Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Analysis of the videos (Score 0, Troll) 251

"Trending" means it's popular. People won't watch (and share) something that they don't actually want to watch. Here's the thing though about those WTC and Building 7 videos: a simple analysis of any of the off-the-street real-time videos - of which there were several so it's not like they could all be faked - by using simple equations of motion from O'Level Physics it is undeniably obvious that the tops of all of those buildings are in free-fall, accelerating at 9.8 metres per second squared.

Now, if a building is hit two thirds of the way up and becomes damaged, you would expect that damage to cause the top to fall over. Maybe some of the outer walls would fall off, but there would be a central core at least 1/2 to 1/3 of the height of the building sticking up. Bits would hit other bits, and it would take a long time and there would be rubble strewn out across a wide area, damaging the surrounding buildings and killing or injuring the people in them. You certainly would not expect it to collapse in a tidy heap at the speed of gravity where the entire building becomes a neat pile of rubble without any kind of significant damage to surrounding buildings.

For a quite insightful analysis which goes beyond the above brief invitation to use simple physics equations, logical analysis and reasoning, you might want to read this:

Bottom line is: not everything that "trends" under automatic algorithms (which would be filtered out by humans too scared of what they're seeing) is bullshit.

Comment Re:Bye Project Ara, Hello Fairphone (Score 3, Informative) 74

ah NO. please do some research BEFORE recommending fairphone to people. you'll notice that Fairphone has REMOVED (reneged on) their promise to provide a "Fair OS". their naivety (and the fact that they haven't listened to extremely experienced software libre developers) is well-documented - a good example is here:

the Fairphone is only "modular" if you are mechanically-minded. i know of people who are competent engineers who, in attempting to repair a laptop, have managed accidentally to destroy FPC12 connectors because they weren't anticipating quite how tiny and fragile they would be.

"Modularity" also doesn't really solve the problem of chipsets being proprietary *and* insecure - google "900 million qualcomm android security vulnerability". you have to actually *design* the phone in *advance* to take into account these sorts of things. Neither google nor Fairphone have done that.

Comment Phonebloks disappointment is half the story (Score 1) 74

dave hakkens is the person who really inspired the modular smartphone movement and brought it to prominence (buglabs was the first to really implement the concept, almost a decade ago). however we don't really have an actual explanation of what went wrong with project ara. here's some hints (search in this document for "ara" obviously):

basically it's down to the fact that google has more money than they have creative sense. they therefore tried to use "financial brute force" to solve problems. the summary is: with their financial resources they created a "backbone standard" called MIPI UniPro... forgetting that in the process it would be patented by the partners, thus AUTOMATICALLY locking out ANY kind of interoperability and competition for the next 20 years. how, exactly, is that supposed to be "open"???

if we want modular smartphones to be successful, we need PROPERLY OPEN STANDARDs that have no vendor lock-in, but that are also properly protected by a Certification Mark (the standards-equivalent of a Trademark) and a Foundation (or CIC or Benefit Corporation), which is given the financial clout by its sponsors to jump on anyone who wrongly implements the standard in such a way as to cause short-circuits (and end up killing someone due to lithium battery fires for example). it's not like a software standard, where interoperability failures cause a segfault: a HARDWARE fault can genuinely be dangerous.

also the standard needs to be made up of *other* standards that are unencumbered and royalty-free, so that companies and makers alike are incentivised to create modules (using 3D printers and low-cost off-the-shelf circuits), for example this one, under development: . Google *literally* did the total opposite of this strategy in every single conceivable way. paying companies to develop new chipsets (patented, proprietary) and saying "here! it's open! sign our NDA, agree to our policy, and you'll be fiiiine!" i'm just staggered by the naivety of a billion-dollar company that had to add me to a special list "stop phoning this person to invite them to interview, you've called them five times already over the past 10 years".

the other thing is, whilst i am delighted at dave's success in bringing the benefits of modularity to a wider audience, he doesn't have any technical knowledge. he views an *increase* in the number of companies on the front page as being a good thing. the key question which illustrates the point without having to spell it out: are any of the products listed on the phonebloks page interoperable in *any* way?

so. if there is anybody who would like to see this done properly - in an open fashion so that the mistakes of both google and fairphone are not repeated (see do reach out on the arm-netbook mailing list i've been investigating and researching this for years and waiting for the right opportunity. often it's good to wait for "big" corporations to fail to deliver, because it means that the hugely-public lessons sink in. a "small person" saying "this ain't gonna work no matter how much money they throw at it" tends not to be believed until the predicted failure comes about.

