Slashdot Mirror


Slashback: AMD/ATI, Tokamak Fusion, Laptop Privacy

Slashback tonight brings some clarifications and updates to previous Slashdot stories including: An inside look at the AMD/ATI merger, school admins backing down on cell phone invasion policies, a new launch date for Scotty's ashes, a second test for China's Tokamak fusion device, Forbe's missed the mark on IBM destruction of evidence, Skype for Mac 1.5 released, and the courts rule that customs can still rifle through your laptop - Read on for details.

An inside look at the AMD/ATI merger. Spinnerbait writes "HotHardware spent some sit-down time with a few folks close to the AMD and ATI merger, asked some probing questions and received a few insightful answers in return. They dug in deep with AMD Execs, learned all there is to know currently and even got a hint of what the future might hold for the dynamic duo (no pun intended), now joined as one. A tighter coupling of the CPU and GPU is in our future perhaps?"

School admins back down on cell phone invasion policy. Reverberant writes "In a follow up to earlier coverage about school admins wanting access to students' cellphones, Framingham officials have decided to hold off on the policy for now because they need school committee approval. The head of the school policy committee has 'no interest in bringing it up.'"

New launch date for Scotty's ashes. wolfdvh writes "The BBC reports that Star Trek actor James Doohan, who played the engineer Scotty in the original TV series, will now have his remains blasted into space in October. The actor's ashes were supposed to be sent into orbit last year, but the flight was delayed as tests were carried out on the rocket."

Second test for China's Tokamak fusion device. Haxx writes "The first plasma discharge from China's experimental advanced superconducting research center dubbed 'artificial sun' is set to occur next month. The discharge, expected about Aug. 15, will be conducted at Science Island in Hefei, in east China's Anhui Province. The experiment will test the world's first Tokamak fusion device of this kind. The new device will be an upgrade of China`s first superconducting Tokamak device. The plasma discharge will draw international attention since some scientists are concerned with risks involved in such a process"

Forbe's missed the mark on IBM destruction of evidence. An anonymous reader writes "It turns out that Forbes.com was wrong and, based on analysis of Pacer no motion has been filed against IBM for destruction of evidence. Shortly following from a major collapse in SCO's share price, a recent article Slashdot reported Forbes.com's claim that a motion had been filed against IBM for destruction of evidence. In fact, Groklaw, the main site covering the SCO vs. IBM lawsuit, now reports that SCO has filed no motions of this type whatsoever in March."

Skype for Mac 1.5 released. Billy C writes "A few weeks after warez versions made the rounds on the Internet, the official Skype for Mac with video is here." While still only a preview version, brave users can now give it a shot.

Courts rule customs can rifle through your laptop. monstermagnet writes "On Monday, a unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the files of a person's laptop may be searched at U.S. borders [PDF] without probable cause or even reasonable suspicion."

171 comments

  1. Cyrix by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 2, Informative

    Cyrix already had a cpu/gpu/whatever else combo. It was the MediaGX

    --

    "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    1. Re:Cyrix by Donniedarkness · · Score: 1

      Yes, but was it actually any good? If so, then it was probably not very cheap at all-- otherwise, why would there be slashdotters with Athlon CPUs and Radeon graphics cards?

      --
      Earn a % of cash back from Newegg, Tiger Direct, Walmart.com, and more: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=458505
    2. Re:Cyrix by Rockman-X · · Score: 1

      No, it wasn't any good. I have one of those, a Cyrix MediaGX 133MHz (yes, still working, but mostly collecting dust), which incorporates Audio and Video functions on the CPU, and whenever anything needs to use any of the audio or video BASIC features, the processing speed always went to a crawl... Not to mention compatibility problems (a lot of them).

    3. Re:Cyrix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Whether it was any good depended on what you wanted to do ... for a set top box of 1997 vintage it wasn't too bad. Yes it was CPU challenged, but you could do a lot with a stripped down system (kernel + busybox + a dedicated app or two) and you could for example, process and display data from a weather radar system in soft realtime.

    4. Re:Cyrix by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

      It was good enough and cheap enough to be in pinball 2000

    5. Re:Cyrix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The irony in your statement is that AMD bought up what used to be Cyrix from National Semiconductor about 3 years ago and just recently decided to close that office down (in Longmont, CO) and disband the group.

    6. Re:Cyrix by Jonny_eh · · Score: 1

      Yup, AMD/ATI should just give up!

    7. Re:Cyrix by the_maddman · · Score: 1

      Funny enough, the second generation chip the MediaGXm, didn't suck much at all. It's just basic VGA though, no 3d, but much much faster than I expected. I have a 233mhz GXm, and it does quite well running win2k.

    8. Re:Cyrix by Calinous · · Score: 1

      I saw one implementation, and it was complete junk. Blue screens, crashes and (even more) the need to reinstall. The stability was somehow good at start, but went to the worse fast. Some of the problems were solved when a discrete video card replaced the integrated one.

    9. Re:Cyrix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought VIA had already stripped anything useful out of it ages ago (plans, engineers and so on) to make the C3 and its derivatives. It's more likely to be them than AMD, looking at a post later on talking about MediaGX.

    10. Re:Cyrix by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      Archtechturally, it was good. The problem with it wasn't that the idea was bad, it's implementation
      was shoddy- and, in that, I don't mean the chip itself, I mean things like a 33 MHz Front-Side bus
      really, really hamstrung it. In reality, AMD's still flogging the next generation version of this
      design with many, but not all the implementational flaws removed from it- you're probably familiar
      with the Geode GX and LX CPU options from AMD. If you've seen a design with one of those, you've
      seen the MediaGX in it's latest incarnation. No, it's not a gaming powerhouse, but it really never
      was intended to fill that role.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  2. ATI + AMD != Linux driver? by gigne · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No mention of where the Linux drivers are going with the merger of ATI and AMD. Maybe they will get their act together and give us working drivers for the 200 express card.

    --
    Signature v3.0, now with 42% less memory usage.
    1. Re:ATI + AMD != Linux driver? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey dumbass he was refering to the builtin graphic core of the chipset.

    2. Re:ATI + AMD != Linux driver? by ScaryFroMan · · Score: 1

      A great deal of low-end laptops use the x200M chip. It's the AMD alternative to intel integrated (and a good deal better, too.)

      --
      In Soviet Russia, backwards is everything.
    3. Re:ATI + AMD != Linux driver? by deek · · Score: 1

      Maybe they will get their act together and give us working drivers for the 200 express card.



      $ lspci | grep -i vga
      01:05.0 VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc RC410 [Radeon Xpress 200M]
      $
      $ fglrxinfo
      display: :0.0 screen: 0
      OpenGL vendor string: ATI Technologies Inc.
      OpenGL renderer string: RADEON XPRESS 200M Series Generic
      OpenGL version string: 2.0.5879 (8.26.18)


      Seems to be working already, as far as I can tell. This is on an IBM R51e laptop. What's the problem?
    4. Re:ATI + AMD != Linux driver? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does your laptop suspend to ram? Can you start more than one X server in parallel?

    5. Re:ATI + AMD != Linux driver? by deek · · Score: 1

      Does your laptop suspend to ram? Can you start more than one X server in parallel?


      I've no idea if the driver works with suspend to ram. I've never bothered to get suspend to ram working, since it's in a fairly high state of flux within the linux kernel.

      Can I start more than one X server simultaneously? Again, something that I never use. Apparantly it can though, according to this: http://www2.ati.com/drivers/linux/linux_8.25.18.ht ml#180566

      For my uses, the latest drivers works fine. Don't get me wrong, it's still not perfect; I would love a more complete opengl implementation. Otherwise, I'm satisfied with it.
    6. Re:ATI + AMD != Linux driver? by Fungii · · Score: 1

      Well, this quote from the article "In June at our analyst day in Sunnyvale, AMD introduced "Torrenza" and reinforced our commitment to an open architecture for third-party innovation" would seem to suggest that this is good news for the Linux (and other) drivers, assuming that this open architecture philosophy spreads to the GPU section of the new company.

      Lets hope it does.

    7. Re:ATI + AMD != Linux driver? by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      When it works like it's supposed to, yeah it pastes Intel's current offerings all over the place, performing like a low-end discrete display adapter. But, under Linux, as many will attest, while the drivers work, they're so sub-par in performance compared to the other cards, that we're still looking for NVidia on-board GPUs in our laptops...

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  3. First test for China's Tokamak a huge success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But an hour later they were hungry for more power than they put into the system.

  4. Scotty by p33p3r · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Being on the Enterprise myself, working in the engineroom, I understand the technical aspect of fusion reactions, I wish Scotty could have explained matter - antimatter to me.
    Where ever you go Scotty, I hope it's GREEN.





    Enterprise CVAN 65 that is...

  5. Thank heavens for crypto. by saintlupus · · Score: 3, Informative

    On Monday, a unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the files of a person's laptop may be searched at U.S. borders [PDF] without probable cause or even reasonable suspicion."

    TrueCrypt for Windows or Linux. Check it out.

    --saint

    1. Re:Thank heavens for crypto. by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And if they demand the key? If I bring a safe into the country, they're going to want to see inside or it stays at the impound, no? Convince 51% of the voters that freedom and privacy are good things, and you just might get some. Otherwise it ain't gonna happen, because now they believe that only terrorists want those things.

