The cost is two to four times higher. The basic idea is you can choose:
___Non-redundant A-only power____ 1 router (1 amp) + 1 switch (1 amp) = 2 amps. You need one power plant capable of providing 2 amps.
___Redundant with A/B power___ 2 routers (2 amps) + 2 switches (2 amps) = 4 amps You need two sets of power, each capable of providing the 4 amps, so 8 amps total.
Note you need not twice as much power capacity, but FOUR TIMES as much in order to have full A/B redundancy. Plus the more complex (expensive) design with more transfer switches, etc.
Twice as many PDUs feeding twice as many routers and twice as many switches take up twice as many racks, which means twice as many square feet, and almost twice as much power and cooling cost.
Suppose the US government borrowed $10,000 from YOU, by selling you bond. Suppose they then issue (print) 100 trillion dollars, meaning the dollar loses 90% of its value. When you cash in the bond, it is therefore only worth 1/10th of what you paid for it. Would you keep buying more bonds from them, so that you can keep losing 90% of your money?
Of course you wouldn't. They borrowed $10,000 from you and effectively paid back only $1,000. That's called "constructive default". If they did so, nobody would buy their bonds anymore, so they would be unable to borrow. Government spending is funded largely by borrowing, especially in the last three years or so. So if they ruined their ability to borrow by constructive default, they'd lose a major, major source of funds.
Suppose they then skipped the borrowing part and just started printing money to pay their bills with. Plenty of governments have tried that. What -always- happens is precisely what the law of supply and demand requires; first the greatly increased supply of dollars significantly reduces their value. Second, since the value of dollars is lower, they have to pay employees and suppliers more dollars in order to get what the govt needs. By paying out more printed dollars, they increase supply and reduce the value further. It's a death spiral of hyperinflation, one we've seen several times. It ends when the populace ignores the government currency and switches to a foreign currency, which the domestic government cannot produce from thin air. This leaves the government unable to make purchases or pay employees since their currency is worthless and unused. The government is frequently replaced with a new one.
So yes, the government can "just print money " for a day or a week, but if they try to fund their ongoing operations the money they print quickly becomes worthless and the government falls.
Way to miss the entire point twice. Sure, you CAN keep using that P4, on that old motherboard. Depending on where you live and how much you use the AC, and local electricity prices, it's costing you $100-$300 every year to run.
You could instead pay LESS every year and getter BETTER performance a modern low-power, low cost chip. You're paying more and getting worse performance. You -can- do that. You -can- hit yourself with a hammer too.
It WAS not useless at the time. In fact, it was sometimes worth paying $100-$1200* per year to power it and run the air conditioning to get rid of the heat it generated.
Now, you can get similar performance from a $40 machine that uses $1-$10 of electricity. Given the choice of spending $100+ to use a P4 for a year or spending $41 to use a Pi for a year, the P4 loses.
Further, rent for apartment or office space is about $1/month or so. The P4 takes up $50 / year worth of valuable space.
* cost of power varies greatly, from a home in Texas to a datacenter in California.
There is a footnote to my comment that there is virtually no good use for a P4. It might make sense where the machine is a) free and b) rarely powered on. I actually have such a use case; my Christmas light controller is only powered on for a few hours per year. Therefore the power savings of buying something newer may not offset the cost to do so.
If you had enough Pi boards to use the same amount of electricity as the Pentium 4, the stack of Pis would have 220 times as much computational power.
One P4 runs a bit faster than a Pi, and uses a LOT more power.
Of course that fact is probably not of any practical use. There are use cases for which a Pi is the right tool for the job, there are uses for which a typical desktop is the right tool for the job, and there are use cases for which the Arduino is the right tool for the job - and there isn't that much overlap. If you need a lot of computing power, you use a powerful processor, not a bunch of Raspberry Pi boards.
The power consumption does point out that there is virtually no good use case for a P4 - it's cheaper to buy a newer CPU than to power a P4.
