×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Comcast Sued For Turning Home Wi-Fi Routers Into Public Hotspots

jd659 Re:Comcast Business Class (291 comments)

I've confirmed that the public network uses a different public IP (clients connected to it get a private IP), but I'd still like to be able to disable it.

Very interesting that it runs public WiFi even in bridge mode. So the modem must obtain two IPs from Comcast. I'd disconnect the internal antennas at this point. I cannot fathom running provided equipment of which I don't have control for my private networking. Only bridge mode and my own router/access point.

about two weeks ago
top

Former Police Officer Indicted For Teaching How To Pass a Polygraph Test

jd659 Re:For some reason (328 comments)

exactly

about a month ago
top

Former Police Officer Indicted For Teaching How To Pass a Polygraph Test

jd659 Re:Not as simple as teaching how to ... (328 comments)

The short summary wasn't precise, I admit, but the point was slightly different. What the installer guy did should never be illegal regardless of intent. Let's consider someone coming to a car dealership and saying: "I'd like to buy a car to commit a crime, here's a full sticker price." The dealer wants to make money and sells the car. Guilty? Why should he be? Should the specific car salesman go to jail or the whole dealership closed (since corporations are people)? Let's imagine that some folks agree that selling a car in this case should be considered a violation of some sort. But it's not usually exactly black and white as "I want to commit a crime with your help" type of statement. What if the guy says "I want a car to transport marijuana"? Illegal? In what state? Should the sales guy know all the applicable laws? Does anyone know ALL the laws? What if the guys says "I want to transport cathinone?" or "I want transport schedule 1 substance"? Who should even know what specific schedule substance is? Should it matter if the whole conversation happens not at the dealer but at your large grocery chain between the guy and a cashier? Should cashier go to jail? Anyway, the intent should not matter and installing any traps in the car should be legal by anyone.

about a month ago
top

Former Police Officer Indicted For Teaching How To Pass a Polygraph Test

jd659 Re:Not as simple as teaching how to ... (328 comments)

If he had claimed the training was for some other purpose and always told people to never employ these techniques during a real government polygraph and to always tell government investigators the truth he would not be in trouble.

It always amuses me how simplistic the arguments can become. If you just tell how to beat an abstract polygraph without mentioning the government you'd be fine! Nonsense. If the government doesn't like what you do, there will be a way to lock you in for a long time. Even if you do everything legal.

Here's a good example. A guy in California was installing hidden compartments in cars (traps). Those were very slick and he was careful -- it was impossible to detect that something was altered. There were no switches, opening such traps would require following some elaborate sequence, like opening specific doors, rolling down the window five times, starting the car seven times, whatever. Nothing illegal here. One may think that some uses for traps would be to store drugs but there could be many legitimate reasons (like storing cash or whatever personal items). So the installer asked if the traps are going to be used for anything illegal and refused to do the job if the answer was positive. Nothing illegal. Well, some lied and stored drugs and the DEA's job became more complicated and they staged the whole kangaroo court where the trap installer guy was convicted for 22 years! 22 years for not doing anything illegal, but the thinking was that he could have imagined that some traps could be used by drug dealers and therefore he facilitated drug dealings.

More details on the story: http://www.wired.com/2013/03/a...

about a month ago
top

Disney Patents a Piracy Free Search Engine

jd659 Re:Yeah baby! (164 comments)

This is a great news! If google (or any other search engine) decides to promote copyrighted material in the results, it will be a patent infringement!

about a month and a half ago
top

Ask Slashdot: Where Do You Stand on Daylight Saving Time?

jd659 Helping retailers (613 comments)

Interesting interview on the reasons behind the DST was on NPR with the author of "Spring Forward: The Annual Madness of Daylight Saving Time". "The upcoming shift in the daylight-saving time change is designed to help retailers — and is a substitute for a genuine energy policy, says author Michael Downing. Congress moved the time shift up this year. Melissa Block talks with Michael Downing, author of Spring Forward: The Annual Madness of Daylight Saving Time." http://www.npr.org/templates/s... No DST is fine with me.

about a month and a half ago
top

Is the Outrage Over the FBI's Seattle Times Tactics a Knee-Jerk Reaction?

