No what happens is the internet gets LESS fractured.
By having their own direct connections to Europe etc Brazil ends up being better connected to other countries (and vice versa) rather than most countries having most of their connections and traffic going via the USA (which is the current case). I've actually seen Asia to Asia traffic go via the USA before (adding a lot of latency too).
Of course the USA could still use their subs to install taps on those fibre connections, or tap at the European gateways and thus bypass any link-level encryption the Brazilians might use (the Snowden-South American diplomatic plane incident does indicate that many European countries might be willing to work with the USA on this).
There's no need to even count the data. If you're actually putting the servers on in the USA instead of Brazil the speed of light will rat you out. Put the servers too far away and the increase in latency becomes noticeable.
So just require certain servers to respond within X milliseconds. The side effect is it'll make some users and gamers happy:).
You could still be shipping the data elsewhere for the NSA, but the "transactional" servers would still have to be in Brazil. Detecting the data shipping and spying in this case would be harder since the latencies will be low and the byte counts could be a lot less due to filtering, summarization and compression.
I'm actually more of a jerk/asshole than a dipshit. But you're intentionally continuing/pretending to be stupid.
The devices with the lower claims rate have longer warranties... you seem to want to insinuate with hand waving that somehow the opposite is true.
Where did I insinuate the opposite? I merely said you shouldn't put so much weight on them, while you said "the study examines warranty claims, so there isnt such a thing as putting too much weight on warranties."
You yourself mentioned OCZ's SSDs (including the Octane) have 3 year warranties.
Corsair SSD warranties are 3 years - return rates about 1%. Most of Crucial SSD models have warranties of 3 years. Return rate a little over 1%. Samsung SSD warranties range from 3 years to 5 years, and the 3 year ones (e.g. 830 ) definitely don't have a return rate anywhere close to OCZ's crap or it would certainly be noticed by now. HDDs with 3 year warranties still have lower return rates than OCZ's 3 year warranty SSDs some of which have return rates of up to 40%. NONE of the HDDs in the report I mentioned have return rates over 10%. In contrast OCZ's crap have return rates of 9%, 30%, or even 40% while still having 3 year warranties.
Hence you shouldn't put so much weight on warranty lengths. QED.
You had a chance to stop being stupid in your reply but you clearly chose deliberately to remain stupid.
For the record, you did the insulting first, so you're as rude and offensive as I am if not more so, in addition to being _voluntarily_ more stupid/incompetent, hence you've proven yourself to be the real dipshit in this thread[1].
[1] You might not be a dipshit elsewhere of course.
I recommend you use RdRand directly. But I'm biased because RdRand is my thing.
Don't read anything into expertise. Judge the quality of the argument.
Given your answers it seems we really shouldn't be using RdRand (your thing) directly. Because the question was:
How do you recommend people use something like RdRand to help generate random numbers assuming that it might be tampered with under the influence of someone like the NSA?
And your response:
If it's for a crypto application that you want to be defended from a possible local attack, use it directly.
And unless you can show/prove otherwise (which you haven't so far despite giving the opportunity), if a hardware random number generator is weakened by the NSA and producing bits that are not so random to the NSA (even though they appear random to others), using it directly would make cracking things far easier for the NSA than if it's output was mixed with other sources of randomness.
The issue of course is if the mixing produces numbers that are not random enough e.g. if you use AES to encrypt the whole thing and it results in a stream that's not really that random.
I'd be very interested if you can prove that the resulting stream in this case would be more guessable to the NSA than directly using the not-so-random stream from the NSA's generator
I recommend you use RdRand directly. But I'm biased because RdRand is my thing.
OK assuming you really are an expert in this field how do you recommend people use something like RdRand to help generate random numbers assuming that it might be tampered with under the influence of someone like the NSA?
Directly? Not at all (as per the petition)? Or as a contributing source of randomness? If the last please do provide additional info on how you'd do it to maintain security.
Which SSDs are they using? How slow are the slowest Samsung, Plextor, Intel, Crucial, Corsair SSDs being sold today? Which of their SSDs can't do more than 10k IOPs? 10K is still 100 times more IOPs.