Economies have continued to function while the currency was significantly devalued by high inflation. So just because the US economy exists doesn't by itself mean that the government can't print money and devalue the dollar. If they govt "printed" $100 trillion (digitally), the dollar would lose most of its value, despite the existence of the US economy.
More than once, a country's economy has continued to function while people abandoned the local currency. In fact, it happened in America during the articles of confederation.
So just because you think the US economy will continue does NOT mean that either the dollar won't be devalued or that the economy will continued to be based on the dollar. There are other forces at work that make the dollar relatively safe. Namely, the economy will continue to use the dollar because government requires that it be used for tax computations and payment (effectively meaning that all your accounting has to be done in dollars). The govt won't print $100 trillion because it would ruin their ability to print or borrow money in the future, and it would be bad for the economy too.
Income tax is a percentage of income. If you owe $30,000, it's because you got paid $90,000. You're supposed to IMMEDIATELY put aside the $30,000 and only spend $60,000, then pay the IRS at least every three months. So according to the law, everyone had the ability to pay their taxes. If you owe the IRS it's because you improperly spent their money when you had it in your possession. I did that a long time ago, so I had to learn more about back taxes than I wanted to know. So legally you -can- go to prison. "I don't have the money" isn't an excuse because you DID have it.
Of course it is rare for that to happen. The IRS really wants to first get people paying their current taxes, so that the taxpayer isn't permanently behind, then get them to pay back any taxes due. Prison doesn't typically accomplish either goal. It is a possibility though.
-Most- of the time, the IRS will only take your stuff because sending someone to prison costs them money. However, Lauryn Hill went to prison for failure to pay taxes and Willie Nelson nearly did. Unlike private creditors, the IRS can seize your bank account and other assets without a court hearing, and you -can- go to prison for failure to pay them.
It's actually pretty much the exact opposite of fiat. Fiat means the authority declared it to be so. The government says their dollar is valid to satisfy any and all debts, and that dollars MUST be used to pay taxes, which a majority of people have to pay. In other words, you need dollars because the government ordered that you do, and they will put you in prison unless you get some dollars to pay them with. That's what a fiat is - an order, a declaration by the ruling authority.
Bitcoin is pretty much the opposite- noone requires that you use it. It's price is purely based on the hope that tomorrow someone else might buy it from you, who in turn wants it for the same reason- they hope that later someone else might be willing to pay them for it, that the ponzi will continue and someone else will treat it as valuable.
As you mentioned, neither is backed by gold. The dollar is backed by two things. As I mentioned, it's backed by guaranteed demand due to taxes - people WILL want your dollars, because they have to have dollars in order to pay their taxes. Secondly, it is backed by the US government bomd rating (credit score) which the government must maintain because they survive on debt. If the govt devalued the currency beyond expected inflation rate, that would be constructive default on their debt, which is denominated in dollars. If they did that, no-one would lend them money anymore and they'd be unable to function.
So those are the two major things backing the dollar - the fact that people will need dollars to pay taxes, and government's need to protect their ability to continue borrowing.
> There are now intelligence cadres in the People's Republic of China who know more about US intelligence operations then almost any one in the US.
You're not wrong there.
The attitude you describe in US companies and general organizations is changing, though not fast enough. Information security is one of the fastest growing fields in the world. Research firm Gartner projects that the world will spend $101 billion on information security in 2018.
A report by Visiongain, a business intelligence firm in London, indicates that the global cyber security market was worth $75.4 billion in 2015.
I pay attention to this stuff because I've been doing information security for a living for 15 years. Some of the money companies and businesses are starting to invest in improving their security posture is my pay check, so it matters very much to me.
Another change there is how companies are viewing web servers and applications. Previously a company already had Windows admins and Windows programmers supporting their Windows desktops. When they needed a web application they had their Windows admins connect a box to the internet, and their Windows desktop programmers put together an application. Microsoft made it fairly easy for people accustomed to writing desktop guis to put their code on the web. That all made perfect sense.
