Nonetheless, they won't open accounts for you if other banks have recently screwed you over (see above story). They do tend to be better, but I wouldn't call them precisely friendly. My limited experience, of course.
So what? It's not like the bank can force you to pay those fees.
Spoken like someone who has no clue what they're talking about, and has never actually had a fight with a large corporate entity. No matter how badly you got screwed over by one bank, or how much they lied to you about the fee structure and under what circumstances you could get an overdraft penalty, or whose fault the overdraft was, if they think you owe them money, you won't be able to open an account elsewhere.
You don't need a 150kW alternator. Cruising on the highway your car doesn't need anywhere near that much power; it's far more efficient to make the engine and alternator smaller. Peak power comes out of the battery pack anyway, and is limited by the electric motor and motor controller, not the alternator power.
Gear trains are not that inefficient; it takes a lot of work to beat them with electric components if you can do it at all (not counting slushbox style automatic transmissions, here). The power electronics can be highly efficient, but going from alternator to battery to electric motor to wheel power at efficiencies over 90% is tough. The Tesla Roadster does a good job at it, at about 92% efficiency — and it doesn't have the alternator step involved. Beating that with a gear train isn't hard: 98% is a more typical mechanical number. The win from the series design comes from letting the engine be carefully tuned for one specific speed and power setting, and always running at that setting.
Generally speaking, CMOS power consumption is the result of charging and discharging gate capacitors. The charge required to fully charge the gate grows with the voltage; charge times frequency is current. Voltage times current is power. So, as you raise the voltage, the current consumption grows linearly, and the power consumption quadratically, at a fixed frequency. Once you reach the frequency limit of the chip without raising the voltage, further frequency increases are normally proportional to voltage. In other words, once you have to start raising the voltage, power consumption tends to rise with the cube of frequency.
After seeing how most modern OSes behave, this surprises you? Seriously? I can understand thinking they should be, but not that they are. Also note, this isn't a test methodology, it's a design methodology. As someone who has worked in CS, I'm inclined to think OSes and programs should be held to this standard in a very small number of cases — namely life support applications and some avionics applications. But for most other things, it's too expensive. (That's not to say that most programs shouldn't use better design and coding techniques to reduce the bug count / severity, but rather that there's a huge gap between normal practice and formally correct in which "better" resides.)
Nothing wrong with GDSM, entirely a personal preference thing.
SPOILERS (as if the original post didn't have spoilers...)
Wishing for a +1 item is guaranteed to work. Wishing for +2 is a 4/5 chance of working, and a 1/5 chance of providing +0. Wishing for +3 is a 3/5 chance of working and a 2/5 chance of +0. Either option has a higher average enchantment than wishing for +1. Wishing for +3 trades a very slightly higher average (1.8 vs 1.6) for reduced reliability (60% vs 80%). Sacrificing reliability is almost never a good idea in Nethack. It's hard to argue that wishing for +3 is wrong, but my preference goes to +2 on balance. To each his own, etc.
Re:"granting 2,000 wishes"
on
KDE 4.3 Released
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Freenet also has an opennet mode, in case you don't know enough other Freenet users to run darknet effectively (you can have both types of connections, too).
The reason Freenet is slow has little to do with darknet — it's because requests have to get routed a few hops regardless of whether you're on opennet or darknet. The reason for this is anonymity; if you connected directly to the source of the data in order to get a high speed transfer, that would give away both which node requested the data and which node was storing it. Freenet trades speed for anonymity.
That said, Freenet certainly could be faster. It's been improving in speed in recent updates (though slowly). There are a couple major changes in development that should be out soon that will make another big boost in speed. The trick is figuring out how to improve speed without sacrificing security, which makes the problem rather hard.
Apparently the lousy moderators have won that game--and I expect the moderation of this post to prove my point (yet again).
And you're complaining about tired memes? I'm pretty sure that particular meme has been around since, oh, about the time a bunch of us got banned from moderating for participating / moderating the first slashdot troll post investigation thread. Complaining about what the mods will do to your post in order to get modded up isn't quite the oldest trick in the book, but it's certainly in the first chapter.
That said, I agree with most of your post. And, of all the non-editors here, kdawson is probably the worst.
If they want to block p2p, things have already gotten difficult. In darknet mode, Freenet is decidedly difficult to block. It talks to no centralized servers ever, and it has no obvious protocol signature that you can spot with DPI (every byte that goes on the wire is encrypted; yes, that includes connection setup). You could catch it with traffic analysis, but that's far more expensive than the normal DPI gear most ISPs are currently willing to deploy.
You don't need a mic. The resistor noise on the sound card inputs is present and of secure quantum origin, regardless of whether a microphone is plugged in. The microphone noise is louder, but it's much harder to determine how much secure entropy is present. Why trust it when you don't have to? There's plenty available for most purposes without it. The Turbid program does this in an efficient and secure manner (and they have a paper discussing the details, along with the relevant proofs, for the curious).
