Companies are associations of people. People have rights. The only creation of government is "limited liability". It's not obvious why a group of people should lose their natural rights for limited liability.
The reasonable argument (IMO and the O of the SCOTUS) is that a public corporation has fewer rights than a group of people who all know each other, but even then, what rights would you deny the New York Times?
We have plenty of laws on how people get to treat other people, in groups or otherwise. Being a corporation doesn't shield you from those laws, beyond when the debt collectors come calling.
In general. parent is saying ECC is still probably safe
The problem with ECC is the damn NSA. Fifteen or so years ago the NSA strongly endorsed moving to ECC to get ahead of the risk of quantum computing. Sadly, the specifics they suggested were poison: what the proposed was weak in a way the NSA knew about, but they hoped no one else would ever figure out. There's a lingering distrust for ECC as a result, perhaps unfairly.
And there's no good reason to choose ECC for "post-quantum" crypto when there are good alternatives
The part that's "round" is the electric dipole moment, not the electron. The electron's charge is perfectly uniform with spherical symmetry, i.e., "round".
That means the electron can't be made up of smaller particles, or spontaneously decay into particles which quickly re-combine into an electron, or any other sort of hidden complexity, as that would reveal itself in a lack of roundness: a non-zero EDM.
The government has a vested interest in not allowing businesses to become 500lbs gorillas.
The government has a vested interest in preventing abuse of monopoly power. But that's not what we're talking about here. There's nothing implicitly wrong with a company being very successful.
I think the real topic is "how do we regulate social media to prevent corporate abuse of communication platforms for political ends?" This is something we've figured out for other carriers and broadcast companies: you're either just a pipe, or you're a publisher responsible for what's published.
Theories are "correct" within some bounds. Within some range of conditions, and to some accuracy, theories can be show to make reliably accurate predictions. The Standard Model just keeps growing those bounds.
I hate Google and Facebook with a burning passion, and would love to see them fail, but even for those stinkers: what right would the government have to break them up? The whole discussion makes no sense to me.
If they were engaged in specific abuses of monopoly power, hold them accountable for that (as the EU has been doing with Google), but this seems like a straight-up desire to punish success. Heck, as much as I hate the lack of an alternative to e.g., YouTube and it's bizarre and arbitrary censorship, it's not like Google has been unfairly stomping competing products - people just like YouTube.
Regulate them as carriers? Sure, that's an interesting discussion, and the conclusion isn't obvious. But break them up? On what basis other than envy?
Now if only the Standard Model were an actual theory, instead of a list of empirical observations.
There's plenty of theory behind the Standard Model. It's the core of modern physics. Observed results are explained mathematically, those models make predictions, and the predictions keep being verified. It's a very solid theory.
No one like it, because it's not elegant. There are just too many seemingly arbitrary fields and quantum numbers, and the math is nearly intractable. It's a big stinking mess that keeps successfully predicting all observations.
It's very clear now that string theory has failed at every level. It started as a quest to simplify the Standard Model, but the math is even worse, it has even more tunable parameters, and it keeps failing to predict anything. Perhaps we'd have a better alternative to the Standard Model if decades of brilliant minds weren't wasted chasing string theory nonsense.
The reason for the 17th was that the huge corporations of the day has optimized fully on bribing the state governments t get the senators they wanted. Flipping over to direct election reset that for a few decades. Flipping back will help, for a while.
Real estate is dirt cheap compared to salaries, unless you have office space in the stupidest places in the world. And you'd be surprised how the office space numbers actually work out.
If your argument is "management is smart, they wouldn't waste money like that"; oh you sweet summer child.
Or block imports from manufacturers that don't follow US rules for pollution and worker safety. Or remove those rules in the US, whichever you think is moral.
How does that have anything to do with stopping US government subsidies of Chinese manufacturers? If you think subsidies are OK, subsidize US manufacturers with your tax dollars.
Or, you know, level playing field with no subsidies.
It also minimized square footage per employee, thus minimizing rent and paying maximum bonuses to management.
No, it doesn't even do that. That's also been studied. You can make cubicles very small, and for most offices you need more space for meeting rooms, so it all evens out. It's just a fad, with no upside at all.
