Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Polls on the front page of Slashdot? Is the world coming to an end?! Nope; read more about it. ×

Comment: Re:One connector to rule them all. (Score 2) 117

Don't worry, things will still be nice and confusing: It is valid to use a "Type C" connector in conjunction with a USB2 chipset(at least on the peripheral end, and probably in practice on the computer end). Further, if the "Type C" connector is actually USB3, there is the matter of "Alternate mode".

"Alternate mode" allows the Type C jack and cable to act as a conduit for an entirely different protocol(Displayport and MHL have previously been announced, Intel's announcement presumably means that thunderbolt is along for the ride); but only if the system has the hardware necessary to implement whatever the other protocol is, and that hardware is suitably connected to the Type C jack in question. It doesn't actually give a USB 3.1(gen1 or gen2, yes there's that difference as well) device the ability to natively handle the other protocol in the USB silicon, merely to politely carry it from one end to the other, if the upstream device can generate it and the downstream device can accept it.

So, when you combine this with the inevitable variations in how much power is available(spec allows for up to 100watts; but given that very few laptops, much less littler widgets, even have a hundred watt brick for their own needs, it is clearly the case that most Type C ports will be good for substantially less); a Type C port can do almost anything; but is required to do effectively nothing beyond acting as a USB 2 slave device and not starting any fires when plugged in. It might have full USB 3 silicon, it might not. It might support 10GB/s traffic, it might only handle half that; it might deliver 100 watts of power on request, it might be incapable of doing much besides browning out without a powered hub to protect it. It might have implemented one or more 'Alternate mode' protocols, it might support none.

It will certainly be exciting, at least...

Comment: And? (Score 5, Insightful) 169

by gstoddart (#49823817) Attached to: Professional Russian Trolling Exposed

Is anybody pretending that corporations and politicians aren't already effectively doing the same thing?

Only they pretty it up with foundations and think tanks who put out position papers to benefit the talking points of the people paying for them.

Propaganda comes in many forms. And from many sources.

And even some of the people who will be hand-wringing about this propaganda will be endorsing some other stuff.

Comment: Re:probably a fair sentence (Score 2) 156

by gstoddart (#49823751) Attached to: Ross Ulbricht was sentenced to life in prison, and ...

"He didn't sell any actual drugs, he just ran the site for people who did."

IANAL, but that sounds like racketeering to me

OK, let's go with an extreme version of this in a thought experiment.

Say I buy a bunch of stuff from eBay which the seller and I wink at one another and say "why no, this isn't stolen" ... is eBay guilt of racketeering?

Americans like to talk about the free market, so does providing a marketplace for people to exchange goods automatically provide culpability for crimes?

What about Craigslist or Backpage? There's definitely some shady stuff which happens there, are they liable?

Lawyers and CEOs conspire to break laws en masse all the time, but I don't see any of them being charged.

Federal law agencies are collectively committing perjury in the form of "parallel construction". Is that racketeering?

Hell, the meltdown of 2008 was caused by companies laundering bad debt (that they chose to give in the first place), getting the ratings agencies to sign off on it as AAA debt, and pawning it off on some other suckers ... and half the people here said "well, caveat emptor". Arguably those clowns caused far more damage than Silk Road did.

So, what is the threshold here? Is it uniformly applied? Or do we seem to selectively say that some people are more culpable than others for the same act?

I'm inclined to think there is a little selectivity being applied here.

Comment: Re:Missing option (Score 4, Insightful) 156

by gstoddart (#49823651) Attached to: Ross Ulbricht was sentenced to life in prison, and ...

Do you debate that it happened?

I have no idea if it happened or not ... I'm saying you can't sentence someone based on things you allege they did but never charged or proved.

Otherwise prosecutors could make any old shit up, not prove it, and sentence people based on unproven innuendo.

And if that's the case, then America really needs to stop thinking of itself as a free society with a legal system which isn't about political persecution instead of actual facts.

Comment: Re:Missing option (Score 4, Insightful) 156

by gstoddart (#49823385) Attached to: Ross Ulbricht was sentenced to life in prison, and ...

Dang do you read anything? He was soliciting murder for hire and other charges

Do you? Because he wasn't convicted of that, and the charges were dropped.

Are you suggesting you should sentence people based on the things you didn't charge them with and didn't prove?

Because you're an idiot if you are.

Comment: Re:Missing option (Score 0) 156

by gstoddart (#49823329) Attached to: Ross Ulbricht was sentenced to life in prison, and ...

To me that is worth 20 years. Life should only be used as an alternative to the death penalty, not a as 'really stiff sentence'.

To me this is more to show other people who might be tempted to do something that the politically motivated criminal charges for anything to do with drugs will be brought against you.

And, besides, you have to keep your for-profit prison industry (which uses people as effectively slave labor) filled up with people to maximize shareholder value.

Don't for a minute think this has anything to do with "justice", so much as "politics, vengeance, retribution, and cheap labor".

There's huge amounts of profits which would be lost if penalties weren't like this.

The crooks on Wall Street profit from the incarceration of people who have done far lesser crimes.

