Right, so I think crux of the comment commited by the AC above you had something to do with the fact that AMD spun off its fabs by means of incorporating GlobalFoundries with other companies such as ATIC. AMD has no fabs of its own.
The explanation given by the paper is that it would've been far more likely for a trojan satellite (one which shares the orbit of our known Moon with the Earth) to have gently crashed into the Moon at a rate of just a few, perhaps one or two, miles per second, which is a collission speed so gentle as to be in absolutely miniscule ranges of probability with an asteroid impact. The net effect of such a slow impact wouldn't be a crater; rather, it would be roughly the same as mashing a clump of dirt on a bigger ball of clay.
As for the far-side bit, the moon wasn't always tidally locked. Tidal locking happens with lots of time.
This happens to be the perfect demonstration of my point. As beneficial as savings accounts are individually, building them up en masse during a recession only stunts economic recovery. The goal is to build them up during economically prosperous times (which, incidentally, results on a higher ROI as interest payouts tend to be more favorable with better economic health).
Paying off a debt is best done when the economy is upward-trending and currently prosperous, not when the economy is depressed. Any money that goes towards paying off debt during a depressed economy is money which isn't being used to get the economy moving again, which prolongs the recession until consumer confidence either gradually returns as people establish a new (lowered) baseline of confidence or until debts are paid. The latter never happens at grand scales, and the former is accelerated as incentives are provided for consumers to spend money.
Also, the ad-hominem attacks are unnecessary, but since you already committed the comment to Slashdot, there's not much that can be done.
Yeah, he did that because he was out of a home and needed a roof, healthcare, et cetera. He saw it as a far more sure-fire way of getting said amenities rather than taking the risk of being unemployed for too long, which loops back to my point.
money saved by most consumers is going into debt payoff.
so, in other words, it's going into a bank's own accounts rather than accounts said consumers may have with banks? Either way, that money isn't moving.
What you loose in money flow you gain in your business ability to grow, and expand.
again, no growth will happen during a recession. Everything will be banked or used to pay off debts to banks and other investors, which will in turn also be hoarded.
They're paying employees. They're paying universities for research. They're hiring. They're licensing other technologies from other companies which in turn perpetuate the cycle, etc.
Nobody's going to risk creating a new industry when banks and other financiers won't loan them the money needed to pay employees to get those ideas off the ground. Everything grinds to a halt when people want to make sure they survive.
Maslow's hierarchy of needs and the economy are in fact quite inter-woven. Fearing failure of survival inherently overrides any desire to create new wealth; people will strive to use proven means of sustenance rather than testing new waters when survival is in question unless all other methods have already failed.
Addendum to my previous comment: The point you're arguing is valid when consumer confidence is returning or already established; money saved in one area will indeed go towards other expenditures. However, when consumer confidence is non-existent (e.g. right now), that money isn't going anywhere other than a savings account, if not under a mattress (if the user doesn't feel burned enough by banks as-is).
Not in a recession. People who lost 401k savings will salvage anything they can by limiting other expenditures. Therefore, money saved on an image editor will in fact go straight to a bank during a recession.
This is exactly why the economy is down right now. People are scared to spend unless it's necessary.
I'd actually argue that free software is bad for the state of the economy on the basis that it doesn't increase the velocity of money. Organizations which exist to support FOSS and free technologies encourage the movement of money, sure, but getting money to move from the average consumer is what's needed to drive an economy. FOSS, as advantageous as it is in value (in many cases) contributes against the velocity of money by allowing consumers to pocket money which would otherwise "move" as a result of bundled software licenses.
Bad economic times are good for anything cheap or free, which in turn ever-so-slightly discourage economic recovery by moving less money than would otherwise be spent for a particular good or service.
I'm inclined to agree with your analysis (though I wouldn't have been as harsh about it) as it seems Bennett missed a critical point:
Upkeep on a Telex-enabled system would theoretically be much less than with a coordinated proxy system used to "outrun" censors. The advantage to Telex is that -- barring a flaw in, say, RSA or PGP PKI -- all that's needed is one public key and a minimal application which handles the client-side logic, or in simpler terms, two files which would remain static barring either a leak of the private key, a cryptanalytical break, or a discovery of every Telex interceptor, all of which would happen far less often than the blocking of a proxy but would be as easy, if not easier, to correct.
Heck, the facilities for this still exist. The NSA intercepts and conducts deep packet inspection on packets throughout the vast majority of the Internet. This would be a bolt-on fix, and no one would have to know the NSA did it.
If the end result of the same initial investment in either Telex or Proxies would be the downfall of most (or all) censorship systems, why not go the route that saves on upkeep?
The Telex header is public key encrypted on the client-side; only the private key of the backbone can be used to even know something is there at all. Just setting up another Telex interceptor won't mean anything as the new interceptor would have to have the private key that matches the public key of the clients using the service. Otherwise, it wouldn't know what to intercept because the request would otherwise blend in with all the other noise of that https connection.
All a client needs is the public key and the requisite software. Unlike proxy sites which get blocked in droves, such a small pair of files would be almost impossible to track and block. Before long, it would just be distributed through old-fashioned hand-offs via flash drives.
So, simple maths suggest that we're definitely not going to have reception if we're more than 62 miles away from the tower, and that doesn't take into account the curvature of the earth, the height of the tower, atmospheric distortions, etc.
but it does suggest the standard would allow for decent reception within a 30 mile radius. That ain't too bad.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you seen any recent networked exploits on Windows which compromise an entire bank of passwords?
No? That's what I thought.
Right, so I think crux of the comment commited by the AC above you had something to do with the fact that AMD spun off its fabs by means of incorporating GlobalFoundries with other companies such as ATIC. AMD has no fabs of its own.
Are you a astrophysicist?
