent.

I guess fundamentally I am misapprehending how you can somehow sell a product or combination of products as fit for purpose that are covered by patents and yet not assume patent license liability. Thanks for your insight on how this whole thing works.

Comment: Re:Here come the Samsung fanboys... (Score 1) 110

by bytestorm (#47834711) Attached to: NVIDIA Sues Qualcomm and Samsung Seeking To Ban Import of Samsung Phones
Ok, I think I now see where you are coming from here, as well as AC below you. Since Qualcomm didn't have a license, Samsung couldn't have triggered patent exhaustion because Qualcomm never had a license to exhaust. It's then open to court interpretation whether or not Samsung should be liable for use of the patent.

The difference between this case and Quanta v. LG (2008) is that Qualcomm didn't have a patent license to sell their part. Even if Samsung is not practicing the patent itself, they might still be liable. This is then the part that confuses me: if Qualcomm acquires a license for historical sales, wouldn't Samsung again be protected from infringement?

Thank you all for straightening out my confusion.

Comment: Re:Last Gasp of a Dying Man (Score 1) 110

by bytestorm (#47833951) Attached to: NVIDIA Sues Qualcomm and Samsung Seeking To Ban Import of Samsung Phones
Just curious, has anyone done a gpu power/performance comparison of Imagination Technology's powervr and Nvidia's tegra platforms recently? I don't know that they would clean up by licensing their IP out; it seems to me Nvidia stuff has always been more performance focused than power conscious which is something that is extremely hard to sell in the mobile segment.

Comment: Re:Here come the Samsung fanboys... (Score 3, Informative) 110

by bytestorm (#47833867) Attached to: NVIDIA Sues Qualcomm and Samsung Seeking To Ban Import of Samsung Phones
I am not a lawyer, but I find it hard to believe Samsung is violating any of Nvidia's patents directly by using Qualcomm's Snapdragon 801 and 805 in a product. They received the part and associated driver software from QCOM as a final product and all components and features therein are protected from patent violations. Just like you can't be sued for violating Nvidia's patents by using an AMD GPU which has Nvidia-patented features in your PC, Samsung is protected by purchasing the part from QCOM. Nvidia could block further sales of the Snapdragon CPU to Samsung, but not sales of derived products; even though to to the end consumer it amounts to the same thing. So unless Samsung is violating their agreement with QCOM by enabling features they didn't license from QCOM, NV can't touch them here.

Similar deal with Exynos (Samsung's SOC) since it licenses the IP involved directly from ARM and Imagination Technologies (Mali and PowerVR GPUs respectively). Unless Samsung's legal team is collectively idiots and/or assholes, they should be protected by their upstream licensing agreements.

Then again, NV is never going to sue ARM because they would be in a seriously shitty position to renew *their* ARM licenses (if ARM didn't just terminate them on the spot) and then ARM would laugh all the way to the bank about who isn't shipping products.

Based on that, it's my opinion that Samsung shouldn't be involved in this lawsuit and Nvidia just pulled them in because that's where the money is.

It's not an optical illusion, it just looks like one. -- Phil White

Working...