Yeah, I was thinking of the PDP, but you're right that it doesn't quite hit the mark of personal computer. Then again, I'm not sure the Tesla quite hits the mark of a casual family car either.
I'm not sure it does. Either GM wasn't stupid and the car wasn't profitable enough because the technology wasn't good enough, or the EV1 could have been successful but wasn't. In the latter case, we should be pursuing better electric cars even more.
Or were you arguing that there's no improvement left to be made?
The fact that GM pulled them because they weren't able to make a profit shows either that the technology wasn't good enough because it wasn't cost effective or that GM is full of morons and they could have made it work, but they just didn't.
That said, I liked the EV1 too. One of my friends enjoyed leasing one very much and probably would have gone ahead and bought it if offered the chance.
"GM believes that the electric car venture was not a failure, and that the EV1 was doomed when the expected breakthrough in battery technology did not take place within the anticipated timeline."
>If your DB server is swapping, either you've >misconfigured things, or some process has run away >with your memory.
Or the kernel is operating properly and pre-emptively swapping out stuff your processes aren't using at all to use that space for increased things like, file caches which, if your database is doing any disk I/O, can be quite useful.
>(basically put a process is killed when it >requests a resource that is not available and that >is not necessarily the process that is hogging the >resource to begin with)
That's not true at all, please read oom_killer.c in the kernel source code before continuing to make statements about a piece of code you seem to never have read. (Or if you read it before, you haven't kept up to date...)
The oom_killer scores processes using a metric that takes into account usage and generally will kill the task using the most resources. It does not kill tasks based on which task most recently requests it unless you explicitly configure out the standard oom_killer.
Let's see: 1) Microsoft has a history of offering things to people to use silverlight. 2) Microsoft is sponsoring things at the DNC this year (did you notice the Microsoft swag around various people's necks?) 3) The DNC is full of events where businesses spend money to make themselves look good, advertise their business or generally curry favor.
So in what world do you live in that the comment that silverlight might be being used because Microsoft contributed something is just "baseless tin-foil hat speculation"?
To me it just seems like a reasonable explanation. The next question is whether or not that's unethical. That is a different topic.
Second, I was aware of the history of the name changes and the case, I was making a joke when I said "whatever it's called this week."
Third, it's not me that argues the commerce clauses gives them that ability, it was the majority of SCOTUS that did. I simply am telling you that this means there is a constitutional basis. I happen to agree that the commerce clause *ought* to be interpreted broadly. But I'm also glad there's people that don't agree and there's judges on that particular bench that *also* don't agree. This will keep things somewhat sensible.
But to say there's no constitutional basis is wrong. The court has said there is, until that ruling gets overturned, there is constitutional basis. That's how precedent works.
It is not as you say a situation where "Some may argue, as you do, the interstate commerce clause may give the authority to the federal government" but rather the authority *is* given to the federal government by this type of precedent, whether or not you agree with it or not.
It's no longer an argument after it's been ruled on. Even if there was a strong dissenting opinion.
I very much understand where you're coming from and I agree that Marbury v. Madison was a power grab.
But I think overall it wasn't a terrible result. I actually like the ruling and it's one of those rare power grabs where I think "wow, that was actually really devious and really clever!" Someone did need to become the arbiter and I think that SCOTUS is the most appropriate body to accomplish that task. I don't have to agree with all their rulings to recognize that overall while at some points they've been incredible annoying and have eroded some important protections, at the end of the day, they usually get it right on most issues.
That's more than I can say about most branches of government.
So yes. I very much see where you're coming from and do appreciate your skepticism and do recognize that this is an awesome power that they have. But unlike you, I have a little faith in the SCOTUS as a body despite some of their recent performances and my dissatisfaction with the current people that happen to be sitting on the bench. (DC v. Heller *was* very much too close.)
I also don't think the founders meant our constitution to be interpreted strictly and don't oppose a little flexibility where it's merited. While I do hate it when it's the wrong kind of flexibility. (and it so often is these days) I don't when it's the right kind. I think having the flexibility for the right kind of laws is more important than risking a lack of flexibility for the wrong ones.
