Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment So you have to disclose it to the government (Score 1) 29

30.8 5G Provider Cybersecurity Statement Requirements.

(a) Statement. Each Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service licensee is required to submit to the Commission a Statement describing its network security plans and related information, ...

So the applicant has to publish his whole security architecture in order to get a license.

On one hand this conforms to the best practices recommendations of the security community: Expose the algorithm to analysis and keep the security in the keying secrets.

On the other hand this gives the government the opportunity to pick-and-chose only those systems it can break.

Oh, gee. Which way will it work?

Comment Same model NAME! (Score 1) 31

Latest phone supported is the international version of the Galaxy S III (I9300) ... Note: The U.S. version of Galaxy S III is a different motherboard and chip - the same model number on a different device.

The same model NAME on a different device. Model number is different, which is how you tell for sure you got the right one.

Comment One word: Replicant (Score 1) 31


Android. Fork of Cyannogen Mod that is fully Open source. Even the drivers and firmware. Latest phone supported is the international version of the Galaxy S III (I9300) (2G and 3G but no 4G LTE). (Note: The U.S. version of Galaxy S III is a different motherboard and chip - the same model number on a different device.)

Stable release is a couple years old (4.2) due to thinning of the development crew. But the project got new blood (post-Snowden) and a 6.0 port (for the 19300 so far) is in alpha.

Some devices (WiFI, Bluetooth, user-facing camera) require closed firmware, which you can load separately. (It's supported but not distributed with the base distribution.

Some (3-D graphics acceleration, GPS) are just not supported. (Use 2-D graphics and, if you really want your phone to know where you are, a plugin GPS device based on a different chip.) GPS is not supported because the phone's GPS chip also requires a proprietary CPU-land driver, which is an open-source no-no.

Comment I remember farther back. (Score 3, Interesting) 74

Sigh, I remember when Slashdot used to be a news place for Nerds and not this stupid political bull crap of pointing fingers at one another.

I remember farther back. (Note that I have two fewer digits in my I.D.)

It's always been like this. We may have a few more professional grass-roots trolls now that we have a couple orders of magnitude more eyeballs. But come politics season people's political leanings come out.

Face it: Politics IS "news for nerds" and "stuff that matters".

Comment And individuals should have no limits either. (Score 1) 74

Candidates have some limits, but PACs lost those restrictions in the suprime court ruling known as Citizens United.

And ordinary citizens shouldn't have limits for the same reasons - but didn't have the big pockets to argue that in court like the organized lobbyists do.

Campaign spending limits are a bait-and-switch. They pretend to level the playing field by cutting down the big spenders' power. But instead they block the grass-roots' influence - individually or when organizing - while leaving the rich able to circumvent them, and (by building a complex paperwork maze to navigate) give incumbent politicians a further massive advantage against upstart challengers.

What they're really about is helping those currently in power STAY in power.

Comment Re:$70K sounds pretty low (Score 1) 74

I don't claim to know any political internals, but $70,000 to get legislation that you basically write yourself passed sounds extremely low.

Part of the POINT of government corruption is that the cost is low compared to the benefits.

If using the money to actually build something consumers wanted to buy had a better return - and politicians didn't gate-keep and demand ransom ("rent-seeking behavior"), businesses wouldn't spend a dime bribing politicians - or at least those that did would be out-competed and driven out of business by those that didn't.

Politicians know this, and set their prices accordingly.

Comment Huh? (Score 1) 74

The more that ISPs seek to rewrite the rules in their favor, the more likely it is that the citizens will ignore those rules.

I give up. How do we ignore those rules?

Start our own ISPs - and get everything seized by the government for failing to play by their rules?

Hack the infrastructure - and get busted for "stealing service" or "unauthorized access to a computer system" - and get everything seized by the government, plus a felony conviction and the resulting revocation of constitutional rights for the rest of our lives?

Did you have something else in mind? I'm really confused about what you mean.

Comment The 1% told us that in the '60s and '70s, too. (Score 1) 650

Having children is a sociopathic act when we're overpopulated. At our current level of behavior, Earth is over its carrying capacity.

And we boomers have heard all that before. Back in the '60s and '70s the ruling class told us that we were about to be buried in a population explosion that would have us all starving in a toxic waste dump by the '90s and that technological improvements would only make it worse.

They even formed an organization called "The Club of Rome", which put together a computer model that cranked out these predictions.

So lots of responsible people held off on having kids - many until it was too late, even with major medical intervention. Enormous resources were diverted from production of material wealth to reduction of pollution. Costs went up, quality went down, resources were locked up, movement was restricted. Government power over everything, and the amount of money/value they pulled out of the economy grew and grew and grew. Anyone criticizing the paradigm or expressing a different view (especially a pro-technology view) was demonized - by activists, "leaders", and both the "establishment" and "underground" press.)

In the '50s, coming out of a depression and a World War, a family could live well supporting itself on a single income. Now it struggles with two or more full-time employed parents, or survives on a government dole. "There's a labor shortage!" - so the government imports more voters^H^H^H^H^H^H people from the more southern American countries to fill the blue collar jobs and from India, Aisia, and other places for the white-collar positions - and pretty much all of them from cultures where big families are the norm. So much for responsible self-population-limitation. (Think of it as evolution in action.)

