Actually, I will mention that here in Ontario, larger organizations get their electricity on HOEP pricing (https://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/marketdata/hoep.asp). HOEP basically stays at a fixed market rate, provided that electricity demand is close to projected electricity demand. When demand differs from projections, the price fluctuates. You can get the current price off their website, updated in realtime.
If demand is too high, the price goes up, and if demand is lower than expected, the price goes down (because they have extra capacity, possibly from nuclear sources that can't easily be spun down, that they need to bleed off somewhere.) Sometimes, the price actually goes substantially negative, but usually only for a few hours a few times a year.
So, if you're on your local supplier's equivalent of HOEP, you might review your historical pricing, and see if it's worth your time an effort to build a system that starts furiously mining when the price goes low/negative.
The one thing that jumps out at me immediately is that, for almost any modern computer, a computer which is powered up but otherwise idle is going to draw less power than a computer which is mining bitcoins. If you want to use GPU mining (and, realistically, if you don't, this is probably a waste of time since you'll probably never mine any bitcoins) then I think you'll find the power draw from a mining machine is substantially higher than that of an idle machine.
So, what you need to do is work out your idle power consumption (with, say, a Kill-A-Watt meter), then work our your fully-loaded power consumption (preferably by trying to mine some bitcoins, but you could get a reasonable quick estimate by firing up a modern 3D game), work out the delta, which is your effective power consumption for mining, and then use one of the various calculators out there (e.g. http://www.bitcoinx.com/profit/) to decide if this is a profitable venture for you or not.
For every four Americans working a 50-hour week, every week, there's one American who should have a full-time job, but doesn't.
That's very much like saying "For every copy of Photoshop that is pirated, Adobe looses $1000." And it's wrong, for very much the same reasons.
I have certainly worked on projects where if we'd hired enough people to make everyone work 40 hour weeks, the project would have been horribly over budget and would have been canceled. Of course, those projects are usually unsustainable anyways (mine was - it was canceled.:)
I'm not arguing with the basic premise that the 40 hour work week is a good thing, keep in mind.
Expect it to get muddy quickly, even if Natco Pharma is not allowed to export the medication. I suspect we will quickly see the Natco version smuggled out for sale on foreign shores, and I also expect we will see counterfeit versions claiming to be smuggled Natco which may or may not even come out of India (and may or may not contain cancer fighting drugs.)
For one, there's the second hand game market. DRM does a good job of killing it. Even with Steam, there's no way to sell your old games.
It's a stupid argument too, though; you have to be willing to suffer all of this bad press and associated lost sales in the hopes that you will get extra sales in the tail end of your product's life-cycle.
It also fails to take into account that most people have a certain finite amount of disposable income they're willing to spend on games. I suppose the studio would rather see you spend money on one new game instead of one two used games, but on the other hand the guy who sold those two used games is probably going to take the money and spend it on a new game.
CIRA (the ".ca" registry) has a feature called "whois privacy" which hides the information of individuals who register domains by default. Only businesses get their information published in the whois database (by default - individuals and businesses can turn this on or off, although businesses need to provide CIRA with a good reason why they want their whois info hidden).
So, 10^80 atoms in the universe, which is around 2^265, so 2^768/2^265 = 2^503, or a universe 2.6x10^151 times larger than ours (with all of the caveats I've pointed out elsewhere in this thread about how that's a very rough guesstimate.)
Unfortunately, no. We're only trying to factor composite numbers. Prime numbers are easy to factor; they only have two factors, themselves and 1.
Each and every non-prime, or "composite" number is a product of two or more prime numbers. For example, 28 is the product of 2, 2, and 7.
So, we can actually eliminate all the prime numbers from the chart. You also can eliminate all the composite numbers with more than two prime factors, if your objective is only to break RSA.
But using current technology we also need a lot more than just one atom to store each record of the table in. Even using holographic storage you'd need around 10 atoms, and using a traditional hard drive you'd need around 12x10^18 atoms.
