How is that even a part of the criteria? If everyone is wondering around stoned all day and still achieving their objectives safely (not that I suspect that to be the case) it should be a point in favor of open drug policies, not a point against the safety measured through an objective lens.
AES is safe, but that's not what cryptocurrencies rely upon. The issue is the signatures, not the symmetric algorithms (those are almost universally post-quantum.) It's the asymmetric algorithms we use today (RSA, in the case of Bitcoin ECDSA, and a couple of others) which are the issue. The asymmetric post-quantum algorithms (SPHINCS+ and other hash-based variants, the lattice stuff has some slightly better potential but it's currently unknown if it's even safe against pre-quantum computers or if it's just really obtuse to work with) have the issue of really big signature sizes (SPHINCS+ is currently the best one known to be post-quantum, and it has signatures of about 31KB each on top of a relatively trivial ~2KB public key.) 31KB per signature is no laughing matter, that translates to per-transaction-on-blockchain (you can't aggregate that piece simply because it's the only thing which actually says "this person authorizes sending this.") As of this writing there are 550846 Bitcoin blocks with an average of 650.3498 transactions-per-block, that equates to 358,242,586 transactions or ~11.1TB of signatures (not including public keys or actual transaction data.) This might not seem like a lot, it's absolutely manageable if you have a server and eventually a datacenter as it grows, but then you get into centralization and it defeats the only selling point of cryptocurrencies: decentralization.
That author is ignorant as shit. It was written in 2018 and seems to make the claim that quantum computers don't already exist. Hell, this year they actually began to outpace traditional computers in some specific algorithms. The only limiting factor at this point is qubit count, and that's rising steadily at the same rate it has the last ~10 years.
Post-quantum algorithms have been reviewed for awhile now by cryptographic experts due to the impending post-quantum era. This isn't some long-away thing, taking the trend of the last decade qubit counts have risen in a linear manner, 2023 is the furthest date at which the trend could continue before pre-quantum cryptographic algorithms are crackable in trivial timeframes.
Actually, no. They're developing at a steady pace as they have done over the last decade and qubit count is a linear trend not unlike Moore's law. 2023 is the outset of when they will be powerful enough given the decade-long trend before cryptocoins are worthless.
There's no post-quantum cryptocurrency, the storage costs to make a post-quantum cryptocurrency are untenable for any transaction load approaching Bitcoin's, and quantum computers are developing at a pace which following the last decade's trends linearly places them at 2023 at the latest before pre-quantum algorithms become worthless. There's no way to make the post-quantum cutover without centralization due to storage requirements, thereby killing the only selling point of cryptocurrencies. Everyone with knowledge of cryptography knows this, so everyone hyping cryptocurrencies is either ignorant of the technologies involved or outright spewing manipulative hype.
NASA should be moving the ball forward, not reinventing the wheel for every mission.
Could agree more. They need to be focused on reclaimation tech (so we aren't stuck shipping consumables to Mars and even so the ISS doesn't need water shipped up to crack Oxygen off.) And for God's sake, buy the Eagleworks lab a fucking vacuum chamber and give them a real budget, they're the only people seriously looking at interstellar propulsion systems.
Both of the issues he raises (error handling while scaling up qubits and proof of outperforming classical computing) have been addressed (in fact, they've been posted to/. before,) and are no longer considered issues.
Chances are this guy is a cryptocoin shill, realized they will be worthless by 2023 when quantum computers can run Shor's algorithm, and is campaigning against them in the hopes of making people lose interest. It's sad and pathetic, really, trying to stop technological development for memebits.
Makes since, lots of money at stake and they only have ~5 years before quantum computers destroy their pump & dump campaign, gotta keep the suckers buying shitcoins.
If college loans were handled like anything else, where there was a possibility of default, then...
If that were the case you'd have to include the degree (and probably a means of having them blacklisted from relevant industries) with the bankruptcy because recent college grads are poor and have no incentive to not file bankruptcy. They could easily just take out loans, get their diploma, file bankruptcy, and start their career, so they all would.
