It would also make collisions less of a problem because a lightweight bike without a passenger travelling at slow speeds is not likely to hurt someone even if it hits them.
This thing uses TRAINING WHEELS for "balance" (can it really be called balancing if it relies on training wheels?).
Who cares if this thing hits someone. What about all the people that will be running into this thing?
To put it in perspective, imagine an autonomous car driving *very* safely down the highway at 10mph, perfectly avoiding any obstacles it comes across. Now imagine a bunch of these spread about the highways.
Unlike the highway, bike lanes don't have a minimum speed (AFAIK), so there may not be a good legal reason to force these to go with the speed of traffic. There ARE, however, rules that exclude any motorized vehicles from utilizing many bike paths - so this would need to work on the streets, not the bike paths, for its return trip. Even if they were able to ride on the bike lanes at speed, doing so requires significantly more situational awareness than driving a car. Braking will also be a problem at speed... to brake quickly on a bike, you use the front brake and shift your weight to the back, but this thing has no rider or extra weight - I suspect that would be a major issue. They were obviously not planning on using the features at any significant speed - it's meant to aid in getting a bike from a tight spot over to someone that could ride a bike but has a disability (like missing one arm).
Argh... meant to include a link. The phone mentioned is currently onsale at bestbuy for $29.99. Other places, YMMV, but there's often something similar for a similar price.
Anyway. Pi 2, $70 screen, $20 case. 5v adapter. Done.
Or a burner phone. Ex: AT&T GoPhone - Motorola Moto E, 8gb memory, no-contract, Android Lolipop 5.0: $29.99
That gets you a battery-backed clock with a nice LCD display that includes GPS, WiFI, and Cellular. Build a little wooden frame or something for it, run a long usb cord to power, and plug it in. I'm certain there are loads of "dashboard" or screensaver style apps that'll display a clock and keep the screen on.
I'm honestly not sure why people aren't abusing these things more. That's SUPER cheap for what you get.
And when they include the weight of the car in the statement, they are implying that the weight of the vehicle is somehow relevant.
Exactly. 6 tiny robots were able to pull this car. However: * comparing them to ants is fucked up. They're WAAAY larger than any ant I've ever seen! * the legged versions were not the ones to pull the car * the video shows what is essentially 6 miniature wenches, not walking robots * that car was pulled by 6 pieces of string (of some sort). That should put it into perspective how little force they are actually exerting.
I'm sure there's some interesting stuff going on, but the summary and article are both distorting it enough that they're useless drivel.
But of course you can't prove anything either way.
Regarding whether or not it is possible for the FBI to get into the phone without the iOS source and/or the signing key etc, anyone with sufficient resources could prove it is possible (assuming it is possible). Ex: * get same model phone used * encrypt it and protect with pin as in the case of the phone in question * attempt to get into it via the various methods mentioned all over the place If one fails, that does not prove it's not possible, so people saying it will fail don't have much motivation to try it. However, if it works, then that would be a pretty big nail in the coffin for this issue.
PS: sorry I took you quote out of context a little; it lead to this train of thought.
why is it important to test that you can memorize them when they can be looked up in seconds.
As the previous poster noted, he had scratch paper, and could jot them down at the beginning of the test. IMO, that's a perfect compromise. It's very important to test for them because one should (must?) know how they work to understand how many other things work. Most people (not network admins) only see dotted quad netmasks like 255.255.255.0, but most of those same people would have no idea if 255.255.255.128 or 255.255.255.132 are legal, or know why. They should know that 255.255.255.128 =/25 = 11111111111111111111111110000000, or at least know enough to be able to determine that (it doesn't have to be memorized, but the maths behind it should be known).
I believe he's referring to the CIDR values and their corresponding range sizes. They're easy to calculate, but a table can be helpful for quick reference - there's only 32 of them.
What does any of that have to do with this thread? For out of copyright works, as I said before, "You are allowed to make a bit for bit copy, but no one is required to help you".
You (supposedly) had a special controller that would allow you to make a bit-for-bit copy of copy-protected disks (I'm assuming you are referring to DVD's, but it doesn't really matter what format). Kudos to you. That falls directly in line with what I said - that's certainly not standard, and the author didn't have to facilitate that (you had to obtain or create a special controller), and you were able to obtain your bit-for-bit copy, and no one has been contesting that. WTF does that have to do with anything?
That's the whole point of the hard drive copy. Who cares if it deletes a copy. Make another try again.
Apparently, there are multiple parts to the key. 1. the pin number (probably just 4 digits) 2. the unique identifier burned into the silicon (impossible to recover without taking apart the chip with acid and stuff and looking at it with microscopes, and you may not get it right if you do that) 3. a long random number stored in NAND
All of that is combined and then used as a symmetric AES key to encrypt the data on the flash.
The "phone wipes the drive" is not accurate. When the phone wipes the drive, it actually just wipes #3 (and maybe some other stuff after that wipe is completed).
AFAIK, they can't (easily) copy the NAND nor #2. They can copy the flash and try a bajillion keys, but that will take eons. They can copy the flash, try via the phone, fail, and the phone will wipe #3, and then they're SOL - restoring the data to flash will not help at all.
There may be other techniques they can use, but it's not as simple as backup/restore the flash.
I wouldn't be surprised if you could select to play only with Xbox Live members or PC as well
AFAICT, xbox live is required for multiplayer in most xbox one games. It's ones of my biggest gripes with the new consoles. Buy a game, and rent multiplayer support.
You have no right to a bit for bit copy of a work after the copyright expires
Your statement is false. Digital works that are no longer covered by copyright can be copied bit-for-bit.
"Can be copied" and "required to facilitate that act" are not the same thing. The author is not required to make that easy for you. Monet would not be required to train people how to create an exact duplicate of what he did. You can not mandate that. You are allowed to make a bit for bit copy, but no one is required to help you (legally, as far as I know, IANAL, etc).
Uh, yeah. I kinda said the same thing. What's your point? After copyright expires, you can also "photocopy" the movie - just play it and record it. That's the analog to photocopying a book, and the encryption deployed does not prevent that.
The entire POINT of physical media is that I can play it anywhere - and that I own the content forever. If you break either one of those (and they just broke both of them) - then I might as well stream content online and save the need for a rack with 200 disks in it cluttering up my media room.
I mostly agree, but those aren't the only points. There is the matter of storage and bandwidth. Lots of people can not even stream 480p content, or 720p, let alone 1080p, and even then, it's often compressed far more than it would be on the disk. One hour of 1080p DV footage is roughly 12.7GB. One hour of UHD is roughly 110GB**. Blu Ray disks are 50GB. Compression makes all these highly variable, but in the end, you won't be able to store many movies even on TB's of space, and streaming will suck. Your alternative is to get it on disk. It also means you can easily share it with friends. The network requirement for an encryption key check is really not that big a deal in comparison to streaming bandwidth limitations.
I'm slightly hopeful we see a resurgence of disk rentals. This is nothing to do with the encryption though - the shear file size is enough of a reason for me to not want to rip them or store them.
** I pulled these numbers off of a few sites, but none seem to be entirely scientific.
But if you've bought the bluray, the work is already distributed. If the work is then inaccessible for copying after the copyright expired because the encryption key is no longer available, then we have an issue.
You have no right to a bit for bit copy of a work after the copyright expires. You can make a copy and redistribute it at that point, but that technical feat is left as an exercise for you to work out.
Consider books for a moment. You do not get access to the original printing press / litho work / digital files / etc. After the copyright expires, what you can do is manually re-type the book and create a new work to distribute. If you can automate that process, great, but the author is not required to make that easy for you.
I do believe the extended copyright terms are crazy, and that, in a world of essentially free perfect copies of digital information, many of the existing norms need to change. But that doesn't mean people can demand authors of works to aid in facilitating those free copies.
The attempt at energy independence... jobs lost because they cannot compete... can tell capitalism to fuck off and die...
I think you're confusing some goals. Energy independence isn't very capitalistic. The market pricing out a subset of competitors IS very capitalistic. That doesn't mean I think any of that is "right", but that's a different matter. We, the people, have allowed this to happen.
I thought museums were for long past dead things, for which there is a historical perspective
Nope. Plenty of recently made things get into museums, even from living artists/etc. One definition is: A museum (/mjuzim/; myoo-zee-um) is an institution that cares for (conserves) a collection of artifacts and other objects of artistic, cultural, historical, or scientific importance and makes them available for public viewing through exhibits that may be permanent or temporary.
IE: 11 (windows 7 and 8.1+) Edge: all versions Firefox: 4+ Opera: 12+ Safari: 7+ Mavericks (Mac OS X 10.9) Chrome: 4.0.211.0
That will cover the majority of users.
Regardless, there is still no fallacy. Users can easily protect themselves from that situation by using a browser that supports HSTS, which simply means using a system that has been updated within the past several years. It also greatly reduces the attack footprint, which is the big selling point for this ad/article.
"seems like avast missed the point when google, gmail, and youtube went 100% https"
What about people who use browsers which don't force an ssl connection to those URIs?
This used to be a problem, because users might type in "google.com", and the browser would first go to "http://google.com" (ditto for other sites). Along came HSTS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... That shouldn't be a problem anymore, so long as the users browser supports that, and the server is sending it (which many do these days, because of all the SSL kerfuffle).
Or, an IMAP email client, similarly.
This may actually be worse. In many cases, clients connect to the clear text port and then issue STARTTLS (or similar) if the server had said it supports it. So, a MITM *could* proxy and restrict the connection to non-tls.
I would like to know what there stats were for unencrypted traffic versus encrypted traffic. How necessary is a VPN if you don't care if the middle knows your source and destination IP's and nothing else?
The very link from the summary reveals you're an asshole, since the stats there match what I quoted exactly. You're an asshole for jumping to "incompetent or lying".
The dx.com link you shared does say 100 meters and 8 minute flight (it's for the SYMA X5SW). The link to rcgroups.com from the summary says 160 feet and 6 minute flight (it's also for the SYMA X5SW). I don't see either link in the main story at http://www.jpost.com/ (maybe my adblocker took care of something).
In either case, do you honestly believe this toy can life 1/2 pound of anything?
Slashdot Mirror
It would also make collisions less of a problem because a lightweight bike without a passenger travelling at slow speeds is not likely to hurt someone even if it hits them.
This thing uses TRAINING WHEELS for "balance" (can it really be called balancing if it relies on training wheels?).
Who cares if this thing hits someone. What about all the people that will be running into this thing?
To put it in perspective, imagine an autonomous car driving *very* safely down the highway at 10mph, perfectly avoiding any obstacles it comes across. Now imagine a bunch of these spread about the highways.
Unlike the highway, bike lanes don't have a minimum speed (AFAIK), so there may not be a good legal reason to force these to go with the speed of traffic. There ARE, however, rules that exclude any motorized vehicles from utilizing many bike paths - so this would need to work on the streets, not the bike paths, for its return trip. Even if they were able to ride on the bike lanes at speed, doing so requires significantly more situational awareness than driving a car. Braking will also be a problem at speed... to brake quickly on a bike, you use the front brake and shift your weight to the back, but this thing has no rider or extra weight - I suspect that would be a major issue. They were obviously not planning on using the features at any significant speed - it's meant to aid in getting a bike from a tight spot over to someone that could ride a bike but has a disability (like missing one arm).
Argh... meant to include a link. The phone mentioned is currently onsale at bestbuy for $29.99. Other places, YMMV, but there's often something similar for a similar price.
Anyway. Pi 2, $70 screen, $20 case. 5v adapter. Done.
Or a burner phone.
Ex: AT&T GoPhone - Motorola Moto E, 8gb memory, no-contract, Android Lolipop 5.0: $29.99
That gets you a battery-backed clock with a nice LCD display that includes GPS, WiFI, and Cellular. Build a little wooden frame or something for it, run a long usb cord to power, and plug it in. I'm certain there are loads of "dashboard" or screensaver style apps that'll display a clock and keep the screen on.
I'm honestly not sure why people aren't abusing these things more. That's SUPER cheap for what you get.
And when they include the weight of the car in the statement, they are implying that the weight of the vehicle is somehow relevant.
Exactly.
6 tiny robots were able to pull this car. However:
* comparing them to ants is fucked up. They're WAAAY larger than any ant I've ever seen!
* the legged versions were not the ones to pull the car
* the video shows what is essentially 6 miniature wenches, not walking robots
* that car was pulled by 6 pieces of string (of some sort). That should put it into perspective how little force they are actually exerting.
I'm sure there's some interesting stuff going on, but the summary and article are both distorting it enough that they're useless drivel.
[minecraft/AIX] is not an operating system.
Yeah right. You probably think emacs is a lightweight editor too.
