Uhm yeah, these are guys at NASA transmitting data to the moon. Maybe you should give them a call and tell them all you know about binary digits, checksums and error correction?
And if "going with the flow" means having to stop using a computer because it gives you a headache, that's ok? Because developers constantly force their own colour schemes instead of respecting the choice that the user made? Doesn't sound very nice.
So you want to emulate the SNES and chose a screen with an even lower resolution than this 20 years old console. You wouldn't even be able to play Amiga PAL games on this, or show border sprites on the C64 emulation without ugly scaling. I mean, wtf? Who is this for?
There's nothing in the article about FOSS. There's not even anything about "open source", just that the tax agency should have access to the source code.
Whine whine whine I have to pay taxes to the evil gubmint so I have to whine in this article even when I don't have anything to add!
If you're not happy with the way your peers vote, then your options are to influence them in the right direction or move to a place with better peers. Whining just makes you seem like a sucker.
3) takes time to make. The quicker it is to create the hash, the quicker it is to brute-force your way through all possible combinations to find a hash that matches.
Most password cracking happens by getting a list of hashed password values through some other securitu exploit, and running as many hashes as you can as quickly as you can to find match.
If they're claiming a fast hash is a good thing, they're missing the point.
Bullshit. You don't bruteforce a 512 bit hash, no matter how fast it is. It simply doesn't work like that. You must find a weakness in the algorithm to break even much smaller hashes.
The problem is not the exit node, no information of any value contains there, and nothing that can incriminate you will be on the exit node.
The problem is the complete raid of everything of value you own and depend on that had no part in the exit node, no matter what is stored on the machines. Likely keeping them for months, even years depending on how far they want to go with the case.
Why would you find a new host when you're obviously not a customer at the hosting provider implementing this change? Or did you mean that you want to change from your current one to actually use this new, because you approve of the changes? Your two messages here are very conflicting.
It can actually replace both, which is pretty interesting and might change how our current computing model is built.
There are already applications and systems in place to model the data storage like this, for example memory-mapped file I/O, where you basically tell the operating system that "please let me pretend that this huge file on the hard drive is already in RAM", and let the RAM be some sort of huge cache. The same model would apply to storage here, except we would get rid of the whole RAM layer between storage and CPU.
Actually, when you buy a HD you will always get a few more bytes than what is specified. I just checked my 1.5TB drive, it gives me 1500301910016 bytes, 301910016 more than rated. Same with my 750GB drive, giving me 750155292160 sweet bytes.
Of course, but that doesn't account for power loss in the distribution network: long power lines, transformers, etc. That's probably what the issue is about here. The AT&T network has its own overhead, something the customer can not measure nor influence, and AT&T charge for this overhead but refuse to release the details.
You could measure your power usage to 17653.8 kWh, your provider measures 19877.2 on its end. What's the number they should use for billing?
And when this is done, you as a consumer can now chose an optimal weight for your shipment that more closely matches your requirements, instead of having to guess which tools the shipper will use.
Or AT&T's competitor can now optimize their network layout and offer you a lower price.
They have ALWAYS used the standard and correct interpretation. Always. One gigabyte is one gigabyte, 1000000000 bytes. From the first hard drives to the current. You don't need to tell them what a gigabyte is.
It's not their fault your operating system doesn't know the difference between 1000 and 1024.
If you buy a 12 or 16-core CPU, it's not because you want your Facebook page to load faster. It's because you have some serious parallel workload to process, likely involving a lot of calculations.
And as recently as 2012, I had problems with my sound card in Windows, while it worked fine in Linux on the same computer. What does that prove? