You're at $2M for hardware that won't run reliably for 20 straight years. Add to that the cost of engineer time doing the rearchitecture--across two years? How many people are involved, and what's their time per week? How often will you replace your servers, versus the mainframes?
I've seen situations where trying to replace a mainframe with a server ended in bitter failure and hundreds of thousands of dollars of expense. We're talking batch processing millions of records on the Mainframe in a few minutes, while a server managed 30,000 in a day. Sometimes, the mainframe just has better hardware.
Mainframes are designed to take hardware and software upgrades without interrupting software processes. If we ever implemented Linux's user space APIs on Minix 3 (e.g. kevent, iptables), we could run udev, dbus, and other Linux-specific subsystems on a microkernel; it would be similar to a mainframe, in that you could upgrade the core OS without rebooting, yet dissimilar, in that it wouldn't be a virtualized cluster like OpenMOSIX in which the applications move onto another running OS when you want to reboot one VM.
Security policies on the mainframe are different than PC, too. High security means each application is so isolated as to effectively run in its own VM, from a practical standpoint. From a technical standpoint, the OS is just so good at confining applications to what they're allowed to do (and those privileges are so well-defined) that it achieves similar isolation to running in separate VMs. This drastically reduces down time. Some effort has gone into Linux on the GrSecurity side to apply kernel write-execute separation; and, again, Minix 3 or a similar OS could create strict memory policies to prevent drivers from accessing kernel RAM not related to the driver and the process invoking it; this plus process groups and containers (as in Linux) and mandatory access control policies would come close, if not parity, a mainframe.
I have enough understanding to know what must be done to create something, but not how. If I knew how, I'd have long ago added services to Minix 3 to run Linux desktop subsystems for systemd, udev, and dbus; created a policy manager which can define application access policies by contexts, user, and the user's container policy (e.g. Pidgin can access the user's configured $HOME/.pidgin/ and $HOME/download/pidgin/ for read-write, etc.); and modified some of the interfaces to store data relevant only to specific processes in separate pages, and only map those pages in the appropriate context, so that a bug writing all over memory would have limited-scope damage even in kernel (this is hardly ever an issue in Minix to start with). But nay.
The correct technology for education is thousands of years old.
The ancients--the greeks and romans--didn't use a lot of writing. It was expensive and bulky. Wax tablets were huge, papyrus was costly. You'd hardly have books; if you saw a scroll or codex, it was probably for the first and last time. If you saw a codex twice, there wasn't an index to reference; you had to know what was in it, flip to a random page, and say, "Oh, no, the material I need to reference is before this", then flip backwards.
Mnemonics techniques were a primary driver in the lives of the ancients. Their lives revolved around what they knew; what they knew revolved around what they could remember. They didn't have the luxury of remembering a topic existed and throwing a keyword into Google; they didn't even have the luxury of expansive libraries in every town. Libraries were places of pilgrimage: There may be one or two copies of a book in the world, and so you had to go to the library of a certain town to read it. The first and most important things the ancients learned was how to remember.
In modern days, we don't even teach study techniques. SQ3R and SQW3R, the most basic techniques, are powerful; so powerful that modern methods are just SQ3R and SQW3R with different names (PQRST is Preview, Question, Read, Self-recite, Test rather than Survey, Question, Read, Recite, Review). Teachers incite small students to "take notes" and "study", without explaining what "study" entails; worse, the entire point of studying is to remember, yet memorization is considered a bad strategy in learning. The focus on "understanding" without first "knowing" knee-caps any effort to bring mnemonics into schools.
We're hell-bent on new technology and new methods, on progressive movements over regressive. While Japan turns second-grade students into human calculators with the Soroban--an ancient mechanical computer known as an abacus--the rest of the world feeds us blunt paper mathematics and teaches us to use TI-83 calculators and Excel spreadsheets as soon as we get to Algebra. Educators have not been so bold as to scrub all visual imagery from early education; yet they are resistant to using visualization, song, and rhyme beyond the most early years, and absolutely refuse to teach students to bolster their own memories with such techniques. The ways of the past are thrown by the wayside in favor of new ideas.
What poor, starving children most require, in third-world countries and in the ghettos of developed nations alike, is an education system; we cannot solve the education problem by throwing laptops at bush Africa or gangland America. We don't need specialized education systems, tools, and techniques for the poor or the retarded, either; those highly-beneficial methods which allow even the brain damaged to learn often make learning easier for any student. When such methods are found beneficial in both, the subgroup which is incapable--by class status or by mental development--of learning in the broader classroom atmosphere shrinks, and some of the disadvantaged can place directly in general population; this works wonders for social and psychological development. The last thing they need is expensive hardware and software pretending to help.