The difference between surface and orbit is rather dramatic. It takes more rocket performance to get from Mars surface to Mars orbit as it does to get from Mars orbit to Earth. Not landing cuts the required performance dramatically — the delta-v budget for Mars orbit and back is similar to that for Lunar surface and back.
To me, the biggest reason to send humans to Mars orbit and not land is to do systems tests — the first Lunar missions with people on them didn't land either. So, start by sending humans on orbital-only missions. While you're there, you might as well drop a few probes — there's plenty of useful science they can do, and having humans nearby is definitely helpful. Then, after a couple flights like that, you decide you have things checked out well enough for a landing.
If you want a serious space program, you do incremental test and development. Test one system first, then once it's confirmed working, test another. If all you want is a stunt and some photos, sure, start with the landing. Personally, I want a real space program with long term goals.
It's OK, though, because we're using the computer to do it. It's not bad, like it would be if we'd used some directly-observable thing that correlates with those, like your race, age, or music preferences.
There's a reason fifties novels sound like that. It has to do with art imitating life, not the other way around. General Atomics was real. So were General Dynamics and General Electric. So were companies like North American Aviation and The Aerospace Corporation. Some of them even still exist.
Careful, if you burn them halfway into the flight you only get half credit for them.
Re:There is no such thing as ten-round AES-256
on
Another New AES Attack
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Reduced-rounds attacks are a standard cryptographic technique. You start by breaking a reduced strength version of the cipher with a completely impractical attack that's marginally better than brute force. Then someone comes along and observes that they can improve your attack to more rounds or shorter time. Then that repeats a few times. Eventually, the cipher is broken.
No, they haven't broken AES. However, this is a step along the way. If the designers of AES had known that there was a good attack against the 10-round version, they wouldn't have recommended 14 rounds -- standard practice is to include a larger safety factor than that. This is a big deal, not because you can now break AES, but because the attacks are much closer to doing that than previously thought. Hence, the recommendation by Schneier to move to 28 rounds -- improve the safety factor. Attacks always get better, never worse. It's possible (though unlikely) that there are unpublished attacks on AES known by some organizations -- and the closer to a real break the publicly known attacks are, then the more plausible that scenario becomes. Attacks that get this close and weren't anticipated by the cipher designers are scary things.
Also, this is a related-key attack -- meaning the attacker needs two keys that are related somehow and the same piece of plaintext encrypted with both. If the implementation of AES that you use does a good job of selecting a truly random key, then the attacker can't implement this attack because he can't get you to use the requisite pair of related keys. That doesn't mean it isn't a valid attack, just that it's an attack that can be defended against. Again, the biggest worry is that someone will take this attack and realize how to improve upon it to make an attack that's even better.
He's probably tilting at windmills, of course, but I applaud his effort.
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." — George Bernard Shaw
you can't fire someone because of race, sex, etc. even in an at-will state
While true, that's also irrelevant, because:
It also means you can be fired without a reason.
So if they decide to fire you because of race, sex, etc., they merely fire you without a reason. You may have been fired because you're black, female, whatever, but as long as they're smart enough to not say so, they can indeed fire you because of your race or sex.
However, if you can convince a court that the reason they fired you was a prohibited reason, it doesn't matter whether they specified a reason or not. For this reason, many employers like to document explicit valid reasons before firing someone, in preference to firing them for no documented reason.
Legally, however, in the United States most states are "at will" employment, which basically means you have no rights whatsoever -- you can be fired for almost any reason, or none at all, without any recourse.
Not so. At will employment means you can be fired (or quit) without notice. It also means you can be fired without a reason. It most emphatically does not mean you can be fired for any reason, though -- for example, you can't fire someone because of race, sex, etc. even in an at-will state.
Yep. Freenet and TOR are both quite good at what they do (though they solve very different problems). Unfortunately, Freenet has a small userbase (current estimates ~ 10k). I think it needs more applications that work on top of Freenet before it will see more than very slow growth. It would be very interesting to see enough Freenet adoption that people took notice. There's plenty of reason to think it's reasonably secure, but you just don't know until someone actually tries to attack it.
Nothing -- that's a key distribution problem. There are various people working on the general spam problem for Freenet through web of trust type solutions. Those would extend to cuckoo egg type spam as easily as any other spam. Get your keys and your torrents from someone trustworthy. Right now, that's done by message board apps, and people could easily post complaints about or verification of a specific file.
Slashdot Mirror
Nonetheless, they won't open accounts for you if other banks have recently screwed you over (see above story). They do tend to be better, but I wouldn't call them precisely friendly. My limited experience, of course.
So what? It's not like the bank can force you to pay those fees.
