One more point... this patent pool thing is all bad, in that it keeps out new players, reducing innovation. Also, it does nothing to stop trolls, who have no product to protect. You can't counter-sue a troll, since they don't do anything, making it impossible for them to violate patents. Billions of dollars are being flushed down the toilet in this anti-innovation patent-lawyer shake-down.
Patents back in the 1970s were only slightly broken compared to today. I've met several inventors or their relatives who invented things like milk cartons and every-day items we now take for granted. Up through the 1970s, "inventor" was a potential career path.
That all changed rapidly starting in 1982, when Congress voted to give all patent appeal cases to a single appeals court in Washington DC. This court basically created the patent troll industry. Before 1982, trolls would have been thrown out of court. Since then, this court has become a puppet to the patent troll industry through something called regulatory capture.
I wont go into the evils of software patents here. It is a regular flame topic on slashdot. However, we can blame this appeals court for them. Most recently, I was shocked when they changed long standing precident and declared that APIs are copyrightable, which if upheld, has potential to end software development as we know it.
I have several software patents. We are required to get them for defensive purposes. This is essentially a lawyer's tax on the software industry, with zero benefit to non-lawyers, so far as I can tell.
It sounds like you know a bit about modern DRAM architecture. Data sheets now days are not avalable to the public, so it's hard to figure out basic things, like how much power is burned in the DRAM in a simple loop. Do you have a simple rule of thumb for modern DRAM power loss? If I understand correctly, static power is minimal, but dynamic power can generate several watts of power.
OneRNG is a USB key in the same form factor as a USB flash drive, it's an entropy generator, it makes random bitstreams suitable for feeding to your computer's encryption systems to make better and faster keys to make interception of your communications more difficult. It has two entropy sources, an avalanche diode and an RF noise source, either or both can be used
OneRNG is also open hardware, that means all of the design, both hardware and software, is Open Source — you can inspect the hardware and software to make sure there is nothing hidden that stops it from functioning as promised. It also means that you can inspect a unit after shipping to make sure it has not been tampered with, both by lifting its lid to look at the components, and by inspecting the embedded firmware both to make sure that it contains what you think it does and also that it is cryptographically signed with a valid key.
Because you don't truly own your own hardware unless you can reprogram it we're also offering device programmers for those who want to take the existing software and make it better or their own.
Link to Original Source
AT&T agreed to offer $10 DSL as a condition of merging with Bell South. I tried many times, calling AT&T, Googled a ton, etc. They fucked us. They probably offered the $10 DSL to exactly one rich ass hole. Why should we expect better this time around?
Well, it maybe hard for a machine to visually identify a traffic light, but that's hardly the only way. In the "Internet of Things" vision, traffic lights are one of the first things to be connected to the network for traffic shaping. Hence, autonomous networked cars will be actually aware of not only the closest traffic light, but of all traffic lights in a certain radius. Assuming John Leonard lives another 30 years, I find it hard to believe, that similar functionality won't be implemented by then.
Then again, one could argue that networked traffic lights won't span the globe, and thus autonomous cars will be bounded in certain geographical areas. That was true for a lot of modes of transportation originally though, and eventually it will be minimized.
The thing is that 3G adds complexity and power requirements to support higher speeds. It is designed from the ground up for higher bandwidth. The majority of IoT applications need long battery life and long range communications, not high link speeds. Using 3g for IoT is re-purposing technology engineered for something else: Sure it might work, but it's hardly optimal
Actually the problem with 3G is not the size of the module at all, but the fact that 3G drains the battery very fast, and the costs from the providers are vastly higher compared to other technologies. Sure 3G for Vehicle-to-Vehicle communication might make sense since the yearly cost in a car is far higher than the cost of 3g connection and there's plenty of electricity to go around, but for smart meters? No way. Especially for industrial applications with thousand of devices, the costs rack up pretty fast, especially when you want your IoT-network to last years, not months. There are other technologies out there that are far more suitable for these kind of things (802.15.4 protocols, SIGFOX's network, OnRamp's network etc)
I just want you and the other Slashdotters to know we're taking your suggestions very seriously. Cryptonomy seems to be a leading condender. Thank you for the suggestion!
No, we can't use TrueCrypt in the name. The license terms are clear about that. We're trying not to use True, and we have been told that it would be best not to use Crypt, though I think that's going a bit far.
IronCrypt is a good suggestion. It is fucking squated. God I hate squatters. Worse than lice or ticks.
This is not correct. Each individual file in TrueCrypt has a clear copyright notice at the top. Every file with any E4M license will be replaced from scratch. After that, we'll do the files that have TrueCrypt license, though mainly so we can migrate to a better FOSS license.
Some people post warrat canaries, but I stopped. Our current defense strategy is having developers around the world. Also, we have weekly voice meetings that are hard to fake, and enable us to know we're dealing with the same person each week.
Personally, I've boning up on skills for finding weaknesses in crypto code. I just did a 2-week marathon of being a huge a-hole over at the Password Hashing Competition. Telling people why you think their algorithms are not secure does not make you popular, but I have to admit it was fun. Applying the same sort of analysis to TrueCrypt makes me want to set my hair on fire.
TrueCrypt's saving grace is that it is not an on-line app. Even in the first "rebranding" release, we're removing it's tendency to ping the Internet whenever you click on a help button. If an attacker could hack the volume data, for example, he'd totally pwn TrueCrypt. But... in that case, he already owns you most likely.
I find EncryptAll not bad. The bar here is not that high... just has to be an improvement. The guys on the CipherShed team would kill me for suggesting Pure-Crypt, but I think that's available and also aligns us well with Pure-Privacy, the new foundation promoting online privacy.