I support your use of magic mushrooms as part of your 'alternative lifestyle', but you're not actually supposed to smoke them.
Oh wahhhhh. If you have a problem with treaties that your government signs, maybe you should make your opinion known at the polls. Complaining because someone exercises their granted rights is pretty inane. Similar to how your boreish, pseudo-clever replies are lame.
No, they have an almost unprecedented asymmetric extradition treaty.
How in the world did you think the title "Bull" applied to your comment? Whether one country has to spin in circles, and the other dance up and down, the extradition treaties are reciprocal. Just because the UK government sold their citizens out doesn't dilute that simple fact.
The US likes to deport Canadian Citizens to Syria even though they only arrived in the US for a stop-over flight back to Canada.
That isn't a clear-cut case.
Firstly, Arar retained his Syrian citizenship, and was in fact a dual Syrian-Canadian citizen (not just a Canadian citizen). It seems pretty bizarre to keep a citizenship for a country you claim to never want to be sent to, but whatever.
Secondly, there is some information that indicts CSIS/the RCMP in the matter -- that the US almost acted on the implicit request of Canadian authorities.
It's still not very clear why he ought to be extradited though.
He committed a crime against resources not only in another country, but of another country's government. If you mail a bomb to the president of another country, that country will ask for you to be sent over -- even though you began the crime in your country.
Does the US ever ship anyone overseas for trial ?
That's why the UK is extraditing him -- they have a reciprocal extradition treaty. If they refuse to, then the next time they want a cyberhacker from the US to be extradited, the US would refuse.
I remember seeing glasses video displays this small a decade ago. Of course the problem with them then, and even now, was resolution: The resolution was so terrible that it has limited uses, seriously degrading even the already low quality of television.
Not only does it look dumb, the going standard is that the form you use (a lame form of blockquote) implies a -quote-, not something that you yourself are saying. Not only are you misusing the tag, you're misusing the context under which that layout should be used in the first place.
The club is the stupidest thing in the world. One simply zips through the steering wheel with a hacksaw to remove it.
Oh, so you saw that episode of Dateline or 20/20 too, eh?
I had an old, 300,000km '98 Dodge Neon -- one of the most stolen cars in my area.
Given that I didn't want the hassle of it being stolen, not to mention that I don't like equipping joyriders and criminals, I always used "The Club".
Several times cars in the vincinity, including cars on either side once, were broken into and attempted to be stolen (once the van beside me was stolen. I lived in an apartment complex in London, Ontario at the time, an area with terribly high property crime). The Neon wasn't touched.
Most criminals don't carry around hacksaws, and it's a much lower bar to stopping or at least disuading petty criminals than it is to stop a professional car thief.
outside of test environments luxury cars are almost never stolen by strangers... friends or family members with grudges maybe, but professional car thieves avoid these cars because of their almost zero resell/chop-up value.
Luxury cars are stolen all of the time, primarily to put on a container ship and send overseas (depending on where you are, overseas varies. A stolen car from Germany ends up in Canada, and vice versa, both without local paper trails documenting the theft).
Nonetheless this story..smells..bogus, or at best completely anecdotal. One short article on some random website is hardly convincing. It looks like a car-centered blog.
I'll wait until it has credible backers before I worry about thieves wirelessly stealing my car.
Bullshit. Bin Laden is not stupid; he just has a different ideology. From his perspective he's fighting for freedom from foreign control, similar to how the Americans fought against the British during the American Revolution and War of 1812.
Right. So that's why this Saudi went in and was a major participant of the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan. That's why he was attacking the US back in the early 90s, long before the current adventures. That's why his troops are trying for the overthrow of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan (to kick out governments he doesn't like, to replace them with hardliners).
Yeah, he just wants to fight the foreigners, just like the war of 1812!
My god -- do you really believe this crap? You're spewing moral equivalism, imagining that he must be just like "us", only with different motives. That's like saying Jeffrey Dahmer was just like other guys, only he liked human flesh instead of chicken: If you really think it's all the same, then you need to rethink things.
Chess games rely on brute computation to up the difficulty level.
Yeah, but as the OP asked -- what in the world would a physics coprocessor have to do with a chess game?
Purpose specific devices, such as sound processing DSPs, video card GPUs, or in this case a physics processor, beat out general purpose chips (like the AMDs and Intels that we know and love) because they've been designed for a very specific task. Where a general purpose device might require 1000 operations for a FFT, a DSP might require three because that's one of its primary purposes.