One "problem" I had recently was I couldn't use my SSD equipped laptop to test some DB optimization (e.g. what indexes to drop/create, which query would be better) - stuff that was slow in production was acceptably fast on my laptop (10-20x faster).
Either OCZ sell defective hardware or OCZ users are many times more likely to return stuff for no good reason. I'm more inclined to believe the former.
NASA's been doing too many "reruns" albeit with better tech. Probes to Mars, Man on the Moon 2.
They should start working towards building better space stations that have artificial gravity, radiation shielding and all the stuff that makes it possible to actually live in space, rather than die faster than normal.
Talking about sending humans to Mars without doing this first is like trying to jump far before even being able to stand.
If the workers feel positive and more motivated about it then he's being a good CEO and leader. They know him from his track record whether it's just for show or that's just the guy he is.
A bean counter could pass the same amount of money to the workers without motivating them a bit. A bad boss could pass the same amount of money to the workers and make them feel cheated and negative about it.
You could use the almost the same words in a speech but with the wrong pauses, emphasis etc and produce far worse results than a good leader making a similar speech (when measured by content alone).
But why do controlled burns? Why not do controlled logging of the forest instead?
If people are willing to consider that controlled burns are OK, why not controlled logging? Against "Enviro-Religion"?
Either way trees and wildlife will die. But with controlled logging you can more exactly determine which trees and where, and perhaps ensure a higher percentage of the wildlife will get survive. And depending on how you use the wood the carbon could stay locked up for a lot longer than if you burned forests.
Some tree seeds need fire to germinate, but I'm sure we can figure out how to trigger them more precisely when we need it and plant the seeds where we want.
That's because you lack imagination and keep thinking of TLDs as "Yet Another Dot Com". Just because the ICANN keeps making new alternative ".com" (to make more money?) doesn't mean TLDs have to all be like that.
Google applied for ".here". Not sure what they want it for but more than 10 years ago I proposed that ".here" be a reserved TLD for local use by anyone similar to the way the RFC1918 ip address ranges are used.
I also wrote to the ICANN to try to get it reserved. I didn't have USD100k to apply for it (in order to give it to the world). In contrast ICANN approved TLDs like.info and.biz.
That's bullshit disproven by history. It doesn't matter how terrible wars are - as long as the leaders starting the wars think the wars are a good idea.
If the sociopaths at the top benefit while the soldiers die in bloody messy ways, do you think they will care? They will cry fake tears at the funerals to win votes/support, but they won't actually care.
Not that it'll happen but I've proposed an arguably more effective way to reduce unnecessary wars that will work even with sociopaths at the top:
In the old days kings used to lead their soldiers into battle. In modern times this is impractical and counterproductive.
But you can still have leaders lead the frontline in spirit.
Basically, if leaders are going to send troops on an _offensive_ war/battle (not defensive war) there must be a referendum on the war.
If there are not enough votes for the war, those leaders get put on deathrow.
At a convenient time later, a referendum is held to redeem each leader. Leaders that do not get enough votes get executed. For example if too many people stay at home and don't bother voting - the leaders get executed.
If it turns out later that the war was justified, a fancy ceremony is held, and the executed leaders are awarded a purple heart or equivalent, and you have people say nice things about them, cry and that sort of thing.
If it turns out later that the leaders tricked the voters, a referendum can be held (need to get enough signatories to start such a referendum, just to prevent nutters from wasting everyone elses time).
This proposal has many advantages: 1) Even leaders who don't really care about those "young soldiers on the battlefield" will not consider starting a war lightly. 2) The soldiers will know that the leaders want a war enough to risk their own lives for it. 3) The soldiers will know that X% of the population want the war. 4) Those being attacked will know that X% of the attackers believe in the war - so they want a war, they get a war - for sufficiently high X, collateral damage becomes insignificant. They might even be justified in using WMD and other otherwise dubious tactics. If > 90% of the country attacking you want to kill you and your families, what is so wrong about you using WMD as long as it does not affect neighbouring countries?
Was the American Revolution really a revolution or a secession? Did the local leadership change much? The people at the top locally mostly stayed at the top?
