I've never had an SSD, and had a very bad experience with a first gen one.
Are you old enough to have tried the first affordable hard disks widely available to the consumers ? A lot of them was terrible at this time. Full scan of the media was a common procedure to mark bad sectors. Media deterioration, heads crash and motors failure at start up was probably as common as the SSD problems we see today.
The hard disk are much reliable today, but still have a limited life time and have a probability to fail. I am certain that the SSD can a least archive the same kind of reliability in the future.
It help to protect against attack dictionary, but not against brute force attack. As some have already point out, a high entropy is probably a better indication of safety against brute force attack. Conclusion, using a long phrase for your password is probably safer than a short random password.
Before you can say that, you must known what will be the causality of the death. End of air, of water, of food or of energy supply (to maintain a survivable temperature) are likely to be the highest probabilities if there is no incident. I would neither call neither of them a cool way to die.
Yes you can take drug to minimize pain, but you don't have to go to Mars to do that.
ITU is involved in a lot more activities than the "antiquated phone systems" ! Please read some up to date information about it. It's true that there used a terribly slow process until about 20 years ago. It'a actually far more better.
Organisation like ITU or ISO do not really create standards most of the time. There are mostly a place where the political process of countries accepting a standard can take place. There is a lot of entities that creates standards. The large majority of them are composed by peoples that represent the interest of the industries that will benefit from the standard and agree in the first place on the goal to be reached. The vast majority of the standards defines technical aspects that do not raise any attention from the politicians.
The ongoing problem with the "control of Internet" is that politicians are taking this subject in the political arena, outside of the technical arena. There wants to regulate what kind of informations flow to ensure that there comply with some laws. There wants to be sure that there will not became the slave of others countries or companies. There wants to extract taxes... And all of those "requirements" are specific to each countries (at this level of resolution). It's a hug big mess, and it's not going to be quickly solved by an arbitrary technical committee. The problem is even more big as most of the politicians have no clue if there even exists an entity that can do what there dream on. So, a soon as there heard about an organisation that will "control the Internet" (!) there are going red hot to gain control on it, no matter whats the technical subject is in reality.
There is no doubt that there is a need for an international organisation where the politician can emit concerns and get responses from committees that try to find a way to make all of them happy. The ITU, in this regards, is probably not a bad choice. It has already played a large role in the internationalization of the Internet by talking to governments and pushing standards that make international long distance high speed data packet communication easier.
I agree with you, ITU is probably not the best choice to deal with technical aspect of the exploitation of the TLDs. But if politicians don't accept that this is only a technical problem, then there is no way to avoid a international mess like we see now. In this case the political side of the problem will need an international organisation, to let the technical organisation do there work without an insane pressure out of there scope.
Perhaps the main problem is not the organisation itself, but how much political are the problems there deal with. "Control over Internet" is something that is now highly political. ITU is an organisation that historically faced some political problems and have show how complex there can be. Not certain that others international organisations will better face the same complexity. The political questions are complex, regardless the organisation where there take place. See for example the ISO, that have also faced some highly political problems, for questions that was simple in comparison..
St-Maurice is 20 km away and the Rhone is here 25 m higher than at Port-Valais, the more likely location of the event. This make very unlikely that St-Maurice was affected by the event.
The article is focused on the geologic simulation finding, but there is others papers on the press here based on the ongoing archaeologic finding caused by the construction of a new bridge. There found a tomb in a near vertical orientation, indicating a massive event here.
What is not clear is how so much material could have been flattered to the point that it's so difficult to locate after only 1500 years. Is the region there is others materials deposit around the Rhone that have been linked to events far far older and there are still very visible. An example is the Bois-Noir location near St-Maurice or the the region immediately before the city of Sierre.
Near Port-Valais, the only visible massive stack of material is located at the forest abovef Le Bouveret city. The mountains is very sharp and fragile at this point and in case of a massive fall of materials, a large part will go directly into the see. This is not the location of the tomb and cannot explain the temporary lac formed after the event. But the location of the tom and the likely location of the temporary lac are precisely on the other side of the mountain that make the massive stack of material at Le Bouveret.
