As someone who actually uses smart watches a lot for my work, the 360 is the worst I have used. It's the round screen. Great for a rotating analog clock, useless for everything else. Have a look at Moto 360 screens, most of them have at least 1/3 of the screen unused or displaying a pointless graphic, which is idiotic on such a small device. The only good thing about the shape of the watch seems to be that it doesn't look like a smart watch.
Incredible incompetence. They had an idea, claimed in the video it was a product, then completely made up absurd prices based on nothing.
They were a middle man who have no clue what engineering is, and they seem to have been taken for a ride for thier cash as well.
They are residing more than thier initial goal, I would love to follow the money trail and see if this CEO and his buddies were getting paid...
From what they wrote in the blog, utterly clueless at every step. You wonder how thier first kick starter ever worked.
If the circuit was open source such that you could read the memory directly with out using any untrusted software, then the is no reason why a published hash won't work. Have the firmware is a known i2c chip that anyone can read from.
I think you are over analyzing it.
Google know most people are searching for facts. If you debunk pseudo science, your page will probably rank the highest when searching for that pseudo science, at least that seems to be the intention.
Check out his recent article in which he 'verifies' the security of a binary by checking it with a train of trust that goes back to a root certificate.... that was downloaded with the binary.... ahahahah.
But yeah Ars are basically full social justice warriors now. every so often they post some article how they are 'taking a stance' on some fad of the day. Anything to rustle up new customers.
There is no need for 'consensus' in true science. The facts speak for themselves.
The truth is: nothing to do with global warming is truly a science. Consider maths physics chemistry and engineering. Their laws are not just predicted, they are verified TRILLIONS of times over, if not orders of magnitude more in almost every aspect of modern life.
Global warming 'laws' and predictions constantly fail. Just look at the IPCC's own predictors nad how wrong they have been. They are dealing with a system of such complexity that unless they end up with a computational molecular simulator for the earth, they will never succeed.
The truth is, global warming scientists can tell us as much about the climate as a physiologist can tell you about why we have consciousness and the way the brain works exactly. They can tell us as much about the climate as economicts can tell us about the economy. The complex systems simply cannot be figured out or predicted on the marco scale.
The real scam of global warming is that a very poor social science is treated as a 'hard' science and constantly pushed as if their models are strong as our theories of gravity. When in reality they are piss weak models that have been wrong every time, and their real error bars are so far as to make them completely meaningless.
The FSF has way to much power because of their ability to issue new GPL/GFDL that existing works will automatically be covered by. It is true that the new versions cannot take rights away, but they can grant rights that go against the original concept of 'free'.
This is not just 'theoretical'. It has already happened. In GFDL 1.3 they added section 11 "relicensing". Basically this clause allowed companies like Wikipedia who used the GFDL to use all GFDL submitted content under a completely different licence (the CC-BY-SA). The contributors had no say in this and the FSF did not give a shit, it was their way or the high way.
There is nothing stopping the FSF from issuing a 'relicensing' clause to anyone for whatever reason they want.
Lets say RSM dies one day, and someone less 'nobel' takes over. Microsoft could 'donate' the FSF money, in exchange a clause could be put in to GPLv4+ saying that microsoft is exempt from such and such requirements. Every one who has ever licenced their work under the GPL with a 'or future version' clause is 100% powerless to stop this. Microsoft could then take all their code and use it commercially without giving back.
I am thankful that at least in the linux world, the "or future version" GPL rubbish is not catching on. Clause 11 of the GFDL is just a first step in what will be a never ending flood of 'exceptions' for 'mates'.
I'd actually say apple. Security failures are a pretty big deal for them. They make money though a walled system and hardware. Everything is encrypted. Heck... when my mac boots up off its firmware and goes to download the operating system from apple, even that is encrypted https.
You would think that they would at least try and make it look encrypted, even basic XORing with a salt over and over.
Its pretty scary though... it appears the transmit packets carry the sound recordings themselves out over the internet, and back comes multiple plain text opinions of what was said along with confidence numbers and other info that helps with context decisions.
But yeah... this is really no different than using google with out https. Like most people did for years....