It's true, and you'd also have a hard time encoding two primes on a single atom. But the current estimates on the number of atoms in the universe vary pretty wildly, so it's not a bad guess.
If you really want a more accurate estimate of how much larger a universe we need, you first need to compute the number of composite numbers which are the product of two primes and are less than 2^768. Let K be the number of primes less than the square root of 2^768:
The number of composites, N, is "K choose 2", plus all the square numbers:
N = K!/2*(K-2)! + K
So that's the size of the number of values we actually want to store. Storage wise, assume we can store these all in a table sorted by the composite number, and then use a binary search to find the number we're looking for. (This is of course completely preposterous; while you'd only need to access lg(N) records to do a binary search, which is going to be way less than 768, your hard drive is going to take on the order of 10^230 square inches of space to store all this data, so it's going to take your read head a LONG time to do 768 reads all over the disk).
For the naive storage scheme, you'd need 3*768 bits to store each composite and it's two primes. The actual number of atoms you need is dependent on your storage medium. The average storage today for hard drives is around 250GBit/in^2. Stanford has managed a bit density of 35bit/electron with holographic storage technology, which is mighty impressive; you'd only need around 5 atoms per entry.
Then you need to pick which estimate of the number of atoms which exist in our observable universe you like best.:)
Other people have explained factorization in this thread (finding the prime factors that make up a composite number), but I just wanted to point out why making a "nice big chart" won't work.
The "nice big chart" would have to be very big. If you wanted to factor all the numbers from 1 to 2^768, you'd need a chart with 2^768 entries on it. This chart would need to be made of something, or stored on a disk that was made of something. Made of something means it needs to be made of matter, which means it needs to be made of atoms. In the observable universe, there are about 2^84 atoms, so you'd need a universe around 8x10^205 times larger than ours to store the chart in.
The original "God Mode" one isn't in that list. And, this doesn't say anything about creating folders with the canonical name as the extension. It's an interesting hack.
Mozilla is all about the bling, and usability is a secondary consideration.
Check out this usability bug about resizing the add bookmark dialog. 30 votes, 88 comments, 17 duplicate bugs filed, and still no one has done anything about it.
This fancy new "add bookmark" dialog also broke a pile of screen readers and other accessibility software (although this has mostly been fixed now, AFAIK).
[quote]I still am quite happy with almost a decade old machines[/quote]
Really? A decade? That's sub-1Ghz. That's two years prior to the release of Windows XP. What modern software are you going to run on a machine that old? At least DirectX was out then, so there exists some software from that era that will run on modern computers (although likely not Vista).
You've pretty much described the Sony 505, although it's around $300 (although assumedly it will come down when the new 600 is released).
What you're paying for with the e-ink readers is the very-nice-screen, which looks like a printed page. If you're willing to suffer reading from an LCD screen, then check out the eBookwise reader, which is again pretty much exactly what you're describing. Although, very weird proprietary file formats.
Or at least, it is compared to the Kindle. Sony will read PDF files and EPUB files. (EPUB is an open standard; an EPUB file is really a zip file, containing a few XML documents that describe where everything is, and then either XHTML or DAISY/DTBook content).
It's VERY easy to copy content to the Sony readers (shows up like a USB hard drive, or copy content to an SD card and insert). There's no remote-kill like the Kindle.
If you're worried about finding DRM free content, check out Baen's Webscriptions or Fictionwise (look for the "multiformat" books; all DRM free).
Finally, if you REALLY don't want to go with Sony, there are lots of other good readers out there, some of which run Linux, and give you source for the software.
If you're using TekSavvy, then you're using TS's DNS servers, so your query goes to TS's DNS server which should respond with NXDOMAIN. You aren't even contacting the Bell DNS, so there's no opportunity for them to interfere.