So the most likely scenario is that the event was that all the top of the mountain collapsed, the materials was split in two parts that each fall into there side of the base of the mountain still visible today. The biggest part that fall at the Le Bouveret location can explain both the tsunami and the massive stack of material still visible today. The smaller part that fall in the tomb direction caused a big temporary lac that folded the region and maybe caused a second tsunami when it have break. The temporary lac could have sustained long enough to flattered the materials, making it invisible today. But I don't think this is the case, because rock are unaffected by a temporary lac. I suppose that at the tomb location the material was mostly mud. So the rock at this side was retained just above the base of the mountain but this leaked a large amount of mud. Coincidentally, there is a big stack of material located at the half high of the mountain just above the tomb location. The actual path of the Rhone could indicate how far the mud was spreading at this time.
Looking at the replies of my comment, I realize that I must make a better explanation of the first point, because a lot of peoples are talking about licencing, but the problem is far more deep than that.
Let's start with a bit of the current context: the largest market value for GPU is still on the standard x86_64 machine. This is actually the market where Linux is not a concern for Nvidia because it is served a lot by Microsoft and Apple, so there talk with them and no with Linux community. But because of the GPUCPU integration Nividia is game over on this market and focus on high end and ARM Soc. The big problem for Nvidia is that those two new markets are actually better server by Linux than anything other. High end computing use Linux almost exclusively and the vast majority of high end ARM SoC run Linux (a lot because Android use Linux kernel). Nvidia face the fact that there can no longer view Linux as an low volume market for geeks. There can still play the proprietary card with Microsoft, Apple, Sony, Nitendo and a few others that can afford to maintain there own proprietary operating system, but those companies are now facing the Google Android system (running Linux) that is anything but a small problem for them.You maybe better get how there are nervous now and why there are subtle, confidential, and complex negotiations about where will get share of the next devices running proprietary operating system. It extremely difficult to get constant partners in this context because you have to serve concurrent ones. Lately Nividia have lost some future partner's markets. This became more and more challenging to live without Linux in the future. The Ouya project make them only even more exposed to Linux.
To resume: the primary market of Nvidia is game over because of the integration. In the secondary Nvidia market, high end is owned by Linux, and ARM Soc is also heavy ruled by Linux. Conclusion there have now to make a choice: play with Linux or deny some more markets opportunities.
The clash is now more evident: in one side Nvidia, as said Linus, try to push hard chip on a new market that heavily run Linux because this is increasingly vital for them; and in the other side Nvidia constantly refuse to support Linux like there authors ask for. This have make some authors angry because there don't wants anymore trying debugging kernel going erratic by a binary blob. There reaction is now: share or leave, but stop annoying us, because as authors, it's our rights to protect our work from your misuses. And this is not a problem on how the license is interpreted by Nvidia.
The raw fact is that Linux authors have absolutely no obligation to Nvidia. Dead end, point final. schuss fertig, etc...
The next level in this game is how the companies that sell products with Nvidia chip running Linux will manage the legal risk of doing so. The pressure might not only get from the Linux community...
The GPU is no anymore a peripheral device, it's more and more integrated on the same die as the CPU. Intel, AMD or ARM have plans to lowering the difference even more on how GPU and CPU will exchange data and will view the rest of the system. Basically, the CPU cores and GPU cores will share the same location into the architecture. This move is not so different from the integration of the FPU core into the CPU that have existed back to the 80486/68040 days. About ten years before the FPU integration, the FPU chips was a lucrative business: this part was so expensive that it was an option that only a few can buy. Not anymore, FPU less CPU are now only found in the lower part of the ARM embedded market. There is no x86_64 chip without FPU by the design of the instruction set. GPU is the next core to get the same integration.
What this means ?
First, since Nvidia don't own a licence to build x86_64 chip, the game is actually already over for them. There known that since the failed merge talk with AMD and explain why there focus on the high end and ARM chips since this time. This also explain why Linus Torvalds "fuck you Nvidia" response was focused on the Tegra ARM SoC despite the fact that the original question was about a x86_64 laptop.