What fucking disk!?!? How many people actually get a disk these days?
But of course you can't prove anything either way.
Regarding whether or not it is possible for the FBI to get into the phone without the iOS source and/or the signing key etc, anyone with sufficient resources could prove it is possible (assuming it is possible). Ex:
* get same model phone used
* encrypt it and protect with pin as in the case of the phone in question
* attempt to get into it via the various methods mentioned all over the place
If one fails, that does not prove it's not possible, so people saying it will fail don't have much motivation to try it.
However, if it works, then that would be a pretty big nail in the coffin for this issue.
PS: sorry I took you quote out of context a little; it lead to this train of thought.
why is it important to test that you can memorize them when they can be looked up in seconds.
As the previous poster noted, he had scratch paper, and could jot them down at the beginning of the test. IMO, that's a perfect compromise. /25 = 11111111111111111111111110000000, or at least know enough to be able to determine that (it doesn't have to be memorized, but the maths behind it should be known).
It's very important to test for them because one should (must?) know how they work to understand how many other things work. Most people (not network admins) only see dotted quad netmasks like 255.255.255.0, but most of those same people would have no idea if 255.255.255.128 or 255.255.255.132 are legal, or know why. They should know that 255.255.255.128 =
In NYC, the Staten Island Ferry actually SELLS tall boys (I think it's ~$4 for a bud).
I believe he's referring to the CIDR values and their corresponding range sizes. They're easy to calculate, but a table can be helpful for quick reference - there's only 32 of them.
... rolled back to an old backup. As a result, we lost audit data for about 147 roots.
How the fuck are there that many changes for root CA's withing the period of one backup?
What does any of that have to do with this thread?
For out of copyright works, as I said before, "You are allowed to make a bit for bit copy, but no one is required to help you".
You (supposedly) had a special controller that would allow you to make a bit-for-bit copy of copy-protected disks (I'm assuming you are referring to DVD's, but it doesn't really matter what format). Kudos to you. That falls directly in line with what I said - that's certainly not standard, and the author didn't have to facilitate that (you had to obtain or create a special controller), and you were able to obtain your bit-for-bit copy, and no one has been contesting that. WTF does that have to do with anything?
That's the whole point of the hard drive copy. Who cares if it deletes a copy. Make another try again.
Apparently, there are multiple parts to the key.
1. the pin number (probably just 4 digits)
2. the unique identifier burned into the silicon (impossible to recover without taking apart the chip with acid and stuff and looking at it with microscopes, and you may not get it right if you do that)
3. a long random number stored in NAND
All of that is combined and then used as a symmetric AES key to encrypt the data on the flash.
The "phone wipes the drive" is not accurate. When the phone wipes the drive, it actually just wipes #3 (and maybe some other stuff after that wipe is completed).
AFAIK, they can't (easily) copy the NAND nor #2.
They can copy the flash and try a bajillion keys, but that will take eons.
They can copy the flash, try via the phone, fail, and the phone will wipe #3, and then they're SOL - restoring the data to flash will not help at all.
There may be other techniques they can use, but it's not as simple as backup/restore the flash.
I wouldn't be surprised if you could select to play only with Xbox Live members or PC as well
AFAICT, xbox live is required for multiplayer in most xbox one games. It's ones of my biggest gripes with the new consoles. Buy a game, and rent multiplayer support.
No, you said this:
You have no right to a bit for bit copy of a work after the copyright expires
Your statement is false. Digital works that are no longer covered by copyright can be copied bit-for-bit.
"Can be copied" and "required to facilitate that act" are not the same thing.
The author is not required to make that easy for you.
Monet would not be required to train people how to create an exact duplicate of what he did. You can not mandate that.
You are allowed to make a bit for bit copy, but no one is required to help you (legally, as far as I know, IANAL, etc).
Uh, yeah. I kinda said the same thing. What's your point?
After copyright expires, you can also "photocopy" the movie - just play it and record it. That's the analog to photocopying a book, and the encryption deployed does not prevent that.
The entire POINT of physical media is that I can play it anywhere - and that I own the content forever. If you break either one of those (and they just broke both of them) - then I might as well stream content online and save the need for a rack with 200 disks in it cluttering up my media room.
I mostly agree, but those aren't the only points.
There is the matter of storage and bandwidth. Lots of people can not even stream 480p content, or 720p, let alone 1080p, and even then, it's often compressed far more than it would be on the disk.
