Embedded devices usually require encryption only, with no need for domain authentication. Further, they may not have permanent storage for the self-generated certificate.
The numbers were from memory, so I may be wrong. However, the CIA World Factbook, for 2007 reports the US per-capita GDP to be 43kUSD and the EU per-capita GDP to be 32kUSD which is generically within my numbers.
You seem to think prices have anything to do with production costs. They are not related(*). Go read a bit on economy.
*: Actually, there's one single relation: If you can't sell your product by a price higher than the production cost, you'll go broke. The coupling ends here.
Oh, for Portuguese it's really simple. Just use Brazilian Portuguese. We understand it, and the author can spread the cost over a population of 200 million.
Or, and here's a novel idea: Place the English and Portuguese version in stores, side-by-side with localization costs factored in the Portuguese version only. You'll likely find there's no need for a Portuguese-localized version (many users here already prefer their software in English).
The EU is not a country - but rather a union of countries (hence the name). If you get to add up the economies of a group of countries and call it the largest, I'm going to pick out a bunch of countries, group them together, and call that the largest economy.
The EU is mainly a common market. People and goods can go around in the EU countries, with no control whatsoever. A structure exists to guarantee uniform laws between countries where law barriers could impede the market freedom. As a barrier free market, it's the largest in the world (value-wise).
The EU is not a country, but it's not a random country group either. In fact, if you look at it, apart from common military/diplomacy, the European Commission+Parliament hold about the same powers as the US federal government. The objective, as far as can be read from the Lisbon Treaty, is to go even further down the path to a federalist union of countries: common military and common diplomacy. Again, this is not a characteristic of any random country set you pick.
Europe really is a decade or two behind the US economically.
Europe is economically much different from the US. It's not behind the US in any way. Per-capita GDP in the US is in the low 40kUSD range. Per-capita GDP in the EU was above 40k dollars before the ten-country admission in 2004 that included lots of former soviet states. It is now lower, (35k if I recall correctly) but will naturally correct as the EU absorbs the former soviet republics (which had staggering low productivity).
Europe is different. More bureaucratic, with softer growth surges and almost no recessions on record. I don't know if it is better, but it's definitely not a worse economic environment.
It's mainly because they blew all their infrastructure up in WWII[snip]
The Marshall plan took care of this in two decades time. Great effort by the US btw, and definitely the kind of diplomacy a modern capitalist society should use and abuse (instead of classic brute-force-diplomacy)
, but also because of anti-competitive protectionist legislation.
The EU abolished most protectionist legislation between countries in the EU. Intercontinental protectionism is on par with the US.
"Semi-First World" may be an overstatement, but there is some truth to it.
The only revealed truth is that the author couples a sense of superiority with major ignorance about the rest of the planet.
I think the next decade is a little ambitious. The problem is the amount of space required to store the data, which is probably hundreds or even thousands of petabytes.
From this, it follows that you should have a 1.5 Petabyte consumer-level hard-disk ten years from now, and break the thousand petabyte barrier at consumer level in a bit less than 20 years.
Perhaps if I have a "distorted view of science" it is because I know professional scientists, have attended scientific workshops and forums, and have even participated in "pure" scientific research.
Real science is something that often isn't pretty, and there are huge egos and reputations on the line by people with often powerful political connections that make things happen.
Very true. Yet, despite being discussed emotionally, if you look back from some distance, the scientific method has kept its core feature: an always questioning view of the world, including past theories. This is the core of science, and directly contradicts religious behaviour which is always dogmatic and unquestionable.
As for the definition of religion, I dare you to come up with a definition that is capable if including atheism, which is not even an organized social group, without including other social groups that are clearly not religions, like mountain hikers, sports fans or knitting groups.
You have a very distorted view of science. Science is not dogmatic. Current science is math based. Math lays, not dogmas, but axioms. The distinction is relevant, because axioms can be challenged. In fact, they are. There are whole branches of Math investigating different Math models based on different axiom sets.
Your error in analysis is taking people's dogmatic behaviour at face value. One someone studies string theory for their PhD, they're sure to defend string theory as if it were a dogma. Their behaviour does not make string theory a dogma. It's a theory, with all that it implies. People may behave dogmatically, as we're all emotional animals. Science, however, is not dogmatic. The very core of the scientific process relies on challenging theories.