Open plan offices aren't actually any cheaper, because you need more meeting rooms. Open plan offices serve only one goal: management hates you and wants you to be unhappy.
The problem in the US is that you got two pro-business parties with differently fringed colors and zero pro-consumer parties (with any power, at least).
That's it, all right. It's a bit more subtle (and worse) in that they're pro-huge-business. I'd be all for a "pro-business" party, if it were "pro-small company", but there's none of that.
Both US parties are coalitions, of course, and this is one of the seams where the coalitions are breaking apart - voters are willing to put up with anyone, even Trump or Bernie, to attempt to avoid the established groups. Both sides have voters very upset with this blatant pro-huge-company bias.
It's not about isolationism, it's about a level playing field. We should not be subsidizing offshoring (nor should we put up with unbalanced tariffs).
If a country can naturally make something cheaper, e.g., it's close to heavy raw materials, making something light, that's different. That's just efficiency, and we all benefit from economic efficiency. But when a government makes something cheaper, though subsidies, or more expensive, through tarriffs, that's inefficiency, and economic inefficiency is a net loss. For sure, our government shouldn't be introducing economic inefficiency for the benefit of someone else. That bullshit needs to stop, even if it means less profit for the 100 richest families in the world.
You just cut trade with the world's largest economy. And pissed off the largest lender to the US.
We should not consent to being the victim of unfair trade subsidies just because they're bigger. That does not help us in the long run. Insist on fair trade, and they'll relent eventually.
How do those work? Do they actually keep your phone from ringing? Can you recommend one?
Robocalls to me are exemplary of the problem with regulation. I'll take big-government politicians seriously on the day that can actually stop robocalls (including their own), just like I'll take small-government politicians seriously on the day one of them eliminates the TSA. Until then I assume they only differ on who gets the bribe money.
Ahh, I see. But availability isn't very interesting for archives, where you generally have a few days to retrieve data (since traditionally that means having Iron Mountain deliver a box to you).
S3's SLA for availabilty is 3-9s IIRC. I think most AWS services are, though they've been working on doing better.
Really, though, cloud archiving will come down to "do you trust this company for the next 20 years", more than other considerations. MS and AWS at least have a track record for staying around and keeping services up, not sure anyone else is even worth looking at (especially not "what service will they abandon today?" Google).
It has to do with scaling. Like I said, geothermal is great where it works, but it won't scale (to humanity's future needs). Only solar and fusion (but I repeat myself) will. Most geothermal hotspots are along the ocean floor, and likely more difficult to access than "orbital solar", which is saying something. But, hey, if you're Iceland, dig in!
Removable disk hard drives have been here since the earliest days. Sealed disk was an invention along the way. It isn't an accident that the latter technology now dominates - you just can't do modern HDD densities without a controlled environment. Heck, all my recent HDDs are helium-filled.
Tape gives you a much larger surface area for a removable cartridge than you're ever going to get with disk, which is why latest-gen tapes generally store more than latest-gen HDDs, despite the limitations of "uncontrolled air".
Of course, SSD is a different world. Very dense, very pluggable. Still very expensive, though, and no promises at all about retaining data when unpowered. I suspect in a few decades SSD will finally replace tape, but the industry is far from that point today.
There's another factor you didn't consider that limits tape usage to very high volume use only.
Tape is rarely cost effective for personal backup (though I'm sure there's a Slashdotter out there with a 1000 TB hentai collection), but for any company that has a meaningful amount of data it makes sense for archiving.
You need to be thinking in terms of multiple hundreds of terabytes to justify the initial equipment costs, even if the tapes themselves are affordable.
Yes, though calling "hundreds of terabytes" a lot of data sounds odd to me.
Right: the point is to make American manufacturing more competitive with jobs going to China. This is one of a hundred way the government has been subsidizing corporations to offshore jobs. Each one down is a good thing.
The US government is for the benefit of US citizens, not global megacorporations with giant bribery budgets. Any little but we can claw back democracy from the megacorps is a good bit.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, that's Microsoft quality!
It's almost as if they fired their entire QA department in 2014. How that ever got to be a fad, I don't know.
ECC is not post-quantum, it relies on the discrete log problem for which there are good QC algorithms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Check it out. Supersingular isogeny Diffieâ"Hellman key exchange uses ECC operatins, but is post-quantum and not patented.
