Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Lets be honest here (Score 2) 88

by hawguy (#49772377) Attached to: No, Your SSD Won't Quickly Lose Data While Powered Down

Sub question: Would you care if you lost a few blocks of data? Bit rot is a serious concern but the problem is an isolated one. If I lost a single photo on my computer I may be lightly upset, but no where near as upset as losing all the data on my drive.

Like you said, it depends which block.

I could have a corrupt block in the middle of a movie file and not even notice, but if I lost a block near the beginning of a large compressed archive file, I may lose the entire archive -- and if it's silent corruption undetected by the filesystem or disk drive, it may be propagated to all of my backups before it's discovered.

I'd rather have the drive fail entirely versus slow undetected block corruption.

Comment: Re:Lets be honest here (Score 1) 88

by hawguy (#49769141) Attached to: No, Your SSD Won't Quickly Lose Data While Powered Down

What does that tell you?

That either you're exaggerating or you do something very, very wrong with your drives? I use low-end, cheapest of the cheapest consumer-SSDs and for example this 64GB drive I have has logged 9607 hours of power-on time. Has it broken yet? No. Are there any issues with it? Nope, not a single one. I do have to ask you: what exactly do you do with those drives of yours if you manage to break them so fast?

Unless you use a checksumming filesystem (zfs, btrfs, etc) and regularly scrub the filesystem (both data and metadata), would you even know if you lost a few blocks of data?

Comment: Re:Do people really take this risk seriously? (Score 1) 230

by hawguy (#49754829) Attached to: Asteroid Risk Greatly Overestimated By Almost Everyone

I for one have *never* been afraid of asterisks.

It's good to have a healthy fear of asterisks -- there's a big difference between "rm -rf *.tmp" and "rm -rf * .tmp"

Asterisks are nothing compared to slashes. You should try "rm -rf * /", as root, of course.

That hasn't been a problem for quite some time... As long as you didn't do something like "touch ./--no-preserve-root" beforehand, all that will do is remove all of the non-hidden files from your current directory:


[user@test]$ sudo rm -rf * /
rm: it is dangerous to operate recursively on `/'
rm: use --no-preserve-root to override this failsafe

Comment: Re:Love it (Score 1) 153

by hawguy (#49753905) Attached to: The Body Cam Hacker Who Schooled the Police

You would probably get a faster response when you provide dates, badges, etc.

Just a sweeping request of everything is a stupid stunt and of no benefit at all. Unless you really believe he is going to view all six years worth of data from hundreds of officers.

The problem is that not all abuse is reported so you don't always have dates, badges, etc.

If you can make a sweeping request and enlist volunteers (or even computer algorithms) to look for abuse, you may uncover actionable patterns that can be followed up by specific FOIA requests for original footage.

Comment: Re:Love it (Score 5, Informative) 153

by hawguy (#49753069) Attached to: The Body Cam Hacker Who Schooled the Police

And you believe that the blurred copy is the one that is archived and reviewed for security, and future use in court? the only copy? rather than the original footage that could actually be used to prove a particular person is the one who did something? Sorry, that sounds inconsistent.

Why doesn't anyone read the articles any more?

This guy has nothing to do with the original footage -- the originals are still used for court and other police use (internal affairs investigations, etc). This guy's job is to automatically redact videos so they can be released to the public without paying police to sit down and manually review every video.

Comment: Re:Love it (Score 1, Insightful) 153

by hawguy (#49752987) Attached to: The Body Cam Hacker Who Schooled the Police

If not honoring or stalling indefinitely FOIA requests is one extreme, requesting every last bit of recoding is the other.

The law should be amended to require specific and limited dates, specific officers, and that it be pertinent to an official incident.

So a little police oversight through FOIA is fine, but too much oversight is too much, because police need to be able to get away with abuse at least part of the time?

Comment: Re:Love it (Score 4, Informative) 153

by hawguy (#49752979) Attached to: The Body Cam Hacker Who Schooled the Police

No, he is indeed part of the problem.

If a software can automatically redact the footage based on non-trivial criteria, then it can also run all sorts of metadata collection, turning every single policeman into a walking surveillance device. If you see a policeman on the street, then your location will be recorded, tied to your identity and stored forever.

Of course, it's possible that this happens already...

Did you read the article? The software blurs the image (or does edge detection, not sure which they are using) to make it possible to see activities without identifying people. So he basically made it impossible to do any kind of identity detection on the processed footage. There's nothing keeping the police from doing so on the original footage, but this guy isn't responsible.

Comment: Re:Why not just... (Score 1) 382

by hawguy (#49747221) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Best Way To Solve a Unique Networking Issue?

Why are you being belligerent?

Belligerent? Are you sure you know what that word means?

UDP is a subset of TCP/IP.

Maybe it's the word "subset" that you don't understand?

UDP and TCP are completely different protocols, and the only thing they really have in common is that they are (usually) built on IP (the "IP" in TCP/IP and UDP/IP).

Comment: Re:Great News (Score 2) 134

by hawguy (#49744997) Attached to: Pre-Orders Start For Neo900 Open Source Phone

I think if they deliver on the promise, this will change the way people view their mobile devices. Motherboard replacements and case replacements will gain traction just like in the assemble your own PC era.

It will have quite a hard doing what you claim when only a fraction of a fraction of 1% of phone buyers will ever hear of its existence.

It looks too big and clunky to take significant market share -- replaceable components mean larger size and less integrated "fit and finish". There may be a niche market for something like this, but it seems unlikely to reach the mainstream -- I'd rather pay $400 every few years for a brand new phone that's (relatively) small and compact and works reliably with a warranty than spend $200 every year or two to upgrade components and then am on my own with making sure those components work well together. "If I replace the LCD with the new one, will my GPU still work? If I upgrade the GPU, do I need a new motherboard? I'd like a new 802.11ac wifi module, but it's not compatible with my GSM module"

Comment: Re:What an absolute waste of resources and money (Score 1) 134

by hawguy (#49744875) Attached to: Pre-Orders Start For Neo900 Open Source Phone

What an absolute waste of resources and money.

Do you consider everything that you don't want to be a waste of resources and money? Does the existence of this project deprive you of something that *you* need? Do you assume that the developers would work on your pet project if they weren't working on this? Do you think that the money that people are investing in this would somehow benefit you if it weren't spent on this project?

Comment: Re:Why not just... (Score 1) 382

by hawguy (#49744683) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Best Way To Solve a Unique Networking Issue?

TCP/IP is a suite of protocols that includes UDP. http://www.protocols.com/pbook...

UDP isn't TCP, but UDP is one of the many protocols in the TCP/IP suite.

Ok, if you're going to make up some ephemoral "TCP/IP Suite" that includes 6 of the 7 OSI layers, then sure, TCP and UDP fall into that group.

But the point remains that UDP is not part of TCP, they are completely independent.

Overflow on /dev/null, please empty the bit bucket.

Working...