just as i did with the successfully-crowd-funded modular libre eco-laptop i've set up a stub page (for now) which is a hybrid phone that acts "dumb" and may be upgraded to "smart" by plugging in a computer-on-a-module in Compact-Flash form-factor. "peripheral modules" can be done by re-using 8-pin SIM Card connectors. these are already available in massive volume: they also carry quite a lot of current. 8 pins is just enough to carry Power, USB and 4 signals (suitable for audio PWM for example). it's *not* necessary to spend $250,000 on tooling of new connectors. it's *not* necessary to spend $200m+ on new chipsets. we *really can* do this in a truly open and community-driven fashion, based on sponsorship instead of VC funding.

Comment Re:That's a pretty light particle... (Score 1) 240

i've been studying this for 25 years (as a reverse-engineer from a software background). i've started to have to go to the field of optics to fully understand why it is that this "extra force or maybe a particle" has not been discovered. look up the work by "Ido Kaminer" and his team and you find that (for the purposes of creating "optical tweezers" - google it) it's possible to create phase-coherent X-Ray beams that *LITERALLY* bend in parabolic arcs or even semi-circles, and as they do so the phase rotates by 1/2 the angle of the amount of curvature.

how the hell could that even happen, ehn?

ok, so it goes like this: the phase-coherent beam does "cancellation" such that it curves a tiny but, but this is the crucial bit - as it moves forward the phases REMAIN COHERENT which is pretty frickin awesome.

now, it's not so hard to imagine that photons (x-rays) could conceivably be created which are so totally phase-coherent that they *LITERALLY* come back to their starting point, and thus (because light has no friction) continue circulating forever. what would we call this? well.... i'd call it... a particle!

what types of particles would you call it? well, we know from radio that you have something called I / Q (which is to do with phase), and i *believe* that if the majority of the photon's phase is in the "real" numberspace you'd end up with an electron, but if it's imaginary it would be a NEUTRINO. utterly hard to detect.

the implications of this quite rational and logical progression are enormous - because it's not the only particles that could have such "imaginary" or complex-number properties, totally invisible to us because they *DON'T* interact in the normal E/M field but they'd only really start to interact at the atomic particle distances.

my feeling is that neutrons are *NOT* a "neutron" but may in fact be a "neutron-atom-with-an-orbiting-neutrino". further, that just like with Hydrogen (H2) there's no reason why two neutrons would not bond together in a Neutron-2 "atom"... utterly impossible to detect, being both chemically stable as well as electrically and magnetically invisible... *this* i believe is our missing "dark matter".

it's a huge logical chain of progression but i haven't seen any evidence which contradicts anything in the chain. the only problem is that there are too many scientists worshipping the "Church Of The Standard Model" or should i say, "stuck for funding if they stray outside of the Standard Model Holy Grail". it thus becomes extremely hard to interact with them (i've tried) as they have literally zero common ground for discussion (not enough experience with the field of Optics), the people in the field of Optics don't have enough interest in particle physics... gahh :)

Comment License (Score 4, Insightful) 146


the consequences that we've seen from google's failure to use a self-protecting license includes:

* companies incorporating GPL'd code into Android (particularly video players) and not releasing the source
* performing DRM or other lock-downs ("Tivoisation") and in the case of qualcomm ending up with 900 million devices that are basically landfill
* causing confusion in the minds of corporations over the fact that the linux KERNEL (and u-boot) is still GPL'd

do i need to continue the list? i don't but i believe a reference to mjg59's list is appropriate:

google seems unable to comprehend the severe detrimental consequences of its actions, and the effects that their decisions have on the rest of the software libre community. i appreciate that they're an advertising company so are required to maximise the effective distribution of devices so that they can thus maximise the number of devices through which they can advertise, but pissing all over the free software community that MADE IT POSSIBLE FOR THEM TO HAVE A BUSINESS AT ALL is completely unethical, not to mention the detrimental consequences and money that users have to throw away when devices turn out to have major security flaws that the designers CAN'T FIX IN THE FIELD.

