Re:Intel Gears Up for FPGA Push
by mankash666 on Tuesday October 03, 2017 @02:33AM
(#15390594)
Just a thought - I suppose you wanted to post with a throwaway account, but claiming to be the inventor of the patent gives your identity away
Sure, but this way his main account is not linked to his name.
Otoh, he could have just written "I've found this patent" and nobody would have known he was the author.
Re:Intel Gears Up for FPGA Push
by BoorishBears on Tuesday October 03, 2017 @10:02AM
(#15392457)
But no one would know the author was referencing his own patent and thus knowledgable about the subject if one wanted to conversate on it
Re:Intel Gears Up for FPGA Push
by justinjlynn on Tuesday October 03, 2017 @11:56AM
(#15393296)
It's still terrible opsec. Of course, as always, it depends on the threat model. Still, linkage and contamination are deadly - why give up more information than absolutely necessary for your adversar[y|ies] to use against you in the future. All it takes is one mistake or a few 'almost mistakes'.
Re:Intel Gears Up for FPGA Push
by BoorishBears on Tuesday October 03, 2017 @11:58AM
(#15393313)
What does it have to do with opsec?
Re:Intel Gears Up for FPGA Push
by burntrelish1273 on Tuesday October 03, 2017 @01:44PM
(#15394360)
Transmeta code-morphing? VLIW?
https://www.google.com/patents/US20170153892