As for sacred books, I completely miss your point. A sacred book is the book that defines the dogmas for a religion. The Bible, The Bhagavad Gita, The Qur'an are all sacred texts. They all define dogmatic sets. None of the books you mention defines one dogma, let alone a dogmatic set.
Anyhow, unless your point is that science is a religion, all of this science related discussion is moot. From the Concise Oxford Dictionary, a religion is: "Human recognition of superhuman controlling power and especially of a personal God entitled to obedience".
Obviously, it follows that atheism is not a religion.
Well the field of AI in the last 40 years has made practically zero progress towards human-like intelligence , but I agree with you - the trend will likely continue.
AI is, and has always been, a moving target. If you had shown someone fourty years ago software that can pinpoint specific faces out of a crowd, or software that can reliably OCR handwritten text or software that can reliably match fingerprints out of a database with hundreds of millions of entries, they would say you had already achieved AI. However, once the problems get solved, they move out of AI. All of these are, today, referred as pattern recognition. They were once AI problems.
There are also multiple forms of atheism, ranging from "environmentalists" (devotion to environmental causes as a religion), "universalists" (that somehow the whole universe will make sense ultimately), "scientists" (a solid belief that science alone can solve life's problems), "anti-theologists" (opposing any form of organized religion of any kind), and many others. It is very difficult to take such an emotionally charged term like atheism and force any sort of hard stereotypes. But I do argue that you can identify atheism as a religion, including its establishment as a state religion in many cases, and concerns about how it has entered into public institutions forcing out other philosophical viewpoints.
I'm an atheist, and I'm offended you lumped me with any of those groups. I could, maybe, possibly, relate to "scientists", except I don't believe science can solve *all* problems. I'm positively offended at being thrown in the same bag as "environmentalists" (will-anybody-think-of-the-children is the utmost dangerous argument), disgusted at being associated with "anti-theologists" (if anything, atheists should be closer to the live-and-let-live way of life) and refute "universalists" (by your description, I'd say they're religious in denial).
Most atheists I know are related to science because, if you observe religion from a scientific standpoint, it is improvable. Pick any one religion on planet Earth. They all have similar basis, all are supported on a few unquestionable dogmas. Even if you believe there is *a* god, rationally picking the right one from the wide choice available in all religions is an impossible task.
This does not make them an organized group. There are no prophets. There are no rituals. There are no dogmas. There are no eternal punishments nor days of doom. Atheists are a non-religion, as much as black is a non-color. It may hard to wrap your brain around it, but the absence of something is a fact in itself.
and we seem to be closer to neural improvement than we are to sustainable fusion (we actually have neural interfaces that work; we still can't sustain a thermonuclear fusion reaction).
My memory may be failing me, but I believe that UK's JET Tokamak has achieved stable reactions for up to five seconds. Five seconds is a lot of time, on the scale that these events happen. Moreover, the scientific consensus in the area is that larger reactors are more stable. ITER is designed to prove that positive-output, stable fusion is possible. ITER is to enter production in the next decade.
>An algorithm or algorithms is certainly required, and I never meant to imply otherwise.
>Human understanding of said algorithm(s), however, is explicitly not required.
What you're saying is that we don't have to understand how algorithms related to various intelligent faculties work, but we can just make it magically happen if we copy the structure of the human brain? And this will be *easy*?
He's saying that understanding the algorithm and understanding the algorithm state are different things, and that you are mixing the two. I happen to agree with him.
We do need to understand the basic algorithm for an artificial brain. We may not be able to understand the actually working brain.
Imagine this hypothetical scenario:
We fully understand how a single neuron works and communicates with nearby units.
We possess "classical" computing power a couple orders of magnitude greater than what is required for simulation of an entire brain.
In this case, we could easily mimick nature, and simulate evolution. We'd get a working brain, whose structure we did not design and which could be as incomprehensible to us as wet brains are.
I'm not stating that we need that much computing power before designing an artificial brain. We'll get there much sooner, because the problem of interfacing our brain with our current computing hardware is nearly solvable -- i.e. crude interfaces are already being put into use, namely in the field of artificial vision and hearing.