I really want to run on the education platform one day.
That doesn't hold in the long term. In the long term, one small business would trounce the ginormous, too-big-to-fail firms by doing what I just said. They would have access to lower-cost labor by bringing in and training entrants. Even if their top-tier laborers left, or required high retaining salaries, the mid-tier and low-tier laborers would give the business significantly greater agility in achieving more demanding business goals. They would rocket up past the dinosaur competition and take their place at the top of the market.
The moment anyone realized this was happening, they'd all start doing it. If they're too slow, they get crushed by the businesses who take the initiative. It's always been that way: anything that gives you an edge over other businesses gets taken up by everyone.
OCZ guarantees over 100TB of write cycles before failure on some of their basic performance drives. Their cheap drives guarantee about 40TB (20GB/day for 5 years), and the model that costs $10 more for 120GB guarantees 50GB/day for 5 years.
Please keep going with this thought. I cannot get people to listen to me. For years I have tried, and nobody understands why we need to cut off the entire universal college initiative.
The government needs to focus on primary and secondary education, and stop after high school.
The market would fix it. If the Government backed out of all universal post-secondary education initiatives, businesses would suffer due to lack of skilled labor. The most profitable course of action would be to hire high school graduates, pay them entry-level salary (like $30k unskilled shitwork salary, or minimum wage), pay for their education, and build a work force. Shift shitwork from your $80k skilled employees to your $30k entrants, gradually increasing complexity as their skill increases, to reduce the cost of that work.
When businesses have a strategy, they have a rough understanding of what employees they need and how many they need. This is more reliable and lower-risk than an individual trying to estimate the whole of the market, including how many other individuals will go to college to try to capitalize on the market opportunity they're speculating on. That means businesses would waste less money creating unemployable skilled laborers than individuals do.
The cost of actually sending people to school shifts onto the businesses; but the costs of picking through a great labor shortage is higher, since you wind up with entry-level programmers and graphics designers and accountants taking $250,000/year salaries when you really just want to pay them $50k. When they're scarce because it costs businesses money to hand-make their own workforce, they gain only enough bargaining power to negotiate up to $80k or so. When they're plentiful due to the state paying for college, you pay them $50k.
No matter how many times I explain this, nobody gets it. Sometimes, people stare, shake, concede that it kind of makes sense, and then immediately point out that we're giving free college to individuals and so taking it away must be taking something away from individuals. People can't disconnect that: when you give a physical object to a person, they assume you're giving that person something; in this case, we're giving physical objects to people to enrich businesses and make people poor. There's no good analogy, because it's not just the recipients who are made poor; it's the entire class of people who could be recipients. It's not like I can say we're giving you a slave collar or something, because it's not that discrete. That makes it really hard to understand what's actually happening here, even when it's explained clearly.
I very much doubt that. If you're going to spend that amount of money on sending it to Mars, you don't skimp on off-the-shelf technology that costs a few hundred bucks.
Putting a high-grade SLC 10,000,000 write cycle NAND bank into a rover intended to run for 90 days and do 1-2 writes per day would be extreme gold plating.
Quality is the degree to which a deliverable satisfies requirements. NASA required something that would reliably last for 90 days under their workload; the highest-quality device would be the least-expensive device which satisfies this (along with the constraints of power usage, weight, and so on). MLC with 200 write-erase cycles would barely satisfy this; but you won't find MLC with durability under 5,000 cycle. The correct selection, the one which represents an optimal decision, would be the low-end MLC with 5,000 write-erase cycles.
Radiation hardening of the NAND flash may be irrelevant due to packaging or Martian terrestrial radiation: the NAND may be inside a shielded casing, or it may just not be subject to as much background radiation on Mars as in space.
Harsh Martian environment likely has zero impact on the NAND: it's in a sealed case, and isn't being subjected to dust storms, rain, snow, flash flooding, insect infestation, and the like.
Actually, the amount of NAND in Opportunity is 256MB, which isn't a lot. RAM is only 128MB; NAND is routinely given a full wipe and rewrite. Given it was only meant to last for 90 days, it's probably a low-grade MLC with under 5000 erase cycles reliability.
By contrast, a desktop SSD of 32-256GB will see a daily write cycle of under a gigabyte per day. The documents, cache, e-mails, and updates per day total very little--hundreds of megabytes, at best--for most workloads, up to and including intensive workloads such as 3D modeling and multi-layer 2D image editing, which produce massive work sets but only make minor changes to them. Large workloads include video editing, which does write multi-gigabyte files out on each large render operation (which may be frequent in some workflows).