I never said anything about cloning. You are being misled by corporate double speak. It is true that the cards cryptographically generate a key, similar to a CCV, so you cannot read a card to make a copy of it, nor use it for fake transactions (which is all banks care about). All other information however is available, including your name, card number, expiry, Mag stripe data - all in the clear, along with a memory block of past transactions. That info can be made to make online transactions (by brute forcing the 3 digit CCV - which only has 1000 combinations). Not to mention you can make a complete working magnetic version from that info.
It is secure for thier point of view in that you can't clone a card and do fake transactions. However from a privacy point of view its wide open. It was actually made to transmit in open all the info you can see or read magnetically to mirror the physical card.
I don't think many people realise that the contactless system wide spread in credit cards is not secure.
It's ironic that the system implemented by visa/MasterCard does not even pass PCI DSS standard. There is no encryption or authentication. Only the more expensive chips on passports have encryption.
Wireless credit cards give out:
-Your name.
-Your account number.
-Your transaction history (usually last 64 transaction amounts, times and dates, and payment terminal identifier).
-All credit card numbers excluding CCV.
Also the claims that you cannot read from more than a few inches away are bull crap. The standard readers have to have antenna and signal strength to read only upto 5cm. However you can put any high gain antenna and transmit amplifier you want. It uses standard EMV which you can buy for $20. A small backpack concealed system can work upto 1.5 METERS. A large antenna setup on the card reader could extend this to 50m+!
Actually its pretty stupid to claim that its digital therefore the cable doesn't matter. In industrial environments I see properly installed cat 6 cables losing through put because they keep calculating bad ethernet CRC's.
Obviously you would have to be dumb to buy this. For $10,000 you do so much more... like easily get 1gps+ wireless.
You are thinking in only one direction.
They can't take away rights - but they can grant rights people don't want.
For example a future version could grant rights for microsoft to use GPLv4 in for-profit ways.
If you don't think this could ever happen, you are wrong. Something just like it already happened with the GFDL. Section 11 of the GFDL was inserted purely to allow wikimedia to switch licences on all contributions to wikipedia. They did this to create a revenue stream from disk sales, which the original licence prohibited.
The FSF grant whatever rights they want to who ever they want. Any rights are purely at their whim. Worse is that any rights granted when they shouldn't have been can never be taken away!
The problem with Stallman is that he has already shown himself to be corrupt and betray the very people who supported him and used his licenses.
If you want proof trying reading section 11 "RELICENSING" of the GFDL, then have a look at why this clause even exists. A pathetic trail of corruption that betrayed all wikipedia contributors. Basically he put in a clause in GFDL that allowed companies like wikimedia to change to a completely different licence. Since people are found to future version of the GFDL - there is nothing they can do about it.
As people have mentioned jokingly... GPLv4 could easily say anything he wants.... He could even insert a clause saying FSF can sell and make money off any GPL program. Thankfully the important code (Such as linux kernel) is well educated on the cancer of the GPL and RSM's ideas.
Do yourself a favour. Use GPL 2 and specifically make sure you don't licence code/docs that will be subject to whatever future licence version RMS/FSF crap out. Trusting RMS/FSF for all eternity is insanity. The licenses will continue one by one to become corrupt. Wikimedias special treatment is just the start. It will go like cancer, not to mention that whoever leads the FSF has complete power....
Oh look.... they were on Twitter not even two weeks ago claiming they were producing and on schedule. And now its a 6 month delay.
I would pretty much say this is 99%+ a scam now.
I'd bet it has nothing to do with DRM. These guys are interesting in starting a big company. They realised that the stick was going to fail on the market because of its specs and price point. So they took the money and are using it to make a completely different product.
Looks like they were using the kick starter dollars to try and fund a competitive USB stick computer. Half way through they realised they were about to get 1-up'd spec wise basically making the stick uncompetitive and DOA at their targeted retail price. This happens a lot of with kick-starters.
When it does you are expected to follow through, get the backers the item, and then close down, never getting a good product to a wide market.
However in this case they taken the money and used it to invest in a completely different product.... There last update is basically telling backers that they have taken all the money, won't be shipping the stick, and will be using it to work on a new product.
The backers are all rightly furious. I wonder what the T&C's are....