This only happens and very slow speeds (walking speed). For my car, a '99 A3, the first gear ratio is 1.833:1. Baseline rpm is 850, so wheels turn at 463rpm. My tires are 60R15, so the tire has a diameter of 15in/0.6=63cm, and a perimeter of ~200cm. The minimum clutch-less speed is 0.2*463*60=5.6km/h.
Anything above that speed, and you should be able to absorb variations by matching your speed to the average traffic. Were it not for smart-asses who change lanes whenever they can gain a car-length, I would do it on very slow jams.
And this is why I think it should be illegal to change lanes in traffic, unless justified by a turn in the next few meters.
Oh, for crying out loud! That line is explained in the configuration file itself. It comes from master.cf and the top of the file looks like this:
#
# Postfix master process configuration file. For details on the format
# of the file, see the master(5) manual page (command: "man 5 master").
#
# service type private unpriv chroot wakeup maxproc command + args
# (yes) (yes) (yes) (never) (100)
And a dash on the line means the default value (which is explained above).
If that's difficult for you, go pour over the windows registry for a fun ride.
Actually, I have mixed feelings about having a daemon following inotify (fsevents equivalent for linux) in order to backup. My setup uses backuppc, which daily rsyncs my disk and backs it up using much the same archival solution that Time Machine uses. The rsync is non-noticeable (and, in my case occurs during working hours). An inotify daemon, on the other hand, could be responding to lots of small requests that produce null results (temp files, disk writes over the same sectors, etc).
Fine-grained backups may be interesting, but I wouldn't be interested in any kind of performance drag because of it. Daily backups have served me just fine, thanks.
On one extreme, there's complete lack of procedures. On the other, there's 3k/GB. You must see both as absurd.
Get a proposal for two 100Mb/s lines for two different locations. Get a proposal for a IBM DS system targeted at 10TB with redundant FC, redundant controllers and NAS servers. Now, add a backup robot on each. Get GPFS to do point-in-time snapshots for 30 days, and have the robot pick one of these every week. All of it will cost about 50USD per GB. Two orders of magnitude less than 3k/GB.
Even if you add real estate and personnel costs to this estimate, it will fall very short of the 3k/GB mark.
So yes the ultimate cost to a company for high speed redundant storage that includes DR can indeed approach $3000.00 per gig.
No it can't. Not even in the most extreme setups, with offsite backups and offsite hot-standby systems. If 3k/gig is acceptable, then you just made the case for outsourcing. If I were your manager, I'd not even blink an eye before shutting down the department,
You've never seen an M5, much less driven one. It's perfect engineering on four wheels. While Porsche places a very high quality bar, I would not place the M5 any lower. It's German auto-engineering at its best.
I regularly do 120km/h (75mph) average on trips on highway. All it takes is for my 'normal' speed to be 150km/h (93mph). Stops and traffic bring it down a bit.
On an M5, keeping above 90mph (144km/h) shouldn't be that difficult. It's a car that accelerates to the 250km/h (155mph) electronic limit without breaking a sweat.
wow..... I didn't realize that raping, killing, and demoralizing the native populace into either subjugation or slavery was considered an option in order to be successful at intervention....
No it isn't. Not nowadays. That's why I advocate that current democracies should stay the fuck away from other countries, unless they present a clear and immediate danger. It's in my post, read it.
btw, McCarthy was American
News at 11. Of course he's American, and is a great marker of how much you regressed in half a century -- or, how I put it, it reminds us how fragile is freedom in a democracy.
turns out that it requires a completely cooperative population(or at least a vast vast majority) in order to work.
You either have: a) a cooperative population, and then the best effort you can make is pump investment money in the economy to bond their economy to yours, therefore creating a stable country, or; b) You have an uncooperative population, and then you are better off away: brute force will only breed extreme positions and destroy essential infrastructures. Again, check Iraq to observe what 'freeing' uncooperative populations results into.
Note that even if only a small fringe (10%) of the population rejects the invader, the invasion effort will be fraught with trouble. So, don't come out with the theory that Iraqis love American soldiers and only a few dirty rejects cause all the trouble.
Is the glass half-empty or half-full? De-colonization was a troublesome process, and 'clusterfucks' were inevitable. I stand by what I said. The Commonwealth was a huge diplomatic achievement, in the same line as what French and Portuguese created with their ex-colonies (only better). Were there disasters? Of course. Angola and Mozambique were left to internal civil wars, for example. Were there huge successes? Take South Africa for an example. South Africa, pre-english colonization, was an eternal battleground between Zulu and other tribes. After the Brits left, it was a relatively stable country.