      --
      What?
    2. Re:Thank heavens for crypto. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      And that is why you use Truecrypt's hidden partition feature to create plausible deniability, just give them the key to the outer (un)secure encrypted partition, and they will never know there is even another one there.

    3. Re:Thank heavens for crypto. by Bios_Hakr · · Score: 1

      Chances are, they'll never know what to look for or where to look. Just put a few fake documents in "My Documents" and show them that. If they have some reason to dig deeper, then you might just be fucked.

      However, Customs has a job to do. They need to keep things out that aren't suposed to be here. If you stash Cuban cigars in your pants, you might get caught. If you stash kiddie pr0n on your laptop, you might get caught.

      I'm surprised to see this from the 9th, but it really is a "lawful" rulling.

      --
      I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
    4. Re:Thank heavens for crypto. by morcego · · Score: 1

      TrueCrypt for Linux ? Do you really think custom officers know how to use Linux ?
      Ha! It will be fun to watch.

      --
      morcego
    5. Re:Thank heavens for crypto. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fun to watch?? Remember, you'll be watching this while you are trying to catch a flight to your long overdue vacation. (You do bring you laptop on vacation right? Don't kid me, this is slashdot.)

      The last thing I want is for customs or TSA or whoever to have to struggle with my computer.

    6. Re:Thank heavens for crypto. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kevin Mitnick. Check him out.

    7. Re:Thank heavens for crypto. by toQDuj · · Score: 1

      You don't have to give your key without a warrant, for it would be self-incriminating behavior. AFAIK, that was the law in the US (and I'm not even a US citizen).

      B.

      --
      Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
    8. Re:Thank heavens for crypto. by Fred_A · · Score: 1
      What I don't get with this is what exactly they expect to be looking at...

      I just ran this on my iBook which has a small (by today's standards) 30GB drive :
      $ sudo find / | wc -l
          398921
      $
      In Windows I expect the numbers to be fairly large as well. So what files are they going to look at ? Will they be looking at (sorry using the Unix directories, not familiar with the Windows equivalents from the top of my head) /var ? at /usr/local/tmp ? at the other /home directories ? at /root ? at /etc/rc4.d/.mysecretstashofnukularsecrets ?

      Will they be looking at the encrypted data on my Palm inside my keyring app ? At the Palm's SD card ? (and what if I don't have a file browser installed on the machine ?) At the encrypted files stored on my Vision media player ?

      I'll be interested to see the little computer lab they're going to setup at each checkpoint...
      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    9. Re:Thank heavens for crypto. by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      If you read the PDF where the court described the case, you would know that all he needed to do is to empty the browser history, and he would never have been in trouble. Forensics would have found the stuff, but forensics would never have been involved.

    10. Re:Thank heavens for crypto. by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      This is true. After you assert your rights, however, they'll then do one of two things:

      a) They'll detain you indefinitely (up to three months if I remember correctly) for suspicious behavior.
      b) They'll not allow you in the country, ship you back to your home country, and likely prevent you from ever entering again.

      Trust me, I've had experience with these people. They're like the police force only with more power.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    11. Re:Thank heavens for crypto. by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      Of course, they could also argue that you have no rights under the Constitution if you're not a US citizen, so they can do whatever they like. I think this would be one of the more likely responses.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    12. Re:Thank heavens for crypto. by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      They'll be looking at... whatever the software that they outsource to scan laptops at the border chooses to look for.

      What, you think they'll actually train Customs officers to scan a hard drive?

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    13. Re:Thank heavens for crypto. by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      I suppose that non Windows laptops (or possibly non FAT/NFS disks) will have to be made illegal then. This will be fun :)

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    14. Re:Thank heavens for crypto. by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      That's for people already in the US. You're not in until they let you in. The constitution does not apply outside the fortress walls or at the gate. And it's losing its clout on the inside also. The majority is pretty much letting the government do as it pleases. In effect letting the constitution slowly(or not so slowly lately) die of attrition. Personally, I'm simply staying away until the hysteria dies down and the people recover their senses. I know it's inconvenient, but I kind of wish others would do the same.

      --
      What?
    15. Re:Thank heavens for crypto. by ejasons · · Score: 1

      Of course, they could also argue that you have no rights under the Constitution if you're not a US citizen, so they can do whatever they like. I think this would be one of the more likely responses.

      The word citizen appears nowhere in the bill of rights...
    16. Re:Thank heavens for crypto. by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      Nah. They'll actually just let you through.

      The lesson here: If you're taking a laptop across the border, make sure it runs Linux!

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    17. Re:Thank heavens for crypto. by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      Indeed. The argument they'd make is that the entire Bill of Rights (and the Constitution) is written to protect citizens and nobody else. The text only applies to citizens.

      Of course, I'd be the first to argue against that, but it is fairly likely.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
  6. Courts rule customs can rifle through your laptop by jigjigga · · Score: 4, Funny

    Way to go! USA! USA! USA! Our freedoms are the envy of the world!

  7. Probable Cause by CraigoFL · · Score: 3, Interesting

    the files of a person's laptop may be searched at U.S. borders without probable cause or even reasonable suspicion.

    Elliotte Rusty Harold recently had a good blog post about probable cause. His point is that probable cause isn't just to protect the innocent from abuse; it's also to keep the police effective by forcing them to focus on people who have a high probability of actual wrongdoing. Without that constraint, they're free to go after anyone, and end up wasting their time & effort on wild goose chases.

    I assume that there's no legal obligation for you to give US Customs your password. I also assume that they're under no obligation to let you into the country. If you're clearing customs while you're in the US, there's probably no obligation for them to return your laptop to you either.

    1. Re:Probable Cause by paulmer2003 · · Score: 1

      For some reason I highly doubt the customs people would know how to use my laptop, as first, they would need to get past BIOS password. Second, they would need user password. Then they would be at a nice console. Have a nice day :)

    2. Re:Probable Cause by Lokni · · Score: 1

      Yeah, right bloody likely. That is the most asinine thing I have ever heard. Hey, if they want to logon despite the DoD warning on my laptop saying it is a criminal offense to access the laptop without authorization, hey no problem. Until then, they can go fark themselves.

    3. Re:Probable Cause by CraigoFL · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But in the end you're going to do yourself in with your attempts to protect yourself. If they can't get at your files to see that you're free of child porn, they're going to get upset, and they're going to make things difficult for you. They could prevent you from crossing, impound your laptop, and possibly even detain you.

      Meanwhile, someone who is *actually* smuggling in illicit data simply has to:
      1) Encrypt/obfuscate the data, so it's not obvious what that data is.
      2) Make it look mundane... hide it in the windows swap file maybe?
      3) Gladly offer up full access to the laptop when asked. Customs will probably not bother with a deep search, since it's "obvious" that the smuggler has nothing to hide. They're too busy trying to get figure what to do with the other guy who won't give up the BIOS password to his laptop anyway.

    4. Re:Probable Cause by paulmer2003 · · Score: 1

      Sure they can look threw my files, assuming they are proficient with gnu user land tools, lol. Besides, if asked I would log them on to something where no real data is stored, such as my ircd account with all of my irc servers.

    5. Re:Probable Cause by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2, Informative

      Customs is not police, searching for evidence of a crime.

      Customs is treasury department border guards.

      They're not accusing you of a crime. They're just checking that your taxes are paid and you're not bringing in prohibited items.

      They don't need a warrant. They don't need probable cause. They get to check without suspicion.

      And if they happen to find evidence of a crime during their search, they get to file charges, just like any other official who happened to see evidence of a crime while performing their normal duties.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    6. Re:Probable Cause by couchslug · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Meanwhile, someone who is *actually* smuggling in illicit data simply has to:
      Drop it into a throwaway webmail account from overseas, then retrieve it from that account after returning to the US. A bit of warwalking to unsecured APs keeps the process untraceable.
      If I carried the laptop I used for the purpose with me, its drive would have been wiped and it would have a nice clean install, with l3m0nparty wallpaper for Customs enjoyment. :)

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    7. Re:Probable Cause by djtachyon · · Score: 1

      "what to do with the other guy who won't give up the BIOS password to his laptop anyway."

      Clear the CMOS?

      --
      "What's the use of a good quotation if you can't change it?" - Doctor Who
    8. Re:Probable Cause by sr180 · · Score: 1

      Why not just encrypt it and email it?

      Why make life hard?

      --
      In Soviet Russia the insensitive clod is YOU!
    9. Re:Probable Cause by PayPaI · · Score: 1

      Good luck doing that on a laptop. Best case you have to build a custom dongle that hooks to the parport or disassemble the laptop. Worst case it's impossible w/o replacing the motherboard (or swapping the chip, which is effectively the same thing) (especially on a Thinkpad)

    10. Re:Probable Cause by asuffield · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They'll just strip your car down to the frame, then reject your entry to the country and leave you standing there with a pile of mechanical parts. Customs is fucked up and has no proper appeals process or oversight of these things.

    11. Re:Probable Cause by Eivind · · Score: 2, Informative
      But in the end you're going to do yourself in with your attempts to protect yourself. If they can't get at your files to see that you're free of child porn, they're going to get upset, and they're going to make things difficult for you.