The question of "what is beyond their authority" is a troubling one. But taken to the extreme, any branch has too much authority if it's singularly and effectively organized and hell bent on overriding the other two. Fortunately, with two of our three branches, this situation is rare to occur and very hard to produce. Overall, the disagreement, bickering and lack of a unified view in SCOTUS and the legislature is precisely what ensures that we don't fall into a situation where our government runs too wild.
Over the last 8 years, we've certainly seen what happens when one of the branches doesn't have enough disagreement within itself.
As for the peer pressure argument, I think you have me for the wrong type of fellow if you think that's why I wrote my post. Anyone who knows me who read that someone on the Internet thought I was being too polite for fear of what other people would think would be very much amused.
I think you'd find on quite a range of issues, you and I would agree more often than you might think, given this particular conversation.
You asked for one place and one's all that's needed. Stop being silly. There's certainly at least a constitutional argument for Obama's health plan it under the basis of the commerce clause and if it does end up being litigated, then we're likely to see this argument settled in a manner which is authoritative. The case you mentioned would very much reinforce the idea that the commerce clause would apply. Given the precedent, SCOTUS might not even take up a challenge against a national health plan on constitutional grounds.
Your implication that Obama is ignorant of constitutional law is without merit.
As for Gonzales v. Raich (or whatever it's called this week) I was frankly hoping the controlled substances act would be overturned, but I think the decision, legally, was the correct one.
>Oh and you're the idiot for saying they are.
I don't think the income tax system is good and personally would prefer the fairtax system, but if you think it isn't constitutional, then yes, to me that's the thinking of an idiot. There's very clear rulings on this. Why would I be an idiot for calling someone an idiot when they obliviously don't know how to read a SCOTUS ruling?
I made nothing binding upon you, I explicitly pointed out that if you thought Marbury v. Madison was SCOTUS overstepping it's authority: "I suggest you file a suit to challenge it or petition congress to rectify the situation."
I'm glad to hear you've done exactly that. I hope your petition is given fair and just consideration.
(Oh, I am very much disappointed in some of SCOTUS's rulings, but I do think they should be authorized to make them. It is that which is the difference between between us.)
I'm very well aware of the meaning of Necessary and Proper. I'm also very well aware that SCOTUS has significantly permitted the expansion of that and the commerce clause to help recognize the growth of the responsibility that citizens have in a strong central government.
It's not *my* interpretation that matters here, nor is it yours. It's the interpretation of the Supreme Court of the United States that matters, and last I checked, they were fairly comfortable with taking a wide view of how those clauses might be interpreted.
Or do you just not accept the authority of SCOTUS to make those legal determinations? Because that's what all of these arguments boil down to.
Do you accept the judgment of the Supreme Court and the doctrine of judicial review or not?
I for one though Marbury v. Madison was a brilliant ruling. If you don't, I suggest you file a suit to challenge it or petition congress to rectify the situation.
>Can you show me where the USA Constitution >authorizes Obama's health care plan?
Yes, necessary and proper and the commerce clause among others. Naturally he won't be able to do it without the legislature, but the legislature has the power.
Do you know why the legislature has that power? Because the constitution says that the Supreme Court gets to interpret the law, not you, not Obama and not some random congresscritter from Texas.
If they say it's cool, then it is.
Are you one of those idiots who think the income tax isn't valid too?
Re:no encryption that YOU didn't write is safe
on
Is Hushmail Still Safe?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Not really. If you even glanced at the size of the integer involved you'd quickly see the answer is "too large." This isn't even in the range of "throw more hardware at it."
Which I think, was my point.:)
Brute forcing 3DES is not effective at this point in time.
Unless you're talking about DES, in which case you can get your own little box to do it for under 10,000 and it's entirely trivial.
Neither DES or 3DES are at a point where the problem of brute forcing them is interesting at the present time. DES because it's too easy and 3DES because it's too hard.
Well yes. Anyone who wasn't aware that the discussion we were having in this thread was an academic one that doesn't take into account a real threat model needs their brain checked.
You'll noticed I very clearly said "brute forcing" everywhere, not "breaking." Naturally cryptosystems are much easier to break than it is to brute force the underlying algorithms.
>You're probably right, but technically it's >still wrong.