Every scenario is different. I was just noting that US external intervention has nowhere the success rate that Europe's external intervention had in the XVI-XX century period. Worse yet, Europeans learnt from their mistakes and have no destructive external intervention nowadays.
It should be obvious, today, that the best control democracies can exert onto other countries is economic: Pump up their economies, establish solid international commerce, and any war becomes so economically destructive, puts so many people on the negative side of the balance sheet, that it becomes impossible to push countries into war. What do you think is the secret for ending wars in Europe? The European Union, namely the Unified Market.
McCarthy did it with Europe, China is doing it with Africa. The US keep pounding on old confrontation models.
Slashdot Mirror
Embedded devices usually require encryption only, with no need for domain authentication. Further, they may not have permanent storage for the self-generated certificate.
The numbers were from memory, so I may be wrong. However, the CIA World Factbook, for 2007 reports the US per-capita GDP to be 43kUSD and the EU per-capita GDP to be 32kUSD which is generically within my numbers.
You seem to think prices have anything to do with production costs. They are not related(*). Go read a bit on economy.
*: Actually, there's one single relation: If you can't sell your product by a price higher than the production cost, you'll go broke. The coupling ends here.
Oh, for Portuguese it's really simple. Just use Brazilian Portuguese. We understand it, and the author can spread the cost over a population of 200 million.
Or, and here's a novel idea: Place the English and Portuguese version in stores, side-by-side with localization costs factored in the Portuguese version only. You'll likely find there's no need for a Portuguese-localized version (many users here already prefer their software in English).
The EU is not a country - but rather a union of countries (hence the name). If you get to add up the economies of a group of countries and call it the largest, I'm going to pick out a bunch of countries, group them together, and call that the largest economy.
The EU is mainly a common market. People and goods can go around in the EU countries, with no control whatsoever. A structure exists to guarantee uniform laws between countries where law barriers could impede the market freedom. As a barrier free market, it's the largest in the world (value-wise).
The EU is not a country, but it's not a random country group either. In fact, if you look at it, apart from common military/diplomacy, the European Commission+Parliament hold about the same powers as the US federal government. The objective, as far as can be read from the Lisbon Treaty, is to go even further down the path to a federalist union of countries: common military and common diplomacy. Again, this is not a characteristic of any random country set you pick.
Europe really is a decade or two behind the US economically.
Europe is economically much different from the US. It's not behind the US in any way. Per-capita GDP in the US is in the low 40kUSD range. Per-capita GDP in the EU was above 40k dollars before the ten-country admission in 2004 that included lots of former soviet states. It is now lower, (35k if I recall correctly) but will naturally correct as the EU absorbs the former soviet republics (which had staggering low productivity).
Europe is different. More bureaucratic, with softer growth surges and almost no recessions on record. I don't know if it is better, but it's definitely not a worse economic environment.
It's mainly because they blew all their infrastructure up in WWII[snip]
The Marshall plan took care of this in two decades time. Great effort by the US btw, and definitely the kind of diplomacy a modern capitalist society should use and abuse (instead of classic brute-force-diplomacy)
, but also because of anti-competitive protectionist legislation.
The EU abolished most protectionist legislation between countries in the EU. Intercontinental protectionism is on par with the US.
"Semi-First World" may be an overstatement, but there is some truth to it.
The only revealed truth is that the author couples a sense of superiority with major ignorance about the rest of the planet.
And user-unfriendly? Windows? What a fucking joke. Go back to your terminal.
When it comes to software package management, Windows is indeed stuck in the 90s.
Disk storage follows a Moore's law of 12 months (100% increase every year): http://www.littletechshoppe.com/ns1625/winchest.html
From this, it follows that you should have a 1.5 Petabyte consumer-level hard-disk ten years from now, and break the thousand petabyte barrier at consumer level in a bit less than 20 years.
Very true. Yet, despite being discussed emotionally, if you look back from some distance, the scientific method has kept its core feature: an always questioning view of the world, including past theories. This is the core of science, and directly contradicts religious behaviour which is always dogmatic and unquestionable.
