Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: What is wrong with SCTP and DCCP? (Score 4, Interesting) 62

by jd (#49503031) Attached to: Google To Propose QUIC As IETF Standard

These are well-established, well-tested, well-designed protocols with no suspect commercial interests involved. QUIC solves nothing that hasn't already been solved.

If pseudo-open proprietary standards are de-rigour, then adopt the Scheduled Transfer Protocol and Delay Tolerant Protocol. Hell, bring back TUBA, SKIP and any other obscure protocol nobody is likely to use. It's not like anyone cares any more.

Comment: Re:So much for long distance Listening (Score 1) 207

by hjf (#49503005) Attached to: Norway Will Switch Off FM Radio In 2017

bullshit. I'm sure it's possible to create a modulation and encoding system that can "partially recover" a stream. if you have good signal, you get "HD quality", but with lower rates you start degrading. Unrelated, but like Wi-Fi does. 300mbit on clear view of the AP, down to 1mbit if you're unlucky.

Another thing about digital is spectral efficiency: how many bits per unit of transmission you can send. For TV with ISDB-T you can send 3 SD channels in the same space as ONE analog channel. This means, in the case of digital radio, you could use really redundant transmission. Maybe FEC with 3x the data. (FEC TLDR: it converts N packets to N + M, you only need to recover any N of those (N+M) packets, in any order, to fully recover your original data).

If you go into HAM land, they have all sorts of modulation schemes. Olivia MFSK for example, is able to receive data 10dB UNDER THE NOISE FLOOR. Olivia is able to recover information so degraded your ears can't even tell it's there. To you, it's all static.

I don't know how DAB works, but considering it was developed in the early 90s, it probably sucks. It doesn't mean "all digital sucks".

Oh and btw: ISDB-T, for example, is able to give you an excellent HD image in a situation where you'd be getting a blurry, noisy, ghosty image if you were to use analog.

Comment: Re: Must hackers be such dicks about this? (Score 1) 261

by jd (#49500235) Attached to: FBI Accuses Researcher of Hacking Plane, Seizes Equipment

He claimed he could hack the plane. This was bad and the FBI had every right to determine his motives, his actual capabilities and his actions.

The FBI fraudulently claimed they had evidence a crime had already taken place. We know it's fraudulent because if they did have evidence, the guy would be being questioned whilst swinging upside down over a snake pit. Hey, the CIA and Chicago have Black Sites, the FBI is unlikely to want to miss out. Anyways, they took his laptop, not him, which means they lied and attempted to pervert the course of justice. That's bad, unprofessional and far, far more dangerous. The researcher could have killed himself and everyone else on his plane. The FBI, by using corrupt practices, endanger every aircraft.

Comment: Re: Must hackers be such dicks about this? (Score 1) 261

by jd (#49500221) Attached to: FBI Accuses Researcher of Hacking Plane, Seizes Equipment

Did the FBI have the evidence that he had actually hacked a previous leg of the flight, or did they not?

If they did not, if they knowingly programmed a suspect with false information, they are guilty of attempted witness tampering through false memory syndrome. Lots of work on this, you can program anyone to believe they've done anything even if the evidence is right in front of them that nothing was done at all. Strong minds make no difference, in fact they're apparently easier to break.

Falsifying the record is self-evidently failure of restraint.

I have little sympathy for the researcher, this kind of response has been commonplace since 2001, slow-learners have no business doing science or engineering. They weren't exactly infrequent before then.

Nor have I any sympathy for the airlines. It isn't hard to build a secure network where the security augments function rather than simply taking up overhead. The same is true of insecure car networks. The manufacturers of computerized vehicles should be given a sensible deadline (say, next week Tuesday) to have fully tested and certified patches installed on all vulnerable vehicles.

Failure should result in fines of ((10 x vehicle worth) + (average number of occupants x average fine for unlawful death)) x number of vehicles in service. At 15% annual rate of interest for every year the manufacturer delays.

Comment: Re:No they can't ignore consumer protections (Score 1) 245

by hjf (#49482087) Attached to: EU To Hit Google With Antitrust Charges

Did I say "we're poor because US and EU oppress us"? No, I did not.

