Use the Firefox version. The Chrome version lacks several important features - the most significant one being that the Firefox version actually stops the blocked content from being downloaded, while the Chrome one only stops it from being displayed, due to Chrome not supporting that level of control in an extension. I would not be surprised if blocking video ads was also beyond the ability of the Chrome version.
Yes, but to achieve *victory* there must be a transition from asymmetric to symmetric war.
In Iraq and Afghanistan, as in Vietnam, the "occupying force" is not local. It can, and will, leave as soon as the cost (in lives or dollars) becomes too great, or when the political landscape no longer favors it. There, the resistance merely has to *exist*, and to function with some semblance of competence.
However, in an American revolution, the "occupying force" is local. They have no country to go *back* to. There is no cost too high to defeat the insurgency. The only way to end the war is for one force to establish itself as the sole military force. Either the original army wins, or the revolution grows strong enough to overpower them. Or, alternatively, the guerrilla forces (c'mon, do you really think there will be only one other faction?) manage to dismantle the "occupying force" but none will be able to establish supremacy, leaving a state of anarchy until one eventually consolidates power.
This is also why wars that start as open military conflict rarely persist long as insurgencies. After losing an open war once, few are willing to fight an insurgency that they *know* is going to have to convert, as some point, into another open war.
No, see, that's my plan. If I somehow end up in a gunfight using this rifle, I'm throwing it at the enemy in hopes that they'll decide to use it, since it's obviously a greater threat to the user than whoever it's aiming at.
Hmm... do they have a pistol version? Might be good for half a set of dueling pistols.
First, soldiers. Guns are cheap, and all you need is money. Or materials. Getting people willing to use those guns, now that's a different story. This is always the #1 issue in a revolution - getting revolutionaries.
Second, supplies for the soldiers. Food. Water. And now, fuel. Wars are won and lost by the supply chain.
Third, advanced weaponry. A Kalashnikov or AR-15 works fine when you're going against infantry, but what does it do against a tank? Or a gunship? Or a fighter? Even the Taliban needed Stinger missiles in order to fight off the Russians. The Revolutionary War needed cannons and ships. Vietnam had fighter jets and tanks. In order to win a war, at some point it has to transition from a guerrilla insurgency to a proper, open military conflict.
They're calling it 'The Liberator.'" (A name I'm sure that Wilson didn't come up with accidentally.)
Given that the FP-45 was an absolutely *shitty* gun, that might not be a good connotation. The "original" Liberator was literally designed to be a gun you use to shoot someone else and then take their gun. Reloading (after the single shot) required about a minute and a small wooden rod or pencil.
Even during WW2, they went almost unused. They were supposed to be distributed amongst insurgency (the Polish and French resistances, mainly), but very few of those produced actually made it to continental Europe.
I suppose the intended connotation was "dirt-cheap gun". The Liberator did cost only a few dollars to produce. But I think, like the actual Liberator, I'd trust this all-plastic gun about as far as I can throw it.
First, how effective will the users' computers be at mining? The ESEA one worked because their users were hardcore gamers, who are more likely to have powerful GPUs which can mine effectively. You're planning an "app", which implies "smartphone app", which is not going to have nearly enough power to get *any* amount of money. Even with just standard desktops, you're unlikely to get anything. A lot of people *with* powerful GPUs are getting out of the game, because ASICs are making them less effective.
Second, lets look at the effects. A computer mining Bitcoins is *loud*. It's running under full load, and the fans are pretty much pegged at 80-100%. And they also spit out a lot of heat. And so on. I wouldn't like my computer running like that.
Third, how are you going to explain that to users? If they're smart enough to understand Bitcoin, they'll already either be mining, or have decided that they don't want to mine. Your app won't change their mind. As for the other 99% of humanity, how are you going to tell them "you can run this app for free, but for 5hr a week we take over your computer to do stuff" without them calling the FBI? I'm exaggerating, of course, but you are going to have trouble convincing regular users to do this.
If I could have my perfect setup, I'd have a 32" 4096x2560 main monitor, with two 27" 2560x1600 monitors to each side. And running each at 144Hz, with full AdobeRGB coverage (or better), while we're at it.