Slashdot Mirror
As someone who actually uses smart watches a lot for my work, the 360 is the worst I have used. It's the round screen. Great for a rotating analog clock, useless for everything else. Have a look at Moto 360 screens, most of them have at least 1/3 of the screen unused or displaying a pointless graphic, which is idiotic on such a small device. The only good thing about the shape of the watch seems to be that it doesn't look like a smart watch.
Incredible incompetence. They had an idea, claimed in the video it was a product, then completely made up absurd prices based on nothing. They were a middle man who have no clue what engineering is, and they seem to have been taken for a ride for thier cash as well. They are residing more than thier initial goal, I would love to follow the money trail and see if this CEO and his buddies were getting paid... From what they wrote in the blog, utterly clueless at every step. You wonder how thier first kick starter ever worked.
If the circuit was open source such that you could read the memory directly with out using any untrusted software, then the is no reason why a published hash won't work. Have the firmware is a known i2c chip that anyone can read from.
I think you are over analyzing it. Google know most people are searching for facts. If you debunk pseudo science, your page will probably rank the highest when searching for that pseudo science, at least that seems to be the intention.
Check out his recent article in which he 'verifies' the security of a binary by checking it with a train of trust that goes back to a root certificate.... that was downloaded with the binary.... ahahahah. But yeah Ars are basically full social justice warriors now. every so often they post some article how they are 'taking a stance' on some fad of the day. Anything to rustle up new customers.
It just goes to show the 1st one your have an audience they will buy almost anything.
There is no need for 'consensus' in true science. The facts speak for themselves. The truth is: nothing to do with global warming is truly a science. Consider maths physics chemistry and engineering. Their laws are not just predicted, they are verified TRILLIONS of times over, if not orders of magnitude more in almost every aspect of modern life. Global warming 'laws' and predictions constantly fail. Just look at the IPCC's own predictors nad how wrong they have been. They are dealing with a system of such complexity that unless they end up with a computational molecular simulator for the earth, they will never succeed. The truth is, global warming scientists can tell us as much about the climate as a physiologist can tell you about why we have consciousness and the way the brain works exactly. They can tell us as much about the climate as economicts can tell us about the economy. The complex systems simply cannot be figured out or predicted on the marco scale. The real scam of global warming is that a very poor social science is treated as a 'hard' science and constantly pushed as if their models are strong as our theories of gravity. When in reality they are piss weak models that have been wrong every time, and their real error bars are so far as to make them completely meaningless.
The FSF has way to much power because of their ability to issue new GPL/GFDL that existing works will automatically be covered by. It is true that the new versions cannot take rights away, but they can grant rights that go against the original concept of 'free'. This is not just 'theoretical'. It has already happened. In GFDL 1.3 they added section 11 "relicensing". Basically this clause allowed companies like Wikipedia who used the GFDL to use all GFDL submitted content under a completely different licence (the CC-BY-SA). The contributors had no say in this and the FSF did not give a shit, it was their way or the high way. There is nothing stopping the FSF from issuing a 'relicensing' clause to anyone for whatever reason they want. Lets say RSM dies one day, and someone less 'nobel' takes over. Microsoft could 'donate' the FSF money, in exchange a clause could be put in to GPLv4+ saying that microsoft is exempt from such and such requirements. Every one who has ever licenced their work under the GPL with a 'or future version' clause is 100% powerless to stop this. Microsoft could then take all their code and use it commercially without giving back. I am thankful that at least in the linux world, the "or future version" GPL rubbish is not catching on. Clause 11 of the GFDL is just a first step in what will be a never ending flood of 'exceptions' for 'mates'.
I'd actually say apple. Security failures are a pretty big deal for them. They make money though a walled system and hardware. Everything is encrypted. Heck... when my mac boots up off its firmware and goes to download the operating system from apple, even that is encrypted https.
You would think that they would at least try and make it look encrypted, even basic XORing with a salt over and over. Its pretty scary though... it appears the transmit packets carry the sound recordings themselves out over the internet, and back comes multiple plain text opinions of what was said along with confidence numbers and other info that helps with context decisions. But yeah... this is really no different than using google with out https. Like most people did for years....