Most violent revolutions result in dictatorships because when leaders are selected by violence, the winners are the ones with the most violence. How then do citizens change those leaders if they dislike them?
In contrast when you have a system of selecting them with votes, you can have a "peaceful revolution" just by voting differently.
If the people aren't voting wisely with their ballots, why would they vote any wiser with bullets?
Google can trust their employees or contractors to not leak their secrets?;) And even if their secrets are leaked I doubt it would be as big a deal.
It's hard to set things up so that secrets are 100% isolated from those who don't need to know them while providing "cloud" style management. The "users" might not be able to see each others data, but typically the admins in practice end up being able to see everyone's secrets.
So if you are going to have fewer admins, it means those fewer admins are going to have access to even more secrets.
You could/should use full disk encryption everywhere - but you still either have the "users" doing the sysadmin work themselves, or the admins still need to be able to have access to configure/prep the machines.
That said fewer people = fewer potential leakers... And their current management of secrets may not be that great;).
Nah, just replace it and you'll feel like a brand new person.
Anyway make sure you don't go for cheap knock-off interfaces that can't tell the difference between your brain asleep and your brain awake. Otherwise you might dream about sending "That Message" to "That Someone" and actually do it...
Slashdot Mirror
No what happens is the internet gets LESS fractured.
By having their own direct connections to Europe etc Brazil ends up being better connected to other countries (and vice versa) rather than most countries having most of their connections and traffic going via the USA (which is the current case). I've actually seen Asia to Asia traffic go via the USA before (adding a lot of latency too).
Of course the USA could still use their subs to install taps on those fibre connections, or tap at the European gateways and thus bypass any link-level encryption the Brazilians might use (the Snowden-South American diplomatic plane incident does indicate that many European countries might be willing to work with the USA on this).
There's no need to even count the data. If you're actually putting the servers on in the USA instead of Brazil the speed of light will rat you out. Put the servers too far away and the increase in latency becomes noticeable.
:).
So just require certain servers to respond within X milliseconds. The side effect is it'll make some users and gamers happy
You could still be shipping the data elsewhere for the NSA, but the "transactional" servers would still have to be in Brazil. Detecting the data shipping and spying in this case would be harder since the latencies will be low and the byte counts could be a lot less due to filtering, summarization and compression.
Nah the real problem is vendor lock-in...
I'm actually more of a jerk/asshole than a dipshit. But you're intentionally continuing/pretending to be stupid.
The devices with the lower claims rate have longer warranties... you seem to want to insinuate with hand waving that somehow the opposite is true.
Where did I insinuate the opposite? I merely said you shouldn't put so much weight on them, while you said "the study examines warranty claims, so there isnt such a thing as putting too much weight on warranties."
You yourself mentioned OCZ's SSDs (including the Octane) have 3 year warranties.
Corsair SSD warranties are 3 years - return rates about 1%.
Most of Crucial SSD models have warranties of 3 years. Return rate a little over 1%.
Samsung SSD warranties range from 3 years to 5 years, and the 3 year ones (e.g. 830 ) definitely don't have a return rate anywhere close to OCZ's crap or it would certainly be noticed by now.
HDDs with 3 year warranties still have lower return rates than OCZ's 3 year warranty SSDs some of which have return rates of up to 40%. NONE of the HDDs in the report I mentioned have return rates over 10%.
In contrast OCZ's crap have return rates of 9%, 30%, or even 40% while still having 3 year warranties.
Hence you shouldn't put so much weight on warranty lengths. QED.
You had a chance to stop being stupid in your reply but you clearly chose deliberately to remain stupid.
For the record, you did the insulting first, so you're as rude and offensive as I am if not more so, in addition to being _voluntarily_ more stupid/incompetent, hence you've proven yourself to be the real dipshit in this thread[1].
[1] You might not be a dipshit elsewhere of course.
I recommend you use RdRand directly. But I'm biased because RdRand is my thing.
Don't read anything into expertise. Judge the quality of the argument.
Given your answers it seems we really shouldn't be using RdRand (your thing) directly.
