Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Probably depends on the chipset (Score 1) 98

The "Intel Active Management" (a governor that runs on a secondary CPU independent of the primary one, with cryptographically signed firmware and autonomous access to LAN, WiFi, Memory etc) is also quite disconcerting, but in fact only inclued on certain chipsets (see the tables for Broadwell and Skylake). Unless you are a large institution you probably don't want remote management capabilities.

It's hard to find which chipsets will feature this DSP but quite possibly some won't. Pay attention when you buy your motherboard and all will be well.

Comment They have their rights, can we have ours back? (Score 2) 378

Certainly Xerox can manufacture whatever products they like. We have the right not to buy them (and, say, buy from the competition). Two remarks anyway:

1. Doing this in secret is underhanded, and they should be upfront, Despite the negative reaction by some members of the public ("it's unfair that I'm paying more than X"), there is nothing wrong with a company trying for market segmentation. They should tell the complainers to grow up

2. Everyone should own whatever they own. So, if I own a printer or a toner cartridge, I should have the right to modify and reprogram them however I like (say, to report a different zone or to ignore zonal coding). Courts have rebuffed Xerox and Lexmark as they attempted to use the DMCA to protect their business strategies, but the DMCA (US), Bill C-11 (Canada) and their worldwide clones still apply to DVD-players, for example. That should stop.

Comment Access to research data (Score 1) 120

I actually think you should start with the ownership.

I believe that, like the research results themselves, all the underlying data of publicly funded research belong to the general public. The researchers must have a right to keep their data secret for a while so they get first dibs to produce results from it, but eventually everybody else should get to try their hand at the data.

Several different agents should work on this. The granting agencies should insist all research data is properly curated and hosted for posterity – as a benefit to the public who paid. This should include the raw data, intermediate products like scripts and code, and the final processed data. The journals should insist on the same thing, this time for the benefit of science (allowing others to verify the results). In all cases there should be an appropriate embargo period, depending on the field.

By the way, I think of your code as falling under "research results" (you developed a method of handling the data) more than "research data".

Comment Grants to Researchers vs Institutions (Score 5, Interesting) 120

The issue is a general one with research. Who owns the research project and the grants – the institution (UCSD) or the researchers (Prof. Aisen and his team). [disclosure: I'm a university professor myself]

To me it seems clear that Prof. Aisen's research is his, and if he moves universities he takes his project with him (especially the data). It's true that formally the university administers the grant (the granting agency write them a check, equipment bought with the money is university property etc). But the project itself is an intangible concept, which runs with the people and not with the university.

Since grants are formally made to institutions, of course approval of the granting agency is needed to move the grant, but this should generally be routine. It's not like USC lacks the ability to administer this research. In particular, I'm quite troubled by the idea that "the original grantee institution [may] not wish to relinquish the grant". Grant-making decisions are primarily based on scientific criteria -- the potential contributions of the researchers -- not on the identity of their home institution, so this rule seems preposterous to me. "UCSD wants to resume its management of the study" -- but I doubt anyone from UCSD other than the research team actually managed the study – by definition the PIs manage the study. UCSD provided administrative services (financial oversight, for example) and facilities (for which the grant is charged overhead), but this is not a unique contribution of UCSD.

Some grants are political (Congressional earmarks) and then it may make sense not to move them if the researcher moves, but NIH grants shouldn't work like that (and in any case these earmarks are illegitimate).

Comment Re:"Scientific concensus" (Score 1) 295

It could, of course, be that they reviewed the benefits and risks and drew their own conclusions which sometimes match the consensus and sometimes don't.

That's exactly what they're doing. But this shows that they don't really believe that scientific consensus is by itself a reason to select a course of action.

Comment "Scientific concensus" (Score 3, Insightful) 295

I'm always amused by the way science is suborned to political expediency.

Some people strongly tout the consensus regarding global warming/climate change. They commonly disparage and dismiss those who don't fully subscribe as politically-motivated ignoramuses who are anti-science. The doubters view themselves simply as more cautious, unwilling to risk large costs when it is not clear that science can clearly predict there will be benefits.

Other people strongly tout the consensus regarding the safety of GM foods. The opposition claims to be simply cautious, unwilling to risk any unknown dangers of these foods despite the enormous benefits they could provide.

Interestingly enough, very often it's the same people who support massive reductions in CO2 emissions based on a scientific consensus and despite the economic costs and the uncertain climate benefits, and yet would prefer to avoid the benefits of GM foods due to fear of unknown bad results, despite the scientific consensus.

Comment Re:Obsolete crypto shows problem of software paten (Score 2) 93

So what's your stance on RSA, one of the early software patents, which is still used everywhere?

I didn't try to articulate every problem with software patents, merely those illustrated by the just-overturned patent covering SSL using RC4. Note that RC4 itself is about 30 years old, and was developed by RSA security.