I didn't say we were any good. I stated something else: Argentina is never in a fair trade field. That has nothing to do with corruption. Even if Argentina straightened itself, the US and EU would still find some technicality of why they can't buy our goods or services.

Comment: Re:Consumers are not going to notice much differen (Score 1) 72

by hjf (#49479841) Attached to: Samsung SSD On a Tiny M.2 Stick Is Capable of Read Speeds Over 2GB/sec

There are plenty of people working with 4K video nowadays. Even "just" HD video. A lot of folks move a LOT of data with "just their laptop". It's a trend. "Specialized workstations" we only know because we're here, but the truth is, most people just don't want a PC anymore.

Want a shocker? A LOT of people are just not replacing their broken PC anymore. They're happy with what their phone or tablet can do. And if they do get a PC, it's almost always a laptop.

Only gamers care for "big rigs" nowadays.

Comment: Re:What? Why discriminate? (Score 1) 698

by GameboyRMH (#49478727) Attached to: 'We the People' Petition To Revoke Scientology's Tax Exempt Status

Scientology has Xenu the space-devil, and the alien ghosts that implant themselves in everyone's bodies...

However, I still think their tax-exempt religious status should be revoked. It was originally rejected for legitimate legal reasons and was only conceded to them because of bullying (via lawsuit-DDoS).

Worryingly, I've noticed more mainstream religions are copying some of Scientology's business methods. "Prosperity gospel" basically copies the way they make massive real-estate investments and buy lavish luxuries for top officials using donations from followers. Some Christian boarding schools basically operate like Sea Org on land. I don't think the time is far off when tax exempt status for all religions will have to be revoked to clamp down on these abuses. Scientology has let the genie out of the bottle.

Comment: Re:People are tribal even when they don't realize (Score 1) 245

by hjf (#49478391) Attached to: EU To Hit Google With Antitrust Charges

You can enter www.yahoo.com any time and use yahoo instead of google. For a while now. Since Yahoo Search used to be powered by Google.
But anyway. You could also download and install ANY OTHER BROWSER, even using IE. Microsoft DID NOT force you to use IE to browse the web.
And Google is in a dominant position, and, while it doesn't force anyone to use their products or services, they showcase them in a very special way. Go to www.google.com. Do you see any ads? YES, ONE: An ad for CHROME, which, guess what? Is the dominant browser now. Fine. Let's say I'm the Mozilla Foundation: google, how much would it cost to put the Firefox ad in google's home? Google: "we don't sell ads for the google home".

THAT, my friend, is abusing a position of power.

Comment: Re:No they can't ignore consumer protections (Score 1) 245

by hjf (#49478201) Attached to: EU To Hit Google With Antitrust Charges

First you claim the EU wants to be competitive, then you say it wants to be self sufficient and basically "block everyone out".

Yes. I know this. I live in Argentina, and we're constantly being hostigated by EU and USA. Americans want "free trade agreements" (where they reserve to refuse products from us selectively), and EU demands we "allow importing of their products" (while agreeing they won't be doing the same in return). At least the EU is a bit more honest about it.

I don't mind countries (or "economic zones") protecting their industries and jobs. I just hate being sanctioned for doing the same (Argentina constantly gets sued, even for subsidizing things. And of course, the courts are in the USA or EU, so we get no chance of winning. When we sue back, our disputes are ignored)

You can't call yourself "competitive" if you rely on a closed, subsidized market.

Comment: Re:This sh*t again? (Score 2) 245

by hjf (#49478107) Attached to: EU To Hit Google With Antitrust Charges

And yet, we didn't learn a single thing about the IE "incident". Chrome is the "dominant" browser now, and many websites are designing around chrome ("ugh, no one uses that SlowFox anymore!").

I had a security camera application (Ubiquiti's AirVision) running fine. It kept nagging me for an update. The update now only works with Chrome. Fuck me, right?

"Oh what wouldn't I give to be spat at in the face..." -- a prisoner in "Life of Brian"

Working...