It is morally reprehensible to shackle young people with a debt that they cannot discharge through bankruptcy.
Do you get what money is? It's a fungible resource to exchange Human labor - all materials, housing, food, etc - it boils down to Human labor. If someone is irresponsible enough to take out loans - to take the labor of others - and use that so they can study liberal arts or Frisbee dynamics or another worthless thing, they have wronged others. They may have obfuscated that act through the financial system designed to help them reach their personal objectives with the presumption that they will make it, but they have still taken from the pool of Human labor, lounged away musing about how to beat people into their own failed ideology (unsuccessfully,) or otherwise just squandered it. They have stolen when offered a gift, they deserve no mercy.
To see a socialist donate their own money toward their objective instead of that of someone else, and actually hit the objective instead of forming a PAC with it.
If more of them took this tack they'd likely have more followers.
It's not irrelevant when they are a byproduct of corruption, you're arguing from the standpoint of technological superiority which doesn't exist, and everyone who has run the centralized components you are in favor of are even more corrupt than those running the system you're arguing against.
Well that's most absurd thing I've ever read. Radiation is proportional to the amount of nuclear material in the warhead. Fat Man had 14lbs of Pu-239.
Nope, it's proportional to the daughter products produced by the warhead and the quantity of them. Modern nukes are more efficient than older ones.
You said: "We've already set off as many nukes as we have in the global arsenal for testing purposes"
The link clearly says: 1054 test detonations, 4000 stockpile, 1800 active for the US alone. You lied. It's that simple.
Get a better link, your source is wrong.
Bahahaha. You do know that each subsequent fission produces more radiation right? Pu-239 become U-235 which become Ba-141 and Kr-92 which then are radioactive and decay.
You clearly have no comprehension of nuclear physics.
I did. Clearly you did not. US: 1054, Russia 715. Both of them are far, far lower than the current stockpiles. They are also much lower than the peak stockpiles because both countries realized long ago they had more than enough warhead to assure mutual destruction. Again, you lied.
"Bikini Atoll remains uninhabitable for humans due to what United Nations special rapporteur Clin Georgescu reported in 2012 as 'near-irreversible environmental contamination.'"
So let me get this straight, your claim is that because it's unsafe for Humans it will "destroy" the environment, even though the wildlife there is thriving simply by removing Humans? That's pretty shit "logic" you're using.
The point I made and you ignored that radiation doesn't go away easily. Radiation is still high in those areas and Fukushima nor Chernobyl were hit by bombs.
High radiation isn't an issue for the environment, it's an issue for Humans. We don't have enough nukes to fuck things up for Humans worldline and we certainly don't have enough nukes to screw up the environment because we're more likely to nuke eachother than the rainforests. Everything you said is based in failed assumptions and shitty sources.
The strength of Little Boy (15 kt) and Fat Man (21 kt) are far, far less powerful than each warhead of a nuclear missile which ranges in the megatons.
Radiation isn't determined by load, it's determined by load and inefficiency of the warhead.
Your first assertion is a complete and utter lie. The US [wikipedia.org] and Russia [wikipedia.org] each possess thousands of warheads each.
Now look at how many have been set off, I haven't lied just because you fail to look up all the details used to draw a comparison.
Your second assertion is also a lie as the half-life of Plutonium 239 [wikipedia.org] is 24,000 years. The half-life of Uranium 235 [wikipedia.org] is 703 million years.
It's not Plutonium or Uranium that put out the radiation, it's the daughter products, you idiot.
Again, the US and Russia have thousands of warheads and those are those that are currently in service not including ones that are awaiting dismantling or out of service. That also does not include other nations weapons.
Again, look up how many have been tested.
Please go to the Bikini Atoll and see for yourself. Go to Fukushima or Chernobyl and see for yourself if you don't believe me.