Nonetheless, that performance advantage most certainly doesn't carry over to non domain specific tasks.
So the original question holds -- what in the world would a chip built specifically for physics have to do with chess? While there have been chess processors (such as Deep Blue), these certainly weren't built following the rules of physics...
How much money are people supposed to spend on passive entertainment? It'd be better to spend the money not spent on gaming on tickets to a traveling Broadway play or a live concert. Pre-produced entertainment has become so common and without novelty that live entertainment is actually more worthwhile, now. Perhaps it'll help remind people they are actually alive and not stuck in a cube-shaped room with a glowing window to an imagined world.
Your comment is very confusing. Plays and concerts are passive entertainment, and video games are active entertainment. Not really sure what any of it has to do with pre-produced entertainment.
In any case, many video gamers are busy playing challenging games socially (online games are prevalent now, often with dozens of players), often communicating and having fun with people from around the globe. Pretty hard to villainize that.
Isn't this the same kind of actions that open source advocates condemn, when Microsoft and friends use it ?
Obviously this is just one misguided project by a small number of people -- it wasn't given a consensus mandate by the community.
In any case, this sort of "shat upon IE" thing has been around in the zealot camps for some time. While Opera is my primary browser, and Firefox is my secondary browser, occasionally I browse with IE. Every now and then I come across some lame, evangelical site that denies me access on the basis that I'm colluding with the great Evil Microsoft by using Internet Explorer. I hit back and never visit that site again -- the world doesn't need idiots trying to unnecessarily coopt others.
What's funny is that the ones suffering (the Iraqis) disagree with you. A vast majority wants the Americans out asap and there a plurality of people who not only sympathize with the "insurgents" but also support violent action against Americans.
Wow. Why don't you call up some of those Iraqis and ask their real opinion, because you're here spreading absurd misinformation flippantly. Most Iraqis want a timetable for US withdrawl (AS DOES THE US! Who the hell wants to spend hundreds of billions, and thousands of lives, putting another country in order?), but very, very few want the US to hop on a plane and fly out. They aren't crazy.
Of course, the reason is that those people are just too stupid to realize that Americans are angels from heaven and all raids, air and otherwise, on civilians is for their own good.
Yes, that's what was implied. Good strawman.
The sad truth is that 99% of the people running roughshod over the boards to piss on the US a) don't give a flying fuck about the Iraqis, or any downtrodden peoples. They just like a wonderful opportunity to piss on the US, or b) they're racist and want the US out simply because Arabs aren't worth the trouble. Usually a), but occasionally one sees b) as well.
Iraqis now have less access to electricity, clean water, and natural gas. The price of gasoline there is more than what we pay here before taxes. Whole cities have been destroyed. Over 100,000 people have died. Do you really believe they were all terrorists?
Few would disagree that the Iraq war was a huge mistake. Nonetheless, interesting that you pin everything on the US. The US has spent billions upon billions upon billions trying to rebuild Iraq, but elements that want Iraq to be a cesspool keep, you know, blowing it and lots of people up. Yet the only villain you see is the US. Funny.
So how would you feel if a foreign country invaded your country and took away every creature comfort you had, and then killed your parents and your sister? Hmmm... lets see here... join a terrorist group.
Yeah, and go and blow up every burgeoning creature comfort of your country, and kill thousands of your countrymen. Yeah, that's a pretty logical progression.
The "funny" thing is that most insurgents in Iraq aren't Iraqis (you know, those disaffected people who you think the US got up in arms). They're henchmen with a long running desire to shame the US, hoping it will stay back enough that they can take over Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc.
Now we are threatining Iran, which is an elected democracy in every sense of the word (unlike Iraq's "democracy) and is surprisingly pro-west, with dropping nuclear bombs on them. Yes, the world is a lot less safer because of George Bush. Specifically it is a lot less safer for Americans and for America.
Ha ha ha. Talk about blinders. The Iran whose leadership has openly and formally called for the annihilation of Israel. Yeah, can't see why Iran getting nukes would be a problem... The Iran that is being continually sanctioned by the UN (as always, the people with blinders can only see George W. and the US. While the US has the means, it's hardly the US that is behind censuring Iran).