      But with TrueCrypt that's not the case. It works like this:

      • They notice the encrypted partition.
      • They ask for the password to read it.
      • You give them the password for the outer filesystem.
      • They verify that it contains harmless but mildly embarassing emails to your girlfriend.
      • They have *NO* way of knowing that there even *IS* an inner filesystem in the unused part of the outer filesystem.

      This works because even the *existence* of the inner filesystem can't be demonstrated without knowing the passphrase. Because encrypted, the filesystem looks like random noise, so there's no way of knowing that it is not, infact, random noise.

      Look into TrueCrypt.

    12. Re:Probable Cause by DDLKermit007 · · Score: 1

      That doesn't work so well on newer laptops anymore. They store the bios password in non-volitale memory. You end up haveing to replace the SMD chip with a blank one to gain access.

    13. Re:Probable Cause by dbIII · · Score: 1
      and end up wasting their time & effort on wild goose chases
      Like strip searching grannies in the name of uber homeland security. Refuse to give your password and you are suddenly a terrorism suspect and amataur law enforcement can be set loose on you - we've already had that stupid situation with Cat Stevens as a terrorism suspect and some poor bastard getting spirited away from Chicago to GITMO by a bunch that couldn't even find anything to charge him with.
    14. Re:Probable Cause by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      '' For some reason I highly doubt the customs people would know how to use my laptop, as first, they would need to get past BIOS password. Second, they would need user password. Then they would be at a nice console. Have a nice day :) ''

      If customs wants to search the laptop, and they can't, the easiest thing they can do is send you back home.

    15. Re:Probable Cause by belmolis · · Score: 1

      If you're a US citizen or permanent resident, they do indeed have a legal obligation to admit you to the United States. Otherwise, no.

    16. Re:Probable Cause by 4of12 · · Score: 1
      If they can't get at your files ... they're going to get upset, and they're going to make things difficult for you.

      Yeah, my company's health care plan does this to me, too.

      I think that must be why my doctor has to encrypt the results of my checkup exams.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    17. Re:Probable Cause by asuffield · · Score: 1
      They have *NO* way of knowing that there even *IS* an inner filesystem in the unused part of the outer filesystem.


      Doesn't really matter. They can ensure that there is no hidden filesystem by overwriting all the unused parts of the disk with random data. Truecrypt may give you plausible deniability in court, but it's no good for smuggling data.
    18. Re:Probable Cause by Eivind · · Score: 1
      Sure it is.

      If you're smuggling illegal data, losing the data ain't even half as bad as having the data discovered. Losing them just means that that single smuggling-attempt was in vain, you'll have to try again. It's unlikely to be your only copy of the data anyway.

      Secondly, you could just store the TrueCrypt volume on a DVD-R or similar. That way there's no way of overwriting the "unused" space in the filesystem.

      Seriously, there's no way of stopping this other than making it illegal to carry *any* data into a country. Because even if you disallow only encrypted data (even where the encryption-key is public) then there's nothing stopping people from hiding the data steganographically anyways. A TrueCrypt volume stored in the LSB of a wav-file is indistinguishable from random noise for anyone who doesn't have the key.

  8. Romm's lawyer dropped the ball by rdwald · · Score: 5, Informative
    A quick reading of the brief in the "searching laptops at the border" case suggests that the reason they're considering a laptop search as part of the "routine search" they're already allowed to do at borders is because the defendant's lawyer didn't raise the question of whether this search differed from a routine search during the first phase of the trial, and therefore the appellate court can't look at the issue now. Seems more like a dodge to duck the issue rather than an actual ruling. Here, I'll even give you the specific wording:

    Finally, and for the first time in his reply brief, Romm argues the search of his laptop was too intrusive on his First Amendment interests to qualify as a "routine" border search. See generally Okafor, 285 F.3d at 846 (noting the difference between routine and non-routine searches). We decline to consider this issue here because "arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived." See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999). Therefore, evaluating the border search of Romm's laptop solely as a routine search, we hold the district court correctly denied Romm's motion to suppress.
    1. Re:Romm's lawyer dropped the ball by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, that's just how the legal system works.

      You can't bring up new issues on appeal.

      The appeals process is almost solely focused on arguing over the facts, arguments and legal manuevers that were presented at trial.

      Smith v. Marsh is a very oft quoted precedent which establishes this rule.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:Romm's lawyer dropped the ball by rdwald · · Score: 1

      I'm not blaming the judges, I'm blaming the lawyer. He should have known the legal precedent you speak of and planned accordingly, raising all possible arguments at the initial trial.

  9. Fusion power by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm surprised by the stupid comments found on the page concerning China's Tokamak device. I'm eager for the day when scientists finally manage to create a working fusion reactor. Here's what asimov had to say back in 1975.

    --
    "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
    1. Re:Fusion power by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 2, Funny

      I noticed it, too. Don't get me wrong--there are some valid concerns with the Deuterium/Tritium reactors. But most of the comments were, "Doc Ock tried this in Spiderman 2..."

      Hopefully they were joking, but it's awfully scary sometimes to think that they were serious...

    2. Re:Fusion power by Zebai · · Score: 1

      Scientist have long ago created a fusion reactor, however fusion requires a great deal of energy to initiate and a great deal to keep going. Any reactors created so far have not created a substantial amount more energy than is needed to create the reaction. That is why we dont have a fusion power plant, fusion in our current methods of producing it is like using 20 batteries in conjuction to produce the power that simply using 22 batteries would give us.

      Compared to fission its a horrible ratio, and todays fission reactors are much more advanced and safer than the ones in past that have had disasters.

    3. Re:Fusion power by Alsee · · Score: 1

      As I started reading your post, at first I thought you were going in a different direction and were about to make a certain joke. I guess I'll make the joke myself...

      Scientist have long ago created a fusion reactor, however fusion requires a great deal of energy to initiate and a great deal to keep going. The reactors created so far have created a substantial amount more energy than is needed to create the reaction. That is why we dont have a fusion power plant - exactly because the excess energy created is about 8 orders of magnitude too large for a viable fusion power plant.

      Obviously I had a slightly different class of manmade "fusion reactor" in mind. Chuckle.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  10. Obligatory Crypto Post by psyclone · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I wonder how difficult it might be to get a stack of CDs containing truecrypt, GPG, [insert favorite crypto software here], etc. at one of those airport bookstores? You would include the source and binaries for as many operating systems and languages as possible. Proceeds from the CDs could go to the project authors.

    Just a thought.

  11. Doh! by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It turns out that Forbes.com was wrong...

    Forbes defaming linux? In an article written by Daniel Lyons? Who would have thunk it?

    The guy has a well established reputation for being wrong that you can pretty trust anything he writes about linux to be exactly 180-degrees out of sync with reality.

    Ordinarily I would want some of whatever he's been smoking, but it sure seems to make you mean and spiteful as a side-effect.

  12. Who the hell is Forbe? by Speare · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's not Forbe's, it's Forbes.

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]
    1. Re:Who the hell is Forbe? by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      Forbe? He's Furby's cousin.

  13. Ah yes by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

    Framingham officials have decided to hold off on the policy for now because they need school committee approval. The head of the school policy committee has 'no interest in bringing it up.'

    He who controls the agenda, controls policy.

    You can't vote on something if the head doesn't put it on the agenda.
    /It's kindof a bastard/obstructionist move. Better than a filibuster.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
    1. Re:Ah yes by ezratrumpet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's one of the realities of private institutions. Whoever is in charge, is in charge.

      If you agree to go to a private school, you effectively sign away the Bill of Rights as a condition of admission. The school doesn't *have* to let you do anything - all of your rights are actually courtesies.

      Most administrators know the difference between reasonable and unreasonable, but it's a fine distinction that too easily lends itself to broad rules and sweeping determinations.

  14. Paedo-hysteria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you are wondering why the court decided to ignore the constitution, it's probably because they were Thinking of the Children. I quote:

    Based on 40 images deleted from his internet cache and two images deleted from another part of his hard drive,2 Romm was convicted of knowingly receiving and knowingly possessing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(2), (a)(5)(B). Romm appeals both of these convictions, as well as his concurrent mandatory minimum sentences of ten and fifteen years.

    Apart from the absurdity of valuing locking away a single paedophile over the basic rights granted to everybody by the constitution, what the hell is going on with the sentence? Fifteen years for looking at forty-odd photos that he deleted afterwards? Some of them were just thumbnails too! What the hell?

    I'm not condoning paedophilia (and I think it's fucking stupid that I have to add disclaimers like this), but something is seriously fucked up if looking at a few pictures means you are such a threat to society that you need to be locked up for the best part of two decades. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that over-the-top punishment like this is a worse crime than looking at the pictures in the first place. The kids aren't even going to be aware that he committed this crime, and yet the state is forcibly taking away a huge chunk of his life. The harm of the punishment is clearly out of all proportion to the harm caused by the crime.

    Apparently, the excuse they used was a precedent set by an older case:

    Instead, " 'searches made at the border . . . are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border.' " United States v. Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. 149, 152-53 (2004) (quoting United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 616 (1977)).

    Er, what? A border search is reasonable because it's a border search? Last time I checked, the constitution didn't say:

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Oh, except when it's at the border.