One hour of 1080p DV footage is roughly 12.7GB.
One hour of UHD is roughly 110GB**.
Blu Ray disks are 50GB.
Compression makes all these highly variable, but in the end, you won't be able to store many movies even on TB's of space, and streaming will suck.
Your alternative is to get it on disk. It also means you can easily share it with friends.
The network requirement for an encryption key check is really not that big a deal in comparison to streaming bandwidth limitations.
I'm slightly hopeful we see a resurgence of disk rentals. This is nothing to do with the encryption though - the shear file size is enough of a reason for me to not want to rip them or store them.
** I pulled these numbers off of a few sites, but none seem to be entirely scientific.
But if you've bought the bluray, the work is already distributed. If the work is then inaccessible for copying after the copyright expired because the encryption key is no longer available, then we have an issue.
You have no right to a bit for bit copy of a work after the copyright expires. You can make a copy and redistribute it at that point, but that technical feat is left as an exercise for you to work out.
Consider books for a moment. You do not get access to the original printing press / litho work / digital files / etc. After the copyright expires, what you can do is manually re-type the book and create a new work to distribute. If you can automate that process, great, but the author is not required to make that easy for you.
I do believe the extended copyright terms are crazy, and that, in a world of essentially free perfect copies of digital information, many of the existing norms need to change. But that doesn't mean people can demand authors of works to aid in facilitating those free copies.
The attempt at energy independence ... jobs lost because they cannot compete ... can tell capitalism to fuck off and die ...
I think you're confusing some goals. Energy independence isn't very capitalistic. The market pricing out a subset of competitors IS very capitalistic.
That doesn't mean I think any of that is "right", but that's a different matter. We, the people, have allowed this to happen.
At that rate, you will be a millionaire in less than a week!
day 1 $0.01
day 2 $1.01
day 3 $101.01
day 4 $10,101.01
day 5 $1,010,101.01
I thought museums were for long past dead things, for which there is a historical perspective
Nope. Plenty of recently made things get into museums, even from living artists/etc. One definition is:
A museum (/mjuzim/; myoo-zee-um) is an institution that cares for (conserves) a collection of artifacts and other objects of artistic, cultural, historical, or scientific importance and makes them available for public viewing through exhibits that may be permanent or temporary.
HSTS support across browsers: https://www.owasp.org/index.ph...
Current usage stats: http://caniuse.com/#feat=stric...
IE: 11 (windows 7 and 8.1+)
Edge: all versions
Firefox: 4+
Opera: 12+
Safari: 7+ Mavericks (Mac OS X 10.9)
Chrome: 4.0.211.0
That will cover the majority of users.
Regardless, there is still no fallacy. Users can easily protect themselves from that situation by using a browser that supports HSTS, which simply means using a system that has been updated within the past several years. It also greatly reduces the attack footprint, which is the big selling point for this ad/article.
I keep waiting for the study that says online porn and video poker are good for you.
Wait no longer.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=porn+foun...
"seems like avast missed the point when google, gmail, and youtube went 100% https"
What about people who use browsers which don't force an ssl connection to those URIs?
This used to be a problem, because users might type in "google.com", and the browser would first go to "http://google.com" (ditto for other sites).
Along came HSTS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
That shouldn't be a problem anymore, so long as the users browser supports that, and the server is sending it (which many do these days, because of all the SSL kerfuffle).
Or, an IMAP email client, similarly.
This may actually be worse. In many cases, clients connect to the clear text port and then issue STARTTLS (or similar) if the server had said it supports it.
So, a MITM *could* proxy and restrict the connection to non-tls.
I would like to know what there stats were for unencrypted traffic versus encrypted traffic. How necessary is a VPN if you don't care if the middle knows your source and destination IP's and nothing else?
The very link from the summary reveals you're an asshole, since the stats there match what I quoted exactly. You're an asshole for jumping to "incompetent or lying".
The dx.com link you shared does say 100 meters and 8 minute flight (it's for the SYMA X5SW).
The link to rcgroups.com from the summary says 160 feet and 6 minute flight (it's also for the SYMA X5SW).
I don't see either link in the main story at http://www.jpost.com/ (maybe my adblocker took care of something).
In either case, do you honestly believe this toy can life 1/2 pound of anything?