Personally I think the US should detach and let Iran to chart their course. Let the skeptics eat their cake when Iran inevitably nukes Israel, Israel retaliates, revolution kicks off in Saudi Arabia, and then spreads across the middle East. Damn that George W.!
Even if that is gross hyperbole, the AC still has a point -- if our government hadn't screwing around with them for the past 20-odd years, they wouldn't have attacked us in the first place. Bush's policy of retaliation just pisses them off even more, and makes things worse.
Not only is this a defeatist attitude, but it's completely baseless to boot -- you have no idea how the world would have turned out under alternate scenarios, and you're just idealizing that under a non-intervention approach everyone would be holding hands and singing songs.
In reality your approach could have led to extreme hardline overthrows of all of the Middle East, Turkey, Pakistan, extreme military hostilities with India, more violent wars between the secular Iraq and her neighbours, endless assaults on Israel, and so on.
Given that most Westerner's live a life that would earn them a stoning to death, I think it's a bit ridiculous to think that letting them in peace would make them good neighbours.
What's interesting is relevance. The average bachelor isn't going to run out and buy tampons because an actress told him how fun it was to go rollerskating on your period, but he might go out and buy exercise equipment because Chuck Norris told him it would improve his roundhouse kicks.
The problem is getting the information necessary to tailor ads to individual preferences without it being a hassle for the viewer or infringe on privacy....
You do realize, don't you, that they tailor the ads to the demographics of the show in question?
If you find that you're being bombarded by tampon pitches and sugar cereal ads, you might want to consider what shows you find yourself watching.
There's no avoiding the performance hit. The low end co-processor will still have to wait for the underlying physical media. Pre-fetching and other nice tricks are also faster without encryption. There's no way to make a sum of two times lower than the individual times.
If your hard drive platter reads at 30MB/s, the I/O chips can run on the HD can run up to 69.7MB/s, SATA works at 133MB/s, and your processor can only possibly handle reads up to 200MB/s, what will your net speed be?
30MB/s.
It's the weakest link that dictates the real world speed, and the same will be true with whole drive encryption as well. So long as the encryption can be accomplished faster than the I/O, and without using CPU time that would otherwise be used to better effect elsewhere, there would be no hit at all being completely irrelevant block latencies.
Are you saying that this will work as fast as the same drive without any encryption?
With hardware encryption, sure. The public key cryptography is used just for the private key, but from there it's high performance AES. There's no reason a very low end I/O coprocessor can't easily decrypt/encrypt faster than the underlying physical media. I'm sure on the overwhelming majority of PCs it will be software encryption, which will certainly create additional CPU load (good that we're going multi-core now).
Purportedly, at least from the whitepapers I've seen (not sure if PCs with TPM are even in the mainstream yet), the hard drive itself really doesn't even know that the encryption is happening. It's getting bits written and read, just like always. Between the file system driver (e.g. NTFS) and the SATA driver, however, there's a layer that's automagically doing the necessary magic for encryption, so the NTFS driver writes some data, and it's encrypted, and the reverse.
and an ext3 drive mounted by a hostile system will ignore security settings as well. the point of filesystem permissions is not to defeat a hostile system, but rather to allow admins to keep contorl of the machine and users to protect their files from other users.
Right, and that isn't in dispute. This whole conversation relates to a volume encryption system that is intended to thwart data thieves who have physical access to a machine (to remove the HD, boot into alternate operating systems, and so on). In such a scenario, NTFS, ext3, and FAT32, are all on a equal footing minus any additional security.
For all of your criticism of FAT, NTFS provides -zero- security when the host Windows operating system isn't in charge (e.g. when you've dual booted, or even booted with a Knoppix disc, and that Linux install happily disregards NTFS ACLs). It's functionally no better than FAT32 in that very common scenario. Encrypted File System, really a more granular, earlier version of BitLocker, does offer data exposure protection, however it's really an application layer above NTFS, much like PGPDisk.
1) BitLocker will ONLY work with NTFS.
Given that BitLocker exists transparently under the file system, automatically encrypting/decrypting transparently, there is no technical reason for them to limit it to this. In fact, given the wide number of FAT32 removable storage devices, which people will likely want to encrypt, it seems very likely that BitLocker will support non-NTFS devices.
