The main performance bottleneck on encrypting these devices is caused be the lack of a dedicated hardware encryption chip. That costs money, and necessitates a major hardware redesign. So they tried software FDE, which has performance costs. The performance drag was too great, so they complained to Google.
Google quietly backpedaled their encryption requirement. Not permanently (at least according to them), but just an extension to give the manufacturers more time to meet the requirement.
So... disappointing is the word. Especially how Google loudly boasted about always on encryption, but was nearly silent about pushing back the requirement.
Wow... Of the 95 "infringing" urls in that link, I have been to at least 40. My day to day job as a software developer has me using at least a dozen of those just to get anything done.
It is certainly feasible that the NSA did not need access to the firmware source code in order to pull off these kind of attacks. Ars Technica has an article explaining. These drives use standard debugging interfaces, and, with a bit of work, anybody with the right skill set can reverse engineer the firmware.
That's not to say that the NSA didn't have access to the firmware source. They certainly could get at it if they wanted. Just that they did not necessarily need the source in order to write this kind of malware.
Since competition doesn't exist, and because they're trying to charge me and everyone else for imaginary resources, I believe they are engaged in anti-consumer, monopolistic, behavior that is not required for the health of the network or for their own business requirements and therefore should be regulated.
Yeah, that's the crux of the matter right there. If there were real competition in the sector this sort of activity would be fine. Arbitrary limits on usage can reduce network saturation. The result for the end consumer is a less useful and more expensive service, but that would be fine, if there were alternatives.
However, ISPs (both wired and wireless) have spent the last two decades or more deeply entrenching themselves. The networks they operate were often subsidized, at Federal, State, and Local levels. They have spent millions of dollars lobbying (successfully) for anti-competitive laws of their own design. They have either natural or government (Local or State) granted monopolies in most of the regions they operate in. They collaborate with their so-called competitors, dividing territory and colluding on prices and practices. All while providing what few would disagree is a basic necessity of modern life.
When all the significant providers of a necessary service engage in collusion and anti-consumer behavior, it is, and rightfully should be, time to regulate that industry. I don't lightly suggest regulation. Careless or unnecessary regulation can have enormous costs and serious repercussions. However, ISPs have shown time and again that, like the banking industry, they will engage in anti-consumer behavior for so long as they are permitted to do so. It's time to tell them otherwise.
Add to that the fact that Fat Noodle has come back and demonstrated that they had come up with the concept for their restaurant in 2008, trademarked the name in 2012, and failed to hear a word from Chubby Noodle's lawyers for months, suggests the Fat Noodle lawyers might need to get their heads straight.
Maybe that sentence has too many Noodles to be sure, but I think you meant to reference Chubby Noodle's lawyers as needing a good head straightening.
Just as IQ is really only a measure of how good you are at taking IQ tests, the only thing those brain games improve is your ability in that specific game. You might improve over time in that game, but that won't carry over into anything else.
That fuzziness or stretching sometimes makes it hard to make out fine details. E.g., when a character looks at phone. With lower quality video, all that you'll see is blurred letters.
Higher quality video won't make a bad movie good, but it does enhance my enjoyment of a good movie.
If you already have a movie in DVD format, there's no need to go out and buy a Blu-ray version. The increased quality is probably only worth ~$1-$3 (depending on how good the movie is), not the $20 you'll pay for a replacement.
It really all depends on the size of the screen you're viewing on, how far away it is, and how good your eyes are.
In my experience (which will vary from person to person), at a viewing distance of 10-20 feet, I can't discern the differences between anything above 60ppi.
Some data on various resolutions and minimum screen sizes (diagonal sizes of viewing area) to get >=60ppi (Assumes 16:9 monitor aspect ratio) :
I certainly don't get 4k, unless your TV takes up a wall. 1080p makes sense in some scenarios, but I usually go with 720p where available. My monitor is only 24", so I can't tell the difference between 1080p and 720p. Might as well save the bandwidth/space.
"(Source: 14 years of research into domain registration patterns and what's likely the largest database of abusive domains.)"
Oh yeah, the old "I won't provide my sources or credentials but I *know* and you just have to believe me". That's always a good argument. /s
Eh... I think I'll take him at his word on that. I've worked for a registrar before, and a common pattern of domains that show up in the abuse department is that most used the private registration service.
The problem is, there's a huge selection bias in his sample. He's seeing only those domains that cause problems, not the copious quantities of private domains registered for legitimate privacy / anti-spam (digital and physical) reasons.
I get what you're trying to say, but it's not exactly accurate.
Registering a domain requires registering a valid point of contact with ICANN. A "privately registered domain" is really another entity (usually the registrar, such as Go Daddy) putting themselves as the point of contact, and then forwarding you any correspondence (digital or otherwise) associated with that domain.