I never said anything about cloning. You are being misled by corporate double speak. It is true that the cards cryptographically generate a key, similar to a CCV, so you cannot read a card to make a copy of it, nor use it for fake transactions (which is all banks care about). All other information however is available, including your name, card number, expiry, Mag stripe data - all in the clear, along with a memory block of past transactions. That info can be made to make online transactions (by brute forcing the 3 digit CCV - which only has 1000 combinations). Not to mention you can make a complete working magnetic version from that info. It is secure for thier point of view in that you can't clone a card and do fake transactions. However from a privacy point of view its wide open. It was actually made to transmit in open all the info you can see or read magnetically to mirror the physical card.
I don't think many people realise that the contactless system wide spread in credit cards is not secure. It's ironic that the system implemented by visa/MasterCard does not even pass PCI DSS standard. There is no encryption or authentication. Only the more expensive chips on passports have encryption. Wireless credit cards give out: -Your name. -Your account number. -Your transaction history (usually last 64 transaction amounts, times and dates, and payment terminal identifier). -All credit card numbers excluding CCV. Also the claims that you cannot read from more than a few inches away are bull crap. The standard readers have to have antenna and signal strength to read only upto 5cm. However you can put any high gain antenna and transmit amplifier you want. It uses standard EMV which you can buy for $20. A small backpack concealed system can work upto 1.5 METERS. A large antenna setup on the card reader could extend this to 50m+!
Actually its pretty stupid to claim that its digital therefore the cable doesn't matter. In industrial environments I see properly installed cat 6 cables losing through put because they keep calculating bad ethernet CRC's. Obviously you would have to be dumb to buy this. For $10,000 you do so much more... like easily get 1gps+ wireless.
You are thinking in only one direction. They can't take away rights - but they can grant rights people don't want. For example a future version could grant rights for microsoft to use GPLv4 in for-profit ways. If you don't think this could ever happen, you are wrong. Something just like it already happened with the GFDL. Section 11 of the GFDL was inserted purely to allow wikimedia to switch licences on all contributions to wikipedia. They did this to create a revenue stream from disk sales, which the original licence prohibited. The FSF grant whatever rights they want to who ever they want. Any rights are purely at their whim. Worse is that any rights granted when they shouldn't have been can never be taken away!
The problem with Stallman is that he has already shown himself to be corrupt and betray the very people who supported him and used his licenses. If you want proof trying reading section 11 "RELICENSING" of the GFDL, then have a look at why this clause even exists. A pathetic trail of corruption that betrayed all wikipedia contributors. Basically he put in a clause in GFDL that allowed companies like wikimedia to change to a completely different licence. Since people are found to future version of the GFDL - there is nothing they can do about it. As people have mentioned jokingly... GPLv4 could easily say anything he wants.... He could even insert a clause saying FSF can sell and make money off any GPL program. Thankfully the important code (Such as linux kernel) is well educated on the cancer of the GPL and RSM's ideas. Do yourself a favour. Use GPL 2 and specifically make sure you don't licence code/docs that will be subject to whatever future licence version RMS/FSF crap out. Trusting RMS/FSF for all eternity is insanity. The licenses will continue one by one to become corrupt. Wikimedias special treatment is just the start. It will go like cancer, not to mention that whoever leads the FSF has complete power....
Oh look.... they were on Twitter not even two weeks ago claiming they were producing and on schedule. And now its a 6 month delay. I would pretty much say this is 99%+ a scam now.
I'd bet it has nothing to do with DRM. These guys are interesting in starting a big company. They realised that the stick was going to fail on the market because of its specs and price point. So they took the money and are using it to make a completely different product.
Looks like they were using the kick starter dollars to try and fund a competitive USB stick computer. Half way through they realised they were about to get 1-up'd spec wise basically making the stick uncompetitive and DOA at their targeted retail price. This happens a lot of with kick-starters. When it does you are expected to follow through, get the backers the item, and then close down, never getting a good product to a wide market. However in this case they taken the money and used it to invest in a completely different product.... There last update is basically telling backers that they have taken all the money, won't be shipping the stick, and will be using it to work on a new product. The backers are all rightly furious. I wonder what the T&C's are....