I just bought a 1440p display, and it is hands-down the best single computer component I have ever bought. Better than getting an SSD. Better than any new processor, or new video card, or new sound card, or new RAM.
True, I'm probably never going to watch video at that resolution. And it's likewise overkill for gaming. But you know what? Sometimes I feel like being a productive member of society, and that helps immensely. Dozens of open windows? No problem. Coding? Turn it to portrait mode and I can fit 150 lines on one screen, at standard font sizes.
And eyesight has nothing to do with it - I'm nearsighted as hell, and I would still like as many pixels as possible.
Clever thought. Only downside is that, to keep it plausible, all the stuff has to be unlabelled or creatively mislabeled. If you download a bunch of MP3s with ID3 tags, you can't exactly claim they have no tracing information.
But rip out the artist and publisher info, and you're back in business.
Kepler is good for stuff involving lots of double-precision floating-point, like scientific computing. Physics, chemistry, stuff like that.
AMD has a lead on Bitcoin mining because a) it's integer, not float32 or float64, b) AMD has a shitload of slower cores rather than a smaller number of more efficient, powerful cores, and c) due to some weird coincidences of architecture, AMD designs (both VLIW5 and GCN, IIRC) can run the "main loop" of Bitcoin mining in only one instruction, while Nvidia's Fermi and Kepler designs require three instructions.
The most badass Bitcoin miner would consist of Radeon 7990s. Fortunately, Indiana University seems to be planning to use this for SCIENCE and not Bitcoins. Science is probably a better investment, in the long run.
The only good part of the DMCA was that it applied a safe harbor protection - if you follow the law, and take stuff down when asked and don't openly solicit unauthorized content, you're safe.
But now apparently that protection doesn't apply to roughly half the things that could potentially be uploaded. So you have to manually review and approve any file, since you can't know whether it falls under DMCA safe harbor or not. Thus eliminating any potential benefit of the DMCA until 2044 or so, longer if they extend copyright durations again (so, longer).
So then, what's the point? It's a law that applies far too harsh penalties, outlaws modifying your own property if it's been magically declared a "protective measure" and is abused more than most tax loopholes. If the one reasonable bit about it has been struck down, well, I think it needs to be gone. And I'm sure Google et al. will be agreeing.
I just forgot that the "1333MHz" figure was actually "1333MT/s", already having the "two transfers/clock" multiplied into it. Thus giving me twice the bandwidth I actually have.
As one of those damn kids, let me try: Let's see... it's a dual-channel DDR3 memory controller, so that's 128 bits per transfer. DDR, so two transfers per clock. And clocked at 1333MHz, so 341,248 Mb/s, or 42,656 MB/s (I'll call it 42GB/s for short). Cache I'd have to look up, but I think L1 and L2 caches are synchronous to CPU clock, while L3 is running at half-clock. L1 I think reads in 256-bit cache lines, not sure about any of the others.
I personally have never needed to use dhrystone - I'm one of those people who dislikes synthetic benchmarks, just on principle, particularly ones that ignore floating-point operations completely. Looking at numbers others have gotten, I'd estimate this laptop to be in the 7000-9000dMIPS range. I can, however, calculate the theoretical instruction rate at around 25GIPS, although in any practical use I would expect closer to 15GIPS, even if purely CPU-bound and using only single-clock instructions.
Using that 15GIPS figure, that gives a ratio of memory bandwidth to instruction rate of roughly 2.8 bytes per instruction. That seems pretty reasonable, especially when you consider that, in a memory-bound workflow, the CPU would not be overclocking itself so much, improving that ratio.
Storage will get a bit complex, since I have both an SSD and a hard drive in this machine. The SSD runs around 350MB/s on sequential read, and around 250MB/s on sequential write, which gives a ratio of either 120x or 170x depending on whether you're reading or writing. Random I/O will also work differently, but not significantly for any "random" workload I'm likely to run on this thing. The disk runs about 180MB/s on sequential work (even though it's a laptop drive, it's still 7200RPM), which makes the RAM about 230x faster (of course, random access would quickly turn that into a four-digit number).