Secondly, Intel and AMD known that sooner or later, the GPU core will be so integrated with the CPU core that there cannot be managed anymore by only a driver to do in a efficient way there new roles aside of the graphic display. The trigger point will probably be when the GPU will passe on the CPU side of the MMU (or something that look like this). At this stage the paging management for the GPU will be almost impracticable from within a driver to cooperate efficiently with the core operating system, not counting the brainfuck crap in case there are not developed by closely related peoples. This don't automatically say that GPU driver will cease to exist for some graphic aspect, but the GPUCPU part will end up into the kernel for the most critical aspects. It's easy to see why on Linux, access to the GPU from a proprietary driver is really not an option for the future (even if the current issue is only about DMA sharing data between devices).
Joke apart; while Apple have enough money to buy the Swiss Federal Railways anonymous company, the fact that all the shares are owned by the Swiss government will be a definitive showstopper.
I enjoy voting this way. I just voted now on 3 questions in 5 minutes and will put the return envelop in the municipality mailbox later this night. So easy.
Why so few countries make voting a so comfortable, easy, quick and enjoyable task ?
Computer, especially smartphone and tablet are now a cash cow business. The happy few that have the biggest money will do anything to stop the flow of money to them. All of us will have a single choice: to pay them no matter what. Look like how the giant petrol companies are doing business.
Slashdot Mirror
I've never had an SSD, and had a very bad experience with a first gen one.
Are you old enough to have tried the first affordable hard disks widely available to the consumers ? A lot of them was terrible at this time. Full scan of the media was a common procedure to mark bad sectors. Media deterioration, heads crash and motors failure at start up was probably as common as the SSD problems we see today.
The hard disk are much reliable today, but still have a limited life time and have a probability to fail. I am certain that the SSD can a least archive the same kind of reliability in the future.
Is a smartphone not a phone ?
I just replaced the keypad by a smartphone and the handset by a headset.
Entities works in secret to require that others don't use secret. If there wants transparency, the minimum is that there are already transparent.
Ask yourself why hash is so used. If the data cannot be read, you don't need to hash the data.
It help to protect against attack dictionary, but not against brute force attack.
As some have already point out, a high entropy is probably a better indication of safety against brute force attack.
Conclusion, using a long phrase for your password is probably safer than a short random password.
Now saved in the attack dictionary.
Before you can say that, you must known what will be the causality of the death. End of air, of water, of food or of energy supply (to maintain a survivable temperature) are likely to be the highest probabilities if there is no incident. I would neither call neither of them a cool way to die.
Yes you can take drug to minimize pain, but you don't have to go to Mars to do that.
Yes, but permanent residence is highly unlikely at this stage of the exploration.
Sound a bit different if you have a plan, even a risked one, for going back, compared than the assurance to have no possibility at all.
In some sense, how much free are the communication in a country is an indication on how free are the citizens to have their own political orientation.
ITU is involved in a lot more activities than the "antiquated phone systems" ! Please read some up to date information about it. It's true that there used a terribly slow process until about 20 years ago. It'a actually far more better.
Organisation like ITU or ISO do not really create standards most of the time. There are mostly a place where the political process of countries accepting a standard can take place. There is a lot of entities that creates standards. The large majority of them are composed by peoples that represent the interest of the industries that will benefit from the standard and agree in the first place on the goal to be reached. The vast majority of the standards defines technical aspects that do not raise any attention from the politicians.
The ongoing problem with the "control of Internet" is that politicians are taking this subject in the political arena, outside of the technical arena. There wants to regulate what kind of informations flow to ensure that there comply with some laws. There wants to be sure that there will not became the slave of others countries or companies. There wants to extract taxes... And all of those "requirements" are specific to each countries (at this level of resolution). It's a hug big mess, and it's not going to be quickly solved by an arbitrary technical committee. The problem is even more big as most of the politicians have no clue if there even exists an entity that can do what there dream on. So, a soon as there heard about an organisation that will "control the Internet" (!) there are going red hot to gain control on it, no matter whats the technical subject is in reality.
