Which would probably explain why we are not aware of immortality being available in humans yet.
The masses are intentionally keep uninformed by a puppet media and government that serves only the interests of the extremely wealthy...
That is, the folks who are so wealthy, they have no personal wealth on paper, so don't have to pay any taxes or follow any rules.
Immortality was really invented in the 1900s.
So few people know of it, and they are extremely good at keeping up appearances, by "not existing", changing their identities, etc.
Controlling lights is just the sort of thing a computer can and is expected to do.
Music is expected to be produced by musicians.
There is something inauthentic about it, when a computer mechanically "produces" music.
It's as if it removes value from its production... it's no longer a performance of the musician, but mechanical mimikery by a machine which cannot appreciate the music it "plays".
When a key is divided, none of the key bits are revealed. Here's how you divide a key in half: (1) You have an original key (Ks).
(2) You generate a true random number (K1).
(3) You XOR the key by the true random number to give you K2.
(4) You distribute K1 to person 1
(5) You distribute K2 to person 2
Neither person has 'half' of Ks, but both secrets must be known to recover Ks.
Now... how do you divide a key into 7 pieces and require 5 to be present, is trickier, but the concept is the same.
Generate 7 random numbers, and distribute to all 7 people additional values derived from combinations of the other 7 keys, such that the original key can be derived for all possible combinations of 5 "key" holders, but no combinations of a smaller amount.
5 of the people holding the RKSH role are required for recovery operations.. recovery operations could be needed, if a hardware security module is destroyed, fails, or can no longer be operated.
The hardware security module itself holds the actual key internally in tamper-resistant packaging.
The RKSH people with smart cards don't possess the key, but possess information that can be used to rebuild the internal key of the HSM.
Hm.. so what happens if a social 'hacker' (after they already obtained credentials) uses social engineering techniques to get "permission" from an employee to login to a router that the employee has no business giving permission for someone to log in to?
"Hi, i'm the networking consultant.
I've received a report that internet speeds in your department at company XXXX are slow, and i'm ready to fix that and speed things up.
I just need your permission to..........
In other words your being a jerk when you pirate some $ 1.99 game for you cell phone and being anti free software at the same time.
Either that or it's Civil disobedience.
You're not going to provide source and let me change it? Then the software's not worth that much to me anyways.
No basis for paying, if not receiving access to the software code or ability to modify it.
"Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." --Edsger Dijkstra
You don't have to be a computer scientist to write a program or learn programming.
Computer programming is a vocational skill. Programming is not computer science.
Although methods of computer programming, and algorithms are subjects of study in computer science; practitioners / engineers do not require a knowledge of CS, only knowledge of the right APIs for their environment (which implement the algorithms), common practices in the language in their industry, and the assistance of a software architect.
That could be worth it if the collateral is more valuable than the loan amount.
Presumptively, taking someone's immortal soul, means they're your slave forever.
One can't really say the value of an employee who will work forever for $0, with no real need for food, sleep, etc (because they're immortal), to whomever you sell their contract to, is not worth anything....
It won't effect you or your children, and it's extremely unlikely to effect your children's children.
Let's just say person X was born yesterday.
Child rearing age for humans ends at 40.
At age 40 they have kids, at age 40, their kids have kids.
The lifespan of a human is 80 years.
If you were born today, your kids are born in 2050, and their kids are born in 2090.
You will be alive until 2080.
Your kids will be alive until 2130,
and your kids kids will be alive until 2170.
Note that all of these dates are before 2182.
And I doubt many slashdot posters were born yesterday, although some of the ones posting obscenities try to make you think that.
Anyways, this would be a government spending thing, you only get a vote, and therefore the government is only supposed to be serving your interests, if you're at least 18.
So that leaves a margin of error of (2182-2170)+18 = 30 years.
As a taxpayer/voting citizen, you, your kids, and their kids all live to 100 instead of 80, for some odd reason, then the year is still 2181.
And 127 days before X day, nobody cared about IP address exhaustion and burnt any IPv4 space they found.
