Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Why do they even TRY with this B.S.? (Score 2) 266

by sirwired (#49096305) Attached to: Lenovo To Wipe Superfish Off PCs

Obviously the "intent" with this tool was not some sort of alutruistic impulse to "improve our customers' shopping experiences"; the "intent" was to collect some tiny payment per PC in exchange for their users giving up some of their piracy.

I'm willing to believe they didn't realize the security implications of this junk, but they might as well admit they play the Crapware game all the consumer PC makers do because it makes them money.

Comment: Nope; no jitter in the cable. (Score 1) 418

No. No jitter can be introduced in the cable.

Serial L1 encoding protocols are specifically designed to keep the frequency of the signal constant, no matter the bit pattern being transmitted. This helps avoid DC offset screwing up the receiver, and maintains proper PLL timing. There will always be the same number of + to - transitions over all but the tiniest span of time.

As far as noise goes? That can certainly lead to data loss, but not jitter. The PLL-driven clock will always look for the signal at the appropriate times, unless, of course, the cable does not meet the relevant standard and stuff is getting lost.

Once a cable DOES meet the relevant standard, it doesn't matter if it's some 15-cent thing put together in a soot-filled Chinese sweatshop or some solid-gold, silver-plated, hand-assembled-by-Bob-Metcalfe-Himself bazillion dollar wonder. Cat 6 is Cat 6. End of story.

Comment: The "tech" that betrayed him was between his ears (Score 1) 129

by sirwired (#49024687) Attached to: The Technologies That Betrayed Silk Road's Anonymity

It wasn't "technology" that betrayed him, it was the sort if unthinking stupidity that leads to the downfall of all sorts of criminals. In another era, he would have been boasting about his exploits at a bar or to impress a date.

The primary bug was in the Wetware, tech just moved things along.

Comment: I have work to do, and Chrome/GMail "Just Works" (Score 1) 296

by sirwired (#49002531) Attached to: Firefox Succeeded In Its Goal -- But What's Next?

I can see why Firefox was created, and I used it quite happily for years. But when it kept memory-leaking worse and worse with every release, I had to let it go. (My job necessarily involves a LOT of web browsing and tabs... and no, I don't work for a porn site.) Chrome does what I need it to, never locks the HDD light on with swap activity, and I cannot remember the last time it crashed. It's fast, and has all the function I require.

GMail. I have essentially infinite storage, access on every internet device in the world, a nearly-perfect spam filter, a great search engine (which is necessary as I do not use folders), and it's fast.

I know what Google "charges" for Chrome and GMail (privacy) and it's a price I'm willing to pay for two products that have made my life much easier.

Comment: The IEEE-SA rules are legally binding (Score 2) 32

by sirwired (#48985123) Attached to: Dept. of Justice Blesses IEEE Rules On Injunctions and Reasonability

The IEEE-SA rules are legally binding, so with standards subject to the new rule, such an injunction would be relatively easy to fight off.

The DoJ was involved to make sure the IEEE-SA was not engaging in conduct that would fall afoul of anti-trust law. They don't personally have any dog in the patent fight; they are just making sure the IEEE was not trying to discourage competition by new market entrants by working out rules designed by current competitors.

Comment: Why the DoJ was involved... (Score 2) 32

by sirwired (#48985103) Attached to: Dept. of Justice Blesses IEEE Rules On Injunctions and Reasonability

In case anybody was wondering why the DoJ was involved, it was most likely to ensure that the IEEE's rules passed anti-trust muster. A bunch of erstwhile competitors gathering together and deciding jointly on restraints on their conduct (and the conduct of future competitors) is subject to heightened scrutiny to make sure that the rules are not written to discourage new market entrants.