Because the question was:
How do you recommend people use something like RdRand to help generate random numbers assuming that it might be tampered with under the influence of someone like the NSA?
And your response:
If it's for a crypto application that you want to be defended from a possible local attack, use it directly.
And unless you can show/prove otherwise (which you haven't so far despite giving the opportunity), if a hardware random number generator is weakened by the NSA and producing bits that are not so random to the NSA (even though they appear random to others), using it directly would make cracking things far easier for the NSA than if it's output was mixed with other sources of randomness.
The issue of course is if the mixing produces numbers that are not random enough e.g. if you use AES to encrypt the whole thing and it results in a stream that's not really that random.
I'd be very interested if you can prove that the resulting stream in this case would be more guessable to the NSA than directly using the not-so-random stream from the NSA's generator
I recommend you use RdRand directly. But I'm biased because RdRand is my thing.
OK assuming you really are an expert in this field how do you recommend people use something like RdRand to help generate random numbers assuming that it might be tampered with under the influence of someone like the NSA?
Directly? Not at all (as per the petition)? Or as a contributing source of randomness? If the last please do provide additional info on how you'd do it to maintain security.
Which SSDs are they using? How slow are the slowest Samsung, Plextor, Intel, Crucial, Corsair SSDs being sold today? Which of their SSDs can't do more than 10k IOPs? 10K is still 100 times more IOPs.
One "problem" I had recently was I couldn't use my SSD equipped laptop to test some DB optimization (e.g. what indexes to drop/create, which query would be better) - stuff that was slow in production was acceptably fast on my laptop (10-20x faster).
Don't put so much weight on warranty lengths.
You might want to factor in that OCZ's stuff are often even crappier than HDDs:
http://www.behardware.com/articles/881-7/components-returns-rates-7.html
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/893-7/ssd.html
Either OCZ sell defective hardware or OCZ users are many times more likely to return stuff for no good reason. I'm more inclined to believe the former.
And desktops started having many more cores than disks.
Stealing power is one problem, another is if a hacker can get all the chargers in an area to sum to 100W or more at a target ;).
NASA's been doing too many "reruns" albeit with better tech. Probes to Mars, Man on the Moon 2.
They should start working towards building better space stations that have artificial gravity, radiation shielding and all the stuff that makes it possible to actually live in space, rather than die faster than normal.
Talking about sending humans to Mars without doing this first is like trying to jump far before even being able to stand.
If the workers feel positive and more motivated about it then he's being a good CEO and leader. They know him from his track record whether it's just for show or that's just the guy he is.
A bean counter could pass the same amount of money to the workers without motivating them a bit. A bad boss could pass the same amount of money to the workers and make them feel cheated and negative about it.
You could use the almost the same words in a speech but with the wrong pauses, emphasis etc and produce far worse results than a good leader making a similar speech (when measured by content alone).
Anyway for a real generous guy check this out: http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2012/09/18/chuck-feeney-the-billionaire-who-is-trying-to-go-broke/
Oops. Release Candidate jokes I mean. Half asleep...
Those were just the RC candidate jokes.
This is the release version.
Try to keep up.
But why do controlled burns? Why not do controlled logging of the forest instead?
If people are willing to consider that controlled burns are OK, why not controlled logging? Against "Enviro-Religion"?
Either way trees and wildlife will die. But with controlled logging you can more exactly determine which trees and where, and perhaps ensure a higher percentage of the wildlife will get survive. And depending on how you use the wood the carbon could stay locked up for a lot longer than if you burned forests.
Some tree seeds need fire to germinate, but I'm sure we can figure out how to trigger them more precisely when we need it and plant the seeds where we want.
That's because you lack imagination and keep thinking of TLDs as "Yet Another Dot Com". Just because the ICANN keeps making new alternative ".com" (to make more money?) doesn't mean TLDs have to all be like that.
Google applied for ".here". Not sure what they want it for but more than 10 years ago I proposed that ".here" be a reserved TLD for local use by anyone similar to the way the RFC1918 ip address ranges are used.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yeoh-tldhere-01
I also wrote to the ICANN to try to get it reserved. I didn't have USD100k to apply for it (in order to give it to the world). In contrast ICANN approved TLDs like .info and .biz.
