Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:How to make a defense under 17 USC 117 (Score 1) 103

And if you buy the Game Pak and a Kazzo or Retrode dumper, you have a defense under 17 USC 117(a)(1) (or foreign counterparts) if someone does sue you, so long as you can afford a lawyer and don't distribute the dumps.

Actually, no. That defense doesn't work because you're format-shifting. More specifically, you're going from a format that doesn't have copyright to one that does - you are not allowed to dump ROMs, period, without a legitimate developmental reason.

It's a funny thing, but a mask programmed ROM is actually not copyrighted. It's Mask-protected (it's a M in a circle, similar to how copyright is C in a circle). Mask works have higher protections, and even though you can easily dump it, the conversion from physical to software is actually completely illegal.

The one exception to that, is for developmental reasons - you're developing something that requires the data in the ROM. In which case you are allowed to have it only for that reason for the duration necessary. (Sony v. Bleem confirmed this when Bleem had Sony BIOS dumps of the PSX - it was determined that Bleem had the legal right to have those dumps, as they were necessary for the development of the Bleem emulator. But Bleem could not distribute those dumps, and must destroy them when complete).

It's one of the reasons why Nintendo kept cartridges around - there are plenty of legal protections for software embedded inside of a ROM (more generally, any IC) that aren't available on more traditionally available media.

Comment Re:Netflix has a unique and obvious strategy. (Score 1) 184

The traditional stations are working for advertisers while netflix is working more for the viewer. The traditional media can produce crap and put it on Prime Time to make the advertisers happy (Which is in part of the story quality of the Netflix originals). But for the movies, traditional media wants people to buy BlueRays and DVDs not streaming if possible. Unless they get a good TV Deal, or Pay per view.
I expect Netflix licensing agreement is too risky for many of these companies, so if they are slightly interested they just push out their B Movies to judge the waters. Or they rotate their shows so they feel like they have a cable deal. I notice this with the Star Trek Movies where they have a couple available (Especially the Odd ones) for a month or so then they go away and replace them with an other one.

No, home movies are incidental. The movie industry produces movies to get asses in seats. That's it. Beyond theatrical release is considered "bonus" and not really counted for anything. In fact, purchasing movies for home viewing is a relatively new concept, having only come out in the 80s with the popularity of the VCR and the video rental store.

It's still traditionally for theatrical only - anything else is a bonus on top. It changes way too fast for them to plan on anything - video rentals now make up such a tiny proportion of the mix it's not separated out, and disc sales are way down. Digital sales are up (streaming and "purchase").

And in fact, movie studios push their own purchases first - Netflix pays peanuts compared to what they can get per digital rental. Then comes purchase from likes of iTunes which still pay more than Netflix.

Netflix gets it at the very end - around the same time it hits TV. By this time it's not expected ot make any revenue. so Netflix paying a few cents per stream is just cream.

Comment Re:Hard to fathom they would actually build cars (Score 1) 134

My guess is they're building one to try to understand them from the ground up to be suppliers of technology or to lure a major carmaker without an electric car into building it for them.

There's a bit of truth to that. I mean, Apple competing with the likes of Tesla and such seems unlikely, and Google's got a good head start with autonomous vehicles so it seems like an Apple car is nothing more than a research project. Plus, as Tesla found out, the dealership model isn't the greatest in the world to deal with, and there are a lot of dealer-only states.

The most likely explanation is that if you want to deal with car technology, building your own is a good way to learn what is and isn't possible.

Comment Re:Birds... (Score 5, Informative) 164

If a bird shaped / massed object presents a serious hazard to your aircraft, then your aircraft was never safe to begin with. Don't take me wrong, I'm all for responsible drone ownership and flying, however if you are seriously worried about the ability of a 2 lb drone to take down your aircraft, you should be much more worried about the 10lb canadian goose you are just as likely to hit.

First of all, aircraft fire fighting is EXTREMELY dangerous. Whether it's a helicopter long lining a Bambi bucket, or being in a water tanker dropping water on a fire, it requires extremely skilled pilots. And this is without the distraction that a fire causes - smoke, turbulence caused by the flames (they are nothing like what you get at 30,000 feet), flying low to the ground, etc.

Most aircraft are under 500' above the ground. You need to be extremely skillful when flying this low, and you feel the flames - the rising hot air are shoving your aircraft around, so it's already hard enough keeping blue side up. Then as you release your load, your aircraft's balance shifts and you have to compensate as well as try to fly your lines Oh yeah, did I mention it was smoky so you can't always see clearly out? And there's no map accurate enough so your only protection against flying into terrain is well, the Mk. 1 Eyeball?

In fact, ti's so dangerous there's an aircraft always hanging around overhead - acting as air traffic control so they control and manage aircraft timing, spacing and noting where to attack the fire as well as keeping a general eye on everything in cas something flares up. Everyone is under control in the immediate area.

The problem with a drone is it's not under positive control - who knows where the operator may fly. It's not just damaging the aircraft, but also distracting the pilots who are just trying to keep things under control. If it lands in an engine and takes it out, that aircraft and its crew may land right in the middle of the flames (there's no where to go at 500' AGL). Or it might break through the windshield and seriously distract the pilots.

Perhaps a good way to make conditions relatable to IT workers is imagine trying to write code in the middle of a call center. You have to write your code, but phones are ringing off the hook, people are chatting loudly, and then some idiot starts banging on your keyboard.

