Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:The good news (Score 1) 689

by hhawk (#48221447) Attached to: FTDI Reportedly Bricking Devices Using Competitors' Chips.

Kester1964, you are being silly.. and I do like humor including your humor..

I am sure you think I'm being flippant with my "terroristic remark" but given that IANAL, my reading of the law says to me, that it is clear that FTDI is being terroristic. That may not have been the intent of the law.. but I believe it applies.

Let's start with 18 U.S. Code 2332b [cornell.edu] - (B) Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries which states, "creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to any other person by destroying or damaging any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property within the United States or by attempting or conspiring to destroy or damage any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property within the United States;"

And the penalty --> "(E) for destroying or damaging any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property, by imprisonment for not more than 25 years;"

Comment: Re:The good news (Score 1) 689

by hhawk (#48221391) Attached to: FTDI Reportedly Bricking Devices Using Competitors' Chips.

Dahamma,

I appreciate the very thoughtful response.. I understand (and agree) conceptually that the user is buying a counterfeit good(s); but in practical terms, in real terms the users isn't. They are buying a computer, or board, etc.; if they checked to see if it was legit (the chips within) it would appear to be legit (yes perhaps the definition of counterfeit).

You are implying that this only happens to people with "bad/cheap" brands.. ZD is reporting, "The chip is extremely common on a wide variety of devices and there is no way of knowing at this time which devices have cloned chips -- and the tainted supply chain could hit anyone."

I'm clearly saying that FTDI's wanton destruction of private and government property is terroristic in nature and that it will effect major users, home users, etc. Unlike many "debates" on the Internet, we will soon know which of us is right (or wrong) or in which ways we are right and wrong.. as I suspect the reporting on this will only continue to increase. We also also see if FTDI un-does their "silent" upgrade.

I'm also saying there isn't any valid legal reason for them to have taken this course of action; if they are taking action it should be with the makers of the devices; their upgrade could have been informational (for example). "Your computer contains counterfeit parts... Please contact us..." It's also not like this was a needed upgrade that by happenstance caused this problem.. it was deliberate, willful and served no urgent nor addressed any exigent circumstances.

Comment: Re:The good news (Score 1) 689

by hhawk (#48212433) Attached to: FTDI Reportedly Bricking Devices Using Competitors' Chips.

Dear Dahamma,

I really do appreciate your POV here.. but I think you are clearly mistaking several facts. In general you are implying that a end user knowingly bought a counterfeit item; this is far from the truth.

Let's start with 18 U.S. Code 2332b - (B) Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries
which states, "creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to any other person by destroying or damaging any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property within the United States or by attempting or conspiring to destroy or damage any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property within the United States;"

And the penalty --> "(E) for destroying or damaging any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property, by imprisonment for not more than 25 years;"

Now, with that out of the way, let's talk about your 'mythical user' who buys a counterfeit chip. The last time I bought a 'chip' for a computer was in 1987 for my IBM PC portable.. (not a board, not a device, but an actual 'chip').

#1) we are not talking about "a" user, but rather thousands if not millions or even 10's of millions of users
#2) the end user we are addressing here did NOT buy a chip.. they bought a device (computer, laptop, etc.)
#3) even if these millions of users had the knowledge to inspect the chips within the devices they are buying, a visual inspection would have indicated these are legitimate chips.
#4) this is in no way analogous to counterfeit currency - there are built in counter measures, there are tools for detecting them, and if you have homeowners insurance you may be covered for some or all of the loss (in the US).

The reason I feel this is terroristic is if you consider the following thought experiment. A group creates code that disables millions or 10's of millions of computers, computers used in banking, healthcare, traffic management, emergency management, law enforcement -- as well as general users like businesses and individuals with the potential direct economic loss (of the machine(s) in the 100's of millions of dollars, and the potential for additional loss, including loss of life, limb or other property potential worth even more --- would you call that a terroristic ad? I would.