Spoken like someone who has no clue what they're talking about, and has never actually had a fight with a large corporate entity. No matter how badly you got screwed over by one bank, or how much they lied to you about the fee structure and under what circumstances you could get an overdraft penalty, or whose fault the overdraft was, if they think you owe them money, you won't be able to open an account elsewhere.
Fortunately, some of them have always known to wish for blessed +2 silver dragon scale mail.
You don't need a 150kW alternator. Cruising on the highway your car doesn't need anywhere near that much power; it's far more efficient to make the engine and alternator smaller. Peak power comes out of the battery pack anyway, and is limited by the electric motor and motor controller, not the alternator power.
Gear trains are not that inefficient; it takes a lot of work to beat them with electric components if you can do it at all (not counting slushbox style automatic transmissions, here). The power electronics can be highly efficient, but going from alternator to battery to electric motor to wheel power at efficiencies over 90% is tough. The Tesla Roadster does a good job at it, at about 92% efficiency — and it doesn't have the alternator step involved. Beating that with a gear train isn't hard: 98% is a more typical mechanical number. The win from the series design comes from letting the engine be carefully tuned for one specific speed and power setting, and always running at that setting.
Generally speaking, CMOS power consumption is the result of charging and discharging gate capacitors. The charge required to fully charge the gate grows with the voltage; charge times frequency is current. Voltage times current is power. So, as you raise the voltage, the current consumption grows linearly, and the power consumption quadratically, at a fixed frequency. Once you reach the frequency limit of the chip without raising the voltage, further frequency increases are normally proportional to voltage. In other words, once you have to start raising the voltage, power consumption tends to rise with the cube of frequency.
After seeing how most modern OSes behave, this surprises you? Seriously? I can understand thinking they should be, but not that they are. Also note, this isn't a test methodology, it's a design methodology. As someone who has worked in CS, I'm inclined to think OSes and programs should be held to this standard in a very small number of cases — namely life support applications and some avionics applications. But for most other things, it's too expensive. (That's not to say that most programs shouldn't use better design and coding techniques to reduce the bug count / severity, but rather that there's a huge gap between normal practice and formally correct in which "better" resides.)
If I write a script that resets your password every 3 seconds, you'll find it to be more than a minor inconvenience.
Nothing wrong with GDSM, entirely a personal preference thing. SPOILERS (as if the original post didn't have spoilers...) Wishing for a +1 item is guaranteed to work. Wishing for +2 is a 4/5 chance of working, and a 1/5 chance of providing +0. Wishing for +3 is a 3/5 chance of working and a 2/5 chance of +0. Either option has a higher average enchantment than wishing for +1. Wishing for +3 trades a very slightly higher average (1.8 vs 1.6) for reduced reliability (60% vs 80%). Sacrificing reliability is almost never a good idea in Nethack. It's hard to argue that wishing for +3 is wrong, but my preference goes to +2 on balance. To each his own, etc.
What? No blessed +2 silver dragon scale mail?
Freenet also has an opennet mode, in case you don't know enough other Freenet users to run darknet effectively (you can have both types of connections, too).
The reason Freenet is slow has little to do with darknet — it's because requests have to get routed a few hops regardless of whether you're on opennet or darknet. The reason for this is anonymity; if you connected directly to the source of the data in order to get a high speed transfer, that would give away both which node requested the data and which node was storing it. Freenet trades speed for anonymity.
That said, Freenet certainly could be faster. It's been improving in speed in recent updates (though slowly). There are a couple major changes in development that should be out soon that will make another big boost in speed. The trick is figuring out how to improve speed without sacrificing security, which makes the problem rather hard.
Apparently the lousy moderators have won that game--and I expect the moderation of this post to prove my point (yet again).
And you're complaining about tired memes? I'm pretty sure that particular meme has been around since, oh, about the time a bunch of us got banned from moderating for participating / moderating the first slashdot troll post investigation thread. Complaining about what the mods will do to your post in order to get modded up isn't quite the oldest trick in the book, but it's certainly in the first chapter.
That said, I agree with most of your post. And, of all the non-editors here, kdawson is probably the worst.
If they want to block p2p, things have already gotten difficult. In darknet mode, Freenet is decidedly difficult to block. It talks to no centralized servers ever, and it has no obvious protocol signature that you can spot with DPI (every byte that goes on the wire is encrypted; yes, that includes connection setup). You could catch it with traffic analysis, but that's far more expensive than the normal DPI gear most ISPs are currently willing to deploy.
You don't need a mic. The resistor noise on the sound card inputs is present and of secure quantum origin, regardless of whether a microphone is plugged in. The microphone noise is louder, but it's much harder to determine how much secure entropy is present. Why trust it when you don't have to? There's plenty available for most purposes without it. The Turbid program does this in an efficient and secure manner (and they have a paper discussing the details, along with the relevant proofs, for the curious).