It's possible, since Bell controls the last mile, that they could intercept NXDOMAIN results going to your machine and replace them using DPI, but I can't see how they'd get away with that without being in violation of CRTC rules about changing the meaning of communication. And, at least for me on Primus, this doesn't seem to be the case (yet).
Do people have a right to access the Internet? Because that right, if it exists, is not enshrined in the first amendment.
Many argue it should be a right; how effective can you be in this modern world without access to the wealth of information the Internet puts at your fingertips? If this is a right, does this mean the government has a responsibility to ensure access is available? There are plenty of northern communities where access is not available in Canada. There are many public access points in most larger Canadian cities, but these access points often close at 5:00pm, which makes them practically impossible to use for many people.
Do people have a right to publish software, and a right to mathematics? You'd think that, since software is just text written in an obscure language and mathematics are just ideas you ought to be able to express in English, freedom of speech should cover it. However in the US, it is illegal to publish software which would circumvent a digital lock, thanks to the DMCA. Some would argue the DMCA is unconstitutional in this regard, however the DMCA has been around for a long time. If this right were explicit, would that be the case?
There are also many places in software consumer rights where the US and Canada fail epically; if I buy a piece of software in Canada and it doesn't work, that's tough, I can't return it. Why is that? (Although perhaps the right to return software is a bit outside the scope of a constitution).
Assuming all movies are 100 minutes long, and you sleep 8 hours a night, then 200 movies means you're spending about 70% of your awake time, or over 11 hours a day, watching movies.
But yes, I agree with your basic point; many of the people who pirate the movie and watch it are likely to simply not watch the movie if the option of piracy is removed. Claiming people that don't watch the movie represent some kind of loss is a little strange.
BT is selling "unlimited" Internet service to its customers. If BT can't deliver the service it has promised to provide, then BT has no one to blame but itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I will mention that here in Ontario, larger organizations get their electricity on HOEP pricing (https://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/marketdata/hoep.asp). HOEP basically stays at a fixed market rate, provided that electricity demand is close to projected electricity demand. When demand differs from projections, the price fluctuates. You can get the current price off their website, updated in realtime.
If demand is too high, the price goes up, and if demand is lower than expected, the price goes down (because they have extra capacity, possibly from nuclear sources that can't easily be spun down, that they need to bleed off somewhere.) Sometimes, the price actually goes substantially negative, but usually only for a few hours a few times a year.
So, if you're on your local supplier's equivalent of HOEP, you might review your historical pricing, and see if it's worth your time an effort to build a system that starts furiously mining when the price goes low/negative.
The one thing that jumps out at me immediately is that, for almost any modern computer, a computer which is powered up but otherwise idle is going to draw less power than a computer which is mining bitcoins. If you want to use GPU mining (and, realistically, if you don't, this is probably a waste of time since you'll probably never mine any bitcoins) then I think you'll find the power draw from a mining machine is substantially higher than that of an idle machine.
So, what you need to do is work out your idle power consumption (with, say, a Kill-A-Watt meter), then work our your fully-loaded power consumption (preferably by trying to mine some bitcoins, but you could get a reasonable quick estimate by firing up a modern 3D game), work out the delta, which is your effective power consumption for mining, and then use one of the various calculators out there (e.g. http://www.bitcoinx.com/profit/) to decide if this is a profitable venture for you or not.
That's very much like saying "For every copy of Photoshop that is pirated, Adobe looses $1000." And it's wrong, for very much the same reasons.
I have certainly worked on projects where if we'd hired enough people to make everyone work 40 hour weeks, the project would have been horribly over budget and would have been canceled. Of course, those projects are usually unsustainable anyways (mine was - it was canceled. :)
I'm not arguing with the basic premise that the 40 hour work week is a good thing, keep in mind.
Expect it to get muddy quickly, even if Natco Pharma is not allowed to export the medication. I suspect we will quickly see the Natco version smuggled out for sale on foreign shores, and I also expect we will see counterfeit versions claiming to be smuggled Natco which may or may not even come out of India (and may or may not contain cancer fighting drugs.)