Comment solving the wrong problem (Score 2) 62

y'know... it occurs to me that seeing CENTRALISED trust mechanisms break down really is no surpise, at all. it's a simple mathematical equation which can be explored by doing e^(1/N) * N where you increase N, then make a tiny *tiny* change in the 1/N value. so E^(1/100,010) * 100,000 for example is drastically divergent from E^(1/100,000) / 100,000. point being: the more you CENTRALISE trust, the greater the chance of it being violated (exponentialy greater)

    solving this will take moving away from CENTRALISED trust to DECENTRALISED trust. does anyone remember keynote (an IETF RFC), or advogato, or even the moderation system behind slashdot, and how effective those are? we really really need to start moving to things like blockchain. as in, don't arse about expecting the incumbents to move to blockchain (because they have financial incentives not to do so) - just move to blockchain-based SSL Certificates.

Submission + - SPAM: New Jeep hack proves cars still exposed

lkcl writes: When automotive security researchers Charlie Miller and Chris Valasek take the stage Thursday morning (August 4) at the Black Hat conference in Las Vegas, they will outline new methods of CAN message injection. The two researchers who now work for Uber’s Advanced Technology Center will demonstrate how to physically seize control of the braking, steering, and acceleration systems in a vehicle.
Link to Original Source

Comment one size does not fit all (Score 1) 122

Perhaps you aren't aware how low the low end of the Intel processor linecard goes? In particular, see the X3-C3230 and X5-Z8300.

i wasn't! oh _good_ - the collaboration between rockchip and intel actually produced results. why the hell didn't my contact at intel get in touch?? ok *sigh* i'll speak to him and find out if they have a reference design.... that *doesn't* have the backdoor co-processor in it....

right. interesting. the "brief" - and by brief i mean "so sparse and devoid of information it's pretty useless" - says that it was released Q1 2015. i believe it wasn't long after this that intel announced the COMPLETE TERMINATION of their involvement in the smartphone and tablet industry.

now, whether that applies to the rockchip collaboration remains to be seen. anyway, thank you for making me aware of this one, i'll keep an eye on it.


Comment one size does not fit all (Score 1) 122

Funny, I can buy an entire tablet (it has "memory, storage, processor, hdmi output, usb output *and* casework" and also screen, battery, cameras) with a latest-generation quadcore Intel processor and more storage for the proposed price for the SBC alone (no case).

i trust you understand that that was vs a desktop PC intel processor. i've seen this next type of comparison before as well (a lot) - another mass-produced mass-volume well-established manufacturer product vs an early concept libre and privacy respecting crowd-funded one. ... doesn't really mesh, does it? :)

Perhaps you aren't aware how low the low end of the Intel processor linecard goes? In particular, see the X3-C3230 and X5-Z8300.

i wasn't! oh _good_ - the collaboration between rockchip and intel actually produced results. why the hell didn't my contact at intel get in touch?? ok *sigh* i'll speak to him and find out if they have a reference design.... that *doesn't* have the backdoor co-processor in it....

Comment one size does not fit all (Score 1) 122

by total contrast we're creating the beginning of a comprehensive eco-system of hardware re-use which *happens* (through direct correlation) to both save money for end-users and also reduce e-waste.

In defence of the Raspberry Pi foundation's work, the ecosystem (peripherals, software, community) is what sets it apart from the sea of samey Allwinner-based SBCs. I really hope that the ecosystem you're building is as successful!

yeah it was the price-point for the feature-set at the right time that really got people's attention, in the same way that the $9 CHIP has grabbed people's attention now... but less so *because* the pi already exists.

so that area is "sewn up" and over-saturated. that's not *the* reason why i have taken the approach that i've taken - it's a different story, tackling a much larger set of systemic and underlying problems in the way that we (world-wide) think of and "consume" our computing appliances. never liked that word "consume". like, "how's that PCB tasting, sir? need some ketchup? how about some steel-reinforced dentures?"... :)

the sunxi community then helped take that initiative over, they've been working non-stop now for years to pressurise allwinner

I hope they have more luck with that than with their software. With all due respect, the linux-sunxi tools are poo, and are (in my experience) a big part of the reason most Allwinner SBCs are found running Android.

yeah if you don't receive any funding and have to do stuff part-time... nobody's very happy with allwinner, but the price-point on their SoCs and the overwhelming marketing success in China is extremely compelling - GPL-violating or not. but, y'know what? they're getting there. oliver and the team have managed to get most of CEDARX reverse-engineered, which is deeply impressive. must add that to the TODO list...

Slashdot Top Deals

In English, every word can be verbed. Would that it were so in our programming languages.