Are you joking? Bikini Atoll is doing fine, Fukushima was recent, and Chernobyl has become a poster child for what nature can do without Humans around. None of those are examples in favor of the point you're attempting to make.
In other words: "Please pay to train our workforce. And please make sure you train enough of them to drive the hourly wage down a bit, we're not running a damn charity here"
ACH is instantaneous, there are delays in the implementation level because banks had automated processes that only upload things daily in the past. That justification has allowed them to pass off the idea that it's not instant because the multi-day delay allows them to stack transactions from highest to lowest and charge extra overdraft fees in a manner that they can get away with. There's issues with banking systems due to corruption, not technology. The issues due to corruption will be the same if not worse when Bitcoin gets centralization because people are greedy, the people running Bitcoin exchanges are far from moral saints and they have a much higher rate of fucking customers than banks do.
A single robo call should get them a mandatory spot on a reality TV show for on-air castration or fucking by razor dildo (depending on sex of the individual) so the punishment matches the crime. Spammers too.
1) Get locked into low value government contract everyone opposes.
2) Anticipated worker uprising ensues.
3) CEO "steps down."
4) CEO replaced by new person.
5) "I don't like it either guys, but if we don't finish the contract they'll close us down."
6) Silently acquire new contracts "we need to break even guys, we're bleeding money and this tech directly translates to this other tiny contract with only a small change."
7) Rinse and repeat, jumbling steps as desired.
Your comparison is more accurate than you know. In actuality Intel stopped focusing on customers in favor of government snooping. Amazon is now doing the same, Bezos is just trying to appeal to the masses without breaking NDAs so he doesn't have to lose the consumer market for the government contracts.
Slashdot Mirror
How is that even a part of the criteria? If everyone is wondering around stoned all day and still achieving their objectives safely (not that I suspect that to be the case) it should be a point in favor of open drug policies, not a point against the safety measured through an objective lens.
They "lost contact" with the "Mars rover" because they were too cheap to build a new set on which to shoot the new fake "Moon base."
AES is safe, but that's not what cryptocurrencies rely upon. The issue is the signatures, not the symmetric algorithms (those are almost universally post-quantum.) It's the asymmetric algorithms we use today (RSA, in the case of Bitcoin ECDSA, and a couple of others) which are the issue. The asymmetric post-quantum algorithms (SPHINCS+ and other hash-based variants, the lattice stuff has some slightly better potential but it's currently unknown if it's even safe against pre-quantum computers or if it's just really obtuse to work with) have the issue of really big signature sizes (SPHINCS+ is currently the best one known to be post-quantum, and it has signatures of about 31KB each on top of a relatively trivial ~2KB public key.) 31KB per signature is no laughing matter, that translates to per-transaction-on-blockchain (you can't aggregate that piece simply because it's the only thing which actually says "this person authorizes sending this.") As of this writing there are 550846 Bitcoin blocks with an average of 650.3498 transactions-per-block, that equates to 358,242,586 transactions or ~11.1TB of signatures (not including public keys or actual transaction data.) This might not seem like a lot, it's absolutely manageable if you have a server and eventually a datacenter as it grows, but then you get into centralization and it defeats the only selling point of cryptocurrencies: decentralization.
That author is ignorant as shit. It was written in 2018 and seems to make the claim that quantum computers don't already exist. Hell, this year they actually began to outpace traditional computers in some specific algorithms. The only limiting factor at this point is qubit count, and that's rising steadily at the same rate it has the last ~10 years.
Nope, it's not a "some" thing, if it's not a post-quantum algorithm it's crackable by 2023 (at the latest.)
You could theoretically daisy chain transactions together, but you'd kill the value provided by a blockchain in the process.
Post-quantum algorithms have been reviewed for awhile now by cryptographic experts due to the impending post-quantum era. This isn't some long-away thing, taking the trend of the last decade qubit counts have risen in a linear manner, 2023 is the furthest date at which the trend could continue before pre-quantum cryptographic algorithms are crackable in trivial timeframes.