What you're paying for is the cost of that forwarding. Some companies may tack some profit on there, which is a bit reprehensible, but it's not as if it's a zero-cost thing.
There is no such thing as absolute security. Period, full stop. It doesn't matter how big or how small the target is.
That said, why should NDT know better? He's not a security expert, he isn't even in the IT field. He's a frakking astrophysicist. Because he's a celebrity, suddenly that means he has to be absolutely accurate 100% of the time, without leaving any room in his statements for misinterpretation? Just as the only unhackable system is one that doesn't exist, the only person who hasn't made a mistake in his statements is one that has never spoken. Why are people surprised that he's human? Why attack him just because he isn't infallible, when he never claimed to be?
The basic premise of NDT's statement is sound, even if he screwed up in the delivery.
It seems to me that his point was a bit muddled by his attempt to be pithy. Investing in better security is obviously a better use of resources than pointlessly sanctioning NK. (Are there any sanctions we aren't already using?)
This is just nitpicking about a poor choice of phrase.
Pick two separate targets you want to harm -- then attack one and make it appear like the attack is coming from the other.
Even when not intentionally trying to provoke a hacking war, it's common practice for hackers to use compromised third party systems as launching points for attacks. It is difficult to determine (by the target) which machines are owned by the attackers, and which are members of a botnet. Collateral damage is a real ongoing concern with counter-hacking.
Re: Re: Good thing this syndrome didn't begin in an earlier era
Take a look at Android fragmentation and Software/Hardware Smartphone battles for a good idea of what the Personal Computer would like if today's IP laws were in place in the 80s. There are a lot of parallels.
On the post: How Hillary Clinton Exposed Her Emails To Foreign Spies... In Order To Hide Them From The American Public
Re: Re: grammar bugaboo
On the post: How Hillary Clinton Exposed Her Emails To Foreign Spies... In Order To Hide Them From The American Public
Re: grammar bugaboo
"So" as a magnifier is what annoys me: "This is so annoying."
So, it appears that the logomachists are out in force today.
On the post: Disappointing: Google Not Yet Requiring Phone Makers To Encrypt By Default
Re: Nothing "disappointing" here
On the post: Disappointing: Google Not Yet Requiring Phone Makers To Encrypt By Default
Disappointing is the word.
Google quietly backpedaled their encryption requirement. Not permanently (at least according to them), but just an extension to give the manufacturers more time to meet the requirement.
So... disappointing is the word. Especially how Google loudly boasted about always on encryption, but was nearly silent about pushing back the requirement.
On the post: Total Wipes Decides The Word 'Download' Means Infringement, Issues DMCA Takedown Loaded With Non-Infringing URLs
Re: hmmm
Hell,just go with ip://*.*.*.*:* and shut down the entire internet! That'll surely cause sales to pick up!
On the post: Total Wipes Decides The Word 'Download' Means Infringement, Issues DMCA Takedown Loaded With Non-Infringing URLs
40 out of 95
Utterly absurd.
On the post: This Week In 'The NSA Knows F**king Everything': How It Hacked Most Hard Drives And SIM Cards
Hard Drive Firmware
That's not to say that the NSA didn't have access to the firmware source. They certainly could get at it if they wanted. Just that they did not necessarily need the source in order to write this kind of malware.
On the post: Despite Limited Interest In AT&T's Sponsored Data, Company Still 'Bullish' On Its Awful Precedent
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Domino Theory Isn't Right
Yeah, that's the crux of the matter right there. If there were real competition in the sector this sort of activity would be fine. Arbitrary limits on usage can reduce network saturation. The result for the end consumer is a less useful and more expensive service, but that would be fine, if there were alternatives.
However, ISPs (both wired and wireless) have spent the last two decades or more deeply entrenching themselves. The networks they operate were often subsidized, at Federal, State, and Local levels. They have spent millions of dollars lobbying (successfully) for anti-competitive laws of their own design. They have either natural or government (Local or State) granted monopolies in most of the regions they operate in. They collaborate with their so-called competitors, dividing territory and colluding on prices and practices. All while providing what few would disagree is a basic necessity of modern life.
When all the significant providers of a necessary service engage in collusion and anti-consumer behavior, it is, and rightfully should be, time to regulate that industry. I don't lightly suggest regulation. Careless or unnecessary regulation can have enormous costs and serious repercussions. However, ISPs have shown time and again that, like the banking industry, they will engage in anti-consumer behavior for so long as they are permitted to do so. It's time to tell them otherwise.
On the post: The MPAA Forces Craft Brewer To Abandon Its 'Rated R' Beer Brand
Really?
