31W in standby, for just PC + LCD? I wonder if there was other stuff plugged into the same power strip that he was measuring, like cable modem, router, powered USB hub, powered speakers, etc. LCD monitors seem to vary more than PCs but most are around 1W in standby. On the other hand, my big LCD TV (with built-in HD tuner) does draw something like 45W in standby so maybe he has some crazy inefficient TV+monitor like that. (I use a smart power strip to control that monster.)
I've never seen a PC draw more than 5W in S4 or S5. Come to think of it, I've never even seen more than 5W in S3. And I've got some crappy cheap inefficient PSUs here. 10W would have to include a monitor in standby. 75W? that's just unbelievable.
There are other kinds of property besides land! For instance I own the chair I'm sitting on, and don't have to pay anybody any taxes to retain that ownership.
I don't know how it is where you are, but physical property here in the US is taxed apart from the income you earn from that [property].
Careful there, you're equivocating between "property" and "real estate" (or land). Simple ownership of physical items in general is not taxed anywhere in the United States, as far as I know.
There appear to be more than two people involved in the argument. Anyway, the reason for the argument was Potor's claim that mathematics is a process of discovery while art is a process of creation, and that these two processes are inherently different. The argument may well be tangential to the issue of copyright, but the claim itself is certainly questionable in a purely philosophical sense.
Theoretical disputes over the exact definition of what should be covered by copyright/patents are irrelevant; allowing math to be patented would do more harm than good; allowing art to be copyrighted (at least, for a sane duration, like 20 years) does more good than harm.
How can you possibly know this without some idea of what distinguishes one intellectual endeavor (math) from another (art)? Whatever that idea is, it must be subject to theoretical dispute, unless you prefer that such rules simply be dictated by some unquestionable authority.
you have to trust the experts when they say "it's new and it's bad"
OK... How bad? "Real bad" doesn't really help me at all. To make an informed decision I need to know four things:
Cost of patching
Cost of failure due to not patching
Probability of failure due to not patching
Probability of failure in spite of patching
#1 is making my firewall basically wide open to UDP. #2 is cache poisoning. Without knowing more about Kaminsky's attack, I can't really make any useful guesses about #3 and #4.
For now I've allocated a sub-range of non-privileged UDP ports that I can guarantee won't be used by other processes, and relaxed the firewall to allow BIND to use those ports. According to the dig test posted in TFA's comment section my server's security is still "POOR", so apparently 8000 ports (~13 bits of entropy) isn't enough. According to Kaminsky and Vixie 64000 ports (~16 bits) would be enough. WTF? Enough for what? I need a better explanation of what's really going on here before I can feel like I'm making an improvement by opening up the UDP firewall completely.
Still not knowing anything I get the feeling (and I'd rather not have to rely on vague feelings or opaque assurances) that there must be a way to detect and mitigate cache poisoning attacks, rather than just increasing the cost of a brute-force attack by factor of some small power of two through a slight increase in unpredictability.
WW2 tactics mentioned by parent would fly in today's government? I mean... we're at WAR
Uh... we were also at WAR during WW2.
It's rather tautologous that the TLAs that have secretly cracked our strong encryption algorithms are pretty good at keeping secrets. The contrapositive is left as an exercise to the reader.
BTW, didn't a McCain advisor say that his campaign would be helped by a terrorist attack? A conspiracy theorist (you know, the kind who would suppose that government TLAs have cracked strong encryption algorithms) might expect a certain type of administration (i.e. warriors on terr') to consider loss of an American city not only an acceptable cost, but actually a benefit, allowing them to ratchet up security levels several notches tighter.
I gotta admit, I love the conspiracy theories. They're my favorite kind of fiction.
seeing how long it will take for various three lettered agencies to recover the data will illuminate a previously dark room containing the question, "How safe is your data really?"
During World War II, the Allies allowed convoys to be attacked, ships sunk, people killed, in order not to reveal to the Germans that their codes had been broken. The TLAs would probably sacrifice all of San Francisco to keep their ability to crack AES keys a secret.
It's even easier to tell whether TrueCrypt is installed by checking for a TrueCrypt installation. The software doesn't exactly hide itself. A big block of noise only indicates that at some point in the past there have been some encrypted data on the drive, or some efficiently encoded data you can't recognize (e.g. some obscure video codec).