System drive SSDs see small workloads even when used as a swap device: swap offloads a lot of stale memory from RAM, which is either hardly ever used, never written to, or simply stale. The brk() area can have fragmented holes too small to take new allocations, and so may page out entirely unused RAM to disk; much RAM (such as GUI elements, textures, models, and audio assets) contains load-once data that's written to disk when swapped, and then only read later, such that it's left on swap and evicted from RAM without writing out again when memory gets scarce. That means 2GB of swap might be 2GB of writes since boot time, plus maybe a hundred megabytes or less per day of continuous system run.
Finally, system drives also wear level internally. Writing to the same 1MB area over and over will spread the writes out: the controller will internally account for those blocks being erased and rewritten elsewhere, often by additive writing (writing without erasing) to avoid wearing the drive (e.g. you can have a used and erased map, in which anything erased or not used is free; you can then write to the used map and to the erased map, until you run out of free blocks and need to erase a newly used block, and thus need to mark all used-erased blocks free and mark no blocks as erased, costing one write-erase cycle even though you've written thousands of times). You'll get a full write-erase cycle every full data width write: even if you write to the same spot repeatedly, you only use one write-erase cycle writing 32GB to a 32GB drive, or 256GB to a 256GB drive.
Accounting for all this, the drives are quite long-lasting. For a 10,000 cycle drive, you'd have to write 320,000GB to a 32GB SSD or 2,560,000GB to a 256GB SSD to wear it out. That's 876 years at 1GB per day for a 32GB drive, or over 8 years if you're writing 100GB per day. For a 256GB drive, it's 7000 year-gigabytes, or 70 years if you're writing 100GB per day. Modern MLC NAND can survive 100,000 write-erase cycles before failure, so these lifetimes may be 10 times higher; high-end SLC drives can survive 10,000,000 write-erase cycles, and can back high-traffic SANs for decades.
They actually burn out less frequently than hard drives.
Yeah, uh, I'm going to laugh at all your stupid jew neighbors when interest rates go back where they belong at 7%-14%. I'm hoping closer to 14%. Why? The sale price of a house might drop from $430k to $110k, but the total cost of the house remains $500k, and the payment remains $1180; yet paying an extra $20 on your payment with a high interest rate knocks off a month and the cost of 90% of one month's payment from the total cost. That means a high-interest-rate market is a buyer's market, as the buyer can pay a small amount extra on their payments and reap huge gains in reduced total purchase cost; low-interest markets require double and triple payments to cut the interest cost down, and even then it's only 10% of the total cost instead of 60%.
I don't rely on the value of my home to not go down. I bought a house I could pay off in 3 years; I make $70k. I won't shed much of a tear if my house suddenly becomes worth $0.
Obviously the Mossad isn't that interested in you, or they'd use one of their unknown exploits to infect your PC via ad network. Maybe they'd impersonate a CA.
I'm actually referring to FMS and Klein's attack. Klein's improvement to FMS cracks WEP in 58 seconds by causing it to generate something like 100k or 1M packets. I didn't know about the new developments in 2013.
You obviously don't understand the RC4 break. It's based on reusing the same RC4 key for multiple sessions. This doesn't happen in practice: a 128- or 256-bit RC4 key is generated each time you connect to SSH; you're only vulnerable if the NONCE and IV used are related in a specific, mathematical way, and only if they have this relationship millions of times with the same key. You also have to know the sessions share the same key.
An attack on the SSL protocol using RC4 is mathematically impossible based on what we know about RC4 weaknesses.
It's kind of silly to wrap these common sense suggestions in the cloak of NSA surveillance. If you're on the radar of any major nation-state's signals intelligence agency you've got bigger problems than SSH. Any significant intelligence agency is apt to have the resources to gain physical access to your hardware without your knowledge, which is game over in any conceivable scenario.
A Microsoft engineer published that all computer security is silly. His insight follows:
My point is that security people need to get their priorities
straight. The “threat model” section of a security paper resembles
the script for a telenovela that was written by a paranoid
schizophrenic: there are elaborate narratives and grand conspiracy
theories, and there are heroes and villains with fantastic
(yet oddly constrained) powers that necessitate a grinding
battle of emotional and technical attrition.
In the real world,
threat models are much simpler (see Figure 1). Basically, you’re
either dealing with Mossad or not-Mossad. If your adversary is
not-Mossad, then you’ll probably be fine if you pick a good password
and don’t respond to emails from ChEaPestPAiNPi11s@
virus-basket.biz.ru. If your adversary is the Mossad, YOU’RE
GONNA DIE AND THERE’S NOTHING THAT YOU CAN DO
ABOUT IT.