So?:)
Disputes about whether global warming is happening, and if humans are responsible aside (particularly 1830s humans) --
Actively ruining something great you had for future generations is much different from preventing nature taking its course and blocking something natural from happening that could be foreseen to jeopardize the future.
It's obvious that reasonable people have a moral duty to not sully nature for their own greedy self-interest purposes.
However, expending vast amounts of resources to protect against things naturally happening is not a duty we have.
Organizations today should not be spending billions of dollars coming up with a plan to protect earth for when the sun becomes a red giant in a few billion years.
Also, there can be collision threats much sooner than 172 years.
Any 'plan' to divert a threatening space object that takes 100s of years to implement is a waste of time.
New threats may become known to us way too late for a 100-year plan.
We should be very concerned about what happens to our home planet during our lifetime and our children's lifetime, perhaps our grandchildren's lifetime.
This is happening in 172 years though.
This is very distant.
Even if we were just born yesterday, nobody we will know or care about by the time we die, during our entire lifetime, will be one of the persons alive in 172 years to notice anything went wrong.
We know the human race is doomed to eventual extinction anyways... why should it matter to us if it's in 200 years versus 1000 years?
Because we (and everyone we know) will be dead before either number of years elapses.
Except the banks could offer a huge monthly discount to the interest rate on immortality loans, for agreeing to such a huge amount and long payment term.
Or allow the loan balance to increase over time, instead of decreasing, and roll the unpaid interest each month into a balloon payment every few hundred years.
And secure your immortal soul as collateral.
The bank is only likely to be conducive to waiting so long for payment, however, if their shareholders and execs are immortal.
hell some of our Tier 1 SAN space still costs us in the order of $10,000 a TB just for the hardware.
Companies purchase SAN hardware to save money...
aggregating the storage in a SAN is supposed to allow less disk space to be wasted, to deliver performance to the apps that need it, and reduce hardware costs....
Oh, yeah, and $10,000 for a TB is pennies compared to $30/Gb/Month
100gb at that rate is $3000/month or $36,000/yr
And 100gb is only 10% of what a 1 TB piece of SAN gear can hold
However, this type of pricing would encourage them to fail to store important 'junk'
If they want to include other IT services as part of storage costs such as 'Backup costs' 'Redundancy', electricity required, etc... they should be separate line items. There should not just be a $30/gb "black box" charge, with no explanation.
Or how about an index of the data and a cache on SSDs (including indexes of all the old data) and all the real data on bulky SSD?
Does it really make sense to spend the bulk of the cost on maybe a 15% performance improvement, by moving data between disks a lot?
If you store on SATA initially and always, you never have to worry about deciding archiving procedures, only about deciding what to cache, and how to best ensure the cache is efficient and resulting in the best performance..
However, the price of $360/gb/year is still ridiculous.
First of all, a 2TB hard drive costs no more to run than an 80gb hard drive.
The equipment cost of storage space to back it up should be no more than the price of a 'duplicate' HDD to retain a copy of the data on, and the use of bandwidth to transfer that backup.
Also, the costs of a HDD and server to put a HDD in do not recur every month, they recur once every few years, and are less as time goes buy: hardware is damn cheap.
System administration might be more expensive, but reflects only an inefficiency of the IT department, and that cost inefficiency should be the IT department's problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Which would probably explain why we are not aware of immortality being available in humans yet.
The masses are intentionally keep uninformed by a puppet media and government that serves only the interests of the extremely wealthy...
That is, the folks who are so wealthy, they have no personal wealth on paper, so don't have to pay any taxes or follow any rules.
Immortality was really invented in the 1900s. So few people know of it, and they are extremely good at keeping up appearances, by "not existing", changing their identities, etc.
</conspiracy_theory>
Controlling lights is just the sort of thing a computer can and is expected to do.
Music is expected to be produced by musicians. There is something inauthentic about it, when a computer mechanically "produces" music.
It's as if it removes value from its production... it's no longer a performance of the musician, but mechanical mimikery by a machine which cannot appreciate the music it "plays".