It could easily have been something else. Say he was just a drug smuggler - he'd definitely resist arrest, fight the police, but not be the guy behind the marathon bombings.
He actually tends to bet *against* what he thinks the more interesting possibility is. That way, either he wins the bet, or he has some exciting new science going on. He wins either way.
The ricin letters make for a terrible false flag. The security measures put in place after the anthrax letters are pretty much stopping them, and they already claim to have a suspect. Assuming the goal of the false-flag op was to garner support for increased security measures, it's a complete failure.
A better false-flag op would have continued the bombings in more locations. Make it look like, without further reducing our liberties, the authorities will be completely unable to stop the attacks.
I also think it's more likely that the two incidents are related.
9/11 and the anthrax mailings were essentially unconnected (one opportunistically took advantage of the other, but that's about it). In hindsight, this is a lot more obvious from the attack profiles - al-Qaeda tends to use easily-available weapons or improvised attacks, while the anthrax letters used a hard-to-obtain disease. At the time, we didn't really know the capabilities of al-Qaeda, and the mailer took steps to make the letters look like an Islamic terrorist attack, not a bioweapons researcher trying to guarantee funding for his program.
These attacks, however, look more similar. The bombs used commonly-available materials and were placed in a relatively unsecured location. The letters use an easily-made poison. Both are well within the reach of a single individual or small group with no particular special abilities or materiel.
Obviously, that alone isn't enough to say that they're related. It could be separate groups, either one exploiting the chaos of the other, or just a complete coincidence. But the profile definitely doesn't rule out the possibility of the two being done by the same person(s).
Slashdot Mirror
Use the Firefox version. The Chrome version lacks several important features - the most significant one being that the Firefox version actually stops the blocked content from being downloaded, while the Chrome one only stops it from being displayed, due to Chrome not supporting that level of control in an extension. I would not be surprised if blocking video ads was also beyond the ability of the Chrome version.
It's been over a month and it's still going. Hell, it seems like it's just getting started, if it really is trying to tell a story.
I would not be exceptionally surprised if this lasted a full year. Or at least a significant portion of one.
Yes, but to achieve *victory* there must be a transition from asymmetric to symmetric war.
In Iraq and Afghanistan, as in Vietnam, the "occupying force" is not local. It can, and will, leave as soon as the cost (in lives or dollars) becomes too great, or when the political landscape no longer favors it. There, the resistance merely has to *exist*, and to function with some semblance of competence.
However, in an American revolution, the "occupying force" is local. They have no country to go *back* to. There is no cost too high to defeat the insurgency. The only way to end the war is for one force to establish itself as the sole military force. Either the original army wins, or the revolution grows strong enough to overpower them. Or, alternatively, the guerrilla forces (c'mon, do you really think there will be only one other faction?) manage to dismantle the "occupying force" but none will be able to establish supremacy, leaving a state of anarchy until one eventually consolidates power.
This is also why wars that start as open military conflict rarely persist long as insurgencies. After losing an open war once, few are willing to fight an insurgency that they *know* is going to have to convert, as some point, into another open war.
No, see, that's my plan. If I somehow end up in a gunfight using this rifle, I'm throwing it at the enemy in hopes that they'll decide to use it, since it's obviously a greater threat to the user than whoever it's aiming at.
Hmm... do they have a pistol version? Might be good for half a set of dueling pistols.
First, soldiers. Guns are cheap, and all you need is money. Or materials. Getting people willing to use those guns, now that's a different story. This is always the #1 issue in a revolution - getting revolutionaries.
Second, supplies for the soldiers. Food. Water. And now, fuel. Wars are won and lost by the supply chain.
Third, advanced weaponry. A Kalashnikov or AR-15 works fine when you're going against infantry, but what does it do against a tank? Or a gunship? Or a fighter? Even the Taliban needed Stinger missiles in order to fight off the Russians. The Revolutionary War needed cannons and ships. Vietnam had fighter jets and tanks. In order to win a war, at some point it has to transition from a guerrilla insurgency to a proper, open military conflict.