    1. Re:Paedo-hysteria by Tekzel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The thing I find most disturbing about the kind of conviction Romm got was, whos to say he willfully downloaded those pictures? Hell most of them were in his internet cache, who here has never accidently typoed a URL and got one of those domains the prey on typos? So if I type in www.amazan.com and accidently get a child porn site and they find evidence of the pictures in my cache I can go to jail for 15 years? That seems a little insane to me.

      And, on that note, I think it is sad that a nonviolent offender can get near 20 years in prison when a murderer or rapist can walk with less time. There are some really disturbed people making up these laws.

    2. Re:Paedo-hysteria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AC cause I'm an old lazy lurker, but seriously, how many times have you clicked on the wrong URL and seen child porn? Anything obviously illegal is not easily found if there are interested groups who care about the issue. You cannot google for child porn, and you cannot randomly "stumble across" a website offering child porn to the general public. The fact that such images were even on his computer is evidence enough to suggest deviancy based on the difficulty of finding a website offering such images, regardless of our system's screwed up laws.

      I understand that this is a slippery slope, but there are certain issues so anethema that I do not care if the government is "somewhat extreme" in their prosecution of said actions; the exploitation of children tops this very short list.

    3. Re:Paedo-hysteria by Monster_Juice · · Score: 2, Informative

      He did a search on Google for sites containing child pornography, went to the sites and viewed images and later opened the thumbnails and viewed the pictures for about five minutes while masturbating twice. He later went in and emptied his temporary internet files but did not delete his internet history.

      Unfortunately in many states you would get a shorter sentence for molesting a child. There are many organizations trying to get the laws changed to carry a stiffer sentence. In fact in Nebraska if you are short you only get probation.

      Cases like this are further proof that we do not need the Constitution to be a living document. We also need to get Judges to quit looking for precedence to decide every case. I hope this goes to a higher court or appealed again on the grounds of illegal search and seizure. Do I think the guy is guilty? Hell yes but the ends do not justify the means. There should be border searches, but I also feel there should be a limit to what they are searching for and what they can search.

      My final thought is that I have seen no proof that the images were actually of a child. He was looking for child porn but did he find it or did he just find an 18 year old that looks younger than she/he really is? Splitting a hair yes, but if they cannot prove the person in the picture is under 18 this would only be attempt to commit a crime.

      --
      Slashdot +1 funny -4 Insightful +1 informative -2 Redundant
      Karma: Somewhere between SCO and Microsoft
    4. Re:Paedo-hysteria by Calinous · · Score: 2, Informative

      He was a repeat offender, and there was already a conviction that blocked him to look at child porn

    5. Re:Paedo-hysteria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In some states within the Union, and some other countries, the age of consent is under 18. So in those states its legal to sleep with, but not view/take pictures of say a 17 year old...

      Historically, the age of passage into adulthood and the number 18 don't add up...

      What's the deal with checking for porn, but not for example, liturature on the manufacture and distribution of drugs. If they found a how to grow marijuana document in that guys laptop, does he get charged with intent to produce and distribute? I realize there may some extinuating evidence in this particular case. However, these random, "routine" searches into the content of your laptop could easily lead to breaches in Corporate, Political and Personal security. Would you trust the dood at the checkpoint at the airport to get a glimpse of sensitive info and not leak it? My main hang up with all this hightened security at borders and airports is that I don't trust the f*ckers enforcing it.

      Possible solution? Overnight your laptop through Fed Ex?

      As it stands, I keep anything that is not operational software (ie. sensitive docs, developing source code, basically any and all work files) on an encrypted usb drive or dvd. If I'm to pass through some sort of checkpoint that has the right inspect me or my belongings, the drive and discs get sent to my destination by other means.

    6. Re:Paedo-hysteria by jeti · · Score: 1

      Apart from the absurdity of valuing locking away a single paedophile over the basic rights granted to everybody by the constitution, what the hell is going on with the sentence? Fifteen years for looking at forty-odd photos that he deleted afterwards? Some of them were just thumbnails too! What the hell?

      Unless I'm mistaken, porn depicting people under the age of 21 is considered to be child porn in several states. So there's little evidence that he's a pedophile at all.

    7. Re:Paedo-hysteria by Quila · · Score: 3, Informative

      A border search is reasonable because it's a border search?

      Yep, it's part of the ability of a sovereign nation to defend its borders. This is a very narrow exception though, as warrantless searches just within the border, past the fixed entry point, are not allowed.

      In case you are wondering whether this is some modern Republico-fascist policy, these searches were authorized by the first Congress. The precedent over this includes the authority of Customs to inspect incoming container ships.

    8. Re:Paedo-hysteria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AC cause I'm an old lazy lurker, but seriously, how many times have you clicked on the wrong URL and seen child porn?

      If you're "an old lazy lurker", then I'm guessing you are familiar with clicking on the wrong URL and being confronted by the Goatse guy?

      It sounds like, by your logic, you consider yourself to have actively wanted to view the Goatse guy. After all, how do you "randomly stumble across" a man stretching his arsehole wide enough to drive a bus down?

    9. Re:Paedo-hysteria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, it's part of the ability of a sovereign nation to defend its borders.

      No it isn't. There is always the option of turning people away instead of letting them into the country. If he was given the choice, "we will search your laptop or you will be deported", then that would meet the letter of the law, but he wasn't given that option.

    10. Re:Paedo-hysteria by Sloppy · · Score: 1
      AC cause I'm an old lazy lurker, but seriously, how many times have you clicked on the wrong URL and seen child porn? Anything obviously illegal is not easily found if there are interested groups who care about the issue. You cannot google for child porn, and you cannot randomly "stumble across" a website offering child porn to the general public. The fact that such images were even on his computer is evidence enough to suggest deviancy based on the difficulty of finding a website offering such images, regardless of our system's screwed up laws.

      While it is in fact true that it's impossible nowdays to accidently search for something you don't want, there was once a case where it actually happened, though the consequences turned out to not be very severe. Interesting reading. Basically, the upshot was that it turned out that there was a new-fangled internet technology that allowed a document, rather than a actively thinking user, to suggest a web page or image to load. All the user had to do, was click their mouse button, and they could end up looking at just about anything, unless they really thought about what they were doing. Fortunately, nobody uses such dangerous applications anymore.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    11. Re:Paedo-hysteria by syukton · · Score: 1

      The 40 images-of-paedophilia thing has me a little curious.

      If I used javascript to preload an image without displaying it, or if I hid a 640x480 image as a 1x1 pixel on a webpage, wouldn't that image end up in the browser cache? Is it really even technically accurate to believe that anything that is in the browser cache has indeed been intentionally viewed by the user doing the browsing?

      Say you run a website and you want people to stop linking to your images from offsite, so you have any off-site requests for an image responded to with kiddy porn. You don't even need to host the porn, just redirect to an image stored on some server in Amsterdam or whatever. Then you can get kiddy porn onto everyone's computer, and I think they'll all be as guilty as this Romm fellow was.

      --
      Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
    12. Re:Paedo-hysteria by Chaostrophy · · Score: 1

      Once you have started to entery a country, you have no right to change your mind. Yup, not nice, not saying anything about right or wrong or good or bad, but that is the rule, here and everywhere.

      --
      Plato seems wrong to me today
    13. Re:Paedo-hysteria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't about the person changing their mind, this is about what options are available to the country, not the person. The country always has the option of refusing entry into their territory. As such, it is never necessary to search somebody to defend the country's borders. The country has another option. This means that the suspension of fourth amendment rights under the guise of security is not justified, as deporting people who refuse to be searched can maintain that security just as well.

    14. Re:Paedo-hysteria by Tekzel · · Score: 1
      I thought I should mention, I wasn't necessarily talking ABOUT his case, I was using it as an example since it was referenced. I meant in general finding some items in someones cache should not be the sole reason for conviction.

      We do need to be careful about being overzealous in pursuit of this. I was listening to the radio the other day when the subject came up on a talk show and a guy called to tell his story, his mother (the child's grandmother) took some photos of their toddler over the course of a vacation, and in a few of them the child happened to be naked, as toddlers so often are. According to this guy, when she took them to be developed an employee at the photo place saw the naked photos and called the cops on her. He said she was tried on child pornography and was convicted because she lacked the funds to fight it. Now, I don't believe this story, but I also dont disbelieve it. The sad thing is, I could see it happening.

      My final thought is that I have seen no proof that the images were actually of a child. He was looking for child porn but did he find it or did he just find an 18 year old that looks younger than she/he really is? Splitting a hair yes, but if they cannot prove the person in the picture is under 18 this would only be attempt to commit a crime.


      Nothing really need be said here I guess, doesn't our system require proof "beyond a reasonable doubt"? An 18 year old can look young for their age. Its also pretty close to impossible to tell the difference between an 18 year old and a 17 year old. When one just makes someone a dirty old man, and the other makes them a convicted felon that has to register everywhere they go for the rest of their life (after getting out of jail of course), and deal with guaranteed harassment, I think that proof thing is very important.

      Uh. I hope no one is getting the idea that I am a in favor of child porn here :/

    15. Re:Paedo-hysteria by Alsee · · Score: 1

      clearly out of all proportion

      But we Must Protect The Children!