jd659 Appropriate response (206 comments)

The appropriate response to this violation would be to create a web page impersonating police officers and sending the link to everyone in the school and the newspaper. The content should be along the lines: "I'm officer John and officer Jack, we live at such-and-such address and we are very sorry for creating a fake Seattle Times page causing a wide outrage. Our kids Jill and Jack attending such-and-such school are feeling the heat too. We are sorry." To be believable, the page needs to have appropriate pictures of the officers, their kids (we have to think of the kids!) and all the addresses need to be correct, they didn't misspell Seattle Times, right? The overall content that they are sorry can be fake, just like the page they'd created.

about 2 months ago
top

Car Thieves and Insurers Vote On Keyless Car Security

jd659 Re:I wish I'd thought of that (221 comments)

Interesting, but the additional security to a physical key is not the "wireless" solution that is being discussed here. I'm still quite interested if there are any OEM wireless keys that actually don't use some type of rolling keys or challenge response.

about 2 months ago
top

Car Thieves and Insurers Vote On Keyless Car Security

jd659 Re:I wish I'd thought of that (221 comments)

I haven't heard of a car key that you can just easily clone. The code is never static.

about 2 months ago
top

Car Thieves and Insurers Vote On Keyless Car Security

jd659 Modified car? (221 comments)

I have a car that uses a wireless key. After browsing the web trying to find more about the security, I found that you could buy a programmer that connects to the car's data port and programs a new key. What was surprising to me was how relatively easy it is to buy such a device and how quick the programming process was (about 30 seconds). A thief would have to get an entry into the car first (breaking a window, perhaps), but once that is done, it's relatively easy to just drive off with a newly programmed key. What I did was to disable to data port, not permanently, but more of a need to use basis. Since it works on obfuscation, this is not a type of security to be mass produced. Not knowing how exactly the port is disabled, it will take a long time to make it work, so I don't expect a thief to start taking the car apart. Wonder if you can claim for the insurance that the port is disabled. There are many other ways to steal a car, I just want to prevent the easy ones known today.

about 2 months ago
top

FBI Says It Will Hire No One Who Lies About Illegal Downloading

jd659 Re:The irony is off the charts (580 comments)

Or you can say: "There's no federal law making any downloading illegal"

about 2 months ago
top

FBI Says It Will Hire No One Who Lies About Illegal Downloading

jd659 Copyright infringement maybe? (580 comments)

What they call "piracy" or "illegal downloading" is properly called copyright infringement (I don't think they refer to happenings in Somalia when they refer to "piracy"). The copyright infringement defines the infringement as "unauthorized distribution." So, if you distribute the copyright material without the proper authorization from the copyright holder you're committing a copyright infringement. Now, downloading itself is not the distribution, so downloading cannot be illegal (can, but not currently). It's the same idea as you walking into a grocery store to buy napkins and the store didn't have the proper clearance from the napkin manufacturer to sell those napkins, so the store might be in violation, but not you -- the purchaser. Same with downloading. It becomes murky with cases where files get uploaded at the same time as they get downloaded. But I don't expect the average user to know such details. But if you're just downloading, you're not committing the copyright infringement.

about 2 months ago
top

Marriott Fined $600,000 For Jamming Guest Hotspots

jd659 Re:Inverse Wi-fi law (278 comments)

A few realize that it's possible to run a wi-fi client and a hotspot on the same card in a laptop at the same time. I had a similar experience with the hotel that allowed only one mac address connection. So I connected my laptop, created a new hotspot called "free wi-fi" and had it running all the time I was at the hotel without any credentials. At least I could connect all my devices and provide a useful public service at the same time.

about 3 months ago
top

Marriott Fined $600,000 For Jamming Guest Hotspots

jd659 Re:Jamming unlinced spectrum is illegal? (278 comments)

...WiFi operates on UNREGULATED spectrum, which means anyone can use, and anyone must accept interference from other users... and we did EXACTLY the same thing that Mariott was doing, for just that reason. ... we also investigated the legality of it, and the conclusion we came to was that it was perfectly legal since it was on unregulated spectrum.