The Mossad is not intimidated by the fact that you
employ https://./ If the Mossad wants your data, they’re going to
use a drone to replace your cellphone with a piece of uranium
that’s shaped like a cellphone, and when you die of tumors filled
with tumors, they’re going to hold a press conference and say
“It wasn’t us” as they wear t-shirts that say “IT WAS DEFINITELY
US,” and then they’re going to buy all of your stuff
at your estate sale so that they can directly look at the photos
of your vacation instead of reading your insipid emails about
them.
In summary, https:/// and two dollars will get you a bus
ticket to nowhere. Also, SANTA CLAUS ISN’T REAL. When it
rains, it pours.
Paragraphs added to make it not suck reading.
He suggests using strong passwords to keep your ex-gf from hacking your e-mail and publishing your Craigslist correspondence with the entire m4m section to your parents; and possibly magic amulets or changing your name and moving to a submarine to avoid the Mossad.
It's a good write-up, but he makes a number of technical and journalistic mistakes.
The first thing that stood out to me was his claiming RC4 is broken. RC4 is only broken in known, controllable situations with key reuse. SSH is immune to RC4 exploits because the RC4 key is randomly generated at each session--unlike WEP, where each packet is a brand new session and uses the same RC4 key. Even then, you need a specific mathematical relationship between the NONCE and the IV to produce a statistical anomaly detectable over about 10 million packets to expose 1 word of the key. RC4 has no theoretical weaknesses when used for SSL.
He fails to mention why CBC isn't used, although he rejects its use. ECB would be crap, and CTR is gold; an explanation of why CBC isn't viable would be nice.
The exploit mitigation in OpenBSD isn't as fantastic as some would like to believe. OpenBSD is about as secure as vanilla CentOS, and has been for a long time; they talk big, but they're just a below-average BSD flavor with less user-friendly than FreeBSD.
All children can attain the same level. They all have the same mental facilities. It's a matter of interest.
I don't get why this is so hard for people to understand. Do you see that big, buff, muscly jock who can bench press 450lb? Do you know why he's big and buff? Hint: He wasn't born that way. It's a matter of training and effort. You know what makes geniuses geniuses? Training and effort. In both cases, it's technique: you'll get stronger with much less effort by using a particular training structure, and you'll learn things with much less effort by using particular techniques.
Some of us have interests in breaking IQ tests, mental mathematics, memory competitions, or rapid learning. It's just normal people who decide we want to be geniuses one day, so go and do it. We all trade techniques and strategies; we even have psychologists studying how to improve this, which has lead to discoveries about synesthesia being an imitable behavior. Artists have known this forever: scientists use an electromagnetic pulse machine to shock and temporarily disable the left prefrontal temporal lobe, giving any normal human about 1 hour of virtuoso-level artistic ability (you become an instant musician or sculptor); when you first go into art school, they teach you mental techniques which FMRI has shown allow you to intentionally dull and disable that region of the brain, producing the same results by sheer force of will. This was all tied together by research on mentally handicapped savants, who are born with that region of the brain damaged; it has lead to great discoveries in how to force your brain to act certain ways.
You won't turn into Goku if you train really hard; but you can easily turn into Stephen Hawking. Minus the wheelchair.
People want digital circuitry to solve all things. Kids must be educated by computers? No, why? Because it's new, and technical, and thus better? Appeal to novelty.
There's entire schools of thought on how to educate kids. We have Waldorf education systems, which model a child's natural development and indicate that children shouldn't be given technology until age 6-7 (first grade), or even taught to read (I dissent on this), because they should be socializing; and then elementary school should focus a lot on physical experience and social interaction; and middle school more on hard facts. I believe in training base skills in the same way as the ancient Greeks, developing memory and mathematical skills by educating small children on how to use visualization, mind palaces, rhymes, acrostics, and so on as technical tools to retain and recall, as well as using the Japanese Soroban, Napir's Bones, and a number of procedural mathematical strategies to make basic arithmetic quick and simple. None of this says, "Throw computer programs at the problem".
Education is a technology, and it has a fixed platform. We are educating small children, who grow into large children. Everything from mnemonics techniques to the style of visuals and the methods of encouraging social interaction between students is an important educational technology. Computers are not an important educational technology; as with cars, computers are a tool we must learn to use.
Slashdot Mirror
So will America.
You're at $2M for hardware that won't run reliably for 20 straight years. Add to that the cost of engineer time doing the rearchitecture--across two years? How many people are involved, and what's their time per week? How often will you replace your servers, versus the mainframes?