I should correct what I said a bit: BitLocker does work without the supporting hardware -- the disk manager asks for a key on startup, and uses it for software encryption of whole volumes. Again it's abstracted from the filesystem.
Any body that is dual booting will also know that making a partition formatted fat32 will allow copying of files between os's.
Bitlocker is a whole-volume, hardware based encryption system (as opposed to file-specific techologies, such as Encrypted File System, which have overhead that requires a specific filesystem like NTFS. There is no filesystem specific overhead because it's transparent to the filesystem, and to the applications for that matter) -- there is no reason I am aware of for it to be tied to any specific filesystem, and it should encrypt FAT32 just as capably as NTFS.
Not only is this functionality optional, and requiring special hardware support, but it is a bonafide feature. The data of the world would be much safer if every laptop swiped, hard drive sold on ebay, and incident of unwanted physical access of machines couldn't give absolute access to every file on the machine.
Oh, and the "culture" of English Canada most certainly doesn't hail from England, or any other single point. The culture of the rest of Canada firstly varies dramatically by region, and evolves and changes constantly, incorporating many elements of many source cultures (including a tremendous amount from French Canada). The culture wasn't defined in 1920, and then expected to solidify for time eternal.
The issues I have come from our heritage. If you dont think your heritage is important, well, i think you're missing out. Why do you think there are st-patrick's parades and such?
St. Patrick's day is a fun day when everyone amazingly becomes Irish for a day, no matter how spurious or disconnected their Irish ancestry actually is. It doesn't, however, define them even remotely.
Many of the other cultural events are the same way -- the greek family goes and does the big Greek thing for a day, and then they go back to being Canadian North Americans, members of the planet Earth. More often than not their life is a constantly changing mesh of many cultures, exactly like supposedly culture-less people like myself.
There are other people, usually recent arrivals, that clutch onto their homeland culture, desperately fearful that the loss or change of anything they traditionally did will diminish them, and of course there's a fear of anything new or different. The same motivations that drive people to fear change, and to clutch onto old ways, are the motivations that drive racism, for example, or intolerance.
Slashdot Mirror
I support your use of magic mushrooms as part of your 'alternative lifestyle', but you're not actually supposed to smoke them.
Oh wahhhhh. If you have a problem with treaties that your government signs, maybe you should make your opinion known at the polls. Complaining because someone exercises their granted rights is pretty inane. Similar to how your boreish, pseudo-clever replies are lame.
No, they have an almost unprecedented asymmetric extradition treaty.
How in the world did you think the title "Bull" applied to your comment? Whether one country has to spin in circles, and the other dance up and down, the extradition treaties are reciprocal. Just because the UK government sold their citizens out doesn't dilute that simple fact.
The US likes to deport Canadian Citizens to Syria even though they only arrived in the US for a stop-over flight back to Canada.
That isn't a clear-cut case.
Firstly, Arar retained his Syrian citizenship, and was in fact a dual Syrian-Canadian citizen (not just a Canadian citizen). It seems pretty bizarre to keep a citizenship for a country you claim to never want to be sent to, but whatever.
Secondly, there is some information that indicts CSIS/the RCMP in the matter -- that the US almost acted on the implicit request of Canadian authorities.
It's still not very clear why he ought to be extradited though.
He committed a crime against resources not only in another country, but of another country's government. If you mail a bomb to the president of another country, that country will ask for you to be sent over -- even though you began the crime in your country.
Does the US ever ship anyone overseas for trial ?
That's why the UK is extraditing him -- they have a reciprocal extradition treaty. If they refuse to, then the next time they want a cyberhacker from the US to be extradited, the US would refuse.
I remember seeing glasses video displays this small a decade ago. Of course the problem with them then, and even now, was resolution: The resolution was so terrible that it has limited uses, seriously degrading even the already low quality of television.
Quit pseudo-block-quoting your own reply.
Not only does it look dumb, the going standard is that the form you use (a lame form of blockquote) implies a -quote-, not something that you yourself are saying. Not only are you misusing the tag, you're misusing the context under which that layout should be used in the first place.
It's been my experience that people who call a computer case a "tower" are generally clueless.
Are you 14?
The bulk of computer cases are vertical, and for time eternal have been sized as mid-tower or full-sized tower. e.g. tower. It's entirely appropriate.
The club is the stupidest thing in the world. One simply zips through the steering wheel with a hacksaw to remove it.