And the prison system in the US is as much about politics and profits than anything else.

Surely you don't think you live in a just society, do you?

Comment: Re:Missing option (Score 4, Insightful) 156

by gstoddart (#49823175) Attached to: Ross Ulbricht was sentenced to life in prison, and ...

but life in prison for selling drugs on a website?

I'm sorry, but have you not been paying attention to US drug laws?

With three strikes laws and mandatory sentencing, isn't it possible to be sentenced to life in prison for possessing a joint?

Sorry, but when your drug laws are so horribly broken, founded in ideology and not actual medical fact (eg the definition of "narcotic") ... what the hell do you expect?

You can commit a whole slew of crimes for which the penalty is much less than marijuana "crimes" will get you.

Because apparently throwing people in jail for life for smoking weed sells well with someone's political base, even if it's based on nothing but irrational hysteria, lies, and ideology.

If anything, that's an awfully bad precedent

Dude, it's not even a precedent. Between laws which make "with a computer" full blown felonies and the state of the US drug laws ... this is just the combination of the two latest bogeymen.

Yes, sure, other drugs were also sold.

But I'm pretty sure you could get life in prison for selling pot on Facebook, because you'd be teh unimaginable ebil.

This is decades in the making.

Comment: Re:Is there a difference? (Score 3, Insightful) 93

The obvious explanation is that they are understaffed.

My "obvious explanation" is the Canadian carriers added their own crap, and now we're not considered a big enough market to fix it.

I don't need to blame LG. My first thought on reading that was "yeah, that's entirely due to carriers putting their own shit on the phones".

Some devices are carrier locked. Some have crapware put there by the carrier.

This isn't the first time I've seen this with phones here.

Comment: Re:Is there a difference? (Score 4, Insightful) 93

"You can blame your screwy Canadian carriers for this."

Don't know if parent is trolling or not, but I had a similar thought.

As a Canadian, I will 100% concur this has a good chance of being the carrier.

My HTC Desire has a lot of stuff which was put on it by the carrier (Rogers) -- some of which I can disable but not delete.

It may well be that LG has decided they don't want to muck around with carrier specific crap. Which is why I think it should be illegal to have carrier specific crap in the first place.

A decade or so ago a co-worker did some testing with his Motorolla Krazr. It turns out the way Rogers had done the internet stuff was to push you through their proxy (with a lot of extra overhead), and which had the net effect of about doubling your data usage so that they could measure you and bill you for it. And this was when data usage was in KB.

Rogers are complete greedy bastards who put a lot of crap on phones to benefit themselves.

Comment: Re:Did Blackberry invent the QWERTY keyboard (Score 1) 60

Ignoring how we feel about patents ... this patent exists, the link I gave was the first one I saw which explained the way in which they were similar, and that those similarities are quite prominent on things you wouldn't do by random.

This is more than just "someone else made a keyboard".

And if you 100% copy someone else's design, I can see why they'd be unhappy about it.

Now that I've read through that, I can see BB had some pretty valid points. And if you could make things which looked exactly like someone else's product, that could be misleading.

The curvature of those keys was pretty darned specific.

Comment: Re:Did Blackberry invent the QWERTY keyboard (Score 3, Interesting) 60

This page gives the best side by side comparison I can find.

it's got a picture of one of the BBs, the patent they filed, and the Typo keyboard.

The '964 patent, entitled "HAND-HELD ELECTRONIC DEVICE WITH A KEYBOARD OPTIMIZED FOR USE WITH THE THUMBS", was granted on December 8, 2009, and among its multiple independent claims, of particular note is independent claim 19 which claims "[a] keyboard for use with a mobile communication device". Claim 19 includes the limitations of "twenty-six letter keys and at least one other key" distributed in three rows, that are symmetrically distributed along the face of the electronic device. Furthermore, claim 19 includes the limitation of:
"five letter keys in the upper row being disposed on each side of the vertical reference, five letter keys in the middle row being disposed on one side of the vertical reference and four letter keys in the middle row being disposed on the other side of the vertical reference, and four letter keys in the lower row being disposed on the one side of the vertical reference line and three letter keys in the lower row being disposed on the other side of the vertical reference line..."

So, the extent to which the keys skew away from being flat for ergonomic reasons seems to be enumerated in the patent.

Now, as to the validity of the patent, I can't say.

But I will agree that specific design details for ergonomics are pretty much exactly copied in the Typo .. so if they said "give me a keyboard just like the BlackBerry", I can see why they'd have settled.

But there are specific things and details in there. And it's at least slightly more specific than a small, black QWERTY keyboard. Down to quite specific curvatures.

Comment: They do what they're trained to do (Score 3, Interesting) 288

..which is NOT to detect weapons.

They're trained to detect common tools, water bottles, and other harmless items to harass people. This performance is what is incentivized and reinforced, so that's what is optimized.

Security theatre doesn't work. Security that works offends people.

C'est la vie. Shoes off!

Repel them. Repel them. Induce them to relinquish the spheroid. - Indiana University fans' chant for their perennially bad football team