Companies are associations of people. People have rights. The only creation of government is "limited liability". It's not obvious why a group of people should lose their natural rights for limited liability.
The reasonable argument (IMO and the O of the SCOTUS) is that a public corporation has fewer rights than a group of people who all know each other, but even then, what rights would you deny the New York Times?
We have plenty of laws on how people get to treat other people, in groups or otherwise. Being a corporation doesn't shield you from those laws, beyond when the debt collectors come calling.
In general. parent is saying ECC is still probably safe
The problem with ECC is the damn NSA. Fifteen or so years ago the NSA strongly endorsed moving to ECC to get ahead of the risk of quantum computing. Sadly, the specifics they suggested were poison: what the proposed was weak in a way the NSA knew about, but they hoped no one else would ever figure out. There's a lingering distrust for ECC as a result, perhaps unfairly.
And there's no good reason to choose ECC for "post-quantum" crypto when there are good alternatives
The part that's "round" is the electric dipole moment, not the electron. The electron's charge is perfectly uniform with spherical symmetry, i.e., "round".
That means the electron can't be made up of smaller particles, or spontaneously decay into particles which quickly re-combine into an electron, or any other sort of hidden complexity, as that would reveal itself in a lack of roundness: a non-zero EDM.
The government has a vested interest in not allowing businesses to become 500lbs gorillas.
The government has a vested interest in preventing abuse of monopoly power. But that's not what we're talking about here. There's nothing implicitly wrong with a company being very successful.
I think the real topic is "how do we regulate social media to prevent corporate abuse of communication platforms for political ends?" This is something we've figured out for other carriers and broadcast companies: you're either just a pipe, or you're a publisher responsible for what's published.
Theories are "correct" within some bounds. Within some range of conditions, and to some accuracy, theories can be show to make reliably accurate predictions. The Standard Model just keeps growing those bounds.
I hate Google and Facebook with a burning passion, and would love to see them fail, but even for those stinkers: what right would the government have to break them up? The whole discussion makes no sense to me.
If they were engaged in specific abuses of monopoly power, hold them accountable for that (as the EU has been doing with Google), but this seems like a straight-up desire to punish success. Heck, as much as I hate the lack of an alternative to e.g., YouTube and it's bizarre and arbitrary censorship, it's not like Google has been unfairly stomping competing products - people just like YouTube.
Regulate them as carriers? Sure, that's an interesting discussion, and the conclusion isn't obvious. But break them up? On what basis other than envy?
Now if only the Standard Model were an actual theory, instead of a list of empirical observations.
There's plenty of theory behind the Standard Model. It's the core of modern physics. Observed results are explained mathematically, those models make predictions, and the predictions keep being verified. It's a very solid theory.
No one like it, because it's not elegant. There are just too many seemingly arbitrary fields and quantum numbers, and the math is nearly intractable. It's a big stinking mess that keeps successfully predicting all observations.
It's very clear now that string theory has failed at every level. It started as a quest to simplify the Standard Model, but the math is even worse, it has even more tunable parameters, and it keeps failing to predict anything. Perhaps we'd have a better alternative to the Standard Model if decades of brilliant minds weren't wasted chasing string theory nonsense.
The reason for the 17th was that the huge corporations of the day has optimized fully on bribing the state governments t get the senators they wanted. Flipping over to direct election reset that for a few decades. Flipping back will help, for a while.
Real estate is dirt cheap compared to salaries, unless you have office space in the stupidest places in the world. And you'd be surprised how the office space numbers actually work out.
If your argument is "management is smart, they wouldn't waste money like that"; oh you sweet summer child.
So you don't do any collaborative work? You don't need any meeting rooms? Or you just talk to each other all the time, disrupting everyone?
30 People in a room? Sounds like 18th century squallor, or a third-world shithole.
Or block imports from manufacturers that don't follow US rules for pollution and worker safety. Or remove those rules in the US, whichever you think is moral.
How does that have anything to do with stopping US government subsidies of Chinese manufacturers? If you think subsidies are OK, subsidize US manufacturers with your tax dollars.
Or, you know, level playing field with no subsidies.
It also minimized square footage per employee, thus minimizing rent and paying maximum bonuses to management.