      Which reminds me of a news segment I saw recently. Some idiot state passed a law making it a criminal offence for any ex-con sex offender to live in a residence within 1500 feet of a church, school, park, ...yada yada yada..., or any schoolbus stop. The newscast then put up a map of the city... overlaid dots marking all of the schoolbus stops and other "protected" locations, and then extended 1500 foot prohibited zone colored blobs out from each and every dot. The ENTIRE FUCKING CITY turned into one gigantic prohibited zone colored blob... with maybe three or four itsy bitsy remaining "legal residence" areas. And those three of four areas were probably the top dead center of the garbage dump, and propbably a dead end road into middle of a swamp or something. It's quite likely that there weren't even any houses in any of the remaining "legal residence" areas.

      Oh, and even if you did manage to locate an actual house in a non-criminal-to-reside area and moved in, well if the school district MOVED one of their bus stops into within 1500 feet of your home, or if any other "protected" building or facility were to be established within 1500 feet of your home... we'll it then immediately becomes criminal for you to reside in your home. You immediately clear out, get screwed out of any rent or ownership already sunk in that home, and must immediately manage to find some other non-criminal place to sleep that night... or go to prison as a felon.

      And all I could keep thinking was hell, they might as well just take the next god damn step and just add "any person" to the list. It is a felony to reside within 1500 feet of any church, school, park, schoolbus stop, or any person.

      Here's a handy dandy reality check: The most serious crime is murder. Period. Full Stop. When people start passing stricter prison sentences for some crime than they impose for murder, and they start passing all sorts of bizarre-ass laws turning the entire legal system upside down and lowering evidentiary standards and inventing and imposing all sorts of post-prison insanity that they do not apply against murderer... then you are no longer dealing with any rational legal system. You are dealling with nothing but an irrational mob.

      Anyone who abuses a child is a serious criminal and damn well should be arrested and locked up. However someone who murders that same child - or murders anyone for that matter - that person has committed an even more serious crime and it is even more important to arrest that person and even more important to throw that person in prison for an even longer sentence

      And anyone who attacks that as "defending child abusers" is a fucking moron.

      But heay, joining a mob and mindlessly running around with a torch and pitchfork against a "sex offender" is just so much more fun and so much cooler and so much more newsworthy than doing it over some run-of-the-mill murderer. Basic murder just doesn't have that zing for whipping up a good irrational mob. Basic murder just doesn't have that zing for whiping up political press conferences for new legislation that will magically stop anyone from ever committing murder again.

      Gahh.... sorry for the rant. That's kinda been bugging me ever since I saw that news segment on the rediculous 1500 foot schoolbus stop law.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  15. Boo Slashback by TheStonepedo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    What the fuck happened to new stories? Or even comments about moderately old stories. This place is going to pot.

    --
    I'll be your candy shop of infinite deliciousity if you'll be my discotheque of endless rump-shaking.
    1. Re:Boo Slashback by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Going?

  16. Re:Courts rule customs can rifle through your lapt by chill · · Score: 4, Funny

    Dude, this has been the norm in the UK and much of Europe for several years. They really don't like you bringing porn into their countries. Of course, there are ample supplies of domestic porn already there, so I'm not sure why you'd want to import it.

    I've actually had a customs agent at Gatwick Airport (London, UK) ask me if I had any porn on my laptop. I told him no, if I wanted any I'd just get some local stuff as it seemed plentiful. Fortunately the British pride themselves on having a sense of humor. He offered suggestions on where to get it...

      -Charles

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  17. Not smoking by jpardey · · Score: 1

    He's been drinking Hateraide .

    Maybe I should stop reading Urban Dictionary.

    --
    I have freaks! I did something right...
  18. Customs by TopSpin · · Score: 3, Informative

    "Customs" can rifle through your anus without probable cause or even reasonable suspicion. Why anyone would suspect that laptops are somehow sacred and take it up with the courts mystifies me.

    --
    Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
    1. Re:Customs by pembo13 · · Score: 1

      Somehow, going through my computer files seems worse. Don't know why.

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
  19. Feel The Burn Baby by DumbSwede · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here is a better link from a Chinese news source Super-heated fusion experiment to reach 100 million degrees

    Evidently this isn't just aiming to achieve "break-even" but an actual "fusion burn" lasting 1000 seconds or approximately 16 minutes. I can't help but wonder that if they reach this goal whether it will massively accelerate the arrival of commercial fusion energy. The difference between break-even and burn is that break-even merely releases more energy than input, whereas burn requires self sustained reaction without additional input of energy.

    Many people think controlled fusion is "undoable" so such a demonstration would go a long way towards getting rid of the "30 years away and always will be" assumption.
    We only have to wait until Mid-August to find out.

    1. Re:Feel The Burn Baby by Viper+Daimao · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Has anyone been following the weird events surround Robert Bussard? Specifically the last paragraph of that wiki entry:
      On March 29, 2006, Bussard claimed on the fusor.net forum that EMC2 had developed an inertial electrostatic confinement fusion process that was 100,000 times more efficient than previous designs. However, the company's funding ran out, and Bussard is looking for additional funding to develop a full-scale fusion power plant. On June 23, 2006 Bussard provided more details of the breakthrough and the circumstances of the shutdown of this work by the government.
      I'd like to believe, but I just haven't seen this anywhere else, much less the somewhat fishy timing of the announcement.
      --
      "In the game of life, someone always has to lose. To me, if life were fair, that someone would always be Oklahoma." -DKR
    2. Re:Feel The Burn Baby by kidtexas · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, to my knowledge they are not shooting for an actual "fusion burn". You can have a 1000 second discharge in a tokamak without it being a burning plasma. I don't even think they are shooting for break even. That could be in their road map though. They'd have to use tritium though and many large fusion devices don't want to do too many DT (deuterium tritium) experiments because then you have a neutron activated device that you have to work with.

      To see a burning plasma, I think most of us are going to have to wait for ITER.

      Not to steal EAST's thunder - it's a pretty amazing machine, and from what I hear, it only cost a couple tens of millions (like 40-50). If we tried to build something like that in the US it would have cost over 1 billion. yay for cheap labor.

    3. Re:Feel The Burn Baby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If Bussard is really so sure of his breakthrough, I suggest he take his funding request to the Chinese. This would give them a "plan B" for any failure of their tokamak fusion demonstrator. Indeed, if Bussard's claims have merit, the Chinese would "own" the technology for commercial fusion, and the world would have to buy from them.

      Such prospects might, in the end, motivate some US agencies to intervene to keep the technology domestic to the US.

    4. Re:Feel The Burn Baby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you RT(real)FA that the the UPI article referenced (and the gp linked to) you'd see that they did specifically say that it "should give off its own energy". I think that's much too tentitive for them to not be referring to break even, especially since they've already achieved a test discharge. That being said, it is hard to tell from the decidedly non-technical source. In either case, 1000 seconds should be big step up as far as I know. And anyway, I'm pleased that anyone is doing the research. China might actually be a good place for this sort of research, since they can probably act without a lot of the red tape and "oversight" you might see in something like ITER.

    5. Re:Feel The Burn Baby by kidtexas · · Score: 5, Informative

      I didn't read the article. I am a plasma physicist though. Just because a plasma gives off energy doesn't mean its burning. Heck it doesn't even mean it has any fusion reactions going on. No doubt EAST will have fusion events though. I really didn't think EAST was shooting for break even; I thought they were focussing on high plasma current almost steady state discharges which is quite significant in and of itself. It's a very cool machine - superconducting field coils, discharges up to 1000s, 1 MA of current. I wish it was in the US.

      But I don't think they are going for break even. They'd have to put tritium in it, and if that does happen, it won't happen for a bunch of years. You might read about them claiming break even based on a DD shot they did and extrapolating what the fusion output would have been if was a DT reaction... But its not quite the same.

    6. Re:Feel The Burn Baby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NO!

      FFS, this is why so many people are so skeptical of fusion. EAST is NOT attempting to achieve ignition, let alone breakeven. It's just a test of the use of superconducting magnets to generate the poloidal and toroidal fields. We do not, and should not, expect to see a breakeven tokamak until 2016, the completion date for the ITER, whose goals include a 1000 second burn at Q (power out/power in) of 5 and a shorter burn of Q=10, but even its goals DO NOT include ignition (Q=infinity, ie the burn is totally self-sustaining).

    7. Re:Feel The Burn Baby by MadUndergrad · · Score: 1

      My neighbor is an acquaintance of Dr. Bussard. I've never met the guy (Bussard) but my neighbor is a big fan of him. He's a pretty good engineer, and from what he's told me of Bussard's ideas, I think they have a pretty good shot. Thing is, Bussard is getting old (in his 80's, I think), so he may not survive to see them through. Apparently he doesn't really like to publish papers either, though I don't know why.

      What I've heard of his IEC device is that it absorbs the alpha particles emitted by the reaction and generates power off of them to feed back into the fusor. I don't really know the specifics, but he seems to think that he's worked a lot of the problems out of IEC devices that make most physicists think that they could never be energy positive. This is my chosen field of study, so I'll probably look into this stuff more in-depth, maybe even work with it myself.