I've seen situations where trying to replace a mainframe with a server ended in bitter failure and hundreds of thousands of dollars of expense. We're talking batch processing millions of records on the Mainframe in a few minutes, while a server managed 30,000 in a day. Sometimes, the mainframe just has better hardware.
Mainframes are designed to take hardware and software upgrades without interrupting software processes. If we ever implemented Linux's user space APIs on Minix 3 (e.g. kevent, iptables), we could run udev, dbus, and other Linux-specific subsystems on a microkernel; it would be similar to a mainframe, in that you could upgrade the core OS without rebooting, yet dissimilar, in that it wouldn't be a virtualized cluster like OpenMOSIX in which the applications move onto another running OS when you want to reboot one VM.
Security policies on the mainframe are different than PC, too. High security means each application is so isolated as to effectively run in its own VM, from a practical standpoint. From a technical standpoint, the OS is just so good at confining applications to what they're allowed to do (and those privileges are so well-defined) that it achieves similar isolation to running in separate VMs. This drastically reduces down time. Some effort has gone into Linux on the GrSecurity side to apply kernel write-execute separation; and, again, Minix 3 or a similar OS could create strict memory policies to prevent drivers from accessing kernel RAM not related to the driver and the process invoking it; this plus process groups and containers (as in Linux) and mandatory access control policies would come close, if not parity, a mainframe.
I have enough understanding to know what must be done to create something, but not how. If I knew how, I'd have long ago added services to Minix 3 to run Linux desktop subsystems for systemd, udev, and dbus; created a policy manager which can define application access policies by contexts, user, and the user's container policy (e.g. Pidgin can access the user's configured $HOME/.pidgin/ and $HOME/download/pidgin/ for read-write, etc.); and modified some of the interfaces to store data relevant only to specific processes in separate pages, and only map those pages in the appropriate context, so that a bug writing all over memory would have limited-scope damage even in kernel (this is hardly ever an issue in Minix to start with). But nay.
I don't remember that. http://www.wikihow.com/Calcula... ?
The correct technology for education is thousands of years old.
The ancients--the greeks and romans--didn't use a lot of writing. It was expensive and bulky. Wax tablets were huge, papyrus was costly. You'd hardly have books; if you saw a scroll or codex, it was probably for the first and last time. If you saw a codex twice, there wasn't an index to reference; you had to know what was in it, flip to a random page, and say, "Oh, no, the material I need to reference is before this", then flip backwards.
Mnemonics techniques were a primary driver in the lives of the ancients. Their lives revolved around what they knew; what they knew revolved around what they could remember. They didn't have the luxury of remembering a topic existed and throwing a keyword into Google; they didn't even have the luxury of expansive libraries in every town. Libraries were places of pilgrimage: There may be one or two copies of a book in the world, and so you had to go to the library of a certain town to read it. The first and most important things the ancients learned was how to remember.
In modern days, we don't even teach study techniques. SQ3R and SQW3R, the most basic techniques, are powerful; so powerful that modern methods are just SQ3R and SQW3R with different names (PQRST is Preview, Question, Read, Self-recite, Test rather than Survey, Question, Read, Recite, Review). Teachers incite small students to "take notes" and "study", without explaining what "study" entails; worse, the entire point of studying is to remember, yet memorization is considered a bad strategy in learning. The focus on "understanding" without first "knowing" knee-caps any effort to bring mnemonics into schools.
We're hell-bent on new technology and new methods, on progressive movements over regressive. While Japan turns second-grade students into human calculators with the Soroban--an ancient mechanical computer known as an abacus--the rest of the world feeds us blunt paper mathematics and teaches us to use TI-83 calculators and Excel spreadsheets as soon as we get to Algebra. Educators have not been so bold as to scrub all visual imagery from early education; yet they are resistant to using visualization, song, and rhyme beyond the most early years, and absolutely refuse to teach students to bolster their own memories with such techniques. The ways of the past are thrown by the wayside in favor of new ideas.
What poor, starving children most require, in third-world countries and in the ghettos of developed nations alike, is an education system; we cannot solve the education problem by throwing laptops at bush Africa or gangland America. We don't need specialized education systems, tools, and techniques for the poor or the retarded, either; those highly-beneficial methods which allow even the brain damaged to learn often make learning easier for any student. When such methods are found beneficial in both, the subgroup which is incapable--by class status or by mental development--of learning in the broader classroom atmosphere shrinks, and some of the disadvantaged can place directly in general population; this works wonders for social and psychological development. The last thing they need is expensive hardware and software pretending to help.