They're calling it 'The Liberator.'" (A name I'm sure that Wilson didn't come up with accidentally.)
Given that the FP-45 was an absolutely *shitty* gun, that might not be a good connotation. The "original" Liberator was literally designed to be a gun you use to shoot someone else and then take their gun. Reloading (after the single shot) required about a minute and a small wooden rod or pencil.
Even during WW2, they went almost unused. They were supposed to be distributed amongst insurgency (the Polish and French resistances, mainly), but very few of those produced actually made it to continental Europe.
I suppose the intended connotation was "dirt-cheap gun". The Liberator did cost only a few dollars to produce. But I think, like the actual Liberator, I'd trust this all-plastic gun about as far as I can throw it.
Writing Perl is easy. It's reading it that's the hard part.
First, how effective will the users' computers be at mining? The ESEA one worked because their users were hardcore gamers, who are more likely to have powerful GPUs which can mine effectively. You're planning an "app", which implies "smartphone app", which is not going to have nearly enough power to get *any* amount of money. Even with just standard desktops, you're unlikely to get anything. A lot of people *with* powerful GPUs are getting out of the game, because ASICs are making them less effective.
Second, lets look at the effects. A computer mining Bitcoins is *loud*. It's running under full load, and the fans are pretty much pegged at 80-100%. And they also spit out a lot of heat. And so on. I wouldn't like my computer running like that.
Third, how are you going to explain that to users? If they're smart enough to understand Bitcoin, they'll already either be mining, or have decided that they don't want to mine. Your app won't change their mind. As for the other 99% of humanity, how are you going to tell them "you can run this app for free, but for 5hr a week we take over your computer to do stuff" without them calling the FBI? I'm exaggerating, of course, but you are going to have trouble convincing regular users to do this.
No. Just... no.
If I could have my perfect setup, I'd have a 32" 4096x2560 main monitor, with two 27" 2560x1600 monitors to each side. And running each at 144Hz, with full AdobeRGB coverage (or better), while we're at it.
I just bought a 1440p display, and it is hands-down the best single computer component I have ever bought. Better than getting an SSD. Better than any new processor, or new video card, or new sound card, or new RAM.
True, I'm probably never going to watch video at that resolution. And it's likewise overkill for gaming. But you know what? Sometimes I feel like being a productive member of society, and that helps immensely. Dozens of open windows? No problem. Coding? Turn it to portrait mode and I can fit 150 lines on one screen, at standard font sizes.
And eyesight has nothing to do with it - I'm nearsighted as hell, and I would still like as many pixels as possible.
Yes - which is why I make a point to call it 2160p, not 4K.
Yet.
"All probabilities are 50%: either the thing will happen, or it won't".
Clever thought. Only downside is that, to keep it plausible, all the stuff has to be unlabelled or creatively mislabeled. If you download a bunch of MP3s with ID3 tags, you can't exactly claim they have no tracing information.
But rip out the artist and publisher info, and you're back in business.
The Bitcoin world.
Kepler is good for stuff involving lots of double-precision floating-point, like scientific computing. Physics, chemistry, stuff like that.
AMD has a lead on Bitcoin mining because a) it's integer, not float32 or float64, b) AMD has a shitload of slower cores rather than a smaller number of more efficient, powerful cores, and c) due to some weird coincidences of architecture, AMD designs (both VLIW5 and GCN, IIRC) can run the "main loop" of Bitcoin mining in only one instruction, while Nvidia's Fermi and Kepler designs require three instructions.
The most badass Bitcoin miner would consist of Radeon 7990s. Fortunately, Indiana University seems to be planning to use this for SCIENCE and not Bitcoins. Science is probably a better investment, in the long run.
Illegal != unethical, legal != ethical
The only good part of the DMCA was that it applied a safe harbor protection - if you follow the law, and take stuff down when asked and don't openly solicit unauthorized content, you're safe.
But now apparently that protection doesn't apply to roughly half the things that could potentially be uploaded. So you have to manually review and approve any file, since you can't know whether it falls under DMCA safe harbor or not. Thus eliminating any potential benefit of the DMCA until 2044 or so, longer if they extend copyright durations again (so, longer).