There is no doubt that there is a need for an international organisation where the politician can emit concerns and get responses from committees that try to find a way to make all of them happy. The ITU, in this regards, is probably not a bad choice. It has already played a large role in the internationalization of the Internet by talking to governments and pushing standards that make international long distance high speed data packet communication easier.
I agree with you, ITU is probably not the best choice to deal with technical aspect of the exploitation of the TLDs. But if politicians don't accept that this is only a technical problem, then there is no way to avoid a international mess like we see now. In this case the political side of the problem will need an international organisation, to let the technical organisation do there work without an insane pressure out of there scope.
The parent say exactly the opposite.
Perhaps the main problem is not the organisation itself, but how much political are the problems there deal with. "Control over Internet" is something that is now highly political. ITU is an organisation that historically faced some political problems and have show how complex there can be. Not certain that others international organisations will better face the same complexity. The political questions are complex, regardless the organisation where there take place. See for example the ISO, that have also faced some highly political problems, for questions that was simple in comparison..
Thanks for the precise numbers.
I used approximate numbers to emphasize the different magnitudes.
Masse to LEO:
Vega: ~1.5 T
Falcon 9: ~10 T
Arian 5: ~20 T
Is there any solution to have more inflation affecting the pile of cash than the poor and working poor ?
cat > main.c << EOF
/dev/null
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void) {
printf("%d\n", unix);
return 0;
}
EOF
make main
cc main.c -o main
./main
1
'unix' is simply one of the symbols defined by the compiler.
use this command to show all of them:
gcc -dM -E - <
St-Maurice is 20 km away and the Rhone is here 25 m higher than at Port-Valais, the more likely location of the event. This make very unlikely that St-Maurice was affected by the event.
The article is focused on the geologic simulation finding, but there is others papers on the press here based on the ongoing archaeologic finding caused by the construction of a new bridge. There found a tomb in a near vertical orientation, indicating a massive event here.
What is not clear is how so much material could have been flattered to the point that it's so difficult to locate after only 1500 years. Is the region there is others materials deposit around the Rhone that have been linked to events far far older and there are still very visible. An example is the Bois-Noir location near St-Maurice or the the region immediately before the city of Sierre.
Near Port-Valais, the only visible massive stack of material is located at the forest abovef Le Bouveret city. The mountains is very sharp and fragile at this point and in case of a massive fall of materials, a large part will go directly into the see. This is not the location of the tomb and cannot explain the temporary lac formed after the event. But the location of the tom and the likely location of the temporary lac are precisely on the other side of the mountain that make the massive stack of material at Le Bouveret.
So the most likely scenario is that the event was that all the top of the mountain collapsed, the materials was split in two parts that each fall into there side of the base of the mountain still visible today. The biggest part that fall at the Le Bouveret location can explain both the tsunami and the massive stack of material still visible today. The smaller part that fall in the tomb direction caused a big temporary lac that folded the region and maybe caused a second tsunami when it have break. The temporary lac could have sustained long enough to flattered the materials, making it invisible today. But I don't think this is the case, because rock are unaffected by a temporary lac. I suppose that at the tomb location the material was mostly mud. So the rock at this side was retained just above the base of the mountain but this leaked a large amount of mud. Coincidentally, there is a big stack of material located at the half high of the mountain just above the tomb location. The actual path of the Rhone could indicate how far the mud was spreading at this time.
Looking at the replies of my comment, I realize that I must make a better explanation of the first point, because a lot of peoples are talking about licencing, but the problem is far more deep than that.