Comment: Not really a good idea... (Score 1) 257

by sirwired (#48985059) Attached to: Ross Ulbricht Found Guilty On All 7 Counts In Silk Road Trial

Oh, you are right, jury nullification is no more or less than the statement that a jury can acquit a defendant for any reason they damn well please and there's nothing to stop them; this is obvious to anybody that ever paid a lick of attention in 8th-grade civics class. I would hope it would only be used to refuse to convict under illegal laws, because otherwise it turns the concept of us being a nation of laws, and not men, on it's head. If a prosecution produces an unpleasant result under the law, but the prosecution is still legal, there are means (however imperfect) for the law to be changed. The jury deciding on their own that they like the defendant too much for his/her sentence is not how the law is supposed to work.

And not that your other points have anything to do with nullification, but...

The "see no evil" defense is pretty weak sauce against these money-laundering related charges. (And certainly they will get you civilly fined to kingdom come.) The idea that DPR/Ulbricht did NOT know the primary use of his market was the illegal drug trade is ludicrous in the extreme; it does not take any great leap of logic to discard such an assertion utterly.

And no, pre-paid providers do NOT benefit from burner phones. Such phones are usually subsidized at retail (plus there are real costs involved with activation) and when they are quickly discarded after a short period of time, so the provider takes it in the proverbial shorts. (But what do cell phone providers have to do with the proverbial price of tea in China? Not sure what you are getting at there.)

And, given that the police don't even need to file charges to perform civil forfeiture (I certainly usually don't agree with that practice), arguing that that was their motive for prosecuting him is also pretty silly. (However, in this case, civil forfeiture actually makes sense since nobody ever laid official claim to Silk Road's Bitcoins.)

Comment: Read on the trial more (Score 1) 257

by sirwired (#48984059) Attached to: Ross Ulbricht Found Guilty On All 7 Counts In Silk Road Trial

The prosecutors objected to everything (and the judge allowed) because the defense wanted to cross-examine prosecution witnesses on topics the prosecution had not brought up on direct examination.

The proper thing to do when you want to bring up new topics with prosecution witnesses is to also list them as witnesses for the defense, not lay out your defense case before it's your turn to do so.

And the defense tried to insert their experts at the last minute without presenting sufficient evidence that they were experts. Again, this is not an obscure corner of trial procedure. If you want to introduce expert witnesses at the last minute (and it's certainly permissible to do so), you better make damn sure all your ducks are in a row on demonstrating their expertise.

Comment: And which law would you have them nullify? (Score 3, Informative) 257

by sirwired (#48983949) Attached to: Ross Ulbricht Found Guilty On All 7 Counts In Silk Road Trial

The idea that it should be illegal to knowingly profit from transactions of highly illegal products is not exactly an obscure or particularly controversial area of jurisprudence, nor it it an example of overly-broad vaguely-worded laws, like, say, CFAA prosecutions.

And jury nullification is supposed to be for juries to nullify illegal laws (i.e. unconstitutional ones), not laws they might have a personal disagreement with.

Comment: Understandable... I don't see a problem (Score 1) 181

by sirwired (#48941649) Attached to: Mathematicians Uncomfortable With Ties To NSA, But Not Pulling Back

The Snowden revelations about constitutionally-questionable domestic spying have been with the full co-operation of telecom and internet companies, hence no super-smart mathematicians necessary, just a bunch of IT guys and CompSci specialists to deal with the large amount of data.

NSA's "traditional" activities, which involve espionage and codebreaking applied against foreign powers (requiring the aid of mathematicians for codebreaking) is an accepted and normal part of international relations, in a tradition going back millenia. Yes, when spies or espionage projects are caught there's usually a stern press release, but nothing ever comes of it.

Comment: Give up the source? Ain't gonna happen (Score 4, Insightful) 127

by sirwired (#48940435) Attached to: Tech Companies Worried Over China's New Rules For Selling To Banks

China can ask for the source, but I don't see any US firm agreeing. They certainly wouldn't care about China-only builds having back-doors; that I'm sure they'd agree to. But giving up the source? No way. If they do that, they know that the code will quickly be incorporated into products from Chinese companies and their sales will drop soon afterwards as the thieves sell their own versions for far less.

I cannot draw a cart, nor eat dried oats; If it be man's work I will do it.

Working...