I like to think that by driving a very light vehicle I'm keeping other people safer in a collision. That probably makes me a bad American, valuing the lives of others as much as my own.
I'm an <insert math credentials> and I found "average live median age" amusing too. It must be some sort of context-specific jargon; to me it looks like a rather silly string of words. It makes me wonder about the average dead minimum age.
vote for who you would actually like to run the country.
Whoa, are we lining up to pledge allegiance to the new king? I thought we were voting to choose a president. The president is supposed to run one branch of the government, not the entire country. Remember, unless you work for some federal agency the president is not your boss -- as a civilian you outrank him and he is your employee.
What would be really interesting is if representatives could not recieve renumeration for their efforts, but instead had to pay from their own pockets traveling/food/etc.
So when you get elected and go to serve your term in Congress, you catch a bus to DC and stay in some cheap hotel/apartment. Or maybe you get a ride with a friend who happens to be going that way, and stay at the house of some other friend who happens to have a spare bedroom. And maybe that ride happens to be in a private jet and the spare bedroom is in an unoccupied (but nicely furnished) house in the best part of town. And you always have lunch with friends (who always seem to pick up the tab) and somebody always invites you over for dinner.... You often chat with your friends over lunch or dinner, or maybe at the golf course, and they don't exactly ask for favors but they do present some really compelling arguments for or against some public policy in which they've taken an interest. They're eloquent and erudite and really seem to have thought about this stuff a lot, so at some level you trust their judgment and it helps form your impression of the zeitgeist. It sure is nice to have so many smart, successful, and generous friends! Where were they before you got elected to Congress? Oh, that's right, they were helping out (on a strictly volunteer basis, as friends) with your campaign.
Re:RAID5 is stupid, RAID 10 or no RAID
on
What NAS To Buy?
·
· Score: 1
I've been using a variety of Linux software RAID configurations for a few years now, and of the half-dozen or so drive failures I've seen, every single one has taken out the entire array -- if not immediately then soon, before the array could be maintained. Let me reiterate: Every single time. Drive hardware failures really seem to confuse the Linux controller drivers, or the controllers themselves, or the RAID drivers, I don't know exactly what. SCSI, SATA, IDE, they all seem to suffer the same fate with slightly different symptoms. (Yes, these were all redundant arrays, either RAID-1 or RAID-5.) The array failures so far have all been transient -- the array becomes inaccessible on a single-drive failure but no data are lost. I haven't seen any actual multiple-drive failures yet (aside from catastrophe that took out every drive in the array -- no RAID could have protected against that).
I'm still using RAID-5 for high-capacity filesystems, but I've completely given up on using RAID-1 for high availability. For small-capacity filesystems I just keep live rsync backups and tolerate a full system maintenance event (and a little data loss) on drive failure.
Not that Verizon et al. will care because they can always relocate to Europe or China if need be.
???
How the heck can Verizon relocate to Europe or China? They have immense investment in immobile physical infrastructure. Moving headquarters out of the country doesn't protect the parts of the business still operating in the US.
At 1 Earth atm on Venus, it's only ~14C hotter than blackbody calculations predict (69C vs 55C), while Earth (at 1 Earth atm) is only ~9C hotter than blackbody calculations predict (15C vs 6C).
Sorry, I can't make any sense of this at all. What are you trying to say? Where do those numbers come from?
That's a very good question. I've been trying to come up with a workable economic model for petroleum depletion for many years now, and it still eludes me. The only thing I know for sure is that the high-quality near-surface stuff is going to run out eventually, and our current industrial economic model can't go on without it (or some equivalent replacement, which does not as yet seem to exist). Waiting until it really has effectively run out and only then starting to think about how we're going to get by without it, well, that'll be a huge fucking disaster. Whether the crisis is imminent or not we have to think and act as though it is, in order to muster the political and economic will to do anything about it while it's still relatively easy (i.e. while the oil is still flowing).
So I guess the short answer is that the energy crisis will probably become deadly sooner than the climate crisis (if the latter even exists) but since the potential climate crisis gives us yet another good reason to get away from fossil carbon, there's no point in ignoring it.