What some are starting to realize is that your web applications will be attacked about a dozen times per hour. The Windows desktop devs are a accustomed to writing software that doesn't often crash -on accident- ; their mindset just doesn't consider that people would be attacking their applications -on purpose-.
With the realization that you really shouldn't have your desktop support team configuring and running public servers, and that the guy who knows how to write an Excel macro has no business coding a publicly accessible web application, the idea of "we already have Windows people" goes out the window. You realise you need a team people who are qualified to design and maintain internet based applications and systems. As long as you have a separate team on a separate network, you may as well use a network OS well-suited to the task. Have your desktop support team know desktops, with a desktop OS, and your network team know a network OS.
> starting with 1.0.0 all 1.0.x releases have been binary compatible.
Meaning that the current version 1.0.2 is an exact drop-in replacement for the 2010 version 1.0.0 - no wrapper is needed. For software from before 1.0.0 (2010), it will need to be recompiled.
Here's the OpenSSL changelog, including changes in 1998 releases such as 0.9.8g. The 0.9.x.y branch lasted a long time. https://www.openssl.org/news/c...
The 1.0.1 branch from 1998 will still get patches. Openssl versions earlier than 1998 will not. So it's precisely the same as if Microsoft said they're only going to release patches for Windows98 and above, and stop supporting Windows 95. I'm pretty sure they've done exactly that. And both companies dropped support for much newer versions as well. ONLY open source would still be releasing patches for an 18-year old version of the software.
1.0.0 which is no longer being updated, was replaced by 1.0.1 in December of 1998. In other words, if you want to be secure, use a version from 1998 or later.
Being a landlord generally makes money, because the rent is more than the mortgage. In other words, renting typically costs more than owning.
So the question becomes, are they: 1) Saving up a down payment. 2) Uninformed 3) Planning to move to a new city soon 4) Not that interested in their own financial well-being
As you've discovered, ditching class actually was a bad idea, and those California policies do make things expensive. Whem I was in my 30s I went back to school at WGU. Earlier this year I had to decide if I wanted to own two homes or just one. I decided to sell the old one rather than renting it out. It also helped that I quit spending my time getting stoned.
BTW here are two more reasons. First, 48% of property and auto insurance in the US is provided by coops, called mutual insurance companies. These include Nationwide, Mutual Of Omaha, State Farm, etc., and of course the 100 or so other insurance companies with "mutual" in the name.
Mutual insurance companies don't make a profit. Any excess money is refunded to customers, who are the owners. So for half the insurance companies, keeping the customers safe is keeping the owners safe, and saving the customer money is saving the owners money, because the customers -are- the owners.
Another major thing is that a large building costs between $10 million and $3 billion to build. One building can be worth a significant portion of everything the insurance company has. Insurance companies, like other business, don't like to go bankrupt, so a major fire or collapse is a BIG deal to them. One or two major events can absolutely put them out of business.
This question sure got a ton of really crappy answers. The fact is big companies buy stuff from and cut deals with little guys all day long. I got a good tip for a basic script from a guy who makes those calls for a living, and cuts deals worth millions of dollars all the time. Right now I don't particularly feel like posting it here, though.
If you want to let me know how to get in touch with you I'll tell you what the pro told me. I had posted my GPG key so you can encrypt your contact info if you chose to, but Slashdot won't let me post such a long string.
Slashdot Mirror
The cost is two to four times higher. The basic idea is you can choose:
___Non-redundant A-only power____
1 router (1 amp) + 1 switch (1 amp) = 2 amps.
You need one power plant capable of providing 2 amps.
___Redundant with A/B power___
2 routers (2 amps) + 2 switches (2 amps) = 4 amps
You need two sets of power, each capable of providing the 4 amps, so 8 amps total.