Oh, so you saw that episode of Dateline or 20/20 too, eh?
I had an old, 300,000km '98 Dodge Neon -- one of the most stolen cars in my area.
Given that I didn't want the hassle of it being stolen, not to mention that I don't like equipping joyriders and criminals, I always used "The Club".
Several times cars in the vincinity, including cars on either side once, were broken into and attempted to be stolen (once the van beside me was stolen. I lived in an apartment complex in London, Ontario at the time, an area with terribly high property crime). The Neon wasn't touched.
Most criminals don't carry around hacksaws, and it's a much lower bar to stopping or at least disuading petty criminals than it is to stop a professional car thief.
outside of test environments luxury cars are almost never stolen by strangers... friends or family members with grudges maybe, but professional car thieves avoid these cars because of their almost zero resell/chop-up value.
Luxury cars are stolen all of the time, primarily to put on a container ship and send overseas (depending on where you are, overseas varies. A stolen car from Germany ends up in Canada, and vice versa, both without local paper trails documenting the theft).
Nonetheless this story..smells..bogus, or at best completely anecdotal. One short article on some random website is hardly convincing. It looks like a car-centered blog.
I'll wait until it has credible backers before I worry about thieves wirelessly stealing my car.
Bullshit. Bin Laden is not stupid; he just has a different ideology. From his perspective he's fighting for freedom from foreign control, similar to how the Americans fought against the British during the American Revolution and War of 1812.
Right. So that's why this Saudi went in and was a major participant of the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan. That's why he was attacking the US back in the early 90s, long before the current adventures. That's why his troops are trying for the overthrow of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan (to kick out governments he doesn't like, to replace them with hardliners).
Yeah, he just wants to fight the foreigners, just like the war of 1812!
My god -- do you really believe this crap? You're spewing moral equivalism, imagining that he must be just like "us", only with different motives. That's like saying Jeffrey Dahmer was just like other guys, only he liked human flesh instead of chicken: If you really think it's all the same, then you need to rethink things.
Chess games rely on brute computation to up the difficulty level.
Yeah, but as the OP asked -- what in the world would a physics coprocessor have to do with a chess game?
Purpose specific devices, such as sound processing DSPs, video card GPUs, or in this case a physics processor, beat out general purpose chips (like the AMDs and Intels that we know and love) because they've been designed for a very specific task. Where a general purpose device might require 1000 operations for a FFT, a DSP might require three because that's one of its primary purposes.
Nonetheless, that performance advantage most certainly doesn't carry over to non domain specific tasks.
So the original question holds -- what in the world would a chip built specifically for physics have to do with chess? While there have been chess processors (such as Deep Blue), these certainly weren't built following the rules of physics...
How much money are people supposed to spend on passive entertainment? It'd be better to spend the money not spent on gaming on tickets to a traveling Broadway play or a live concert. Pre-produced entertainment has become so common and without novelty that live entertainment is actually more worthwhile, now. Perhaps it'll help remind people they are actually alive and not stuck in a cube-shaped room with a glowing window to an imagined world.
Your comment is very confusing. Plays and concerts are passive entertainment, and video games are active entertainment. Not really sure what any of it has to do with pre-produced entertainment.
In any case, many video gamers are busy playing challenging games socially (online games are prevalent now, often with dozens of players), often communicating and having fun with people from around the globe. Pretty hard to villainize that.
Isn't this the same kind of actions that open source advocates condemn, when Microsoft and friends use it ?
Obviously this is just one misguided project by a small number of people -- it wasn't given a consensus mandate by the community.
In any case, this sort of "shat upon IE" thing has been around in the zealot camps for some time. While Opera is my primary browser, and Firefox is my secondary browser, occasionally I browse with IE. Every now and then I come across some lame, evangelical site that denies me access on the basis that I'm colluding with the great Evil Microsoft by using Internet Explorer. I hit back and never visit that site again -- the world doesn't need idiots trying to unnecessarily coopt others.
What's funny is that the ones suffering (the Iraqis) disagree with you. A vast majority wants the Americans out asap and there a plurality of people who not only sympathize with the "insurgents" but also support violent action against Americans.
Wow. Why don't you call up some of those Iraqis and ask their real opinion, because you're here spreading absurd misinformation flippantly. Most Iraqis want a timetable for US withdrawl (AS DOES THE US! Who the hell wants to spend hundreds of billions, and thousands of lives, putting another country in order?), but very, very few want the US to hop on a plane and fly out. They aren't crazy.