On the post: Chubby Vs. Fat: The Pointless Noodle Trademark War
Insert Noodling Pun Here
Maybe that sentence has too many Noodles to be sure, but I think you meant to reference Chubby Noodle's lawyers as needing a good head straightening.
On the post: DailyDirt: These Things Are Not Really Making You Any Smarter, But Try Them Anyway?
Brain Games
On the post: Analysis Of Pirated Oscar Movies Shows They're Almost All Available... In HD (And Not From Screeners)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Higher quality video won't make a bad movie good, but it does enhance my enjoyment of a good movie.
If you already have a movie in DVD format, there's no need to go out and buy a Blu-ray version. The increased quality is probably only worth ~$1-$3 (depending on how good the movie is), not the $20 you'll pay for a replacement.
On the post: Analysis Of Pirated Oscar Movies Shows They're Almost All Available... In HD (And Not From Screeners)
Re: Re:
In my experience (which will vary from person to person), at a viewing distance of 10-20 feet, I can't discern the differences between anything above 60ppi.
Some data on various resolutions and minimum screen sizes (diagonal sizes of viewing area) to get >=60ppi (Assumes 16:9 monitor aspect ratio) :
720x480 (DVD) - 15"
1280x720 - 24.5"
1920x1080 (HD) - 36.8"
3840x2160 (UHD) - 73.6"
I certainly don't get 4k, unless your TV takes up a wall. 1080p makes sense in some scenarios, but I usually go with 720p where available. My monitor is only 24", so I can't tell the difference between 1080p and 720p. Might as well save the bandwidth/space.
If you're curious, here's the equation I use:
sqrt( (vidHorRes * vidVertRes) / (0.425 * minPPI^2) ) = minReqMonitorSize
Alternatively, with a fixed monitor size (useful for determining what quality video to use):
0.425 * minPPI^2 * diagMonitorSize^2 = vidHorRes * vidVertRes
These equations assume a monitor aspect ratio of 16:9. If anyone wants them for a different aspect ratio (or a generalized form) ask for it.
On the post: Linux Developer Who Issued Bogus YouTube Takedowns Threatens Techdirt With Legal Action For Publishing His 'Private Information'
Re: Re:
Eh... I think I'll take him at his word on that. I've worked for a registrar before, and a common pattern of domains that show up in the abuse department is that most used the private registration service.
The problem is, there's a huge selection bias in his sample. He's seeing only those domains that cause problems, not the copious quantities of private domains registered for legitimate privacy / anti-spam (digital and physical) reasons.
On the post: Linux Developer Who Issued Bogus YouTube Takedowns Threatens Techdirt With Legal Action For Publishing His 'Private Information'
Re: Re:
Registering a domain requires registering a valid point of contact with ICANN. A "privately registered domain" is really another entity (usually the registrar, such as Go Daddy) putting themselves as the point of contact, and then forwarding you any correspondence (digital or otherwise) associated with that domain.
What you're paying for is the cost of that forwarding. Some companies may tack some profit on there, which is a bit reprehensible, but it's not as if it's a zero-cost thing.
On the post: Help Create Some Neil deGrasse Tysonisms: Tautologically Meaningless Solutions To All The World's Problems
Re: A fundemental misunderstaning of the subject.
That said, why should NDT know better? He's not a security expert, he isn't even in the IT field. He's a frakking astrophysicist. Because he's a celebrity, suddenly that means he has to be absolutely accurate 100% of the time, without leaving any room in his statements for misinterpretation? Just as the only unhackable system is one that doesn't exist, the only person who hasn't made a mistake in his statements is one that has never spoken. Why are people surprised that he's human? Why attack him just because he isn't infallible, when he never claimed to be?
The basic premise of NDT's statement is sound, even if he screwed up in the delivery.
On the post: Help Create Some Neil deGrasse Tysonisms: Tautologically Meaningless Solutions To All The World's Problems
Re:
On the post: Help Create Some Neil deGrasse Tysonisms: Tautologically Meaningless Solutions To All The World's Problems
Re: Re:
This is just nitpicking about a poor choice of phrase.
On the post: FBI Waking Up To The Fact That Companies With Itchy Trigger Fingers Want To Hack Back Hacking Attacks
Botnets
Even when not intentionally trying to provoke a hacking war, it's common practice for hackers to use compromised third party systems as launching points for attacks. It is difficult to determine (by the target) which machines are owned by the attackers, and which are members of a botnet. Collateral damage is a real ongoing concern with counter-hacking.
On the post: Will Patents Ruin The Most Important Biotech Discovery In Recent Years?
Re: Re: Good thing this syndrome didn't begin in an earlier era
Next >>