  20. Yeah Slashback (but Boo Backslash) by DumbSwede · · Score: 1

    I rather enjoy Slashback as a compendium of previous story updates and wish it had a once daily appearance (it had been far less than this in the past).

    Backslash posts however seem to be bloated rehashes of comments. If there were no comment moderations it would be useful, but we do, so it isn't.

    1. Re:Yeah Slashback (but Boo Backslash) by zootm · · Score: 1

      I quite like BackSlash, it often gives a good summary of stuff without having to go back to each article to check that a particularly good discussion didn't break out. Obviously if one is interested and has a lot of spare time one can monitor the threads, but that's not always an option, and I quite like having the little summaries posted when good stuff has emerged in comments.

      If you're not one of the ones who'd appreciate BackSlash, though, you can remove it from your homepage using the "Homepage" subsection of your Preferences. Not sure if that affects RSS if that's what you use, though. :)

  21. Re:Courts rule customs can rifle through your lapt by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1
    They really don't like you bringing porn into their countries. Of course, there are ample supplies of domestic porn already there, so I'm not sure why you'd want to import it.

    Sure sounds like protectionism to me. Don't want any of that damn cheap imported porn ruining the domestic industry....

  22. Re:Courts rule customs can rifle through your lapt by Bogtha · · Score: 2, Informative

    Dude, this has been the norm in the UK and much of Europe for several years.

    Has it? I live in the UK and have travelled all over Europe, and I've never had anybody ask to see what's on my laptop.

    --
    Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
  23. Why Scotty's ashes are being sent up late... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Apparently the engineers testing the rocket didn't take this sage advice:

    LaForge: "Yeah, well I told the captain I'd have this analysis done in an hour."
    Scott: "How long would it really take?"
    LaForge: "An hour!"
    Scott: "Oh, you didn't tell him how long it would *really* take, did you?"
    LaForge: "Well of course I did."
    Scott: "Oh, laddie, you've got a lot to learn if you want people to think of you as a miracle worker!"

  24. Re:Tel Aviv under ROCKET attack by Ant+P. · · Score: 0

    At times like this I'm glad my country's leader is _only_ a lying, greedy bastard and not someone like you two.

  25. Google please by rea1l1 · · Score: 0

    It would be a beautiful thing if Google stepped in and offered an OS designed specifically for the hardware coming out of this advanced company. Maybe having google merge with AMD/ATI to create a company large enough that can combat Microsoft. I love Google. Is it obvious?

    1. Re:Google please by pembo13 · · Score: 1

      Yes it is. Kinda depressing too.

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
  26. Re:Courts rule customs can rifle through your lapt by Gogo0 · · Score: 1

    I wonder if they can read this post in China?
    I mean, it has the word "freedom" in it. Shouldnt it be blocked?

  27. Hooray beer! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nt

  28. Too bad they didn't ask the only real question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you going to open up documentation for the ati products like you have always done with amd products?

  29. what risks? by SuperBanana · · Score: 2

    The plasma discharge will draw international attention since some scientists are concerned with risks involved in such a process. But Chinese researchers involved in the project say any radiation will cease once the test is completed.

    So...I don't get it. They probably have a good guess as to how much radiation will be generated and everyone camps out at a safe distance.

    What's everyone so worried about?

    1. Re:what risks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, or the experiments being done in the centre of a major city

    2. Re:what risks? by jrvz · · Score: 1

      Yes, the experimenters would need distance and/or shielding to handle the neutrons released by the fusion. However, some of the neutrons would be absorbed by the metal in the tokamak itself which would make it radioactive, and that radioactivity would persist even after you turn off the power. That makes everything awkward.

  30. Re:Courts rule customs can rifle through your lapt by munpfazy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've actually had a customs agent at Gatwick Airport (London, UK) ask me if I had any porn on my laptop. I told him no, if I wanted any I'd just get some local stuff as it seemed plentiful. Fortunately the British pride themselves on having a sense of humor. He offered suggestions on where to get it...


    Now, there *are* situations where the most efficient way to transmit data is by shipping physical media around - but they all involve huge amounts of data or places with little infrastructure. It's hard to come up with a scenario where it makes sense to illegally transfer data from one city with an international airport to another by putting it on a hard drive in a consumer laptop and flying people around with it.

    A professional pornographer isn't going to bother carrying the product around with them. They'll set up shop somewhere, pay for a decent network connection and a bunch of dvd blanks, and bring it in electronically and then manufacture it on site. Or they'll bring in ten thousand pressed dvd's in a cargo crate labeled "bananas."

    Likewise, someone carrying *really* bad stuff isn't going to just leave it lying around in an unencrypted folder on a laptop. Hell, I wouldn't think of leaving my perfectly legal vanilla porn unencrypted on a laptop in my house, much less one I'd take across international borders.

    In countries where anyone can ssh to anywhere in the world and pull in whatever they want, this is just silly. You might occasionally catch really stupid consumers of illegal material, but that's all.

    On a tangent, if I were going to try to get some really bad data across the border into a place with no network, I'd probably stick it on encrypted flash drives, disassemble them as much as possible to remove cases and excess hardware, and then screw or cement the boards into place in the bodies of consumer electronics gear. Add an equal number of identical but unmodified drives loaded with holiday photos to use for reassembly parts, and buy the screwdrivers and soldering station at a shop when you arrive. The illegal material in my laptop, if I had any, would be on the pc board hot-glued to the underside of the mainboar - not on the hard drive. (If you really want to do it right, you design pc boards that fit into the cases perfectly and come with standoff and mounting hardware designed to fit the flash drive boards, so that it would pass even a casual inspection by a knowledgeable person. Hide any identifying bits under globs of black epoxy, or place them upside down. Extra points if you manage to route the connectors on the flash board to accessible headers and connect to the drives without even reassembling them.)
  31. New Name? by MattPat · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I think the AMD/ATI merger definitely needs a new name, and I'd like to propose a couple of suggestions.

    First of all, whatever the new name is, I think it should be made by rearranging the letters.

    One of my ideas is a name that I feel encompasses the struggle of computer enthusiasts to attain the best technology available: A... DAMIT!

    My other idea would be for if they wanted to take a more personal approach to the computer market, and give there company a human name. IT Adam definitely is catchy... I'd remember it...

    AMD/ATI, you're welcome to call me if you'd like to use one of those names. We can work out a contract... I won't ask for too much.

    1. Re:New Name? by MattPat · · Score: 1

      there company = their company

      Sorry, missed it when I proofread my comment!

    2. Re:New Name? by linj · · Score: 1

      Or you could keep it simple and keep their trademarked brand names separate!

      Sure, it's an Merge & Acquisition, since ATi gets a bit of AMD, but why is it necessary to create new arbitrarily ordered acronyms for comedic effect on Slashdot? Oh. Right.

  32. Yeah, TrueCrypt !! by HangingChad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If they were smart enough to find the encrypted partition and demand the pass phrase, you give up the normal partition phrase and they never even know about the hidden partition. It can also run off a USB device. As usual this will snare hundreds of stupid people.

    Not that I don't think it's totally retarded you have to go to those lengths to keep the government from spying on your laptop. Ah, what do you expect from Republicans?

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:Yeah, TrueCrypt !! by Aellus · · Score: 1

      Its no different than crossing the border and having them rifle through your luggage. This isnt really a big deal. And i'd imagine most of us here at /. know a bit more about computers and encryption than customs officials... it cant be that hard to hide stuff from them, assuming you didnt want them looking through your massive porn collection.

    2. Re:Yeah, TrueCrypt !! by MendicantMonkey · · Score: 1

      Ah, what do you expect from Republicans?
      Generally speaking, different justifications for the same bullshit as the Democrats. Either way it boils down to taking away our rights for false security justifications.

  33. It wasn't Forbes. by Jaywalk · · Score: 2, Insightful
    It turns out that Forbes.com was wrong...
    In an article written by Daniel Lyons?
    Technically, it wasn't Forbes making a claim; it was SCO. I noticed that neither Groklaw nor Slashdot linked to the original article. If they had, it can be seen that Lyons refers to the SCO suit as "ever more desperate--and ever more weird." He also asked IBM for their side of the story but they -- true to form -- declined to comment. Gone are the insults and gratuitous references to "Linux zealots" which graced earlier articles. Also significant is that he actually wrote to PJ pointing out that he was reporting SCO's claims, not supporting them. He's obviously beome a great deal more sensitive about Groklaw's influence on the community following the case.

    This is just the latest climb down in the SCO peanut gallery as their media allies find other things to write about. Before this article Rob Enderle already moved from his SCO Should Win article to predicting that SCO's litigation, against IBM or anyone else, is all but done.

    The story here isn't that SCO has come up with another lame excuse in another vain attempt to flog the dead horse of their court case back to life, but that even their most ardent supporters are starting to see what's going on.

    --
    ===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
    1. Re:It wasn't Forbes. by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 1

      Technically, it wasn't Forbes making a claim; it was SCO.

      It's really not that all that different. Choosing to report a story or not is one form of editorial bias. I admit that I haven't searched very hard, but I got the impression that Forbes was the only one to pick up SCO's claims and run with it. A more objective editor would probably have decided that after all their silliness, SCO's claims require independent confirmation before being reported.