It's already a difficult and risky working environment. Drones simply add a risk element that could turn a rescuer into a victim, and that's the last thing anyone needs. It's why SAR often suspend activity when it gets too dangerous, too - because the last thing in the world you want is to make things worse and increase the number of people needing rescue.

Oh, and a crash during a wildfire can spawn more wildfires.

Comment Re:Non-sequitor (Score 1) 146

The recommendation doesn't make sense. Yes, your phone may not always be in your possession. That would rule out software authenticators too, since they reside on the same phone that may not always be in your possession. Even dedicated hardware tokens may not always be in your possession, they can be lost or stolen just like a phone. So if not being always in your possession is the criteria, then all of the NIST's recommended methods fail to meet it.

The summary is poorly worded. It's not YOU in possession of your phone, it's your PHONE in possession of the PHONE NUMBER. The idea is this - if you're going to do SMS as a verification, NIST recommends checking that the phone number you're sending the SMS to is actually the phone you intend to send it to.

There is another problem with SMS 2FA that isn't covered in this document, and is much easier to pull off: It is currently too easy to social engineer phone companies to move service to a new device. This has happened recently to several execs to allow script kiddies to take over social media accounts that are using SMS 2-factor.

No, that's what NIST is talking about. Your phone may not be in possession of the phone number.

Basically what NIST is saying is that phone numbers don't lead to a specific phone. They lead to A phone, but not necessarily the phone you think it goes to. This is especially as modern phone systems allow trivial movement of phone numbers to anything that can provide voice service.

Comment Re:should be ready when it's ready (Score 1) 98

It'll be ready when scaled up. Unlike flying cars, which have no current path to commercial viability. That's the point. It works, and would be commercially ready for small screens now, but that's not where the profit is.

It already is. Ultra-D technology offers glasses free 3D on screens 50" and 65" screens. It's been featured at CES and it's fairly impressive.

It's got a wide 3D viewing angle (120 degrees - 60 degrees off perpendicular each side), and from 120 through 178 degrees, it degrades into a 2D image, so no matter where you are, if you can see the screen, you can see an image. Unlike some other technologies (like the Nintendo 3DS), it never goes unviewable.

Comment Re:Welcome to Libertarianism (Score 2) 268

Welcome to insanity.

When a given company represents 90% of the daily information stream of your average citizen, it is a monopoly. Any attempt to challenge that will have to run against an extremely high barrier to entry established by said monopoly. It doesn't mean that it can't be unseated - but doing so requires immense resources, and even then would take many years.

In the meantime, we need a way to ensure that citizens actually get all information that is relevant to their vote, rather than the one that our monopolist decided to tell them. An idealistic libertarian would say that, by choosing FB, they implicitly give permission for such screening. A pragmatist would acknowledge that vast majority of FB users didn't actually think about it at all, and didn't realize that they're setting themselves up for an information bubble. A pragmatist would also acknowledge that making the public more informed is more important than giving FB freedom to censor whatever they want.

Comment Re:BASH (Score 1) 335

If you're primarily a Linux dev, you're not running Windows anyway, so it doesn't matter to you. Except perhaps in an indirect way, since it expands your potential userbase.

If you're primarily a Windows dev, and want to port your program to Linux, this is immensely useful, especially since VS is also getting some integration with all that stuff (cross-compilation with Clang, and debugging via gdb).

If you're primarily a Windows user, you just get access to some programs that weren't readily available.

Comment Re:Because money (Score 2) 268

The "smoking gun" that you've mentioned is sufficient to see a number of things in a new light. For example, the debate schedule. It was long claimed by Sanders supporters that it was intentional to undermine him, but before the DNC email leak, the party could always (rightly) say "prove it". Now that the leaks have demonstrated general bias, as well as specific desire of at least some of the members to actually translate that to actions, the reasonable default assumption, on the balance of probabilities, is that the schedule was, indeed, intentionally skewed; and DNC has to do something to prove it otherwise.

Comment Re:BASH (Score 1) 335

The problem with SFU was that it implemented some sort of a generic Unix system - it wasn't Linux, or BSD, or anything else specifically, just something POSIX'ish. So it only had source-level compatibility, not binaries - you had to recompile - and then compatibility only extended to those Unix and POSIX APIs that SFU implemented.

SFL, on the other hand, implements Linux kernel ABI (syscalls and device nodes). Which then allows to just put glibc on top of that, and getting full compatibility with userspace Linux APIs for free; your choice of distro (though only Ubuntu is officially supported).

Since it emulates an actual OS, and does so on binary level, this is much, much more useful than SFU ever was.

Comment Re:BASH (Score 3, Informative) 335

It's effectively a Linux syscall emulation layer + ELF loader, and Ubuntu running on top of that.

So kernelspace is entirely Windows (including drivers, filesystem support etc), but it presents Linux kernel ABI to the userspace. So userspace is just regular Linux. So there's no special "knowledge" between the two parts, aside from the ABI.

Filesystem is effectively shared, with a mapping system in place (Linux "partition" is in reality just an NTFS folder, while Windows drive letters are exposed as mount points in Linux).

Because the implementation sits directly on top of the NT kernel, side-by-side with Win32 (and not on top of it, like Cygwin does), it can efficiently provide proper semantics for things like fork().

Slashdot Top Deals

Somebody ought to cross ball point pens with coat hangers so that the pens will multiply instead of disappear.

Working...