Oh, those work just fine. In fact, the equations all get a lot simpler when you set rho_air = 0.
The difference between surface and orbit is rather dramatic. It takes more rocket performance to get from Mars surface to Mars orbit as it does to get from Mars orbit to Earth. Not landing cuts the required performance dramatically — the delta-v budget for Mars orbit and back is similar to that for Lunar surface and back.
To me, the biggest reason to send humans to Mars orbit and not land is to do systems tests — the first Lunar missions with people on them didn't land either. So, start by sending humans on orbital-only missions. While you're there, you might as well drop a few probes — there's plenty of useful science they can do, and having humans nearby is definitely helpful. Then, after a couple flights like that, you decide you have things checked out well enough for a landing.
If you want a serious space program, you do incremental test and development. Test one system first, then once it's confirmed working, test another. If all you want is a stunt and some photos, sure, start with the landing. Personally, I want a real space program with long term goals.
It's OK, though, because we're using the computer to do it. It's not bad, like it would be if we'd used some directly-observable thing that correlates with those, like your race, age, or music preferences.
There's a reason fifties novels sound like that. It has to do with art imitating life, not the other way around. General Atomics was real. So were General Dynamics and General Electric. So were companies like North American Aviation and The Aerospace Corporation. Some of them even still exist.
Careful, if you burn them halfway into the flight you only get half credit for them.
Reduced-rounds attacks are a standard cryptographic technique. You start by breaking a reduced strength version of the cipher with a completely impractical attack that's marginally better than brute force. Then someone comes along and observes that they can improve your attack to more rounds or shorter time. Then that repeats a few times. Eventually, the cipher is broken.
No, they haven't broken AES. However, this is a step along the way. If the designers of AES had known that there was a good attack against the 10-round version, they wouldn't have recommended 14 rounds -- standard practice is to include a larger safety factor than that. This is a big deal, not because you can now break AES, but because the attacks are much closer to doing that than previously thought. Hence, the recommendation by Schneier to move to 28 rounds -- improve the safety factor. Attacks always get better, never worse. It's possible (though unlikely) that there are unpublished attacks on AES known by some organizations -- and the closer to a real break the publicly known attacks are, then the more plausible that scenario becomes. Attacks that get this close and weren't anticipated by the cipher designers are scary things.
Also, this is a related-key attack -- meaning the attacker needs two keys that are related somehow and the same piece of plaintext encrypted with both. If the implementation of AES that you use does a good job of selecting a truly random key, then the attacker can't implement this attack because he can't get you to use the requisite pair of related keys. That doesn't mean it isn't a valid attack, just that it's an attack that can be defended against. Again, the biggest worry is that someone will take this attack and realize how to improve upon it to make an attack that's even better.
He's probably tilting at windmills, of course, but I applaud his effort.
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." — George Bernard Shaw
you can't fire someone because of race, sex, etc. even in an at-will state
While true, that's also irrelevant, because:
It also means you can be fired without a reason.
So if they decide to fire you because of race, sex, etc., they merely fire you without a reason. You may have been fired because you're black, female, whatever, but as long as they're smart enough to not say so, they can indeed fire you because of your race or sex.
However, if you can convince a court that the reason they fired you was a prohibited reason, it doesn't matter whether they specified a reason or not. For this reason, many employers like to document explicit valid reasons before firing someone, in preference to firing them for no documented reason.
Legally, however, in the United States most states are "at will" employment, which basically means you have no rights whatsoever -- you can be fired for almost any reason, or none at all, without any recourse.
Not so. At will employment means you can be fired (or quit) without notice. It also means you can be fired without a reason. It most emphatically does not mean you can be fired for any reason, though -- for example, you can't fire someone because of race, sex, etc. even in an at-will state.
Yep. Freenet and TOR are both quite good at what they do (though they solve very different problems). Unfortunately, Freenet has a small userbase (current estimates ~ 10k). I think it needs more applications that work on top of Freenet before it will see more than very slow growth. It would be very interesting to see enough Freenet adoption that people took notice. There's plenty of reason to think it's reasonably secure, but you just don't know until someone actually tries to attack it.
Nothing -- that's a key distribution problem. There are various people working on the general spam problem for Freenet through web of trust type solutions. Those would extend to cuckoo egg type spam as easily as any other spam. Get your keys and your torrents from someone trustworthy. Right now, that's done by message board apps, and people could easily post complaints about or verification of a specific file.
Alternately, someone in the Freenet IRC channel was able to download it and insert it for me:
CHK@XJ75hZcrMrQyfhFQrwwWflZkatrK-ZDBzvmkoHdon2U,2UW5ISsU0Qafd3gCOvsB7lstjGrx5RGqPEU1vQm4Dfg,AAIC--8/IEEE-TC2007-09-0492R2-finalized-April8-2008.pdf