Now hospitals hopefully don't do Windows upgrades live while a patient is in the room (and hopefully) ditto for the other types of uses -- but if a regularly scheduled update reduces the # of machines available, forcing additional triage -- ultimately some people may have delayed treatment, require transfer to other facilities -- its possible this could have negative impact on a number of people's healthcare delivery. We are talking about machines used before, during and post surgery for example.

The same issues could impact all the others; perhaps trivial to some but students could fail courses or have reduced grades because they were not able to complete assignments "on time, etc."
 

Comment: Not Comcast ;) (Score 1) 418

by hhawk (#47909257) Attached to: Comcast Allegedly Asking Customers to Stop Using Tor

Clearly it was someone from the NSA ;) just trying to help :) --- If you believe comcast..

"Comcast refuted the claims made in Deepdotweb, stating that they had launched an internal review into the discussions reported above:

Customers are free to use their Xfinity Internet service to visit any website or use it however they wish otherwise. Like virtually all ISPs, Comcast has an acceptable use policy or AUP that outlines appropriate and inappropriate uses of the service. Comcast doesn’t monitor users’ browser software or web surfing and has no program addressing the Tor browser. he anecdotal chat room evidence provided is not consistent with our agents’ messages and is not accurate. Per our own internal review, we have found no evidence that these conversations took place, nor do we employ a Security Assurance team member named Kelly. Tor’s own FAQs clearly state: 'File sharing (peer-to-peer/P2P) is widely unwanted on Tor' and 'BitTorrent is NOT anonymous' on Tor.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com..."

Comment: Next Gen is always bettewr (Score 1) 550

by hhawk (#47525209) Attached to: Laser Eye Surgery, Revisited 10 Years Later

The issue is that eye surgery is complex. The tech manages the complexity but on some level it weakens the lens, Etc.

A eye surgeon friend/relation suggested that the "next" version of the technology is always better.. and in the past once you had had the surgery you were precluded from the newest revision. That may have changed. His advice was not to get the surgery unless you need it medically or understand that you maybe limiting your ability to get the surgery later in your life when you might need it.

 

+ - Turing tests passed.. ->

Submitted by hhawk
hhawk (26580) writes "The UK newspaper, The Independent, reports that a chat bot passed "the" Turing test by fooling people it was a 13 yo boy. A (slow) link to the bot is here. The article notes Turing himself said, "a computer could be understood to be thinking if it passed the test, which requires that a computer dupes 30 per cent of human interrogators in five-minute text conversations." The Independent article can be found here

When a bot can pass as Christopher Hitchens I'd be even more impressed."

Link to Original Source

Comment: Problem Solved (Score 4, Interesting) 90

by hhawk (#47182247) Attached to: Xanadu Software Released After 54 Years In the Making

There is a problem that Xanadu really solves which is when you want to cite someone else's text verbatim... its a direct and visual link back to the source.. so it's clear whose words are being used, where they come from and there is an easy Color coded and visual LINK to see them in full context.. HMTL named hyperlinks can accomplish much of the same however... the interface for Xanadu is much more fluid...

i would enjoy writing with Xanadu...

Comment: Re:what the FEC... (Score 1) 129

I would say FEC to is correct the current bit state, while this method RLNC is to correct a past or future packet.. I am totally suggesting is with fast enough processing power the protocol would assume every packet is missing and have recovered packets "ready to go" if one is missing...

Comment: My Use (Score 1) 143

by hhawk (#46939851) Attached to: Google Announces "Classroom"

I use Blackboard (9.1) and do like it. I also use Google Docs with my students (I use it for virtual office hours), so we can review papers together (while talking on the phone, make mutual edits, Etc.). One issue I have with Blackboard is there isn't a great way to hand in assignments; I do it in a discussion forum. I'm really eager to see what Google comes up with.

That said, given Google's track record, I'm really concerned that this system might not last long. I can't imagine what would happen if/when it goes away in the middle of a term; I wonder if Google is willing to guarantee Classroom for X # of years.

FYI I am an Adj. Instructor at a College in NYC. I also provide commentary about Technology in Higher Education for the FIR Higher Ed Podcast (http://forimmediaterelease.biz/index.php?/weblog/C20).

All constants are variables.

Working...