Let's start with a bit of the current context: the largest market value for GPU is still on the standard x86_64 machine. This is actually the market where Linux is not a concern for Nvidia because it is served a lot by Microsoft and Apple, so there talk with them and no with Linux community. But because of the GPUCPU integration Nividia is game over on this market and focus on high end and ARM Soc. The big problem for Nvidia is that those two new markets are actually better server by Linux than anything other. High end computing use Linux almost exclusively and the vast majority of high end ARM SoC run Linux (a lot because Android use Linux kernel). Nvidia face the fact that there can no longer view Linux as an low volume market for geeks. There can still play the proprietary card with Microsoft, Apple, Sony, Nitendo and a few others that can afford to maintain there own proprietary operating system, but those companies are now facing the Google Android system (running Linux) that is anything but a small problem for them.You maybe better get how there are nervous now and why there are subtle, confidential, and complex negotiations about where will get share of the next devices running proprietary operating system. It extremely difficult to get constant partners in this context because you have to serve concurrent ones. Lately Nividia have lost some future partner's markets. This became more and more challenging to live without Linux in the future. The Ouya project make them only even more exposed to Linux.
To resume: the primary market of Nvidia is game over because of the integration. In the secondary Nvidia market, high end is owned by Linux, and ARM Soc is also heavy ruled by Linux. Conclusion there have now to make a choice: play with Linux or deny some more markets opportunities.
The clash is now more evident: in one side Nvidia, as said Linus, try to push hard chip on a new market that heavily run Linux because this is increasingly vital for them; and in the other side Nvidia constantly refuse to support Linux like there authors ask for. This have make some authors angry because there don't wants anymore trying debugging kernel going erratic by a binary blob. There reaction is now: share or leave, but stop annoying us, because as authors, it's our rights to protect our work from your misuses. And this is not a problem on how the license is interpreted by Nvidia.
The raw fact is that Linux authors have absolutely no obligation to Nvidia. Dead end, point final. schuss fertig, etc...
The next level in this game is how the companies that sell products with Nvidia chip running Linux will manage the legal risk of doing so. The pressure might not only get from the Linux community...
The GPU is no anymore a peripheral device, it's more and more integrated on the same die as the CPU. Intel, AMD or ARM have plans to lowering the difference even more on how GPU and CPU will exchange data and will view the rest of the system. Basically, the CPU cores and GPU cores will share the same location into the architecture. This move is not so different from the integration of the FPU core into the CPU that have existed back to the 80486/68040 days. About ten years before the FPU integration, the FPU chips was a lucrative business: this part was so expensive that it was an option that only a few can buy. Not anymore, FPU less CPU are now only found in the lower part of the ARM embedded market. There is no x86_64 chip without FPU by the design of the instruction set. GPU is the next core to get the same integration.
What this means ?
First, since Nvidia don't own a licence to build x86_64 chip, the game is actually already over for them. There known that since the failed merge talk with AMD and explain why there focus on the high end and ARM chips since this time. This also explain why Linus Torvalds "fuck you Nvidia" response was focused on the Tegra ARM SoC despite the fact that the original question was about a x86_64 laptop.
Secondly, Intel and AMD known that sooner or later, the GPU core will be so integrated with the CPU core that there cannot be managed anymore by only a driver to do in a efficient way there new roles aside of the graphic display. The trigger point will probably be when the GPU will passe on the CPU side of the MMU (or something that look like this). At this stage the paging management for the GPU will be almost impracticable from within a driver to cooperate efficiently with the core operating system, not counting the brainfuck crap in case there are not developed by closely related peoples. This don't automatically say that GPU driver will cease to exist for some graphic aspect, but the GPUCPU part will end up into the kernel for the most critical aspects. It's easy to see why on Linux, access to the GPU from a proprietary driver is really not an option for the future (even if the current issue is only about DMA sharing data between devices).
Joke apart; while Apple have enough money to buy the Swiss Federal Railways anonymous company, the fact that all the shares are owned by the Swiss government will be a definitive showstopper.
Sorry, I really don't understand your question.
I enjoy voting this way.
I just voted now on 3 questions in 5 minutes and will put the return envelop in the municipality mailbox later this night.
So easy.
Why so few countries make voting a so comfortable, easy, quick and enjoyable task ?
Yes, your are right on that. Still, the supply is massively controlled by a few companies and this is this aspect that I found stressing.
Computer, especially smartphone and tablet are now a cash cow business. The happy few that have the biggest money will do anything to stop the flow of money to them. All of us will have a single choice: to pay them no matter what. Look like how the giant petrol companies are doing business.