Civil disobedience is the act of breaking unfair civil laws.
Yep. And the copyright act happens to be one of the most unfair laws ever passed.
When a key is divided, none of the key bits are revealed. Here's how you divide a key in half: (1) You have an original key (Ks).
(2) You generate a true random number (K1).
(3) You XOR the key by the true random number to give you K2.
(4) You distribute K1 to person 1
(5) You distribute K2 to person 2
Neither person has 'half' of Ks, but both secrets must be known to recover Ks.
Now... how do you divide a key into 7 pieces and require 5 to be present, is trickier, but the concept is the same. Generate 7 random numbers, and distribute to all 7 people additional values derived from combinations of the other 7 keys, such that the original key can be derived for all possible combinations of 5 "key" holders, but no combinations of a smaller amount.
5 of the people holding the RKSH role are required for recovery operations.. recovery operations could be needed, if a hardware security module is destroyed, fails, or can no longer be operated.
The hardware security module itself holds the actual key internally in tamper-resistant packaging.
The RKSH people with smart cards don't possess the key, but possess information that can be used to rebuild the internal key of the HSM.
Hm.. so what happens if a social 'hacker' (after they already obtained credentials) uses social engineering techniques to get "permission" from an employee to login to a router that the employee has no business giving permission for someone to log in to?
"Hi, i'm the networking consultant. I've received a report that internet speeds in your department at company XXXX are slow, and i'm ready to fix that and speed things up. I just need your permission to..........
In other words your being a jerk when you pirate some $ 1.99 game for you cell phone and being anti free software at the same time.
Either that or it's Civil disobedience. You're not going to provide source and let me change it? Then the software's not worth that much to me anyways.
No basis for paying, if not receiving access to the software code or ability to modify it.
"Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." --Edsger Dijkstra
You don't have to be a computer scientist to write a program or learn programming.
Computer programming is a vocational skill. Programming is not computer science.
Although methods of computer programming, and algorithms are subjects of study in computer science; practitioners / engineers do not require a knowledge of CS, only knowledge of the right APIs for their environment (which implement the algorithms), common practices in the language in their industry, and the assistance of a software architect.
Why should a non-medic learn CPR?
Because they can?
Which would of course be defaulted on.
That could be worth it if the collateral is more valuable than the loan amount.
Presumptively, taking someone's immortal soul, means they're your slave forever.
One can't really say the value of an employee who will work forever for $0, with no real need for food, sleep, etc (because they're immortal), to whomever you sell their contract to, is not worth anything....
No self-respecting sysadmin would dare sign their boss up for (er) spam, would they?
However, wholesale copying of someone else's work and the act of removing or tampering with their copyright notice can be a separate "offense"
Particularly if there was a written direction form management to remove it... the removal may be evidence of willful infringement
Basically.. since you surgically removed the notices and not much else, it's evidence that you saw the notice...
It won't effect you or your children, and it's extremely unlikely to effect your children's children.
Let's just say person X was born yesterday. Child rearing age for humans ends at 40. At age 40 they have kids, at age 40, their kids have kids.
The lifespan of a human is 80 years.
If you were born today, your kids are born in 2050, and their kids are born in 2090.
You will be alive until 2080. Your kids will be alive until 2130, and your kids kids will be alive until 2170.
Note that all of these dates are before 2182.
And I doubt many slashdot posters were born yesterday, although some of the ones posting obscenities try to make you think that.
Anyways, this would be a government spending thing, you only get a vote, and therefore the government is only supposed to be serving your interests, if you're at least 18.
So that leaves a margin of error of (2182-2170)+18 = 30 years. As a taxpayer/voting citizen, you, your kids, and their kids all live to 100 instead of 80, for some odd reason, then the year is still 2181.
And 127 days before X day, nobody cared about IP address exhaustion and burnt any IPv4 space they found.
So? :)
Disputes about whether global warming is happening, and if humans are responsible aside (particularly 1830s humans) -- Actively ruining something great you had for future generations is much different from preventing nature taking its course and blocking something natural from happening that could be foreseen to jeopardize the future.