That's bullshit disproven by history. It doesn't matter how terrible wars are - as long as the leaders starting the wars think the wars are a good idea.
If the sociopaths at the top benefit while the soldiers die in bloody messy ways, do you think they will care? They will cry fake tears at the funerals to win votes/support, but they won't actually care.
Not that it'll happen but I've proposed an arguably more effective way to reduce unnecessary wars that will work even with sociopaths at the top:
In the old days kings used to lead their soldiers into battle. In modern times this is impractical and counterproductive.
But you can still have leaders lead the frontline in spirit.
Basically, if leaders are going to send troops on an _offensive_ war/battle (not defensive war) there must be a referendum on the war.
If there are not enough votes for the war, those leaders get put on deathrow.
At a convenient time later, a referendum is held to redeem each leader. Leaders that do not get enough votes get executed. For example if too many people stay at home and don't bother voting - the leaders get executed.
If it turns out later that the war was justified, a fancy ceremony is held, and the executed leaders are awarded a purple heart or equivalent, and you have people say nice things about them, cry and that sort of thing.
If it turns out later that the leaders tricked the voters, a referendum can be held (need to get enough signatories to start such a referendum, just to prevent nutters from wasting everyone elses time).
This proposal has many advantages:
1) Even leaders who don't really care about those "young soldiers on the battlefield" will not consider starting a war lightly.
2) The soldiers will know that the leaders want a war enough to risk their own lives for it.
3) The soldiers will know that X% of the population want the war.
4) Those being attacked will know that X% of the attackers believe in the war - so they want a war, they get a war - for sufficiently high X, collateral damage becomes insignificant. They might even be justified in using WMD and other otherwise dubious tactics. If > 90% of the country attacking you want to kill you and your families, what is so wrong about you using WMD as long as it does not affect neighbouring countries?
Or plastic surgery: http://gawker.com/plastic-surgery-blamed-for-making-all-miss-korea-contes-480907455
Was the American Revolution really a revolution or a secession? Did the local leadership change much? The people at the top locally mostly stayed at the top?
Most violent revolutions result in dictatorships because when leaders are selected by violence, the winners are the ones with the most violence. How then do citizens change those leaders if they dislike them?
In contrast when you have a system of selecting them with votes, you can have a "peaceful revolution" just by voting differently.
If the people aren't voting wisely with their ballots, why would they vote any wiser with bullets?
Google can trust their employees or contractors to not leak their secrets? ;) And even if their secrets are leaked I doubt it would be as big a deal.
;).
It's hard to set things up so that secrets are 100% isolated from those who don't need to know them while providing "cloud" style management. The "users" might not be able to see each others data, but typically the admins in practice end up being able to see everyone's secrets.
So if you are going to have fewer admins, it means those fewer admins are going to have access to even more secrets.
You could/should use full disk encryption everywhere - but you still either have the "users" doing the sysadmin work themselves, or the admins still need to be able to have access to configure/prep the machines.
That said fewer people = fewer potential leakers... And their current management of secrets may not be that great
Dream on bro, dream on.
Nah, just replace it and you'll feel like a brand new person.
Anyway make sure you don't go for cheap knock-off interfaces that can't tell the difference between your brain asleep and your brain awake. Otherwise you might dream about sending "That Message" to "That Someone" and actually do it...
Switch to a brain controlled interface. I've long been waiting for a BCI wearable computer. With thought macros etc:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3371153&cid=42543331
http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3478821&cid=42956909
Then we can have virtual telepathy, telekinesis and lots of cool stuff*.
* subject to **AA/DMCA restrictions.
That link contradicts your earlier post. Few of those SSDs fail in read-only mode.
I'm sticking to Samsung - my 830 is still working - light workload. My guess is something else will kill it than NAND wear.
Just don't buy OCZ crap?
http://www.behardware.com/articles/881-7/components-returns-rates-7.html
http://www.behardware.com/articles/881-6/components-returns-rates-7.html
It's not a study but it's good enough for me.