I really want to run on the education platform one day.
You won't have standing in court for that. The 5 cents of costs for electricity to charge the vehicle won't create standing.
That doesn't hold in the long term. In the long term, one small business would trounce the ginormous, too-big-to-fail firms by doing what I just said. They would have access to lower-cost labor by bringing in and training entrants. Even if their top-tier laborers left, or required high retaining salaries, the mid-tier and low-tier laborers would give the business significantly greater agility in achieving more demanding business goals. They would rocket up past the dinosaur competition and take their place at the top of the market.
The moment anyone realized this was happening, they'd all start doing it. If they're too slow, they get crushed by the businesses who take the initiative. It's always been that way: anything that gives you an edge over other businesses gets taken up by everyone.
OCZ guarantees over 100TB of write cycles before failure on some of their basic performance drives. Their cheap drives guarantee about 40TB (20GB/day for 5 years), and the model that costs $10 more for 120GB guarantees 50GB/day for 5 years.
I don't feel like posting this again.
Please keep going with this thought. I cannot get people to listen to me. For years I have tried, and nobody understands why we need to cut off the entire universal college initiative.
The government needs to focus on primary and secondary education, and stop after high school.
It creates unemployment and cheap labor.
The market would fix it. If the Government backed out of all universal post-secondary education initiatives, businesses would suffer due to lack of skilled labor. The most profitable course of action would be to hire high school graduates, pay them entry-level salary (like $30k unskilled shitwork salary, or minimum wage), pay for their education, and build a work force. Shift shitwork from your $80k skilled employees to your $30k entrants, gradually increasing complexity as their skill increases, to reduce the cost of that work.
When businesses have a strategy, they have a rough understanding of what employees they need and how many they need. This is more reliable and lower-risk than an individual trying to estimate the whole of the market, including how many other individuals will go to college to try to capitalize on the market opportunity they're speculating on. That means businesses would waste less money creating unemployable skilled laborers than individuals do.
The cost of actually sending people to school shifts onto the businesses; but the costs of picking through a great labor shortage is higher, since you wind up with entry-level programmers and graphics designers and accountants taking $250,000/year salaries when you really just want to pay them $50k. When they're scarce because it costs businesses money to hand-make their own workforce, they gain only enough bargaining power to negotiate up to $80k or so. When they're plentiful due to the state paying for college, you pay them $50k.
No matter how many times I explain this, nobody gets it. Sometimes, people stare, shake, concede that it kind of makes sense, and then immediately point out that we're giving free college to individuals and so taking it away must be taking something away from individuals. People can't disconnect that: when you give a physical object to a person, they assume you're giving that person something; in this case, we're giving physical objects to people to enrich businesses and make people poor. There's no good analogy, because it's not just the recipients who are made poor; it's the entire class of people who could be recipients. It's not like I can say we're giving you a slave collar or something, because it's not that discrete. That makes it really hard to understand what's actually happening here, even when it's explained clearly.
I very much doubt that. If you're going to spend that amount of money on sending it to Mars, you don't skimp on off-the-shelf technology that costs a few hundred bucks.
Putting a high-grade SLC 10,000,000 write cycle NAND bank into a rover intended to run for 90 days and do 1-2 writes per day would be extreme gold plating.
Quality is the degree to which a deliverable satisfies requirements. NASA required something that would reliably last for 90 days under their workload; the highest-quality device would be the least-expensive device which satisfies this (along with the constraints of power usage, weight, and so on). MLC with 200 write-erase cycles would barely satisfy this; but you won't find MLC with durability under 5,000 cycle. The correct selection, the one which represents an optimal decision, would be the low-end MLC with 5,000 write-erase cycles.
Radiation hardening of the NAND flash may be irrelevant due to packaging or Martian terrestrial radiation: the NAND may be inside a shielded casing, or it may just not be subject to as much background radiation on Mars as in space.
Harsh Martian environment likely has zero impact on the NAND: it's in a sealed case, and isn't being subjected to dust storms, rain, snow, flash flooding, insect infestation, and the like.
Actually, the amount of NAND in Opportunity is 256MB, which isn't a lot. RAM is only 128MB; NAND is routinely given a full wipe and rewrite. Given it was only meant to last for 90 days, it's probably a low-grade MLC with under 5000 erase cycles reliability.
By contrast, a desktop SSD of 32-256GB will see a daily write cycle of under a gigabyte per day. The documents, cache, e-mails, and updates per day total very little--hundreds of megabytes, at best--for most workloads, up to and including intensive workloads such as 3D modeling and multi-layer 2D image editing, which produce massive work sets but only make minor changes to them. Large workloads include video editing, which does write multi-gigabyte files out on each large render operation (which may be frequent in some workflows).