It's obvious that reasonable people have a moral duty to not sully nature for their own greedy self-interest purposes.
However, expending vast amounts of resources to protect against things naturally happening is not a duty we have.
Organizations today should not be spending billions of dollars coming up with a plan to protect earth for when the sun becomes a red giant in a few billion years.
Also, there can be collision threats much sooner than 172 years. Any 'plan' to divert a threatening space object that takes 100s of years to implement is a waste of time.
New threats may become known to us way too late for a 100-year plan.
We should be very concerned about what happens to our home planet during our lifetime and our children's lifetime, perhaps our grandchildren's lifetime.
This is happening in 172 years though. This is very distant. Even if we were just born yesterday, nobody we will know or care about by the time we die, during our entire lifetime, will be one of the persons alive in 172 years to notice anything went wrong.
We know the human race is doomed to eventual extinction anyways... why should it matter to us if it's in 200 years versus 1000 years?
Because we (and everyone we know) will be dead before either number of years elapses.
Except the banks could offer a huge monthly discount to the interest rate on immortality loans, for agreeing to such a huge amount and long payment term.
Or allow the loan balance to increase over time, instead of decreasing, and roll the unpaid interest each month into a balloon payment every few hundred years.
And secure your immortal soul as collateral.
The bank is only likely to be conducive to waiting so long for payment, however, if their shareholders and execs are immortal.
172 years people, geeze.
We won't even be alive by then.. why be concerned about something that has a 0.1%chance of happening?
You know this is going to be just like Y2K. Once the chance is realized to be 30% or higher, people will start working on the fix in 2181.
hell some of our Tier 1 SAN space still costs us in the order of $10,000 a TB just for the hardware.
Companies purchase SAN hardware to save money... aggregating the storage in a SAN is supposed to allow less disk space to be wasted, to deliver performance to the apps that need it, and reduce hardware costs....
Oh, yeah, and $10,000 for a TB is pennies compared to $30/Gb/Month
100gb at that rate is $3000/month or $36,000/yr
And 100gb is only 10% of what a 1 TB piece of SAN gear can hold
How about Corporate IT: Replacing the 'ed' with 'age' in Hosted!
However, this type of pricing would encourage them to fail to store important 'junk'
If they want to include other IT services as part of storage costs such as 'Backup costs' 'Redundancy', electricity required, etc... they should be separate line items. There should not just be a $30/gb "black box" charge, with no explanation.
grf, First line : real data on bulky SATA. (replace bulky SSD with bulky SATA).
Or how about an index of the data and a cache on SSDs (including indexes of all the old data) and all the real data on bulky SSD?
Does it really make sense to spend the bulk of the cost on maybe a 15% performance improvement, by moving data between disks a lot?
If you store on SATA initially and always, you never have to worry about deciding archiving procedures, only about deciding what to cache, and how to best ensure the cache is efficient and resulting in the best performance..
That's a problem... you should be using Enterprise SATA (or SAS) drives for 24/7 storage.
There are a little bit more expensive, but they are not $360 per year per GB more expensive.
Hell, SSDs such as Intel X25-E are only like $800 for 64GB.
That's a far cry from $30/month/GB * 64 * 12 = $23,040 per year.
The electricity and one-time equipment fees to obtain a server to put the SSDs in don't explain that price either.
However, the price of $360/gb/year is still ridiculous.
First of all, a 2TB hard drive costs no more to run than an 80gb hard drive.
The equipment cost of storage space to back it up should be no more than the price of a 'duplicate' HDD to retain a copy of the data on, and the use of bandwidth to transfer that backup.
Also, the costs of a HDD and server to put a HDD in do not recur every month, they recur once every few years, and are less as time goes buy: hardware is damn cheap.
System administration might be more expensive, but reflects only an inefficiency of the IT department, and that cost inefficiency should be the IT department's problem.
No, because there are mutual incompatibilities. The same thing can't work correctly in all browsers.
Also, it is logical for the default to be standards compliant behavior (just about everything except IE)