As for the definition of religion, I dare you to come up with a definition that is capable if including atheism, which is not even an organized social group, without including other social groups that are clearly not religions, like mountain hikers, sports fans or knitting groups.
You have a very distorted view of science. Science is not dogmatic. Current science is math based. Math lays, not dogmas, but axioms. The distinction is relevant, because axioms can be challenged. In fact, they are. There are whole branches of Math investigating different Math models based on different axiom sets.
Your error in analysis is taking people's dogmatic behaviour at face value. One someone studies string theory for their PhD, they're sure to defend string theory as if it were a dogma. Their behaviour does not make string theory a dogma. It's a theory, with all that it implies. People may behave dogmatically, as we're all emotional animals. Science, however, is not dogmatic. The very core of the scientific process relies on challenging theories.
As for sacred books, I completely miss your point. A sacred book is the book that defines the dogmas for a religion. The Bible, The Bhagavad Gita, The Qur'an are all sacred texts. They all define dogmatic sets. None of the books you mention defines one dogma, let alone a dogmatic set.
Anyhow, unless your point is that science is a religion, all of this science related discussion is moot. From the Concise Oxford Dictionary, a religion is: "Human recognition of superhuman controlling power and especially of a personal God entitled to obedience".
Obviously, it follows that atheism is not a religion.
AI is, and has always been, a moving target. If you had shown someone fourty years ago software that can pinpoint specific faces out of a crowd, or software that can reliably OCR handwritten text or software that can reliably match fingerprints out of a database with hundreds of millions of entries, they would say you had already achieved AI. However, once the problems get solved, they move out of AI. All of these are, today, referred as pattern recognition. They were once AI problems.
I'm an atheist, and I'm offended you lumped me with any of those groups. I could, maybe, possibly, relate to "scientists", except I don't believe science can solve *all* problems. I'm positively offended at being thrown in the same bag as "environmentalists" (will-anybody-think-of-the-children is the utmost dangerous argument), disgusted at being associated with "anti-theologists" (if anything, atheists should be closer to the live-and-let-live way of life) and refute "universalists" (by your description, I'd say they're religious in denial).
Most atheists I know are related to science because, if you observe religion from a scientific standpoint, it is improvable. Pick any one religion on planet Earth. They all have similar basis, all are supported on a few unquestionable dogmas. Even if you believe there is *a* god, rationally picking the right one from the wide choice available in all religions is an impossible task.
This does not make them an organized group. There are no prophets. There are no rituals. There are no dogmas. There are no eternal punishments nor days of doom. Atheists are a non-religion, as much as black is a non-color. It may hard to wrap your brain around it, but the absence of something is a fact in itself.
My memory may be failing me, but I believe that UK's JET Tokamak has achieved stable reactions for up to five seconds. Five seconds is a lot of time, on the scale that these events happen. Moreover, the scientific consensus in the area is that larger reactors are more stable. ITER is designed to prove that positive-output, stable fusion is possible. ITER is to enter production in the next decade.
He's saying that understanding the algorithm and understanding the algorithm state are different things, and that you are mixing the two. I happen to agree with him.
We do need to understand the basic algorithm for an artificial brain. We may not be able to understand the actually working brain.
Imagine this hypothetical scenario:
- We fully understand how a single neuron works and communicates with nearby units.
- We possess "classical" computing power a couple orders of magnitude greater than what is required for simulation of an entire brain.
In this case, we could easily mimick nature, and simulate evolution. We'd get a working brain, whose structure we did not design and which could be as incomprehensible to us as wet brains are.I'm not stating that we need that much computing power before designing an artificial brain. We'll get there much sooner, because the problem of interfacing our brain with our current computing hardware is nearly solvable -- i.e. crude interfaces are already being put into use, namely in the field of artificial vision and hearing.
This only happens and very slow speeds (walking speed). For my car, a '99 A3, the first gear ratio is 1.833:1. Baseline rpm is 850, so wheels turn at 463rpm. My tires are 60R15, so the tire has a diameter of 15in/0.6=63cm, and a perimeter of ~200cm. The minimum clutch-less speed is 0.2*463*60=5.6km/h.
Anything above that speed, and you should be able to absorb variations by matching your speed to the average traffic. Were it not for smart-asses who change lanes whenever they can gain a car-length, I would do it on very slow jams.