System drive SSDs see small workloads even when used as a swap device: swap offloads a lot of stale memory from RAM, which is either hardly ever used, never written to, or simply stale. The brk() area can have fragmented holes too small to take new allocations, and so may page out entirely unused RAM to disk; much RAM (such as GUI elements, textures, models, and audio assets) contains load-once data that's written to disk when swapped, and then only read later, such that it's left on swap and evicted from RAM without writing out again when memory gets scarce. That means 2GB of swap might be 2GB of writes since boot time, plus maybe a hundred megabytes or less per day of continuous system run.
Finally, system drives also wear level internally. Writing to the same 1MB area over and over will spread the writes out: the controller will internally account for those blocks being erased and rewritten elsewhere, often by additive writing (writing without erasing) to avoid wearing the drive (e.g. you can have a used and erased map, in which anything erased or not used is free; you can then write to the used map and to the erased map, until you run out of free blocks and need to erase a newly used block, and thus need to mark all used-erased blocks free and mark no blocks as erased, costing one write-erase cycle even though you've written thousands of times). You'll get a full write-erase cycle every full data width write: even if you write to the same spot repeatedly, you only use one write-erase cycle writing 32GB to a 32GB drive, or 256GB to a 256GB drive.
Accounting for all this, the drives are quite long-lasting. For a 10,000 cycle drive, you'd have to write 320,000GB to a 32GB SSD or 2,560,000GB to a 256GB SSD to wear it out. That's 876 years at 1GB per day for a 32GB drive, or over 8 years if you're writing 100GB per day. For a 256GB drive, it's 7000 year-gigabytes, or 70 years if you're writing 100GB per day. Modern MLC NAND can survive 100,000 write-erase cycles before failure, so these lifetimes may be 10 times higher; high-end SLC drives can survive 10,000,000 write-erase cycles, and can back high-traffic SANs for decades.
They actually burn out less frequently than hard drives.
America is a third-world country.
Yeah, uh, I'm going to laugh at all your stupid jew neighbors when interest rates go back where they belong at 7%-14%. I'm hoping closer to 14%. Why? The sale price of a house might drop from $430k to $110k, but the total cost of the house remains $500k, and the payment remains $1180; yet paying an extra $20 on your payment with a high interest rate knocks off a month and the cost of 90% of one month's payment from the total cost. That means a high-interest-rate market is a buyer's market, as the buyer can pay a small amount extra on their payments and reap huge gains in reduced total purchase cost; low-interest markets require double and triple payments to cut the interest cost down, and even then it's only 10% of the total cost instead of 60%.
I don't rely on the value of my home to not go down. I bought a house I could pay off in 3 years; I make $70k. I won't shed much of a tear if my house suddenly becomes worth $0.
Obviously the Mossad isn't that interested in you, or they'd use one of their unknown exploits to infect your PC via ad network. Maybe they'd impersonate a CA.
I'm actually referring to FMS and Klein's attack. Klein's improvement to FMS cracks WEP in 58 seconds by causing it to generate something like 100k or 1M packets. I didn't know about the new developments in 2013.
He doesn't use AES-CBC or Blowfish-CBC.
You obviously don't understand the RC4 break. It's based on reusing the same RC4 key for multiple sessions. This doesn't happen in practice: a 128- or 256-bit RC4 key is generated each time you connect to SSH; you're only vulnerable if the NONCE and IV used are related in a specific, mathematical way, and only if they have this relationship millions of times with the same key. You also have to know the sessions share the same key.
An attack on the SSL protocol using RC4 is mathematically impossible based on what we know about RC4 weaknesses.
It's kind of silly to wrap these common sense suggestions in the cloak of NSA surveillance. If you're on the radar of any major nation-state's signals intelligence agency you've got bigger problems than SSH. Any significant intelligence agency is apt to have the resources to gain physical access to your hardware without your knowledge, which is game over in any conceivable scenario.
A Microsoft engineer published that all computer security is silly. His insight follows:
My point is that security people need to get their priorities straight. The “threat model” section of a security paper resembles the script for a telenovela that was written by a paranoid schizophrenic: there are elaborate narratives and grand conspiracy theories, and there are heroes and villains with fantastic (yet oddly constrained) powers that necessitate a grinding battle of emotional and technical attrition.