Note you need not twice as much power capacity, but FOUR TIMES as much in order to have full A/B redundancy. Plus the more complex (expensive) design with more transfer switches, etc.
Twice as many PDUs feeding twice as many routers and twice as many switches take up twice as many racks, which means twice as many square feet, and almost twice as much power and cooling cost.
Some people still run Windows on -servers-. This proves that reliability isn't always the most important thing.
Suppose the US government borrowed $10,000 from YOU, by selling you bond.
Suppose they then issue (print) 100 trillion dollars, meaning the dollar loses 90% of its value.
When you cash in the bond, it is therefore only worth 1/10th of what you paid for it. Would you keep buying more bonds from them, so that you can keep losing 90% of your money?
Of course you wouldn't. They borrowed $10,000 from you and effectively paid back only $1,000. That's called "constructive default". If they did so, nobody would buy their bonds anymore, so they would be unable to borrow. Government spending is funded largely by borrowing, especially in the last three years or so. So if they ruined their ability to borrow by constructive default, they'd lose a major, major source of funds.
Suppose they then skipped the borrowing part and just started printing money to pay their bills with. Plenty of governments have tried that. What -always- happens is precisely what the law of supply and demand requires; first the greatly increased supply of dollars significantly reduces their value. Second, since the value of dollars is lower, they have to pay employees and suppliers more dollars in order to get what the govt needs. By paying out more printed dollars, they increase supply and reduce the value further. It's a death spiral of hyperinflation, one we've seen several times. It ends when the populace ignores the government currency and switches to a foreign currency, which the domestic government cannot produce from thin air. This leaves the government unable to make purchases or pay employees since their currency is worthless and unused. The government is frequently replaced with a new one.
So yes, the government can "just print money " for a day or a week, but if they try to fund their ongoing operations the money they print quickly becomes worthless and the government falls.
Way to miss the entire point twice. Sure, you CAN keep using that P4, on that old motherboard. Depending on where you live and how much you use the AC, and local electricity prices, it's costing you $100-$300 every year to run.
You could instead pay LESS every year and getter BETTER performance a modern low-power, low cost chip. You're paying more and getting worse performance. You -can- do that. You -can- hit yourself with a hammer too.
> Well, a desktop from 2004 was far from useless.
It WAS not useless at the time. In fact, it was sometimes worth paying $100-$1200* per year to power it and run the air conditioning to get rid of the heat it generated.
Now, you can get similar performance from a $40 machine that uses $1-$10 of electricity. Given the choice of spending $100+ to use a P4 for a year or spending $41 to use a Pi for a year, the P4 loses.
Further, rent for apartment or office space is about $1/month or so. The P4 takes up $50 / year worth of valuable space.
* cost of power varies greatly, from a home in Texas to a datacenter in California.
There is a footnote to my comment that there is virtually no good use for a P4. It might make sense where the machine is a) free and b) rarely powered on. I actually have such a use case; my Christmas light controller is only powered on for a few hours per year. Therefore the power savings of buying something newer may not offset the cost to do so.
If you had enough Pi boards to use the same amount of electricity as the Pentium 4, the stack of Pis would have 220 times as much computational power.
One P4 runs a bit faster than a Pi, and uses a LOT more power.
Of course that fact is probably not of any practical use. There are use cases for which a Pi is the right tool for the job, there are uses for which a typical desktop is the right tool for the job, and there are use cases for which the Arduino is the right tool for the job - and there isn't that much overlap. If you need a lot of computing power, you use a powerful processor, not a bunch of Raspberry Pi boards.
The power consumption does point out that there is virtually no good use case for a P4 - it's cheaper to buy a newer CPU than to power a P4.
"If it has no intrinsic value, it is fiat."
That word doesn't mean what you think it means.
Maybe you're thinking of "symbolic" or "representational".
Economies have continued to function while the currency was significantly devalued by high inflation. So just because the US economy exists doesn't by itself mean that the government can't print money and devalue the dollar. If they govt "printed" $100 trillion (digitally), the dollar would lose most of its value, despite the existence of the US economy.