Actually if you refer to DES as DES is a scientific paper, no one will complain even a little bit. I don't know what technical definition you're using, but it doesn't exist in any of the main cryptographic research or scientific communities I've been exposed to.
I'm all for being pedantic, but let's be pedantic in a manner which also reflects the idea that sometimes meanings change you should use the proper meaning for the present date, not an archaic one.
DES is DES, 3DES is 3DES and Rijndael is AES.
This is all very well understood by anyone actually in the field. By "correcting" people who say DES and implying that 3DES is technically now known as DES because of a succession of FIPS from NIST, you're probably causing more harm than good.
Err.. no L2 cache in this type of specially built hardware. All done directly in hardware. COPACOBANA replicated it all in FPGAs for a few thousand dollars. You don't use generic cores of any sort for this type of thing GPU or not.
You have to remember that Deepcrack was a custom built ASIC specifically designed just for cracking DES as fast as possible. They clocked it as far as they could. These things aren't like normal processors.
Anyways, yes, even if we could brute-force DES in under a second, brute forcing 3DES would still take centuries.
Re:no encryption that YOU didn't write is safe
on
Is Hushmail Still Safe?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
>3des is not vulnerable but computer power has >passed the point on which an individual could >mount an actual attack.
I believe that would likely be DES you're referring to, not 3DES.
Whether the NSA can attack 3DES or not is an entirely different matter. But an individual? Not yet. 3DES is about 112 bits of key if you account for meet in the middle.
DES is ~56 bits and can be cracked in hours with special purpose hardware.
n Hours * 2^(112-56) = 72057594037927936n hours.
So... I think it's out of reach for an individual at the moment. Even if we could break DES in minutes...
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I was thinking of the PDP, but you're right that it doesn't quite hit the mark of personal computer. Then again, I'm not sure the Tesla quite hits the mark of a casual family car either.
I'm not sure it does. Either GM wasn't stupid and the car wasn't profitable enough because the technology wasn't good enough, or the EV1 could have been successful but wasn't. In the latter case, we should be pursuing better electric cars even more.
Or were you arguing that there's no improvement left to be made?
The fact that GM pulled them because they weren't able to make a profit shows either that the technology wasn't good enough because it wasn't cost effective or that GM is full of morons and they could have made it work, but they just didn't.
That said, I liked the EV1 too. One of my friends enjoyed leasing one very much and probably would have gone ahead and bought it if offered the chance.
But the technology in 1996 was already good enough.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1#Reaction
"GM believes that the electric car venture was not a failure, and that the EV1 was doomed when the expected breakthrough in battery technology did not take place within the anticipated timeline."
Looks like the technology *wasn't* good enough.
I think the poster you were replying to was referring to computers built about a decade before the Altair 8800 came out.
Oh, right, sorry about that. Put "public" in for both the username and password.
Heh, I was wondering why scoreboard showed they were having issues:
http://scoreboard.keynote.com/scoreboard/Main.aspx
*sigh*
So it wasn't just an outage.
Rejecting patches is a lot of work, especially given how many he has to reject.
Unless you're fine with people lobbing whatever they want into your kernel? :)
It includes a kernel that hasn't been released yet?
Wow!
>If your DB server is swapping, either you've
>misconfigured things, or some process has run away
>with your memory.
Or the kernel is operating properly and pre-emptively swapping out stuff your processes aren't using at all to use that space for increased things like, file caches which, if your database is doing any disk I/O, can be quite useful.
>(basically put a process is killed when it
>requests a resource that is not available and that
>is not necessarily the process that is hogging the
>resource to begin with)
That's not true at all, please read oom_killer.c in the kernel source code before continuing to make statements about a piece of code you seem to never have read. (Or if you read it before, you haven't kept up to date...)
The oom_killer scores processes using a metric that takes into account usage and generally will kill the task using the most resources. It does not kill tasks based on which task most recently requests it unless you explicitly configure out the standard oom_killer.
And that edit could get picked up by tons of people and spread around, even if it's not accurate.[citation needed]
Let's see:
1) Microsoft has a history of offering things to people to use silverlight.
2) Microsoft is sponsoring things at the DNC this year (did you notice the Microsoft swag around various people's necks?)