      It's interesting that some of SCO's most ardent public supporters feel that they can't so blatantly deny the obvious any more but it seems more like rats abandoning a sinking ship than anything else.

  34. What about the other Tokamaks? by djtachyon · · Score: 1

    What happened to ITER? What happened to JET?

    If we are lucky the chinese will blow a hole in that side of the planet and take the heat of the US.

    --
    "What's the use of a good quotation if you can't change it?" - Doctor Who
  35. how "open" is AMD? by jonwil · · Score: 1

    How "open" is AMD as far as providing specs, documentation, info and code goes? And what effect will the "openness" of AMD (if any) have on ATI?

    1. Re:how "open" is AMD? by gr8_phk · · Score: 1
      How "open" is AMD as far as providing specs, documentation, info and code goes?
      I have a set of x86-64 books I ordered from AMD for free a few years ago. AMD also backed the effort to get GCC building code for the new architecture, as well as providing a simulator to get Linux booting on it. They also funded (was it SUSE?) some people to make sure it actually happened. Linux was the only 64bit OS that ran on those chips when they first became available. OTOH, if they had not been so helpful there wouldn't have been anything 64bit to run on them at first. Lets hope they continue to be open and helpful even though there may not be a "need" to do so with ATI.
  36. A convo that I just had about this... by parasonic · · Score: 2, Funny

    (23:24:48) Uncle_C: you can spell daamit with ati and amd
    (23:25:03) parasonic: hahahaha
    (23:25:08) parasonic: where did you figure that one out?
    (23:25:18) Uncle_C: i'm kinda drunk, i'm jsut loking at it adn thats what it said

  37. Scotty's ashes delayed... by SEWilco · · Score: 2, Funny
    the flight was delayed as tests were carried out on the rocket.
    I hope they don't need more power!
  38. Searches and client records by phorm · · Score: 1

    I wonder about businesspeople crossing the border with laptops from work. What if the laptops contain private company information, or even client information. How about trade secrets?

    Yes, in most cases agents wouldn't bother with this, but all it takes is once.

    1. Re:Searches and client records by Misfit+Taz · · Score: 1

      easy, encrypt them so that they appear to be porn.
      you will go to jail for a long time, but at least your industrial secrets will be safe.

  39. Re: Hiding Flash by chill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What I've done in the past is:

    1. Purchase a 1 Gb flash drive. Stick a label on it so the size isn't advertised.
    2. Partition it 512 Mb FAT-32 / 512 Mb Ext-2
    3. Put innocuous stuff all on the FAT partition -- anything hidden gets encrypted and put on the Ext-2

    Any one that sticks the flash drive into a Windows box will automount the first partitions. Nothing to see there -- move along. The Ext-2 won't show up unless they look at it with a partitioning tool.

    I've never had anyone look twice. Of course, I've never been under close scrutiny, but it certainly passed casual inspection.

    The 1 Gb PQI Intellistick is so small it easily fits between credit cards in my wallet without being seen. It doesn't trigger metal detectors, so I leave my wallet in my pocket when going thru those in airports. I don't let it get x-rayed and it just never shows up. The card costs like $45.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  40. Re:Courts rule customs can rifle through your lapt by paedobear · · Score: 1

    Admittedly the laws changed recently, but it used to be that it was totally OK to bring porn into the UK - as long as you could prove it was for your own use. Perhaps you just looked like the kind of guy who uses a LOT of porn?

  41. united press international by skam240 · · Score: 1

    does anybody know anything about UPI? (i dont) it's linked to as the source for the article on chinese fusion. i ask because there was an add for shirts labeling hillary clinton as a communist on the site. i dont care what your political affiliation is it should be obvious that she is not a communist. seeing this kind of advertising (what one should recognize as extremist advertising, regardless of left or right political alignment) does not speak well of the source.

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    1. Re:united press international by Detritus · · Score: 0, Troll
      UPI is a wire service and used to be the major competitor for the AP, but has since fallen on hard times. In the old days, major newspapers in the USA would subscribe to the AP and UPI. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Press_Internat ional.

      Hillary Clinton may not be a card-carrying Communist, but I'd bet she would feel right at home in the politburo, giving orders to the serfs. It isn't about right or left, it's about an authoritarian approach to politics.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    2. Re:united press international by skam240 · · Score: 1

      No, it's her political leftism that they are attacking. Otherwise why not call her a fascist for an even better response. As an added bonus, communism doesnt even directly imply dictatorial style rule. Marx never established how a communist nation was to run. This would become a major problem for those revolutionaries attempting to put his ideology into practice.

      The site the add was for was http://www.thoseshirts.com/ and is most definitely a company pandering to the right wing.

      Also, I should note that I would find a news agency with adds pandering to the far left also a questionable source for information.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  42. Re:Tel Aviv under ROCKET attack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That comment alone makes me want to live in Canada...

  43. Re: Hiding Flash by munpfazy · · Score: 1

    That's a good idea.

    I imagine if authorities seriously suspected that you had something nasty hidden away somewhere they'd discover the extra partition, but it's certainly likely to get past most people, like customs agents and thieves. Using something like partition-backed loop-aes on the second partition wouldn't hurt either, just in case someone does take a closer look at the drive.

    If you want to really go all out, buy two drives from the same manufacturer with a factor of two difference in size and swap cases. If someone plugs in a drive that says "512 MB" in big letters on the cover and finds a 512 MB fat partition full of holiday photos, they're pretty likely to move on to something more interesting.

  44. TrueCrypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With open-source tool TrueCrypt you can have hidden partitions with plausible deniability.

    http://www.truecrypt.org/

  45. Re:Courts rule customs can rifle through your lapt by Fred_A · · Score: 1

    I have on rare occasions, and with very clueless customs people had them ask me to power up an odd looking device to show that it actually was a working device and not some sort of contraband container (at least I presume that was the logic).

    Apart from that I too have been all over Europe more times than I care to count and nobody ever looked at the data I was carrying (good luck anyway between the Unix laptop, encrypted stuff on the PDA and media player).

    The worst problem I ever had with customs/security was back when I was shooting stuff for the TV when some really low-end droid at the security check took offense to my spare batteries for a broadcast betacam (this was over 10 years ago in Italy). Of course I didn't speak Italian and he didn't speak a work of English, French or German. Took a good 15 minutes to sort out. The day had been fairly bad up to then so I guess this was the perfect way to end it ;)

    --

    May contain traces of nut.
    Made from the freshest electrons.
  46. Re:Courts rule customs can rifle through your lapt by AcidLacedPenguiN · · Score: 1

    wow. . . too much effort in my opinion.

    I think it'd be easier and less painful to stuff it in a condom and put it in my ass!

    --
    disclaimer: I've been known to store numbers in my ass for which to dig out when quantities are required.
  47. Re: Hiding Flash by mgblst · · Score: 1

    What happens if they look at the size of the disk - wouldn't it report being a 1gb?

    Not that I could see anybody doing this - or even checking a usb disk at all.

  48. I know this sounds extreme on my part but ... by NoSalt · · Score: 0

    I know this sounds extreme on my part but I would definitely be willing to go to jail rather than have somebody poking around through my files. I have absolutely nothing on my laptop that is illegal, I use it strictly for my development system. Nevertheless, that computer and the files within are private property and none of their damn business. If we put up with this it won't be long until we have to line up outside of our homes so they can search our desktops.

    Now don't get me wrong, I am not an extremist by any means but I DO believe in our civil liberties, and our rights against illegal search and seizure are guaranteed by the Constitution!!! Sometimes I wonder if lawmakers have even read that particular document?!?!?

  49. No, this is a degradation of your rights. by twitter · · Score: 1

    Routine is trumped by " reasonable" From the decision:

    Instead, searches made at the border . . . are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border. United States v. Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. 149, 152-53 (2004) (quoting United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 616 (1977)). Thus, the routine border search of Romms laptop was reasonable, regardless whether Romm obtained foreign contraband in Canada or was under official restraint.

    Using this as a basis, it looks like customs can do anything they want and call it reasonable to anyone going in or out of the US. You are no longer secure in your private papers when you leave or enter the US.

    So the state has granted itself new powers of search based and justifies it by humiliating a wanker. Surely, everyone hates kiddie porn. Even the defendant though he should be punished for such dirty stuff as this:

    While staying in his hotel room in Las Vegas, Romm viewed child pornography and masturbated twice, while or shortly after viewing the child pornography; he claimed to have then deleted ....

    Only twice? Are they sure it was not three times? He could have lied, you know. I can hardly believe I'm reading such crap in an official US publication, but I suppose that's what the weird and wacky world of pornography prosecution is all about. The upshot of it all is that a customs agent is now free to violate each and every one of us.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:No, this is a degradation of your rights. by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      No, that's absoluetely NOT what it is saying...contrary to the misleading /. submission. This does NOT give carte blanche to border officials to search your private information in your laptop. What it's saying is, if the border police want to search your laptop, you must clearly indicate, NO! Likewise, if the border authorities do violate your constitutional rights (searching after you clearly indicate NO!) and it goes to court, it must be brought up as an issue up front, stating it was a violation of privacy...not as an after thought...and especially not as an after thought in an attempt to get an appeal.

      To be clear, it IS an invasion of privacy but this judge elected not to consider the argument as it was ONLY being used as contention for an appeal. To be clear, this dos NOT strip you of your right to privacy just because you cross a border!