In any case, regarding the RSA cryptosystem itself, it was developed by several academics (independent of its previous, secret, invention GCHQ), and clearly it would have been developed and published even without the extra bonus of patent protection. It's important to remember that patents are a means to an end ("promot[ion] of Progress of Science and useful Arts") -- which is not to make money for inventors but to provide them an incentive to invent for the public good. In other words, a Patent is a way for the public to give up something (the natural possibility of making use of an invention you hear about) in return for a different advantage (getting the invention made in the first place). If inventors would invent even without the extra incentive, there is not need for the incentive.

Since practically all the value of inventiveness in the software business can be captured simply by writing the software (and, in cryptography especially, by ordinary academic incentives such as promotion, tenure and professional recognition), software patents don't help. Instead they hinder.

For a salient example consider the LZW patent. The algorithm was designed by two academics (Lempel and Ziv of the Technion). The main effect of the patent was to end the widespread use of .gif files (the GIF standard specified LZW compression), which dominated the early internet. Rather than knuckle under and pay licensing fees (and end free-software projects like Mozilla), the internet community developed PNG, an equivalent but patent-unencumbered compressed raster image format. Practically the whole internet switched to PNG -- showing that useful technology can be invented without the patent incentive, and that when there is no patent it is much more widely used for everyone's enjoyment.

PS: It is likely that the LZW patent was invalid (patenting an abstract algorithm), but nobody wanted to take the legal risk of going to course to invalidate it. This obnoxious patent has since expired.

Comment Obsolete crypto shows problem of software patents (Score 4, Insightful) 93

It's worth noting that there are known attacks against RC4 (especially SSL using RC4). While these aren't quite practical yet, it is clear that RC4 is obsolete, and that current programmers should choose other stream cyphers (AES). Even supposing the patent was legitimate, the technology it covers has become obsolete well within its lifetime.

This illustrates one of the key reasons software (that is, algorithms) shouldn't be patentable: the field moves so fast that 20-year patent protection isn't useful. Even supposing the authors of software need patent protection to recoup their "investment" in inventing the algorithm, 20-year protection is effectively an infinite term, since by the time the protection ends, the technology is obsolete.

As an aside, note that patenting a protocol (such as RC4) automatically ends its usefulness. Protocols are only useful if the other party to the communication can participate, and interoperability is very important in software. Patents are ill-suited for this. Copyright, on the other hand, works well: the code you write is protected, but anyone else can write their own code to implement the protocol and communicate with you.

Comment Not the CFAA, but possibly the FCC (Score 2) 138

Accessing an open WiFi connection using a repeater would not violate the CFAA -- the connection is open and your device would log on to it. You'd be using it the way it was intended. Of course, The DOJ claims that simply violating terms of service can make you a federal felon, but that's wrong. Read Prof. Orin Kerr's work for more on this

On the other hand, the FCC allows anyone to use the 900MHz band but tightly regulates what can be done there (for example, no "retransmission of .. signals emanating from ... radio station other than an amateur radio station", which likely does make this idea illegal. See 47 CFR Part 97.

Comment Re:Greeks surrender: no restructuring (Score 4, Insightful) 485

I agree with practically everything you say except the last bit.

First, the Greek wages-to-productivity ratio must fall, by a combination of (1) Government-sector wage cuts (already started); (2) productivity increases in the government sector by (a) insisting that government workers actually do their job (b) firing redundant government workers and (c) privatization and (3) wage reduction and productivity increases in the private sector – made possible by freeing labour laws.

However, raising taxes makes the wages-to-productivity ratio worse, because it increases the cost of hiring the worker without a corresponding cost to productivity, or equivalently increases deadweight losses. Instead, wage cuts in the private sector should be achieved by freeing the labour market (which is currently among the most restricted in Europe). In fact, workers need to be compensated for the wage cuts by tax cuts.

As an aside, tax cuts would also increase compliance, which is the key problem with the Tax system (far more important than the rates).

Regarding the source of problems, clearly they all stem from the behaviour of Greece (both the country and its people) and not of the creditors. Greece cooked its books before joining the Eurozone, and the Greek voters had ample opportunity to vote for free-market, better-government and smaller-government reforms in the years since.

That said, the original creditors (eurozone banks) who lend to Greece until 2010 knew all this full well and decided to extend the credit anyway. The earned the interest rates they demanded, and should now have to eat the losses when, following the crisis and resulting economic contraction, Greece can't pay back. These banks may have had to suffer, but lending to sovereigns carries default risk (just like lending to private entities carries bankruptcy risk).

What you are ignoring, however, is that the people of Europe were not creditors before their governments decided to take on the debt in 2010 (giving the banks a 50% haircut). Since the governments of Europe voluntarily decided to make public what previously was debt to private entities, they shouldn't now be able to turn around and claim that the taxpayers of Europe will suffer unfairly if the debt isn't paid. If the taxpayers were concerned about non-payments and didn't want to go into the debt vulture hedge-fund business they could have left the bad loans with the banks who made them originally.

I personally thing that. beyond being against the EU treaties, the bailouts of Greece, Spain and Italy were also ill-conceived and morally wrong. But having gone into the sovereign loans business the EU can't complain about facing default risk.