More than once, a country's economy has continued to function while people abandoned the local currency. In fact, it happened in America during the articles of confederation.
So just because you think the US economy will continue does NOT mean that either the dollar won't be devalued or that the economy will continued to be based on the dollar. There are other forces at work that make the dollar relatively safe. Namely, the economy will continue to use the dollar because government requires that it be used for tax computations and payment (effectively meaning that all your accounting has to be done in dollars). The govt won't print $100 trillion because it would ruin their ability to print or borrow money in the future, and it would be bad for the economy too.
fiat (noun)
an arbitrary decree or pronouncement, especially by a person or group of persons having absolute authority to enforce it.
Who is the absolute authority enforcing their decree that you must use Bitcoin?
Fiat doesn't mean "related to something that isn't used to make a watch". A fiat is a government order. That's the definition of the word fiat.
Income tax is a percentage of income. If you owe $30,000, it's because you got paid $90,000. You're supposed to IMMEDIATELY put aside the $30,000 and only spend $60,000, then pay the IRS at least every three months. So according to the law, everyone had the ability to pay their taxes. If you owe the IRS it's because you improperly spent their money when you had it in your possession. I did that a long time ago, so I had to learn more about back taxes than I wanted to know. So legally you -can- go to prison. "I don't have the money" isn't an excuse because you DID have it.
Of course it is rare for that to happen. The IRS really wants to first get people paying their current taxes, so that the taxpayer isn't permanently behind, then get them to pay back any taxes due. Prison doesn't typically accomplish either goal. It is a possibility though.
-Most- of the time, the IRS will only take your stuff because sending someone to prison costs them money. However, Lauryn Hill went to prison for failure to pay taxes and Willie Nelson nearly did. Unlike private creditors, the IRS can seize your bank account and other assets without a court hearing, and you -can- go to prison for failure to pay them.
It's actually pretty much the exact opposite of fiat. Fiat means the authority declared it to be so. The government says their dollar is valid to satisfy any and all debts, and that dollars MUST be used to pay taxes, which a majority of people have to pay. In other words, you need dollars because the government ordered that you do, and they will put you in prison unless you get some dollars to pay them with. That's what a fiat is - an order, a declaration by the ruling authority.
Bitcoin is pretty much the opposite- noone requires that you use it. It's price is purely based on the hope that tomorrow someone else might buy it from you, who in turn wants it for the same reason- they hope that later someone else might be willing to pay them for it, that the ponzi will continue and someone else will treat it as valuable.
As you mentioned, neither is backed by gold. The dollar is backed by two things. As I mentioned, it's backed by guaranteed demand due to taxes - people WILL want your dollars, because they have to have dollars in order to pay their taxes. Secondly, it is backed by the US government bomd rating (credit score) which the government must maintain because they survive on debt. If the govt devalued the currency beyond expected inflation rate, that would be constructive default on their debt, which is denominated in dollars. If they did that, no-one would lend them money anymore and they'd be unable to function.
So those are the two major things backing the dollar - the fact that people will need dollars to pay taxes, and government's need to protect their ability to continue borrowing.
> There are now intelligence cadres in the People's Republic of China who know more about US intelligence operations then almost any one in the US.
You're not wrong there.
The attitude you describe in US companies and general organizations is changing, though not fast enough. Information security is one of the fastest growing fields in the world.
Research firm Gartner projects that the world will spend $101 billion on information security in 2018.
A report by Visiongain, a business intelligence firm in London, indicates that the global cyber security market was worth $75.4 billion in 2015.
I pay attention to this stuff because I've been doing information security for a living for 15 years. Some of the money companies and businesses are starting to invest in improving their security posture is my pay check, so it matters very much to me.