Actually, no. They're developing at a steady pace as they have done over the last decade and qubit count is a linear trend not unlike Moore's law. 2023 is the outset of when they will be powerful enough given the decade-long trend before cryptocoins are worthless.
There's no post-quantum cryptocurrency, the storage costs to make a post-quantum cryptocurrency are untenable for any transaction load approaching Bitcoin's, and quantum computers are developing at a pace which following the last decade's trends linearly places them at 2023 at the latest before pre-quantum algorithms become worthless. There's no way to make the post-quantum cutover without centralization due to storage requirements, thereby killing the only selling point of cryptocurrencies. Everyone with knowledge of cryptography knows this, so everyone hyping cryptocurrencies is either ignorant of the technologies involved or outright spewing manipulative hype.
NASA should be moving the ball forward, not reinventing the wheel for every mission.
Could agree more. They need to be focused on reclaimation tech (so we aren't stuck shipping consumables to Mars and even so the ISS doesn't need water shipped up to crack Oxygen off.) And for God's sake, buy the Eagleworks lab a fucking vacuum chamber and give them a real budget, they're the only people seriously looking at interstellar propulsion systems.
Uh, nope.
Can't agree with you on that one. I think he's pretty great on just about everything he does.
Ahahahahahaha.
The pop-sci guy. Guess his handlers haven't briefed him on Mars yet.
Both of the issues he raises (error handling while scaling up qubits and proof of outperforming classical computing) have been addressed (in fact, they've been posted to /. before,) and are no longer considered issues.
Chances are this guy is a cryptocoin shill, realized they will be worthless by 2023 when quantum computers can run Shor's algorithm, and is campaigning against them in the hopes of making people lose interest. It's sad and pathetic, really, trying to stop technological development for memebits.
Makes since, lots of money at stake and they only have ~5 years before quantum computers destroy their pump & dump campaign, gotta keep the suckers buying shitcoins.
If college loans were handled like anything else, where there was a possibility of default, then...
If that were the case you'd have to include the degree (and probably a means of having them blacklisted from relevant industries) with the bankruptcy because recent college grads are poor and have no incentive to not file bankruptcy. They could easily just take out loans, get their diploma, file bankruptcy, and start their career, so they all would.
It is morally reprehensible to shackle young people with a debt that they cannot discharge through bankruptcy.
Do you get what money is? It's a fungible resource to exchange Human labor - all materials, housing, food, etc - it boils down to Human labor. If someone is irresponsible enough to take out loans - to take the labor of others - and use that so they can study liberal arts or Frisbee dynamics or another worthless thing, they have wronged others. They may have obfuscated that act through the financial system designed to help them reach their personal objectives with the presumption that they will make it, but they have still taken from the pool of Human labor, lounged away musing about how to beat people into their own failed ideology (unsuccessfully,) or otherwise just squandered it. They have stolen when offered a gift, they deserve no mercy.
To see a socialist donate their own money toward their objective instead of that of someone else, and actually hit the objective instead of forming a PAC with it.
If more of them took this tack they'd likely have more followers.
It's not irrelevant when they are a byproduct of corruption, you're arguing from the standpoint of technological superiority which doesn't exist, and everyone who has run the centralized components you are in favor of are even more corrupt than those running the system you're arguing against.
Well that's most absurd thing I've ever read. Radiation is proportional to the amount of nuclear material in the warhead. Fat Man had 14lbs of Pu-239.
Nope, it's proportional to the daughter products produced by the warhead and the quantity of them. Modern nukes are more efficient than older ones.
You said: "We've already set off as many nukes as we have in the global arsenal for testing purposes"
The link clearly says: 1054 test detonations, 4000 stockpile, 1800 active for the US alone. You lied. It's that simple.
Get a better link, your source is wrong.