So then, what's the point? It's a law that applies far too harsh penalties, outlaws modifying your own property if it's been magically declared a "protective measure" and is abused more than most tax loopholes. If the one reasonable bit about it has been struck down, well, I think it needs to be gone. And I'm sure Google et al. will be agreeing.
The goal is to keep companies like Google or Facebook from doing what amounts to surveillance of the population.
Sounds like a good idea. Can we bring that over here, and maybe make it apply to governments as well?
I just forgot that the "1333MHz" figure was actually "1333MT/s", already having the "two transfers/clock" multiplied into it. Thus giving me twice the bandwidth I actually have.
As one of those damn kids, let me try:
Let's see... it's a dual-channel DDR3 memory controller, so that's 128 bits per transfer. DDR, so two transfers per clock. And clocked at 1333MHz, so 341,248 Mb/s, or 42,656 MB/s (I'll call it 42GB/s for short). Cache I'd have to look up, but I think L1 and L2 caches are synchronous to CPU clock, while L3 is running at half-clock. L1 I think reads in 256-bit cache lines, not sure about any of the others.
I personally have never needed to use dhrystone - I'm one of those people who dislikes synthetic benchmarks, just on principle, particularly ones that ignore floating-point operations completely. Looking at numbers others have gotten, I'd estimate this laptop to be in the 7000-9000dMIPS range. I can, however, calculate the theoretical instruction rate at around 25GIPS, although in any practical use I would expect closer to 15GIPS, even if purely CPU-bound and using only single-clock instructions.
Using that 15GIPS figure, that gives a ratio of memory bandwidth to instruction rate of roughly 2.8 bytes per instruction. That seems pretty reasonable, especially when you consider that, in a memory-bound workflow, the CPU would not be overclocking itself so much, improving that ratio.
Storage will get a bit complex, since I have both an SSD and a hard drive in this machine. The SSD runs around 350MB/s on sequential read, and around 250MB/s on sequential write, which gives a ratio of either 120x or 170x depending on whether you're reading or writing. Random I/O will also work differently, but not significantly for any "random" workload I'm likely to run on this thing. The disk runs about 180MB/s on sequential work (even though it's a laptop drive, it's still 7200RPM), which makes the RAM about 230x faster (of course, random access would quickly turn that into a four-digit number).
I prefer to call it "science fantasy".
There are some good stories in there. I think they should definitely look at it, mine it for ideas, but I'd hate for them to actually *follow* it.
It could easily have been something else. Say he was just a drug smuggler - he'd definitely resist arrest, fight the police, but not be the guy behind the marathon bombings.
He actually tends to bet *against* what he thinks the more interesting possibility is. That way, either he wins the bet, or he has some exciting new science going on. He wins either way.
How so?
The ricin letters make for a terrible false flag. The security measures put in place after the anthrax letters are pretty much stopping them, and they already claim to have a suspect. Assuming the goal of the false-flag op was to garner support for increased security measures, it's a complete failure.
A better false-flag op would have continued the bombings in more locations. Make it look like, without further reducing our liberties, the authorities will be completely unable to stop the attacks.
I also think it's more likely that the two incidents are related.
9/11 and the anthrax mailings were essentially unconnected (one opportunistically took advantage of the other, but that's about it). In hindsight, this is a lot more obvious from the attack profiles - al-Qaeda tends to use easily-available weapons or improvised attacks, while the anthrax letters used a hard-to-obtain disease. At the time, we didn't really know the capabilities of al-Qaeda, and the mailer took steps to make the letters look like an Islamic terrorist attack, not a bioweapons researcher trying to guarantee funding for his program.
These attacks, however, look more similar. The bombs used commonly-available materials and were placed in a relatively unsecured location. The letters use an easily-made poison. Both are well within the reach of a single individual or small group with no particular special abilities or materiel.
Obviously, that alone isn't enough to say that they're related. It could be separate groups, either one exploiting the chaos of the other, or just a complete coincidence. But the profile definitely doesn't rule out the possibility of the two being done by the same person(s).