3) The DNC is full of events where businesses spend money to make themselves look good, advertise their business or generally curry favor.
So in what world do you live in that the comment that silverlight might be being used because Microsoft contributed something is just "baseless tin-foil hat speculation"?
To me it just seems like a reasonable explanation. The next question is whether or not that's unethical. That is a different topic.
Going to be brief here because I need to focus on writing some software tonight... sorry, normally I'd love to continue our conversation.
First, Fairtax *is* a sales tax: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairtax
Second, I was aware of the history of the name changes and the case, I was making a joke when I said "whatever it's called this week."
Third, it's not me that argues the commerce clauses gives them that ability, it was the majority of SCOTUS that did. I simply am telling you that this means there is a constitutional basis. I happen to agree that the commerce clause *ought* to be interpreted broadly. But I'm also glad there's people that don't agree and there's judges on that particular bench that *also* don't agree. This will keep things somewhat sensible.
But to say there's no constitutional basis is wrong. The court has said there is, until that ruling gets overturned, there is constitutional basis. That's how precedent works.
It is not as you say a situation where "Some may argue, as you do, the interstate commerce clause may give the authority to the federal government" but rather the authority *is* given to the federal government by this type of precedent, whether or not you agree with it or not.
It's no longer an argument after it's been ruled on. Even if there was a strong dissenting opinion.
I very much understand where you're coming from and I agree that Marbury v. Madison was a power grab.
But I think overall it wasn't a terrible result. I actually like the ruling and it's one of those rare power grabs where I think "wow, that was actually really devious and really clever!" Someone did need to become the arbiter and I think that SCOTUS is the most appropriate body to accomplish that task. I don't have to agree with all their rulings to recognize that overall while at some points they've been incredible annoying and have eroded some important protections, at the end of the day, they usually get it right on most issues.
That's more than I can say about most branches of government.
So yes. I very much see where you're coming from and do appreciate your skepticism and do recognize that this is an awesome power that they have. But unlike you, I have a little faith in the SCOTUS as a body despite some of their recent performances and my dissatisfaction with the current people that happen to be sitting on the bench. (DC v. Heller *was* very much too close.)
I also don't think the founders meant our constitution to be interpreted strictly and don't oppose a little flexibility where it's merited. While I do hate it when it's the wrong kind of flexibility. (and it so often is these days) I don't when it's the right kind. I think having the flexibility for the right kind of laws is more important than risking a lack of flexibility for the wrong ones.
The question of "what is beyond their authority" is a troubling one. But taken to the extreme, any branch has too much authority if it's singularly and effectively organized and hell bent on overriding the other two. Fortunately, with two of our three branches, this situation is rare to occur and very hard to produce. Overall, the disagreement, bickering and lack of a unified view in SCOTUS and the legislature is precisely what ensures that we don't fall into a situation where our government runs too wild.
Over the last 8 years, we've certainly seen what happens when one of the branches doesn't have enough disagreement within itself.
As for the peer pressure argument, I think you have me for the wrong type of fellow if you think that's why I wrote my post. Anyone who knows me who read that someone on the Internet thought I was being too polite for fear of what other people would think would be very much amused.
I think you'd find on quite a range of issues, you and I would agree more often than you might think, given this particular conversation.
>As for others, what others are those?
You asked for one place and one's all that's needed. Stop being silly. There's certainly at least a constitutional argument for Obama's health plan it under the basis of the commerce clause and if it does end up being litigated, then we're likely to see this argument settled in a manner which is authoritative. The case you mentioned would very much reinforce the idea that the commerce clause would apply. Given the precedent, SCOTUS might not even take up a challenge against a national health plan on constitutional grounds.
Your implication that Obama is ignorant of constitutional law is without merit.
As for Gonzales v. Raich (or whatever it's called this week) I was frankly hoping the controlled substances act would be overturned, but I think the decision, legally, was the correct one.
>Oh and you're the idiot for saying they are.
I don't think the income tax system is good and personally would prefer the fairtax system, but if you think it isn't constitutional, then yes, to me that's the thinking of an idiot. There's very clear rulings on this. Why would I be an idiot for calling someone an idiot when they obliviously don't know how to read a SCOTUS ruling?