Of course, the reason is that those people are just too stupid to realize that Americans are angels from heaven and all raids, air and otherwise, on civilians is for their own good.
Yes, that's what was implied. Good strawman.
The sad truth is that 99% of the people running roughshod over the boards to piss on the US a) don't give a flying fuck about the Iraqis, or any downtrodden peoples. They just like a wonderful opportunity to piss on the US, or b) they're racist and want the US out simply because Arabs aren't worth the trouble. Usually a), but occasionally one sees b) as well.
Iraqis now have less access to electricity, clean water, and natural gas. The price of gasoline there is more than what we pay here before taxes. Whole cities have been destroyed. Over 100,000 people have died. Do you really believe they were all terrorists?
Few would disagree that the Iraq war was a huge mistake. Nonetheless, interesting that you pin everything on the US. The US has spent billions upon billions upon billions trying to rebuild Iraq, but elements that want Iraq to be a cesspool keep, you know, blowing it and lots of people up. Yet the only villain you see is the US. Funny.
So how would you feel if a foreign country invaded your country and took away every creature comfort you had, and then killed your parents and your sister? Hmmm... lets see here... join a terrorist group.
Yeah, and go and blow up every burgeoning creature comfort of your country, and kill thousands of your countrymen. Yeah, that's a pretty logical progression.
The "funny" thing is that most insurgents in Iraq aren't Iraqis (you know, those disaffected people who you think the US got up in arms). They're henchmen with a long running desire to shame the US, hoping it will stay back enough that they can take over Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc.
Now we are threatining Iran, which is an elected democracy in every sense of the word (unlike Iraq's "democracy) and is surprisingly pro-west, with dropping nuclear bombs on them. Yes, the world is a lot less safer because of George Bush. Specifically it is a lot less safer for Americans and for America.
Ha ha ha. Talk about blinders. The Iran whose leadership has openly and formally called for the annihilation of Israel. Yeah, can't see why Iran getting nukes would be a problem... The Iran that is being continually sanctioned by the UN (as always, the people with blinders can only see George W. and the US. While the US has the means, it's hardly the US that is behind censuring Iran).
Personally I think the US should detach and let Iran to chart their course. Let the skeptics eat their cake when Iran inevitably nukes Israel, Israel retaliates, revolution kicks off in Saudi Arabia, and then spreads across the middle East. Damn that George W.!
Even if that is gross hyperbole, the AC still has a point -- if our government hadn't screwing around with them for the past 20-odd years, they wouldn't have attacked us in the first place. Bush's policy of retaliation just pisses them off even more, and makes things worse.
Not only is this a defeatist attitude, but it's completely baseless to boot -- you have no idea how the world would have turned out under alternate scenarios, and you're just idealizing that under a non-intervention approach everyone would be holding hands and singing songs.
In reality your approach could have led to extreme hardline overthrows of all of the Middle East, Turkey, Pakistan, extreme military hostilities with India, more violent wars between the secular Iraq and her neighbours, endless assaults on Israel, and so on.
Given that most Westerner's live a life that would earn them a stoning to death, I think it's a bit ridiculous to think that letting them in peace would make them good neighbours.
What's interesting is relevance. The average bachelor isn't going to run out and buy tampons because an actress told him how fun it was to go rollerskating on your period, but he might go out and buy exercise equipment because Chuck Norris told him it would improve his roundhouse kicks.
The problem is getting the information necessary to tailor ads to individual preferences without it being a hassle for the viewer or infringe on privacy....
You do realize, don't you, that they tailor the ads to the demographics of the show in question?
If you find that you're being bombarded by tampon pitches and sugar cereal ads, you might want to consider what shows you find yourself watching.
There's no avoiding the performance hit. The low end co-processor will still have to wait for the underlying physical media. Pre-fetching and other nice tricks are also faster without encryption. There's no way to make a sum of two times lower than the individual times.
If your hard drive platter reads at 30MB/s, the I/O chips can run on the HD can run up to 69.7MB/s, SATA works at 133MB/s, and your processor can only possibly handle reads up to 200MB/s, what will your net speed be?
30MB/s.