If cheap petroleum and coal production could somehow go on forever, then climate change would be even more of a concern, since there would be no effective limit to how much we could change the atmosphere. Ultimately no matter what our energy source is we're going to have to stop increasing consumption someday, lest we literally melt the entire planet. (Obviously we'll run into other heat-related problems long before that happens.)
Maybe I'm weird, but I've always taken the thousand-year view because that's how long I intend to live. Most people seem to look ahead only ten or twenty years. Of course even with a good long term plan we still need to figure out how to get through the next couple of "interesting" decades. I believe economic collapse (and the ensuing political chaos), famine (as industrial agriculture falters), and global resource wars are going to be the big killers.
I hope and pray I'm wrong about all this, and that somehow the petroleum can flow and burn at increasing rates forever with no long term effect on the global climate. That would make everyone's lives so much easier! Unfortunately hoping and praying aren't enough, and we have to prepare for the worst. I do not believe disaster is inevitable; I believe if we put as much brainpower and dermination as possible into the problem as soon as possible we might be able to get by with minimal losses. Increasing petroleum production is not the answer -- it will only slightly reduce the energy crisis in the very short term, while exacerbating the climate crisis. Better to leave the oil in the ground in case future generations (and we Methuselah-wannabes) need it for something else.
Funny how the rabid deniers all post anonymously. Dude, you're dealing with the Evil Global Warming Religious Conspiracy here -- you think not logging in is going to protect you? We have infiltrated all the news media, including Slashdot! Our agents have already tracked you down, and BLACK HELICOPTERS running on SATANIC BIOFUELS are already on the way to your back woods compound to punish you for your BLASPHEMY! This is your last chance to REPENT!
This isn't about guaranteeing everybody eternal life with no possibility of dying, ever; it's about getting rid of the feebleness and decrepitude that comes with advanced age. 80 years of youthful vigor followed by mandatory euthanasia would certainly be preferable to what we have now.
We're taking billions of tons of carbon out of the ground and putting it into the atmosphere. Are you so confident that this will have no effect on climate that you're willing to bet billions of lives on it? That seems crazy to me. Climatologists have actually done the math and generally agree that the risk is significant. What is the downside in proactively reducing fossil fuel consumption? We're going to have to reduce fossil fuel consumption eventually anyway (as the high-quality near-surface stuff runs out) so getting started early and possibly avoiding an immense global disaster seems only prudent.
Kidding? More like mocking. AC's comment was silly. Flattening the global DNS to make URLs easier to type is the wrong approach -- such matters are better handled in web browser software.
Slashdot Mirror
31W in standby, for just PC + LCD? I wonder if there was other stuff plugged into the same power strip that he was measuring, like cable modem, router, powered USB hub, powered speakers, etc. LCD monitors seem to vary more than PCs but most are around 1W in standby. On the other hand, my big LCD TV (with built-in HD tuner) does draw something like 45W in standby so maybe he has some crazy inefficient TV+monitor like that. (I use a smart power strip to control that monster.)
I've never seen a PC draw more than 5W in S4 or S5. Come to think of it, I've never even seen more than 5W in S3. And I've got some crappy cheap inefficient PSUs here. 10W would have to include a monitor in standby. 75W? that's just unbelievable.
There are other kinds of property besides land! For instance I own the chair I'm sitting on, and don't have to pay anybody any taxes to retain that ownership.
Careful there, you're equivocating between "property" and "real estate" (or land). Simple ownership of physical items in general is not taxed anywhere in the United States, as far as I know.
There appear to be more than two people involved in the argument. Anyway, the reason for the argument was Potor's claim that mathematics is a process of discovery while art is a process of creation, and that these two processes are inherently different. The argument may well be tangential to the issue of copyright, but the claim itself is certainly questionable in a purely philosophical sense.
How can you possibly know this without some idea of what distinguishes one intellectual endeavor (math) from another (art)? Whatever that idea is, it must be subject to theoretical dispute, unless you prefer that such rules simply be dictated by some unquestionable authority.
OK... How bad? "Real bad" doesn't really help me at all. To make an informed decision I need to know four things:
#1 is making my firewall basically wide open to UDP. #2 is cache poisoning. Without knowing more about Kaminsky's attack, I can't really make any useful guesses about #3 and #4.