I made nothing binding upon you, I explicitly pointed out that if you thought Marbury v. Madison was SCOTUS overstepping it's authority: "I suggest you file a suit to challenge it or petition congress to rectify the situation."
I'm glad to hear you've done exactly that. I hope your petition is given fair and just consideration.
(Oh, I am very much disappointed in some of SCOTUS's rulings, but I do think they should be authorized to make them. It is that which is the difference between between us.)
I'm very well aware of the meaning of Necessary and Proper. I'm also very well aware that SCOTUS has significantly permitted the expansion of that and the commerce clause to help recognize the growth of the responsibility that citizens have in a strong central government.
It's not *my* interpretation that matters here, nor is it yours. It's the interpretation of the Supreme Court of the United States that matters, and last I checked, they were fairly comfortable with taking a wide view of how those clauses might be interpreted.
Or do you just not accept the authority of SCOTUS to make those legal determinations? Because that's what all of these arguments boil down to.
Do you accept the judgment of the Supreme Court and the doctrine of judicial review or not?
I for one though Marbury v. Madison was a brilliant ruling. If you don't, I suggest you file a suit to challenge it or petition congress to rectify the situation.
> The Constituition is a remarkably well written
> document that should be understandable by anyone
> with a basic compentecy in English.
This appears to be the only point of agreement among the two of us.
>Can you show me where the USA Constitution
>authorizes Obama's health care plan?
Yes, necessary and proper and the commerce clause among others. Naturally he won't be able to do it without the legislature, but the legislature has the power.
Do you know why the legislature has that power? Because the constitution says that the Supreme Court gets to interpret the law, not you, not Obama and not some random congresscritter from Texas.
If they say it's cool, then it is.
Are you one of those idiots who think the income tax isn't valid too?
Not really. If you even glanced at the size of the integer involved you'd quickly see the answer is "too large." This isn't even in the range of "throw more hardware at it."
Which I think, was my point. :)
Brute forcing 3DES is not effective at this point in time.
Unless you're talking about DES, in which case you can get your own little box to do it for under 10,000 and it's entirely trivial.
Neither DES or 3DES are at a point where the problem of brute forcing them is interesting at the present time. DES because it's too easy and 3DES because it's too hard.
Anyways... :)
Well yes. Anyone who wasn't aware that the discussion we were having in this thread was an academic one that doesn't take into account a real threat model needs their brain checked.
You'll noticed I very clearly said "brute forcing" everywhere, not "breaking." Naturally cryptosystems are much easier to break than it is to brute force the underlying algorithms.
>You're probably right, but technically it's
>still wrong.
Actually if you refer to DES as DES is a scientific paper, no one will complain even a little bit. I don't know what technical definition you're using, but it doesn't exist in any of the main cryptographic research or scientific communities I've been exposed to.
I'm all for being pedantic, but let's be pedantic in a manner which also reflects the idea that sometimes meanings change you should use the proper meaning for the present date, not an archaic one.
DES is DES, 3DES is 3DES and Rijndael is AES.
This is all very well understood by anyone actually in the field. By "correcting" people who say DES and implying that 3DES is technically now known as DES because of a succession of FIPS from NIST, you're probably causing more harm than good.
Err.. no L2 cache in this type of specially built hardware. All done directly in hardware. COPACOBANA replicated it all in FPGAs for a few thousand dollars. You don't use generic cores of any sort for this type of thing GPU or not.
You have to remember that Deepcrack was a custom built ASIC specifically designed just for cracking DES as fast as possible. They clocked it as far as they could. These things aren't like normal processors.
Anyways, yes, even if we could brute-force DES in under a second, brute forcing 3DES would still take centuries.
>3des is not vulnerable but computer power has
>passed the point on which an individual could
>mount an actual attack.
I believe that would likely be DES you're referring to, not 3DES.
Whether the NSA can attack 3DES or not is an entirely different matter. But an individual? Not yet. 3DES is about 112 bits of key if you account for meet in the middle.
DES is ~56 bits and can be cracked in hours with special purpose hardware.
n Hours * 2^(112-56) = 72057594037927936n hours.
So... I think it's out of reach for an individual at the moment. Even if we could break DES in minutes...