Another change there is how companies are viewing web servers and applications. Previously a company already had Windows admins and Windows programmers supporting their Windows desktops. When they needed a web application they had their Windows admins connect a box to the internet, and their Windows desktop programmers put together an application. Microsoft made it fairly easy for people accustomed to writing desktop guis to put their code on the web. That all made perfect sense.
What some are starting to realize is that your web applications will be attacked about a dozen times per hour. The Windows desktop devs are a accustomed to writing software that doesn't often crash -on accident- ; their mindset just doesn't consider that people would be attacking their applications -on purpose-.
With the realization that you really shouldn't have your desktop support team configuring and running public servers, and that the guy who knows how to write an Excel macro has no business coding a publicly accessible web application, the idea of "we already have Windows people" goes out the window. You realise you need a team people who are qualified to design and maintain internet based applications and systems. As long as you have a separate team on a separate network, you may as well use a network OS well-suited to the task. Have your desktop support team know desktops, with a desktop OS, and your network team know a network OS.
The key phrase in all of that may be:
> starting with 1.0.0 all 1.0.x releases have been binary compatible.
Meaning that the current version 1.0.2 is an exact drop-in replacement for the 2010 version 1.0.0 - no wrapper is needed. For software from before 1.0.0 (2010), it will need to be recompiled.
> OpenSSL wasn't even around in 1998.
Here's the OpenSSL changelog, including changes in 1998 releases such as 0.9.8g. The 0.9.x.y branch lasted a long time.
https://www.openssl.org/news/c...
As you said , 1.0.1 wasn't released until 2012.
You're correct, I read something wrong. 1.0.1, which is supported, is from March 2012.
Your assertion is false.
The 1.0.1 branch from 1998 will still get patches. Openssl versions earlier than 1998 will not. So it's precisely the same as if Microsoft said they're only going to release patches for Windows98 and above, and stop supporting Windows 95. I'm pretty sure they've done exactly that. And both companies dropped support for much newer versions as well. ONLY open source would still be releasing patches for an 18-year old version of the software.
1.0.0 which is no longer being updated, was replaced by 1.0.1 in December of 1998. In other words, if you want to be secure, use a version from 1998 or later.
That seems pretty reasonable to me.
Being a landlord generally makes money, because the rent is more than the mortgage. In other words, renting typically costs more than owning.
So the question becomes, are they:
1) Saving up a down payment.
2) Uninformed
3) Planning to move to a new city soon
4) Not that interested in their own financial well-being
As you've discovered, ditching class actually was a bad idea, and those California policies do make things expensive. Whem I was in my 30s I went back to school at WGU. Earlier this year I had to decide if I wanted to own two homes or just one. I decided to sell the old one rather than renting it out. It also helped that I quit spending my time getting stoned.
See answers here:
http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
and here:
http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
BTW here are two more reasons. First, 48% of property and auto insurance in the US is provided by coops, called mutual insurance companies. These include Nationwide, Mutual Of Omaha, State Farm, etc., and of course the 100 or so other insurance companies with "mutual" in the name.
Mutual insurance companies don't make a profit. Any excess money is refunded to customers, who are the owners. So for half the insurance companies, keeping the customers safe is keeping the owners safe, and saving the customer money is saving the owners money, because the customers -are- the owners.
Another major thing is that a large building costs between $10 million and $3 billion to build. One building can be worth a significant portion of everything the insurance company has. Insurance companies, like other business, don't like to go bankrupt, so a major fire or collapse is a BIG deal to them. One or two major events can absolutely put them out of business.
This question sure got a ton of really crappy answers. The fact is big companies buy stuff from and cut deals with little guys all day long. I got a good tip for a basic script from a guy who makes those calls for a living, and cuts deals worth millions of dollars all the time. Right now I don't particularly feel like posting it here, though.
If you want to let me know how to get in touch with you I'll tell you what the pro told me. I had posted my GPG key so you can encrypt your contact info if you chose to, but Slashdot won't let me post such a long string.