Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:What is wrong with SCTP and DCCP? (Score 5, Interesting) 84

by epiphani (#49503599) Attached to: Google To Propose QUIC As IETF Standard

I have yet to hear a coherent architectural justification for QUIC that makes sense... The reason Google pushes it is entirely *POLITICAL* this is the path of least resistance granting them full access to the TCP stack and congestion algorithms without having to work to build consensus with any other stakeholder.

Many years ago, in an earlier life, I tried to make changes through the IETF to an existing protocol. I was responsible for one of the major IRC servers, and still am though IRC is effectively in maintenance only. IRC is a shit protocol - really, embarrassingly bad. So I set up a conversation - grabbed the developers of all of the major clients and servers, and got us all on a mailing list to try to do something about it. We ALL knew it was bad, and we all knew it needed serious overhaul - if not a complete scrapping. We'd even fantasized about a non-tcp multipathing protocol that would be more appropriate for IRC. But like hell that was gonna happen.

This was a group of people that, for the most part, didn't make money from IRC. It was a hobby. We had no corporate agendas, no major impacts to our livelihoods, and the only constraint to implementation was our own time. In the six months we spent, we managed to publish one draft to the IETF. It expired and we effectively gave up. Building consensus is hard, time consuming, and quite honestly not worth the effort when you're talking about this kind of thing.

Google is in a position to just do it, and honestly, I'm fine with that. Otherwise everyone would pop up with an opinion, and nobody would get anywhere. That's why we haven't seen anything come up to rival TCP, even though TCP is pretty bad for a lot of applications.

The only point at which I'd have a problem is if their QUIC protocol isn't completely open and free, and totally unencumbered by intellectual property constraints (patents, etc). Otherwise, go for it - and give me a protocol api/sdk in C so I can give it a shot.

Comment: Re:What I want to know is... (Score 4, Informative) 136

by GumphMaster (#49427721) Attached to: Australian ISPs Must Hand Over Pirates' Info

The Voltage Pictures VP of Royalties was interviewed on the radio as I drove home today. He said that Voltage is doing this because a small producer they cannot cannot cross-subsidise from other parts of the business to cover the losses due to infringing copies of their movies (His argument was clearly based on the assumption that every infringing copy is a lost sale). The big players can afford to do this and see the negative press as more costly than the potential increase in revenue. He refused to be drawn on what they would be demanding from the alleged infringers. There were also some poor choices of words, assumption of guilt, and sense that they are the law.

Read ( or listen ( to the show.

Comment: Re:Just a Moment... (Score 4, Interesting) 136

by GumphMaster (#49427205) Attached to: Australian ISPs Must Hand Over Pirates' Info

I am sure that the plaintiff in this case would dearly love to engage in "speculative invoicing" and to do that they need somewhere to send a legal threat with a nice "make it go away for only $2000" clause. The judge has at least considered this, so the plaintiff must pass any correspondence destined for the parties revealed here through the court. That should at least control the extraction of money by threat of legal action with no intent to proceed to actual litigation. My guess is that the plaintiff will try to ID one or two endpoints that look like a business/individual with reasonable sized pockets and try to set a precedent with them.

This decision, and the recent data retention law that ensures these records exist for fishing expeditions, have essentially ensured that VPN providers will do well out of Aussies.

Comment: Re:Huh? (Score 1) 124

by GumphMaster (#49351849) Attached to: Australia Passes Mandatory Data Retention Law
No you are not reading that wrong. Journalists sources have (had) protection in courts under the Evidence Act for a long time, and the definition of journalist was quite broad. The early versions of this bill subverted that protection completely, but a watered down protection of journalists sources was added to secure the major opposition party's support. They deliberately narrowed the scope of "Journalist" to limit the number of warrants that might need to be sought.

Comment: Re:Hack for a shitty law (Score 5, Informative) 124

by GumphMaster (#49350451) Attached to: Australia Passes Mandatory Data Retention Law

The law tightens the definition of "Journalist" over that in the existing Evidence Act so that this is impractical.

Evidence Act

Journalist means a person who is engaged and active in the publication of news and who may be given information by an informant in the expectation that the information may be published in a news medium.

This law:

(i) a person who is working in a professional capacity as a journalist; or (ii) an employer of such a person;

If you are not being paid to be a journalist or paying someone to be a journalist then you are not a journalist, and warrants are not required, under this law. A subtle and deliberate difference.

Comment: Re:What difference does it make (Score 4, Interesting) 124

by GumphMaster (#49350383) Attached to: Australia Passes Mandatory Data Retention Law

Making the ISP keep it too:

  1. Makes it reliably available for litigation by big media over copyright infringement and removes the ability of ISP to defend customer privacy with inconvenient legal actions or by simply not holding the information. Hosting privacy protecting proxy/VPN services has essentially be outlawed on Australian soil... or will be as the holes in this legislation become evident and the scope creep continues.
  2. Makes it reliably available for abuse by political parties: want to know who leaked the embarrassing x? Simple warrantless search with no oversight.

Comment: Re:Fake, not practical (Score 1) 40

by epiphani (#49316901) Attached to: Magic Leap's AR Demo Video

Actually, I can believe it. It's a demo, probably very carefully planned - but I can believe the tech.

First, the practical applications of the interface are not the primary concern. Granted, waving your arms around isn't a good interface - but that's not the point. The point is the overlay - positionally aligning 3D objects in the field of view. Having a way to interact with them is also useful, but not in a day to day sense. Keyboards and mice will still win for the standard type of interactions.

Example: if you're walking in the airport on the way to your flight, with handy personalized directions floating in three dimensions guiding you along the way and you get a phone call and choose to ignore it? A quick wave in front of your face to clear the notification is nonintrusive and simple - and you don't look like a putz doing it.

Think about what Oculus is capable of. Then add in infrared mapping a la kinect or a similar technology. And make the overlay transparent, rather than a straight LCD.

Also, that gun was sitting on the desk the entire time. It's a prop, and the system recognizes it. I'd bet it's also an input method, with a trigger if not other inputs.

Comment: Re:Bullshit (Score 4, Interesting) 221

by epiphani (#47958311) Attached to: Secret Service Critics Pounce After White House Breach

Yup. Here's the key part of the comments:

Secret Service is not protecting the White House with adequate agents and uniformed officers and is not keeping up to date with the latest devices for detecting intruders and weapons of mass destruction

In other words, buy more stuff for more security theater. This is probably the same guy who thinks the TSA actually provides security.

Comment: Re:Anthropometrics (Score 4, Informative) 819

by epiphani (#47845577) Attached to: 3 Recent Flights Make Unscheduled Landings, After Disputes Over Knee Room

The problem is twofold. I travel a huge amount for work, and I am required to select the cheapest available option (within a window). The only thing that saves me from spending 10+ hours a week in huge amounts of discomfort due to the amount of space is my frequent flier status.. Those extra 5" of legroom are luxury when you travel as much as I do.

Computer Science is the only discipline in which we view adding a new wing to a building as being maintenance -- Jim Horning