For now I've allocated a sub-range of non-privileged UDP ports that I can guarantee won't be used by other processes, and relaxed the firewall to allow BIND to use those ports. According to the dig test posted in TFA's comment section my server's security is still "POOR", so apparently 8000 ports (~13 bits of entropy) isn't enough. According to Kaminsky and Vixie 64000 ports (~16 bits) would be enough. WTF? Enough for what? I need a better explanation of what's really going on here before I can feel like I'm making an improvement by opening up the UDP firewall completely.
Still not knowing anything I get the feeling (and I'd rather not have to rely on vague feelings or opaque assurances) that there must be a way to detect and mitigate cache poisoning attacks, rather than just increasing the cost of a brute-force attack by factor of some small power of two through a slight increase in unpredictability.
Uh... we were also at WAR during WW2.
It's rather tautologous that the TLAs that have secretly cracked our strong encryption algorithms are pretty good at keeping secrets. The contrapositive is left as an exercise to the reader.
BTW, didn't a McCain advisor say that his campaign would be helped by a terrorist attack? A conspiracy theorist (you know, the kind who would suppose that government TLAs have cracked strong encryption algorithms) might expect a certain type of administration (i.e. warriors on terr') to consider loss of an American city not only an acceptable cost, but actually a benefit, allowing them to ratchet up security levels several notches tighter.
I gotta admit, I love the conspiracy theories. They're my favorite kind of fiction.
During World War II, the Allies allowed convoys to be attacked, ships sunk, people killed, in order not to reveal to the Germans that their codes had been broken. The TLAs would probably sacrifice all of San Francisco to keep their ability to crack AES keys a secret.
Exactly which law would that be?
Nope. Browser cookie.
It's even easier to tell whether TrueCrypt is installed by checking for a TrueCrypt installation. The software doesn't exactly hide itself. A big block of noise only indicates that at some point in the past there have been some encrypted data on the drive, or some efficiently encoded data you can't recognize (e.g. some obscure video codec).
Such deals rarely involve large amounts of cash, so the problem remains.
Yeah, a fully loaded 6510 puts out an awesome amount of heat. Not.
I like to think that by driving a very light vehicle I'm keeping other people safer in a collision. That probably makes me a bad American, valuing the lives of others as much as my own.
He's trolling for applied math groupies.
I'm an <insert math credentials> and I found "average live median age" amusing too. It must be some sort of context-specific jargon; to me it looks like a rather silly string of words. It makes me wonder about the average dead minimum age.
Whoa, are we lining up to pledge allegiance to the new king? I thought we were voting to choose a president. The president is supposed to run one branch of the government, not the entire country. Remember, unless you work for some federal agency the president is not your boss -- as a civilian you outrank him and he is your employee.
So when you get elected and go to serve your term in Congress, you catch a bus to DC and stay in some cheap hotel/apartment. Or maybe you get a ride with a friend who happens to be going that way, and stay at the house of some other friend who happens to have a spare bedroom. And maybe that ride happens to be in a private jet and the spare bedroom is in an unoccupied (but nicely furnished) house in the best part of town. And you always have lunch with friends (who always seem to pick up the tab) and somebody always invites you over for dinner.... You often chat with your friends over lunch or dinner, or maybe at the golf course, and they don't exactly ask for favors but they do present some really compelling arguments for or against some public policy in which they've taken an interest. They're eloquent and erudite and really seem to have thought about this stuff a lot, so at some level you trust their judgment and it helps form your impression of the zeitgeist. It sure is nice to have so many smart, successful, and generous friends! Where were they before you got elected to Congress? Oh, that's right, they were helping out (on a strictly volunteer basis, as friends) with your campaign.
I've been using a variety of Linux software RAID configurations for a few years now, and of the half-dozen or so drive failures I've seen, every single one has taken out the entire array -- if not immediately then soon, before the array could be maintained. Let me reiterate: Every single time. Drive hardware failures really seem to confuse the Linux controller drivers, or the controllers themselves, or the RAID drivers, I don't know exactly what. SCSI, SATA, IDE, they all seem to suffer the same fate with slightly different symptoms. (Yes, these were all redundant arrays, either RAID-1 or RAID-5.) The array failures so far have all been transient -- the array becomes inaccessible on a single-drive failure but no data are lost. I haven't seen any actual multiple-drive failures yet (aside from catastrophe that took out every drive in the array -- no RAID could have protected against that).