No, it doesn't even do that. That's also been studied. You can make cubicles very small, and for most offices you need more space for meeting rooms, so it all evens out. It's just a fad, with no upside at all.
Open plan offices aren't actually any cheaper, because you need more meeting rooms. Open plan offices serve only one goal: management hates you and wants you to be unhappy.
The problem in the US is that you got two pro-business parties with differently fringed colors and zero pro-consumer parties (with any power, at least).
That's it, all right. It's a bit more subtle (and worse) in that they're pro-huge-business. I'd be all for a "pro-business" party, if it were "pro-small company", but there's none of that.
Both US parties are coalitions, of course, and this is one of the seams where the coalitions are breaking apart - voters are willing to put up with anyone, even Trump or Bernie, to attempt to avoid the established groups. Both sides have voters very upset with this blatant pro-huge-company bias.
Gee, I wonder how we got to the point that there aren't any? Let's fix that.
It's not about isolationism, it's about a level playing field. We should not be subsidizing offshoring (nor should we put up with unbalanced tariffs).
If a country can naturally make something cheaper, e.g., it's close to heavy raw materials, making something light, that's different. That's just efficiency, and we all benefit from economic efficiency. But when a government makes something cheaper, though subsidies, or more expensive, through tarriffs, that's inefficiency, and economic inefficiency is a net loss. For sure, our government shouldn't be introducing economic inefficiency for the benefit of someone else. That bullshit needs to stop, even if it means less profit for the 100 richest families in the world.
You just cut trade with the world's largest economy. And pissed off the largest lender to the US.
We should not consent to being the victim of unfair trade subsidies just because they're bigger. That does not help us in the long run. Insist on fair trade, and they'll relent eventually.
spam call blocker apps
How do those work? Do they actually keep your phone from ringing? Can you recommend one?
Robocalls to me are exemplary of the problem with regulation. I'll take big-government politicians seriously on the day that can actually stop robocalls (including their own), just like I'll take small-government politicians seriously on the day one of them eliminates the TSA. Until then I assume they only differ on who gets the bribe money.
Ahh, I see. But availability isn't very interesting for archives, where you generally have a few days to retrieve data (since traditionally that means having Iron Mountain deliver a box to you).
S3's SLA for availabilty is 3-9s IIRC. I think most AWS services are, though they've been working on doing better.
Really, though, cloud archiving will come down to "do you trust this company for the next 20 years", more than other considerations. MS and AWS at least have a track record for staying around and keeping services up, not sure anyone else is even worth looking at (especially not "what service will they abandon today?" Google).
It has to do with scaling. Like I said, geothermal is great where it works, but it won't scale (to humanity's future needs). Only solar and fusion (but I repeat myself) will. Most geothermal hotspots are along the ocean floor, and likely more difficult to access than "orbital solar", which is saying something. But, hey, if you're Iceland, dig in!
Removable disk hard drives have been here since the earliest days. Sealed disk was an invention along the way. It isn't an accident that the latter technology now dominates - you just can't do modern HDD densities without a controlled environment. Heck, all my recent HDDs are helium-filled.
Tape gives you a much larger surface area for a removable cartridge than you're ever going to get with disk, which is why latest-gen tapes generally store more than latest-gen HDDs, despite the limitations of "uncontrolled air".
Of course, SSD is a different world. Very dense, very pluggable. Still very expensive, though, and no promises at all about retaining data when unpowered. I suspect in a few decades SSD will finally replace tape, but the industry is far from that point today.
There's another factor you didn't consider that limits tape usage to very high volume use only.
Tape is rarely cost effective for personal backup (though I'm sure there's a Slashdotter out there with a 1000 TB hentai collection), but for any company that has a meaningful amount of data it makes sense for archiving.
You need to be thinking in terms of multiple hundreds of terabytes to justify the initial equipment costs, even if the tapes themselves are affordable.
Yes, though calling "hundreds of terabytes" a lot of data sounds odd to me.
Right: the point is to make American manufacturing more competitive with jobs going to China. This is one of a hundred way the government has been subsidizing corporations to offshore jobs. Each one down is a good thing.
The US government is for the benefit of US citizens, not global megacorporations with giant bribery budgets. Any little but we can claw back democracy from the megacorps is a good bit.