Huh? Not in my area. I've seen one pair of these in the wild and dozens of Flock cameras. Will that change? Maybe. For now, the _freak outs_ about Flock are absolutely justified.
Their footprints are also completely different. I can't avoid Flock cameras unless I want to change my path of travel and take back roads, which costs me time and money. Whereas I _might_ encounter someone wearing Meta glasses _if_ I happen to cross paths with them.
Yeah, I also find it weird to make a comparison with a random private individual and/or corporation with an actor that has the monopoly on violence.
The government doing surveillance is much much worse.
And, ultimately, the issue here is that individuals are using these products in a bad way. Go to Japan and this shit is prolifically bad. Upskirt cameras on shoes and all this shit. Banning these glasses doesn't get rid of bad behaviors. Japan has been at the forefront of pervy invasive shit for decades.
Again, I'm not (for all intents and purposes) forced to cross paths with any of those individual pervert glass wearers like I am with Flock cameras. It's a false equivalence.
> When someone exceed their allotted time during a public comments period, that person is depriving the rest of the people of their abilities to comment.
Except ... nowhere in the article does it say that Heider exceeded her allotted time.
She exceeded the allotted time to speak about the topic of Flock cameras, by starting to talk about them at all during the portion of the meeting about a housing issue. These meetings are about specific topics, not an "every citizen gets X minutes at the podium" free-for-all.
I would consider this a positive. I'm not interested in a company that wants to prevent you from using a tool that you're paying for.
The value of the internet is that people can share whatever they want, and use software how they want. This will mean that some people will abuse that. This is the tradeoff of a free society.
AOL was my internet gateway until 98 or so. I seem to remember a rumor that your account would instantly be suspended if you visited the "WAREZ" chatroom. Does anyone know if that's true? Neither answer would surprise me.
Also, I wish I could remember the intricacies but there was some way to visit other chatrooms and request files (progz, mp3, etc.) from a manifest which would then be emailed to you.
Kinda true. AOL would send moderators into known private warez rooms, and if you wandered into one while a moderator was there, you’d likely get suspended. The moderators were easy to spot because they all had “CatWatch” in their handles. The room names were always changing, so AOL was always playing cat and mouse. 11 year old me encountered them many times. My Dad would continuously have to call to get the account reactivated. Sorry Dad.
I bought a Scott tube amplifier at a yard sale for $2 and sold it on Craigslist the same day for $40. At least I found someone who wanted to restore it or harvest parts instead of trashing it.
> Some of the reverse engineering tricks utilized by DiscoStarslayer include chemically decapping the CXP102064 to expose the die, then using microscopes and optical dumping skills to analyze the silicon chip circuitry. In this case, a lucky break during the hacking apparently uncovered an exploit that provided a method whereby the chip’s data could be extracted through software.
This is next level commitment to the cause.
Also, I can totally imagine their reaction when they discovered the exploit and realized they could put down the ... chemicals. XD
There actually is a pretty large community of hardware reverse engineers decapping chips for fun, sometimes just to dump internal ROMs (like in this case) and other times going as far as to try reconstructing the original schematics and netlists in order to document the chip's internals and allow for more accurate emulation, in some cases all the way down to the transistor level [1] [2]. If you want to learn more, Ken Shirriff has written a lot of blog posts on the subject [3] and Siliconprawn [4] hosts a huge collection of die shots from many contributors.
Doesn’t decapping chips require hydrofluoric acid ?
If so I cannot express enough respect, the one person I’ve interacted with that regularly worked with it put the fear of god with by showing what one insignificant miss for anything else did to his finger
No, the default acid used is nitric acid. Which should definitely be treated with respect, but isn't nearly as nasty as anything with fluorine.
But if you have a few examples of the chip and can break a few eggs to make an omelette, there are techniques that just involve hitting the epoxy with a blow torch and/or opening it up with plyers.
Not just regular nitric acid either, but red/white fuming nitric acid in many cases!
Back during my teenage years I used to make the stuff for decapping projects and amateur rocketry by grabbing the ingredients from our local hardware store and distilling it in a make-your-own-moonshine kit I bought off of craigslist.
Worked great up until the police were called because the store employees thought I was making bombs. I hear heating up sulfuric acid is the better way to decap epoxy chips nowadays.
A careless move with a skill saw can take your finger off too. I don't think acid deserves such a scary reputation. I guess because it doesn't make an obnoxious sound does make it easier to forget. But in both cases you must follow best practices (fume hood, goggles, bicarb wash nearby) , and suffer consequences if you don't.
This has been done for many years in the arcade preservation community, allowing specific arcade boards to be fully documented and preserved in MAME and now MiSTer. Specifically Guru’s ROM dump has documented decap efforts since 2007 it looks like.
It's a funny quirk of history and circumstance that I'll always associate the station bumper or a DJ's intro with certain songs that I taped off the radio on the 80s and 90s. Similarly, I've heard from friends that they have associated skips, scratches, pops and static with certain songs based on their medium of choice back in the day.
Huh? Not in my area. I've seen one pair of these in the wild and dozens of Flock cameras. Will that change? Maybe. For now, the _freak outs_ about Flock are absolutely justified.
Their footprints are also completely different. I can't avoid Flock cameras unless I want to change my path of travel and take back roads, which costs me time and money. Whereas I _might_ encounter someone wearing Meta glasses _if_ I happen to cross paths with them.
reply