I'm still using RAID-5 for high-capacity filesystems, but I've completely given up on using RAID-1 for high availability. For small-capacity filesystems I just keep live rsync backups and tolerate a full system maintenance event (and a little data loss) on drive failure.
???
How the heck can Verizon relocate to Europe or China? They have immense investment in immobile physical infrastructure. Moving headquarters out of the country doesn't protect the parts of the business still operating in the US.
Sorry, I can't make any sense of this at all. What are you trying to say? Where do those numbers come from?
That's a very good question. I've been trying to come up with a workable economic model for petroleum depletion for many years now, and it still eludes me. The only thing I know for sure is that the high-quality near-surface stuff is going to run out eventually, and our current industrial economic model can't go on without it (or some equivalent replacement, which does not as yet seem to exist). Waiting until it really has effectively run out and only then starting to think about how we're going to get by without it, well, that'll be a huge fucking disaster. Whether the crisis is imminent or not we have to think and act as though it is, in order to muster the political and economic will to do anything about it while it's still relatively easy (i.e. while the oil is still flowing).
So I guess the short answer is that the energy crisis will probably become deadly sooner than the climate crisis (if the latter even exists) but since the potential climate crisis gives us yet another good reason to get away from fossil carbon, there's no point in ignoring it.
If cheap petroleum and coal production could somehow go on forever, then climate change would be even more of a concern, since there would be no effective limit to how much we could change the atmosphere. Ultimately no matter what our energy source is we're going to have to stop increasing consumption someday, lest we literally melt the entire planet. (Obviously we'll run into other heat-related problems long before that happens.)
Maybe I'm weird, but I've always taken the thousand-year view because that's how long I intend to live. Most people seem to look ahead only ten or twenty years. Of course even with a good long term plan we still need to figure out how to get through the next couple of "interesting" decades. I believe economic collapse (and the ensuing political chaos), famine (as industrial agriculture falters), and global resource wars are going to be the big killers.
I hope and pray I'm wrong about all this, and that somehow the petroleum can flow and burn at increasing rates forever with no long term effect on the global climate. That would make everyone's lives so much easier! Unfortunately hoping and praying aren't enough, and we have to prepare for the worst. I do not believe disaster is inevitable; I believe if we put as much brainpower and dermination as possible into the problem as soon as possible we might be able to get by with minimal losses. Increasing petroleum production is not the answer -- it will only slightly reduce the energy crisis in the very short term, while exacerbating the climate crisis. Better to leave the oil in the ground in case future generations (and we Methuselah-wannabes) need it for something else.
Funny how the rabid deniers all post anonymously. Dude, you're dealing with the Evil Global Warming Religious Conspiracy here -- you think not logging in is going to protect you? We have infiltrated all the news media, including Slashdot! Our agents have already tracked you down, and BLACK HELICOPTERS running on SATANIC BIOFUELS are already on the way to your back woods compound to punish you for your BLASPHEMY! This is your last chance to REPENT!
<eyeroll>
This isn't about guaranteeing everybody eternal life with no possibility of dying, ever; it's about getting rid of the feebleness and decrepitude that comes with advanced age. 80 years of youthful vigor followed by mandatory euthanasia would certainly be preferable to what we have now.
We're taking billions of tons of carbon out of the ground and putting it into the atmosphere. Are you so confident that this will have no effect on climate that you're willing to bet billions of lives on it? That seems crazy to me. Climatologists have actually done the math and generally agree that the risk is significant. What is the downside in proactively reducing fossil fuel consumption? We're going to have to reduce fossil fuel consumption eventually anyway (as the high-quality near-surface stuff runs out) so getting started early and possibly avoiding an immense global disaster seems only prudent.
Kidding? More like mocking. AC's comment was silly. Flattening the global DNS to make URLs easier to type is the wrong approach -- such matters are better handled in web browser software.