The explanation given by the paper is that it would've been far more likely for a trojan satellite (one which shares the orbit of our known Moon with the Earth) to have gently crashed into the Moon at a rate of just a few, perhaps one or two, miles per second, which is a collission speed so gentle as to be in absolutely miniscule ranges of probability with an asteroid impact. The net effect of such a slow impact wouldn't be a crater; rather, it would be roughly the same as mashing a clump of dirt on a bigger ball of clay.
As for the far-side bit, the moon wasn't always tidally locked. Tidal locking happens with lots of time.
First to permanently turn Bob's computer off will probably win the prize.
This happens to be the perfect demonstration of my point. As beneficial as savings accounts are individually, building them up en masse during a recession only stunts economic recovery. The goal is to build them up during economically prosperous times (which, incidentally, results on a higher ROI as interest payouts tend to be more favorable with better economic health).
Paying off a debt is best done when the economy is upward-trending and currently prosperous, not when the economy is depressed. Any money that goes towards paying off debt during a depressed economy is money which isn't being used to get the economy moving again, which prolongs the recession until consumer confidence either gradually returns as people establish a new (lowered) baseline of confidence or until debts are paid. The latter never happens at grand scales, and the former is accelerated as incentives are provided for consumers to spend money.
Also, the ad-hominem attacks are unnecessary, but since you already committed the comment to Slashdot, there's not much that can be done.
such as paying off a debt, which in-turn is hoarded by the bank that's scared to lend to anyone new.
Yeah, he did that because he was out of a home and needed a roof, healthcare, et cetera. He saw it as a far more sure-fire way of getting said amenities rather than taking the risk of being unemployed for too long, which loops back to my point.
so, in other words, it's going into a bank's own accounts rather than accounts said consumers may have with banks? Either way, that money isn't moving.
again, no growth will happen during a recession. Everything will be banked or used to pay off debts to banks and other investors, which will in turn also be hoarded.
Are they going to spend that money, or will it go towards paying an existing debt or loan with another bank?
Love you too, babe!
Debt is paid to who, again? Banks? Maybe some utilities which aren't expanding?
That money isn't moving anywhere. Banks are scared to lend. What's your point?
They're paying employees. They're paying universities for research. They're hiring. They're licensing other technologies from other companies which in turn perpetuate the cycle, etc.
Nobody's going to risk creating a new industry when banks and other financiers won't loan them the money needed to pay employees to get those ideas off the ground. Everything grinds to a halt when people want to make sure they survive.
Maslow's hierarchy of needs and the economy are in fact quite inter-woven. Fearing failure of survival inherently overrides any desire to create new wealth; people will strive to use proven means of sustenance rather than testing new waters when survival is in question unless all other methods have already failed.
Addendum to my previous comment: The point you're arguing is valid when consumer confidence is returning or already established; money saved in one area will indeed go towards other expenditures. However, when consumer confidence is non-existent (e.g. right now), that money isn't going anywhere other than a savings account, if not under a mattress (if the user doesn't feel burned enough by banks as-is).
Not in a recession. People who lost 401k savings will salvage anything they can by limiting other expenditures. Therefore, money saved on an image editor will in fact go straight to a bank during a recession.
This is exactly why the economy is down right now. People are scared to spend unless it's necessary.
I'd actually argue that free software is bad for the state of the economy on the basis that it doesn't increase the velocity of money. Organizations which exist to support FOSS and free technologies encourage the movement of money, sure, but getting money to move from the average consumer is what's needed to drive an economy. FOSS, as advantageous as it is in value (in many cases) contributes against the velocity of money by allowing consumers to pocket money which would otherwise "move" as a result of bundled software licenses.
Bad economic times are good for anything cheap or free, which in turn ever-so-slightly discourage economic recovery by moving less money than would otherwise be spent for a particular good or service.
I'm inclined to agree with your analysis (though I wouldn't have been as harsh about it) as it seems Bennett missed a critical point:
Upkeep on a Telex-enabled system would theoretically be much less than with a coordinated proxy system used to "outrun" censors. The advantage to Telex is that -- barring a flaw in, say, RSA or PGP PKI -- all that's needed is one public key and a minimal application which handles the client-side logic, or in simpler terms, two files which would remain static barring either a leak of the private key, a cryptanalytical break, or a discovery of every Telex interceptor, all of which would happen far less often than the blocking of a proxy but would be as easy, if not easier, to correct.
Heck, the facilities for this still exist. The NSA intercepts and conducts deep packet inspection on packets throughout the vast majority of the Internet. This would be a bolt-on fix, and no one would have to know the NSA did it.
If the end result of the same initial investment in either Telex or Proxies would be the downfall of most (or all) censorship systems, why not go the route that saves on upkeep?
...but there is a shared secret.
The Telex header is public key encrypted on the client-side; only the private key of the backbone can be used to even know something is there at all. Just setting up another Telex interceptor won't mean anything as the new interceptor would have to have the private key that matches the public key of the clients using the service. Otherwise, it wouldn't know what to intercept because the request would otherwise blend in with all the other noise of that https connection.
All a client needs is the public key and the requisite software. Unlike proxy sites which get blocked in droves, such a small pair of files would be almost impossible to track and block. Before long, it would just be distributed through old-fashioned hand-offs via flash drives.
Tint
Telex is not telex.
You forgot to tick the Post Anonymously checkbox.
Yay, a law that's about to be ruled as unconstitutional!
12000 = pi r^2
3819.7186 ~= r^2
61.8039 ~= r
So, simple maths suggest that we're definitely not going to have reception if we're more than 62 miles away from the tower, and that doesn't take into account the curvature of the earth, the height of the tower, atmospheric distortions, etc.
but it does suggest the standard would allow for decent reception within a 30 mile radius. That ain't too bad.