In the real world, threat models are much simpler (see Figure 1). Basically, you’re either dealing with Mossad or not-Mossad. If your adversary is not-Mossad, then you’ll probably be fine if you pick a good password and don’t respond to emails from ChEaPestPAiNPi11s@ virus-basket.biz.ru. If your adversary is the Mossad, YOU’RE GONNA DIE AND THERE’S NOTHING THAT YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT.
The Mossad is not intimidated by the fact that you employ https://./ If the Mossad wants your data, they’re going to use a drone to replace your cellphone with a piece of uranium that’s shaped like a cellphone, and when you die of tumors filled with tumors, they’re going to hold a press conference and say “It wasn’t us” as they wear t-shirts that say “IT WAS DEFINITELY US,” and then they’re going to buy all of your stuff at your estate sale so that they can directly look at the photos of your vacation instead of reading your insipid emails about them.
In summary, https:/// and two dollars will get you a bus ticket to nowhere. Also, SANTA CLAUS ISN’T REAL. When it rains, it pours.
Paragraphs added to make it not suck reading.
He suggests using strong passwords to keep your ex-gf from hacking your e-mail and publishing your Craigslist correspondence with the entire m4m section to your parents; and possibly magic amulets or changing your name and moving to a submarine to avoid the Mossad.
It's a good write-up, but he makes a number of technical and journalistic mistakes.
The first thing that stood out to me was his claiming RC4 is broken. RC4 is only broken in known, controllable situations with key reuse. SSH is immune to RC4 exploits because the RC4 key is randomly generated at each session--unlike WEP, where each packet is a brand new session and uses the same RC4 key. Even then, you need a specific mathematical relationship between the NONCE and the IV to produce a statistical anomaly detectable over about 10 million packets to expose 1 word of the key. RC4 has no theoretical weaknesses when used for SSL.
He fails to mention why CBC isn't used, although he rejects its use. ECB would be crap, and CTR is gold; an explanation of why CBC isn't viable would be nice.
The exploit mitigation in OpenBSD isn't as fantastic as some would like to believe. OpenBSD is about as secure as vanilla CentOS, and has been for a long time; they talk big, but they're just a below-average BSD flavor with less user-friendly than FreeBSD.
It's decent, but a little overbearing.
The Worm of the World's End.
All children can attain the same level. They all have the same mental facilities. It's a matter of interest.
I don't get why this is so hard for people to understand. Do you see that big, buff, muscly jock who can bench press 450lb? Do you know why he's big and buff? Hint: He wasn't born that way. It's a matter of training and effort. You know what makes geniuses geniuses? Training and effort. In both cases, it's technique: you'll get stronger with much less effort by using a particular training structure, and you'll learn things with much less effort by using particular techniques.
Some of us have interests in breaking IQ tests, mental mathematics, memory competitions, or rapid learning. It's just normal people who decide we want to be geniuses one day, so go and do it. We all trade techniques and strategies; we even have psychologists studying how to improve this, which has lead to discoveries about synesthesia being an imitable behavior. Artists have known this forever: scientists use an electromagnetic pulse machine to shock and temporarily disable the left prefrontal temporal lobe, giving any normal human about 1 hour of virtuoso-level artistic ability (you become an instant musician or sculptor); when you first go into art school, they teach you mental techniques which FMRI has shown allow you to intentionally dull and disable that region of the brain, producing the same results by sheer force of will. This was all tied together by research on mentally handicapped savants, who are born with that region of the brain damaged; it has lead to great discoveries in how to force your brain to act certain ways.
You won't turn into Goku if you train really hard; but you can easily turn into Stephen Hawking. Minus the wheelchair.
Wrong kind of tech.
People want digital circuitry to solve all things. Kids must be educated by computers? No, why? Because it's new, and technical, and thus better? Appeal to novelty.
There's entire schools of thought on how to educate kids. We have Waldorf education systems, which model a child's natural development and indicate that children shouldn't be given technology until age 6-7 (first grade), or even taught to read (I dissent on this), because they should be socializing; and then elementary school should focus a lot on physical experience and social interaction; and middle school more on hard facts. I believe in training base skills in the same way as the ancient Greeks, developing memory and mathematical skills by educating small children on how to use visualization, mind palaces, rhymes, acrostics, and so on as technical tools to retain and recall, as well as using the Japanese Soroban, Napir's Bones, and a number of procedural mathematical strategies to make basic arithmetic quick and simple. None of this says, "Throw computer programs at the problem".
Education is a technology, and it has a fixed platform. We are educating small children, who grow into large children. Everything from mnemonics techniques to the style of visuals and the methods of encouraging social interaction between students is an important educational technology. Computers are not an important educational technology; as with cars, computers are a tool we must learn to use.