According to that logic, I can come with a router backpack and prevent all users from connecting to YOUR university network. Well, it's unregulated, right? You should accept the interference and you cannot ask me to leave (in fact, I can be on a public place to cause you enough of a headache, so all is a fair game).

How did Google get charged exorbitant fees for briefly recording unencrypted wi-fi traffic from their street view cars while everything they did was on an unregulated spectrum?

about 3 months ago
top

Adobe Photoshop Is Coming To Linux, Through Chromebooks

jd659 Re:Finally (197 comments)

In my last several engagements, I purchased (on behalf of the clients) version of standalone Photoshop and CS specifically not to be tied to the CC model. Sure, the CC can tout constant updates, but what if I don’t need the updates? Who said that in 10 years the documents I create now can be opened with whatever CC updates get accumulated over the years? Those advocating newer is better, consider your Win7 machine gets automatically updated to Win8 when the company ships it and you’re in the middle of the project and a few things stop working. For critical tasks I want to preserve files, programs, not to be tied to some third party to hand me the critical tools.

about 3 months ago
top

Ask Slashdot: Anti-Camera Device For Use In a Small Bus?

jd659 Re:Heil Hitler (478 comments)

"charge per photo" sign showing the cost per photo for licensing purposes -- i.e. you're allowed to charge for any commercial shot "license" and distribution rights are a part of that -- make sure you have them posted on all sides of your buses

The licensing contract that was not signed by the photographer will be null and void. Puff! This suggestion is equivalent of printing a t-shirt that says "anyone who looks at it owns me $100". Right, try enforcing that in court.

about 10 months ago
top

Ask Slashdot: Anti-Camera Device For Use In a Small Bus?

jd659 Re:Problems (478 comments)

1. Detection rather than nullification. Maybe you can't prevent but you can at least know when,

Detection of the camera pointed in the unknown direction on the bus will be impossible.

2. Maybe you can use IR to fool the autofocus to one extreme or another?

Nearly all SLRs are insensitive to IR light when recording. And almost no camera today (still or video) is using IR to autofocus. Illuminating the area with a powerful IR light is damaging to the eyes -- yes it is like regular light except in the dark when the pupils are be dilated any powerful light can cause a damage. I was working on a device that had 3W IR LEDs and after a few minutes the eyes begin to hurt even when I was not looking at the lights directly.

about 10 months ago
top

Ask Slashdot: Anti-Camera Device For Use In a Small Bus?

jd659 My owners are the same! (478 comments)

And my owners want the traffic to clear in front of the limousine as the bus rolls into a congested area, but they are ok to have the traffic pile up behind the bus. We've done some testing with really loud honking but it proved ineffective. We don’t want to destroy other cars either, so no shooting torpedoes, please!

about 10 months ago
top

Music Industry Is Keeping Streaming Services Unprofitable

jd659 Re:Cut Out The Middle Men (118 comments)

Music streaming services simply need to form an association so they can publish direct

This is very true. Recording and editing the music with the decent quality used to be very expensive. The analog consoles used to be hundreds of thousands of dollars producing similar quality what a thousand dollar computer with a decent audio card can do today. The studios nonetheless demand copyright ownership for offering studios (cheap now) and distribution service (also became cheap).

Similar state existed in photography where the equipment had astronomical cost and companies could offer equipment, hire photographers "for hire" and keep the copyright. Nowadays, is is nearly impossible to see contracts where the photographer does not retain the copyright on his/her images. Still, plenty of services are available that remove all the "negotiation" part when selling and advertising the images. The photographer is free to offer images for sale with multiple brokers and some have agreements where if an images available for sale on one service will be offered for sale on the other too. There's no reason the music industry cannot follow the same model. The musician will be in charge of the recordings.

What really is killing the development of this market is the fact that one can sell "the ownership" under the current copyright laws. Once the labels buy the "ownership" of the recording they haven't produced, they can also buy the laws that benefit them and no so much help the musicians or the music industry in general. Kill the labels and let the artists to be the deciders of where the music to be played and it will increase the competition among services too -- bringing the new and innovative distribution channels.

about 10 months ago

Submissions

jd659 hasn't submitted any stories.

Journals

jd659 has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?