So... a wheel?
For one, there's the second hand game market. DRM does a good job of killing it. Even with Steam, there's no way to sell your old games.
It's a stupid argument too, though; you have to be willing to suffer all of this bad press and associated lost sales in the hopes that you will get extra sales in the tail end of your product's life-cycle.
It also fails to take into account that most people have a certain finite amount of disposable income they're willing to spend on games. I suppose the studio would rather see you spend money on one new game instead of one two used games, but on the other hand the guy who sold those two used games is probably going to take the money and spend it on a new game.
CIRA (the ".ca" registry) has a feature called "whois privacy" which hides the information of individuals who register domains by default. Only businesses get their information published in the whois database (by default - individuals and businesses can turn this on or off, although businesses need to provide CIRA with a good reason why they want their whois info hidden).
But, you get yummy imu roast pig at the end! You don't get that with a PERL script.
So, 10^80 atoms in the universe, which is around 2^265, so 2^768/2^265 = 2^503, or a universe 2.6x10^151 times larger than ours (with all of the caveats I've pointed out elsewhere in this thread about how that's a very rough guesstimate.)
Thanks for pointing out my craziness. :)
nm
Unfortunately, no. We're only trying to factor composite numbers. Prime numbers are easy to factor; they only have two factors, themselves and 1.
Each and every non-prime, or "composite" number is a product of two or more prime numbers. For example, 28 is the product of 2, 2, and 7.
So, we can actually eliminate all the prime numbers from the chart. You also can eliminate all the composite numbers with more than two prime factors, if your objective is only to break RSA.
But using current technology we also need a lot more than just one atom to store each record of the table in. Even using holographic storage you'd need around 10 atoms, and using a traditional hard drive you'd need around 12x10^18 atoms.
It's true, and you'd also have a hard time encoding two primes on a single atom. But the current estimates on the number of atoms in the universe vary pretty wildly, so it's not a bad guess.
If you really want a more accurate estimate of how much larger a universe we need, you first need to compute the number of composite numbers which are the product of two primes and are less than 2^768. Let K be the number of primes less than the square root of 2^768:
K = PI(root(2^768))
(where PI is the prime-counting function)
The number of composites, N, is "K choose 2", plus all the square numbers:
N = K!/2*(K-2)! + K
So that's the size of the number of values we actually want to store. Storage wise, assume we can store these all in a table sorted by the composite number, and then use a binary search to find the number we're looking for. (This is of course completely preposterous; while you'd only need to access lg(N) records to do a binary search, which is going to be way less than 768, your hard drive is going to take on the order of 10^230 square inches of space to store all this data, so it's going to take your read head a LONG time to do 768 reads all over the disk).
For the naive storage scheme, you'd need 3*768 bits to store each composite and it's two primes. The actual number of atoms you need is dependent on your storage medium. The average storage today for hard drives is around 250GBit/in^2. Stanford has managed a bit density of 35bit/electron with holographic storage technology, which is mighty impressive; you'd only need around 5 atoms per entry.
Then you need to pick which estimate of the number of atoms which exist in our observable universe you like best. :)
10^80 is less than 2^84.
2^4 is 16, so 2^84 == 16^80, which is obviously larger than 10^80.
Other people have explained factorization in this thread (finding the prime factors that make up a composite number), but I just wanted to point out why making a "nice big chart" won't work.
The "nice big chart" would have to be very big. If you wanted to factor all the numbers from 1 to 2^768, you'd need a chart with 2^768 entries on it. This chart would need to be made of something, or stored on a disk that was made of something. Made of something means it needs to be made of matter, which means it needs to be made of atoms. In the observable universe, there are about 2^84 atoms, so you'd need a universe around 8x10^205 times larger than ours to store the chart in.