It's the weakest link that dictates the real world speed, and the same will be true with whole drive encryption as well. So long as the encryption can be accomplished faster than the I/O, and without using CPU time that would otherwise be used to better effect elsewhere, there would be no hit at all being completely irrelevant block latencies.
Are you saying that this will work as fast as the same drive without any encryption?
With hardware encryption, sure. The public key cryptography is used just for the private key, but from there it's high performance AES. There's no reason a very low end I/O coprocessor can't easily decrypt/encrypt faster than the underlying physical media. I'm sure on the overwhelming majority of PCs it will be software encryption, which will certainly create additional CPU load (good that we're going multi-core now).
Purportedly, at least from the whitepapers I've seen (not sure if PCs with TPM are even in the mainstream yet), the hard drive itself really doesn't even know that the encryption is happening. It's getting bits written and read, just like always. Between the file system driver (e.g. NTFS) and the SATA driver, however, there's a layer that's automagically doing the necessary magic for encryption, so the NTFS driver writes some data, and it's encrypted, and the reverse.
and an ext3 drive mounted by a hostile system will ignore security settings as well. the point of filesystem permissions is not to defeat a hostile system, but rather to allow admins to keep contorl of the machine and users to protect their files from other users.
Right, and that isn't in dispute. This whole conversation relates to a volume encryption system that is intended to thwart data thieves who have physical access to a machine (to remove the HD, boot into alternate operating systems, and so on). In such a scenario, NTFS, ext3, and FAT32, are all on a equal footing minus any additional security.
For all of your criticism of FAT, NTFS provides -zero- security when the host Windows operating system isn't in charge (e.g. when you've dual booted, or even booted with a Knoppix disc, and that Linux install happily disregards NTFS ACLs). It's functionally no better than FAT32 in that very common scenario. Encrypted File System, really a more granular, earlier version of BitLocker, does offer data exposure protection, however it's really an application layer above NTFS, much like PGPDisk.
1) BitLocker will ONLY work with NTFS.
Given that BitLocker exists transparently under the file system, automatically encrypting/decrypting transparently, there is no technical reason for them to limit it to this. In fact, given the wide number of FAT32 removable storage devices, which people will likely want to encrypt, it seems very likely that BitLocker will support non-NTFS devices.
I should correct what I said a bit: BitLocker does work without the supporting hardware -- the disk manager asks for a key on startup, and uses it for software encryption of whole volumes. Again it's abstracted from the filesystem.
Here's some pertinent info.
How secure is your data?
Any body that is dual booting will also know that making a partition formatted fat32 will allow copying of files between os's.
Bitlocker is a whole-volume, hardware based encryption system (as opposed to file-specific techologies, such as Encrypted File System, which have overhead that requires a specific filesystem like NTFS. There is no filesystem specific overhead because it's transparent to the filesystem, and to the applications for that matter) -- there is no reason I am aware of for it to be tied to any specific filesystem, and it should encrypt FAT32 just as capably as NTFS.
Not only is this functionality optional, and requiring special hardware support, but it is a bonafide feature. The data of the world would be much safer if every laptop swiped, hard drive sold on ebay, and incident of unwanted physical access of machines couldn't give absolute access to every file on the machine.
Oh, and the "culture" of English Canada most certainly doesn't hail from England, or any other single point. The culture of the rest of Canada firstly varies dramatically by region, and evolves and changes constantly, incorporating many elements of many source cultures (including a tremendous amount from French Canada). The culture wasn't defined in 1920, and then expected to solidify for time eternal.
The issues I have come from our heritage. If you dont think your heritage is important, well, i think you're missing out. Why do you think there are st-patrick's parades and such?
St. Patrick's day is a fun day when everyone amazingly becomes Irish for a day, no matter how spurious or disconnected their Irish ancestry actually is. It doesn't, however, define them even remotely.
Many of the other cultural events are the same way -- the greek family goes and does the big Greek thing for a day, and then they go back to being Canadian North Americans, members of the planet Earth. More often than not their life is a constantly changing mesh of many cultures, exactly like supposedly culture-less people like myself.
There are other people, usually recent arrivals, that clutch onto their homeland culture, desperately fearful that the loss or change of anything they traditionally did will diminish them, and of course there's a fear of anything new or different. The same motivations that drive people to fear change, and to clutch onto old ways, are the motivations that drive racism, for example, or intolerance.