And this is why I think it should be illegal to change lanes in traffic, unless justified by a turn in the next few meters.
#
# Postfix master process configuration file. For details on the format
# of the file, see the master(5) manual page (command: "man 5 master").
#
# service type private unpriv chroot wakeup maxproc command + args
# (yes) (yes) (yes) (never) (100)
And a dash on the line means the default value (which is explained above).
If that's difficult for you, go pour over the windows registry for a fun ride.
Actually, I have mixed feelings about having a daemon following inotify (fsevents equivalent for linux) in order to backup. My setup uses backuppc, which daily rsyncs my disk and backs it up using much the same archival solution that Time Machine uses. The rsync is non-noticeable (and, in my case occurs during working hours). An inotify daemon, on the other hand, could be responding to lots of small requests that produce null results (temp files, disk writes over the same sectors, etc).
Fine-grained backups may be interesting, but I wouldn't be interested in any kind of performance drag because of it. Daily backups have served me just fine, thanks.
Small corporation here. Hundreds of thousands of users, multi-gigabyte per-user storage but, yes, a small company structure.
Technically, it's easy. Company red-tape may add costs but, again, that just makes the case for outsourcing.
On one extreme, there's complete lack of procedures. On the other, there's 3k/GB. You must see both as absurd.
Get a proposal for two 100Mb/s lines for two different locations. Get a proposal for a IBM DS system targeted at 10TB with redundant FC, redundant controllers and NAS servers. Now, add a backup robot on each. Get GPFS to do point-in-time snapshots for 30 days, and have the robot pick one of these every week. All of it will cost about 50USD per GB. Two orders of magnitude less than 3k/GB.
Even if you add real estate and personnel costs to this estimate, it will fall very short of the 3k/GB mark.
You've never seen an M5, much less driven one. It's perfect engineering on four wheels. While Porsche places a very high quality bar, I would not place the M5 any lower. It's German auto-engineering at its best.
I regularly do 120km/h (75mph) average on trips on highway. All it takes is for my 'normal' speed to be 150km/h (93mph). Stops and traffic bring it down a bit.
On an M5, keeping above 90mph (144km/h) shouldn't be that difficult. It's a car that accelerates to the 250km/h (155mph) electronic limit without breaking a sweat.
No it isn't. Not nowadays. That's why I advocate that current democracies should stay the fuck away from other countries, unless they present a clear and immediate danger. It's in my post, read it.
News at 11. Of course he's American, and is a great marker of how much you regressed in half a century -- or, how I put it, it reminds us how fragile is freedom in a democracy.
You either have: a) a cooperative population, and then the best effort you can make is pump investment money in the economy to bond their economy to yours, therefore creating a stable country, or; b) You have an uncooperative population, and then you are better off away: brute force will only breed extreme positions and destroy essential infrastructures. Again, check Iraq to observe what 'freeing' uncooperative populations results into.
Note that even if only a small fringe (10%) of the population rejects the invader, the invasion effort will be fraught with trouble. So, don't come out with the theory that Iraqis love American soldiers and only a few dirty rejects cause all the trouble.
Is the glass half-empty or half-full? De-colonization was a troublesome process, and 'clusterfucks' were inevitable. I stand by what I said. The Commonwealth was a huge diplomatic achievement, in the same line as what French and Portuguese created with their ex-colonies (only better). Were there disasters? Of course. Angola and Mozambique were left to internal civil wars, for example. Were there huge successes? Take South Africa for an example. South Africa, pre-english colonization, was an eternal battleground between Zulu and other tribes. After the Brits left, it was a relatively stable country.
Every scenario is different. I was just noting that US external intervention has nowhere the success rate that Europe's external intervention had in the XVI-XX century period. Worse yet, Europeans learnt from their mistakes and have no destructive external intervention nowadays.
It should be obvious, today, that the best control democracies can exert onto other countries is economic: Pump up their economies, establish solid international commerce, and any war becomes so economically destructive, puts so many people on the negative side of the balance sheet, that it becomes impossible to push countries into war. What do you think is the secret for ending wars in Europe? The European Union, namely the Unified Market.
McCarthy did it with Europe, China is doing it with Africa. The US keep pounding on old confrontation models.