    2. Re:No, this is a degradation of your rights. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  50. "The power of the Sun in the palm of my hands!" by brianjcain · · Score: 1

    Be on the lookout for a crazed scientist with a bad haircut and four robotic limbs shortly after China's fusion test.

    1. Re:"The power of the Sun in the palm of my hands!" by Akaihiryuu · · Score: 1

      I really enjoyed Spider-Man 2, but the depiction of "fusion" was absolutely ridiculous, comic book physics at best. But then, it wasn't really intended to be serious science, it was a plot device to show the accident that caused Doctor Octopus to come about. I still would've portrayed a more realistic depiction of a fusion reactor accident though...but I'm not really sure what kind of accident there could be. You shut off the magnetic fields that are causing fusion, the reaction instantly stops, since there isn't anywhere near enough gravity on something smaller than a star to cause fusion. In the movie it appeared to generate a miniature "sun" that was pulling things in via a strong magnetic field (it only seemed to affect metal), but these objects were "consumed" when they touched it. Where did all that mass go? It behaved more like he created a miniature black hole (although without the tidal forces and nasty time dialation effects.

    2. Re:"The power of the Sun in the palm of my hands!" by Akaihiryuu · · Score: 1

      My only real concern about the depiction in the movie is it might have an unintended side effect: cause the same people who are scared of nuclear power (fission) already to be deathly afraid of fusion reactors because they think they will behave like they did in the movie and an accident would cause the planet to be swallowed. Granted, the people that would think this are the ones who know absolutely nothing about physics, radiation, or science in general...but there are enough of them that having people be afraid of fusion because of the depiction in a movie might be enough to prevent it from being implemented on a large scale if we are ever able to pass the "break even" point and actually start producing energy with it.

  51. Yeah, it "works", but... by Svartalf · · Score: 1

    ...it doesn't work well. Technically, it's supposed to be about a 9600 or so in performance, overall. I see about HALF that performance on this chip under Linux- under Windows, it seems to perform about the same level. No good reason for that or the lack of full and proper Sideport support in the driver either- in order to get this all to work even as poorly as it does, I've got to turn off the Sideport dedicated video memory and go all UMA operation. All of their drivers, for that matter, have similar issues.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    1. Re:Yeah, it "works", but... by default+luser · · Score: 1

      Technically, it's supposed to be about a 9600 or so in performance, overall. I see about HALF that performance on this chip under Linux- under Windows, it seems to perform about the same level.

      Well, that's exactly what you SHOULD be seeing. The Radeon Xpress 200 is exactly half as powerful as the 9600.

      9600: 4 pipelines, 2 vertex units, 325 MHz core speed.

      Xpress 200: 2 pipelines, 1 (limited) vertex unit, 333 MHz core speed.

      Maybe if you did some research, you would waste less time whining about your non-existant problems. That embedded video chipset is exactly as fast as it should be.

      --

      Man is the animal that laughs.
      And occasionally whores for Karma.

  52. Re: Hiding Flash by chill · · Score: 1

    Windows shows the size of the "drive", which is the size of the partition. You'd have you use the disk manager or a patitioning tool to see it.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  53. Fourth Amendment - Search and Seizure by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1
    Fourth Amendment - Search and Seizure:
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
    --

    --
    make install -not war

  54. Re: Hiding Flash by Danse · · Score: 1
    What happens if they look at the size of the disk - wouldn't it report being a 1gb?

    No, it would report the size of the partition being viewed. Without a partition tool, they wouldn't even know the other partition existed, let alone be able to view it.
    --
    It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
  55. Re:Courts rule customs can rifle through your lapt by corbettw · · Score: 2, Funny

    I've actually had a customs agent at Gatwick Airport (London, UK) ask me if I had any porn on my laptop...He offered suggestions on where to get it...

    I dunno, it sounds to me like he was just asking to see your collection, in case there was anything there he wanted to copy for himself.

    --
    God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
  56. snickers by nFriedly · · Score: 0
    "...the files of a person's laptop may be searched at U.S. borders [PDF] without probable cause or even reasonable suspicion."

    This will make some businises cautious about carying laptops with them while they travel.

    [insert TrueCrypt response here]

  57. but he wasn't the only one by Roadkills-R-Us · · Score: 1

    The 9th Circuit Court made a stupid decision. Now there's a surprise.

    The most overturned court in the country, they are.

  58. TrueCrypt Scepticism by Sloppy · · Score: 1
    you give up the normal partition phrase and they never even know about the hidden partition

    I guess it's time for me to check out TrueCrypt and see how it works, because I just can't figure out how such a thing could possibly work. And while that is of course non-conclusive, it leads me to believe that it probably doesn't work.

    The problem, in my head, is that you can't have undetectable storage, while simultaneously limiting allocation so that the hidden storage won't be overwritten. It's either allocated, or it's not. No?

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    1. Re:TrueCrypt Scepticism by AnotherBrian · · Score: 1
    2. Re:TrueCrypt Scepticism by Alsee · · Score: 1
      It is possible, once you catch the trick to pulling it off.

      Step one: Cover the free space on the disk with random garbage.

      Step two: The system reads the normal disk File Allocation Table (FAT). Enter a password to create a new encrypted partition. This partition is scattered randomly across the unallocated space, as determined by the normal disk FAT. Store a new additional encrypted FAT for that partition in that previously free space, start storing your encrypted data in that partition, but only record these disk allocations in the new encrypted FAT.

      At this point anyone without the password cannot distinguish between step one and step two. In both cases the free space shows nothing but random noise. The encrypted data is NOT flagged as allocated in the base FAT. The presence or absence of the extra partition and the data is undetectable.

      Step three: Enter the above password... your system now has access to the normal FAT plus the encrypted partition FAT. Now enter a SECOND password. Using that password you create a second encrypted randomly distributed partition within the space which is still marked free by both FATs. In this second partition you put a third encrypted FAT and new data.

      If someone has no password, all three stages are indistinguishable random noise. The first encrypted partition is undetectable until the first password in entered. The second encrypted partition is undetectable until the second password is also entered.

      You can repeat this as many times as you like, creating ten sucessively embedded partitions where the tenth partition can only be accessed by entering all ten passwords in order and reading all of the previous FATs in order.

      Short of cracking the crypto it is impossible for anyone to ever determine if and when you have given them all of the passwords. So long as the disk appears to have any free space available, it is always possible that here is yet another password for yet another partition hidden in that free space.

      There is however one very signifigant catch, which you may at this very moment be bursting at the seams to scream at me "That doesn't work!" chuckle. The catch is that for any password you have not yet entered, the system is unaware of that FAT. The system does not know what sectors are secretly listed as allocated by that unknown FAT. The system has no idea that it should not write there. Which means that if you have not entered ALL of the passwords and you proceed to write any data to the disk, there is a likelyhood that the system will choose to write the new data to that secretly allocated sector and clobber the hidden data.

      And the answer to that problem is:


      .


      .


      .



      Oh well.

      You can pull off the neat trick of multiple layers of undetectable storage, and you can have an adversary examine your computer with complete deniability of existance of any additional hidden data. You just can't safely write new data to that drive unless you enter all the passwords first. Worst case, someone is sitting over your shoulder and you are forced to use the computer without entering all of the passwords and you start clobbering the hidden data. If you really do want to hide the data that badly, and if you do get cornered into such a situation, presumably you would rather clobber the data than expose its existance anyway.

      Was that explanation clear? Any questions?

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  59. Re:Probable Cause: being told it was there. by darkonc · · Score: 1
    In this case, Canada Customs told US customs that they found porn on his laptop during his (very short) stay at the Kelowna airport.

    In other words, even if the judge had found that they needed probable cause, they had it. The judge rulled, however, that probable cause wasn't needed. I can understand that, to a point, since people crossing the border can be coming from places where there are no limits on access to really nasty contraband, and even if there are, the country I'm coming from may not be in a mood to tell the government of the country I'm moving into that I've got 10KG of plutonium in my suitcase.

    It's well known that when you cross the border you're subject to random (or not-so-random) searches. In this case, I think it was a given that the search was going to be found reasonable, It was just a case of what reason they were going to find ble.

    --
    Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
  60. Re:Tel Aviv under ROCKET attack (The Truth) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A-mericans have no single wacko religion. It is a melting pot of wacko religionS. But I have to admit those wacko whatevertheyares are reaping the seeds they sown. Yet another "middle east conflict", and for what exactly? Not even oil! Some wacko religion is right.

  61. Re:Courts rule customs can rifle through your lapt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could someone explain exactly how they plan to "rifle though your laptop"? I mean really, what do they plan to do? Look at all the pictures to make sure they are not childporn? Read all the docs to verity they are not terrorist/communist plots? Its hard to imagine a automated way to do this that would work on all laptops and all OSs... All this in their ample free time..

  62. Re: Hiding Flash by geogob · · Score: 1

    And what if the custom agent or investigator uses Linux? You'll probably have a nice surprise waiting for you.

  63. Slashback articles not in right category by VGfort · · Score: 1

    I have slashback articles marked as don't show, so this isnt in the category "slashback". This isnt the first time its happened. No big deal just figure you guys might want to know :p