It's more efficient and infinitely cheaper if we support one another than if we live in isolated caves. The Internet wasn't created by a person or a company but through subsidy and cooperation. And thus all projects worth having are born.
Because of reception areas and cost of maintenance, cell is more expensive. It's also less reliable. It is only when you cherry pick the numbers that cell is cost-effective.
Well, the better users have the issue of LJ that describes how to remove root from Linux. That, together with cgroups, means some are forgetting about such archaic notions.
Let's take the hypothetical scenario - you've an A1+ OB-rated computer with hardware-enforced memory segmentation and memory security labelling, and network security labelling. There's no root and everything is by mandatory access control.
Let's say the firewall has been set to block all incoming connections.
The computer is online, but in what sense is all of it online? How do you propose to hack the hard drive of such a machine?
The problem with simplistic descriptions is that they lead to naive optimism or naive conservatism.
We need the infrastructure to carry lots of power with minimal loss even if we use solar, so we can do that now. We know the general parameters for a fusion reactor, so we can pick sites, discuss limits a reactor must be between, and build the skeleton of the site now.
You're right, it won't be a quick fix, but that shaves 10--15 years off the timeframe. If half the trillion dollars per year went to solar, we'd have enough solar power to bridge the gap without worrying. Half a trillion buys a lot of solar.
It's not important how long we've been directly recording them, only how long we can measure them with equal reliability.
We have an enormous amount of indirect data - snowfall rates in the Antarctic, atmosphere content in the Antarctic, limestone deposition rates (a measure of rainfall), isotope ratios (a measure of sunlight), tree ring data (which depends on atmosphere, rainfall, sunlight and temperature).
Local temperatures affect broader rainfall patterns, which affect the snow in the Antarctic.
This is, ultimately, no more indirect than the mercury in a thermometer expanding by a measured amount for each degree of temperature change. You're still inferring one thing from the behaviour of another.
If you accept mercury thermometers, you must logically accept we have temperatures going back as far as we have reliable measurements and means to verify. Currently, this stands at around 10,000 years.
Climate scientists would doubtless argue their data is good enough for 200,000 years or more. Take it up with them.
Which has been on the decline on the Internet for a while. Factorising large numbers won't help with elliptic curve, Rijndael or any other post-quantum crypto.
No company, tech or otherwise, should grow to the point of eliminating the value of private enterprise.
Companies that grow too fast or too powerful will implode, destroying the market beyond them. Nobody licensed them to be surrogate fragmentation grenades.
Evolution, adaptation, awareness - these should be emphasized. Profit should not. Profit motives are the prime cause of failure, not success.
Good businesses, like good houses, should last 500 years.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, you should.
It's more efficient and infinitely cheaper if we support one another than if we live in isolated caves. The Internet wasn't created by a person or a company but through subsidy and cooperation. And thus all projects worth having are born.
Because of reception areas and cost of maintenance, cell is more expensive. It's also less reliable. It is only when you cherry pick the numbers that cell is cost-effective.
To cell. Why should I subsidise inferior technology?
Well, the better users have the issue of LJ that describes how to remove root from Linux. That, together with cgroups, means some are forgetting about such archaic notions.
I would imagine an Internet-connected router could be handy. NAS and SAN drives are, by their nature, capable of being on the Internet.
However, anyone buying a networked appliance should be a fully-qualified firewall admin, and the cloud should really be evaporated.
What if it's a house on top of K2, with the entrance on the roof reachable only by a deadly maze?
I'd have thought you could leave the front door wide open.
You say that, but to what extent is it true?
Let's take the hypothetical scenario - you've an A1+ OB-rated computer with hardware-enforced memory segmentation and memory security labelling, and network security labelling. There's no root and everything is by mandatory access control.
Let's say the firewall has been set to block all incoming connections.
The computer is online, but in what sense is all of it online? How do you propose to hack the hard drive of such a machine?
The problem with simplistic descriptions is that they lead to naive optimism or naive conservatism.
We need the infrastructure to carry lots of power with minimal loss even if we use solar, so we can do that now. We know the general parameters for a fusion reactor, so we can pick sites, discuss limits a reactor must be between, and build the skeleton of the site now.
You're right, it won't be a quick fix, but that shaves 10--15 years off the timeframe. If half the trillion dollars per year went to solar, we'd have enough solar power to bridge the gap without worrying. Half a trillion buys a lot of solar.
It's not important how long we've been directly recording them, only how long we can measure them with equal reliability.
We have an enormous amount of indirect data - snowfall rates in the Antarctic, atmosphere content in the Antarctic, limestone deposition rates (a measure of rainfall), isotope ratios (a measure of sunlight), tree ring data (which depends on atmosphere, rainfall, sunlight and temperature).
Local temperatures affect broader rainfall patterns, which affect the snow in the Antarctic.
This is, ultimately, no more indirect than the mercury in a thermometer expanding by a measured amount for each degree of temperature change. You're still inferring one thing from the behaviour of another.
If you accept mercury thermometers, you must logically accept we have temperatures going back as far as we have reliable measurements and means to verify. Currently, this stands at around 10,000 years.
Climate scientists would doubtless argue their data is good enough for 200,000 years or more. Take it up with them.
The hockey stick graph was around before Mann was born.
And, no, it doesn't ignore it.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s...
IBM begs to differ. And IBM doesn't beg very often.
Nobody has broken RSA.
https://www.safecrypto.eu/pqcl...
No, because you can conceive of a very large scale parallel computer, such as the one the EFF built.
Quantum attacks are parallel attacks, so a large enough parallel computer can mimic them.
Hashes must repeat, limited outputs. if
Which has been on the decline on the Internet for a while. Factorising large numbers won't help with elliptic curve, Rijndael or any other post-quantum crypto.
For the latest:
https://www.safecrypto.eu/pqcl...
No company, tech or otherwise, should grow to the point of eliminating the value of private enterprise.
Companies that grow too fast or too powerful will implode, destroying the market beyond them. Nobody licensed them to be surrogate fragmentation grenades.
Evolution, adaptation, awareness - these should be emphasized. Profit should not. Profit motives are the prime cause of failure, not success.
Good businesses, like good houses, should last 500 years.
They have falsified many forms of string theory. Specifically, all forms requiring supersymmetry to squash the electron.
This shows superstrings can be falsified.
It also falsifies many other extensions to the standard model.
This is interesting as it shows you can falsify categories of solutions, which may help physics advance more rapidly.
So if an ice cube on a glacier melted, by being crushed under the weight for example, you'd conclude the whole glacier had melted?
More like 10,000 out of 4.5 billion.
And yes, that's good enough to build models you can test.
No, it really didn't. There's no evidence Earth's temperatures are impacted beyond background noise by sunspots.
And good on the freemasons to keep this secret for 128 years, the time global warming has been studied. I'm impressed. That shows serious skill.
No problem.
Give fusion researchers the subsidy currently given to fossil fuels.
They've just cracked a major problem, but could have done so decades ago if they had the resources.
No impact for next ten years, then essentially unlimited power and superior access to resources.
That work for you? Engineering at its finest.
Ah, yes.
Which explains why global warming was first reported by British scientists in 1890.
The key is 10,000 years out of 4.5 billion.
If you're going to use numbers, use the right ones.
Both.
The earth is 4.5 billion years old, temp records go back 10,000 years.
Next.