Comment Credibility is key (Score 5, Interesting) 485

Indeed, whether Syriza would implement the reforms is the most important question. Varoufakis was very vocal about the need for the reforms, but he has been forced out (by the EU !). The left-left wing of Syriza is opposed. It's not clear what the majority would do, and like you I would have preferred to see some reforms passed in February and March while the negotiations were ongoing.

However, some of the reforms Germany is asking for (higher taxes, pension cuts) cause me to doubt their bona fides here. The main problem is taxes in Greece is non-payment and the informal economy. Raising taxes is likely to exacerbate this problem by increasing the motivation to evade the higher taxes. Lowering taxes and simplifying the tax system is far more likely to raise more revenue.

Similarly, the main problem with government pensions is early retirement. The solution should therefore be to raise the retirement age for those currently working, which in the long term resolve the problems without creating short-term pain. The German solution (cut pensions now) means asking current pensioners who have no prospect of other sources of income and cannot choose to go back to the jobs they retired from to help repay the national debt.

Comment Think of bankruptcy (Score 1) 485

Imagine you're a corporation (which in a lot of ways governments are kind of like). Now, imagine you get a new CEO who wants to get out of existing contracts because he didn't contract for them and doesn't want to pay them. Too damned bad. You don't get to go "waaah, we can't afford this so we want a do-over".

In fact, corporations get exactly that when the file for bankruptcy. a procedure designed exactly to restructure their debt. It's true that sometimes this means the company is liquidated entirely, with the assets used to pay the creditors, but often what results is a bankruptcy plan in which (1) the company is reformed (2) the debt is cut to something manageable in order to keep the company going.

Here's an alternate explanation: If Germany starts forgiving debts for everybody, then the Germans are paying for someone else's prosperity, and asking Germans to pay for that is like a mugging, but on a large scale and in slow motion. That would be completely irresponsible to German taxpayers who work hard and don't get to retire early.

Recall that Germany didn't make the original loans at all. The original loans were made by private banks (many of them German). So if Greece had defaulted in 2008 or 2010, the citizens of Germany would have not been on the hook for anything. But in 2010 the government of Germany decided to act like a predatory debt hedge fund: by forcing the first bailout on Greece, they effectively bought the debt from the banks, probably on the idea that they could force Greece to pay better than the banks. Once Germany took over the loans (which it didn't have to), it took over the risk Greece would default. German workers have only their government to blame for taking over the debt -- not the Greek workers or the current government of Greece, neither of which who had any say in the original loans.

Second, it is agreed by the Greek government (at least, it was repeatedly stated by Varoufakis before he was forced out) that Greece needed serious reforms, including raising the retirement age. For Varoufakis the point of an additional loan would have been to bridge Greece while the reforms took effect, noting that they have already achieved a primary surplus. But cutting existing pensions to pay back the government of Germany makes no sense. Basically, German bankers made bad loans, German taxpayers decided to save the bankers, and now Greek pensioners are being asked to help the much wealthier German taxpayers recover money on a bad loan gamble.

Comment Re:Greeks surrender: no restructuring (Score 5, Insightful) 485

What was the Greek government thinking? that the EU will just give more money without asking for more responsible measures. Meanwhile the European Central Bank maintains a freeze on emergency liquidity assistance. Tsipras had a popular mandate to say NO, he said yes. Game over!

No -- the Greek government was thinking that they (Greece) needed to implement serious reforms, and that they have already achieved primary surplus. However, given the state of their economy the would never be able to pay back most of the debt. So what they needed was (1) forgiveness ("restructuring") for a big chunk of the debt (2) a bridge loan until the reforms kick in and the economy recovers enough. Some of the loans would be eventually paid, but much shouldn't be (and the lenders should have known better).

What the EU wants instead is (1) the pipe dream of Greece paying back everything and (2) higher taxes and lower pensions now to help this repayment. In other words, for the EU the goal of any reforms is not to get Greece back on its feet but to extract money from it to pay back the loans.

So, the question was not on whether reforms were needed before any further loans (which was universally agreed upon), but rather on the goals. What Greece capitulated was not on agreeing to the reforms, but on accepting that notion that they will try to pay back loans despite knowing full well that they will never be able to afford to.

Comment Not quite (Score 2, Insightful) 485

Some important caveats:

  1. "Greece" is not a unitary person here -- the governments changed over time. You can't blame the debt on the current government (which didn't contract for it). The people of Greece are partially to blame (for voting for the wrong governments).
  2. Greece didn't just want extra money. What they finally recognized (at least, Varoufakis did) is the need for serious structural reforms: improving tax collection, raising the retirement age, reducing the public sector, actually providing government services, reducing red tape, and accompanying the cuts to government with tax cuts. If the economy returns to growth then it would quickly be able to afford current spending levels. An extra loan would needed as a bridge, but the key are the reforms not the loan.
  3. What the EU (Germany, that is) is insisting on is very different: they wants the bad debt paid back via higher taxes. But Greece can't possibly afford to pay those debts, and higher taxes will just further damage the Greek economy.

I conclude Germany is destroying Greece to ensure that Spain and Italy toe the line from now on.

Possessions increase to fill the space available for their storage. -- Ryan