But they made the mistake of publishing their software model. Computers got cheap, and programming became less of an arcane ritual practiced only by a tiny clique. Eventually skilled programmers took a look at the model - and found both flaws and gimmicks apparently designed to make it produce the gloom-and-doom, empower-governments, we're all going to freeze in the dark but that's better than extinction, predictions.

And the time came and went. And the disaster didn't happen. And technological improvements made things better, not worse. (And not just because of pollution controls: It turns out that pollution is INEFFICIENT, and as the cost of process control technology comes down and capabilities go up, reducing it can INCREASE PROFIT!)

So the "population bomb" turned out to be a dud. (But a convenient one for the rich and powerful, making them more rich and powerful.) And looking back at history we saw that this was just the latest in a long string of such operations:
  1. Predict disaster.
  2. Get everyone panicked.
  3. Increase power and control to "take action to head off the disaster".
  4. PROFIT!
Over and over and over again.

And then came "global warming" (replacing "here comes the next ice age".) Complete with computer models and lots of "scientific data" - from government scientists funded by billions from agencies that somehow only gave follow-on grants to scientists who predicted doom (or made some tie-in to global warming in research on non-climate-related subjects).

THIS time, though, they kept the raw data and models to themselves, handing out only conclusions and "adjusted" data. And after YEARS of digging, some outside the peer-review cliques found some evidence that the adjustments always seemed to increase the signal of warming, possibly by enough to create it out of nothing (or even out of measurements indicating global COOLING), and that this may have been deliberate.

But instead of opening the data to all, it was (and is) STILL kept largely hidden (or claimed to be lost), while a propaganda effort is raised against anyone questioning the conclusions, or the race to take over resources and wealth, and increase control of the general population, to "fix" this "disaster".

It all looks very familiar. "Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." So expect skepticism from those of us who lived through the "environmental movement".

Maybe this new result IS a convincing signal. It sure LOOKS like one. But the "Hockey Stick" graph looked like one, too. (Very much like this one in fact.)

Any such results will need to be examined, and found to be completely open, honest, and based on a well-designed methodology, before even those of us who are truly interested in what's REALLY happening to the Earth, but got bitten by a previous pseudo-science movement, are convinced.

Meanwhile, there are a LOT of steps between "It looks like things might be warming up a tad since the Industrial Revolution." and "The government has to take over everything RIGHT NOW or WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!"

Comment Re:Science (Score 1) 83

... and "one cycle per second of error".

I.e. if your clocks are good for one part per million you have a tiny fraction of a millisecond before your pattern comes apart.

Their trick is to resynchronize at the start of every packet, to a reference transmitted by one of the transmitters, so they can get the packet squirted out (or received) while the pattern still holds together, rather than trying to keep the radios in sync constantly despite not being able to wire them together.

Comment Re:Science (Score 1) 83

They already did this. It is called MIMO.

We all understand that.

What you're missing is that:
  - MIMO works better, over longer distances, when the antennas are more separated. The more the separation, the greater the distance, for a given accuracy of phase.
  - But it also requires the radios to be synchronized to within a tiny fraction of a single cycle, so the patterns add up correctly. At 2.5 GHz an entire cycle is one quarter part per BILLION and MIMO reqires more than an order of magnitude better accuracy than that.

When the radios are all in one box, that's easy: You drive them from the same oscillators, and watch your wiring and components.

When they're in different boxes, separated by hundreds of feet or by miles, it's a whole different can of worms. VERY fancy equipment to generate VERY stable signals, extra stuff to estimate their drift (which varies from moment to moment), and it's still a massive pain. You don't get that kind of synchronization between boxes, even in a house, when they're connected by inexpensive commodity cabling.

What these guys did is tweak the protocol to add a tiny synchronizing burst from the designated master transmitter just before each packet. Combined with estimates of the moment-by-moment ongoing drift (computed from reception of the synchronizing bursts from previous packets) they were able to get current commodity-quality hardware to stay adequately synchronized to hold the pattern together for at least the duration of the packet. (I'm betting they can do the same sort of thing with the receivers, too, working off the sync burst from the master transmitter.)

The result is being able to do MIMO with radio/antenna assemblies in different, disconnected, well-separated, boxes, using only packet-quality interconnects and doing synchronization via a small bit of air bandwidth.

That got MIMO over a major hump, in equipment cost, antenna separation, and utility.

Comment Re:Science (Score 2) 83

Yes, more transceivers are better than less, thank you MIT.

But only if they're really tightly synchronized.

MIT got them to be tightly synchronized despite being in different boxes in different rooms, rather than all being in the same box, WITHOUT a lot of extra, extra-special, extra-fancy, extra-cost, hardware. This can be built with a bit more off the shelf stuff (maybe the SAME amount of the same off the shelf stuff but with a bit better firmware) and easily folded into the next generation's chips.

Comment Re:Not handy for the home (Score 1) 83

Since they are talking about many devices connecting to multiple routers it's not going to do much for the average home user then. I may have a couple of devices but only the one router.

  - If you got a second router, put it some distance away from the first, and hooked them together with a network cable, you could use two devices about as fast as you could one with one router.
  - If you had three wired routers you could use three devices close to as fast as you could use one with one router.
And so on.

Note that I'm not talking about using the devices with each near a particular router. I'm talking about the routers spread out around the room or the house and the devices also somewhat spread out - but differently (even just at different spots in the same room) and with no particular relation between the device and the router locations.

Slashdot Top Deals

Natural laws have no pity.