The original "God Mode" one isn't in that list. And, this doesn't say anything about creating folders with the canonical name as the extension. It's an interesting hack.
Mozilla is all about the bling, and usability is a secondary consideration.
Check out this usability bug about resizing the add bookmark dialog. 30 votes, 88 comments, 17 duplicate bugs filed, and still no one has done anything about it.
This fancy new "add bookmark" dialog also broke a pile of screen readers and other accessibility software (although this has mostly been fixed now, AFAIK).
[quote]I still am quite happy with almost a decade old machines[/quote]
Really? A decade? That's sub-1Ghz. That's two years prior to the release of Windows XP. What modern software are you going to run on a machine that old? At least DirectX was out then, so there exists some software from that era that will run on modern computers (although likely not Vista).
Well, my third-party ISPs bit-torrent traffic is being throttled by Bell.
Thanks for the fixed link. :P
You've pretty much described the Sony 505, although it's around $300 (although assumedly it will come down when the new 600 is released).
What you're paying for with the e-ink readers is the very-nice-screen, which looks like a printed page. If you're willing to suffer reading from an LCD screen, then check out the eBookwise reader, which is again pretty much exactly what you're describing. Although, very weird proprietary file formats.
Or at least, it is compared to the Kindle. Sony will read PDF files and EPUB files. (EPUB is an open standard; an EPUB file is really a zip file, containing a few XML documents that describe where everything is, and then either XHTML or DAISY/DTBook content).
It's VERY easy to copy content to the Sony readers (shows up like a USB hard drive, or copy content to an SD card and insert). There's no remote-kill like the Kindle.
If you're worried about finding DRM free content, check out Baen's Webscriptions or Fictionwise (look for the "multiformat" books; all DRM free).
Finally, if you REALLY don't want to go with Sony, there are lots of other good readers out there, some of which run Linux, and give you source for the software.
If you're using TekSavvy, then you're using TS's DNS servers, so your query goes to TS's DNS server which should respond with NXDOMAIN. You aren't even contacting the Bell DNS, so there's no opportunity for them to interfere.
It's possible, since Bell controls the last mile, that they could intercept NXDOMAIN results going to your machine and replace them using DPI, but I can't see how they'd get away with that without being in violation of CRTC rules about changing the meaning of communication. And, at least for me on Primus, this doesn't seem to be the case (yet).
Do people have a right to access the Internet? Because that right, if it exists, is not enshrined in the first amendment.
Many argue it should be a right; how effective can you be in this modern world without access to the wealth of information the Internet puts at your fingertips? If this is a right, does this mean the government has a responsibility to ensure access is available? There are plenty of northern communities where access is not available in Canada. There are many public access points in most larger Canadian cities, but these access points often close at 5:00pm, which makes them practically impossible to use for many people.
Do people have a right to publish software, and a right to mathematics? You'd think that, since software is just text written in an obscure language and mathematics are just ideas you ought to be able to express in English, freedom of speech should cover it. However in the US, it is illegal to publish software which would circumvent a digital lock, thanks to the DMCA. Some would argue the DMCA is unconstitutional in this regard, however the DMCA has been around for a long time. If this right were explicit, would that be the case?
There are also many places in software consumer rights where the US and Canada fail epically; if I buy a piece of software in Canada and it doesn't work, that's tough, I can't return it. Why is that? (Although perhaps the right to return software is a bit outside the scope of a constitution).
Assuming all movies are 100 minutes long, and you sleep 8 hours a night, then 200 movies means you're spending about 70% of your awake time, or over 11 hours a day, watching movies.
But yes, I agree with your basic point; many of the people who pirate the movie and watch it are likely to simply not watch the movie if the option of piracy is removed. Claiming people that don't watch the movie represent some kind of loss is a little strange.
BT is selling "unlimited" Internet service to its customers. If BT can't deliver the service it has promised to provide, then BT has no one to blame but itself.