Bahahaha. You do know that each subsequent fission produces more radiation right? Pu-239 become U-235 which become Ba-141 and Kr-92 which then are radioactive and decay.
You clearly have no comprehension of nuclear physics.
I did. Clearly you did not. US: 1054, Russia 715. Both of them are far, far lower than the current stockpiles. They are also much lower than the peak stockpiles because both countries realized long ago they had more than enough warhead to assure mutual destruction. Again, you lied.
Your information is wrong.
Another blatant lie?
"Bikini Atoll remains uninhabitable for humans due to what United Nations special rapporteur Clin Georgescu reported in 2012 as 'near-irreversible environmental contamination.'"
So let me get this straight, your claim is that because it's unsafe for Humans it will "destroy" the environment, even though the wildlife there is thriving simply by removing Humans? That's pretty shit "logic" you're using.
The point I made and you ignored that radiation doesn't go away easily. Radiation is still high in those areas and Fukushima nor Chernobyl were hit by bombs.
High radiation isn't an issue for the environment, it's an issue for Humans. We don't have enough nukes to fuck things up for Humans worldline and we certainly don't have enough nukes to screw up the environment because we're more likely to nuke eachother than the rainforests. Everything you said is based in failed assumptions and shitty sources.
The strength of Little Boy (15 kt) and Fat Man (21 kt) are far, far less powerful than each warhead of a nuclear missile which ranges in the megatons.
Radiation isn't determined by load, it's determined by load and inefficiency of the warhead.
Your first assertion is a complete and utter lie. The US [wikipedia.org] and Russia [wikipedia.org] each possess thousands of warheads each.
Now look at how many have been set off, I haven't lied just because you fail to look up all the details used to draw a comparison.
Your second assertion is also a lie as the half-life of Plutonium 239 [wikipedia.org] is 24,000 years. The half-life of Uranium 235 [wikipedia.org] is 703 million years.
It's not Plutonium or Uranium that put out the radiation, it's the daughter products, you idiot.
Again, the US and Russia have thousands of warheads and those are those that are currently in service not including ones that are awaiting dismantling or out of service. That also does not include other nations weapons.
Again, look up how many have been tested.
Please go to the Bikini Atoll and see for yourself. Go to Fukushima or Chernobyl and see for yourself if you don't believe me.
Are you joking? Bikini Atoll is doing fine, Fukushima was recent, and Chernobyl has become a poster child for what nature can do without Humans around. None of those are examples in favor of the point you're attempting to make.
In other words: "Please pay to train our workforce. And please make sure you train enough of them to drive the hourly wage down a bit, we're not running a damn charity here"
lol, you think they said please.
ACH is instantaneous, there are delays in the implementation level because banks had automated processes that only upload things daily in the past. That justification has allowed them to pass off the idea that it's not instant because the multi-day delay allows them to stack transactions from highest to lowest and charge extra overdraft fees in a manner that they can get away with. There's issues with banking systems due to corruption, not technology. The issues due to corruption will be the same if not worse when Bitcoin gets centralization because people are greedy, the people running Bitcoin exchanges are far from moral saints and they have a much higher rate of fucking customers than banks do.
A single robo call should get them a mandatory spot on a reality TV show for on-air castration or fucking by razor dildo (depending on sex of the individual) so the punishment matches the crime. Spammers too.
1) Get locked into low value government contract everyone opposes.
2) Anticipated worker uprising ensues.
3) CEO "steps down."
4) CEO replaced by new person.
5) "I don't like it either guys, but if we don't finish the contract they'll close us down." 6) Silently acquire new contracts "we need to break even guys, we're bleeding money and this tech directly translates to this other tiny contract with only a small change."
7) Rinse and repeat, jumbling steps as desired.
Your comparison is more accurate than you know. In actuality Intel stopped focusing on customers in favor of government snooping. Amazon is now doing the same, Bezos is just trying to appeal to the masses without breaking NDAs so he doesn't have to lose the consumer market for the government contracts.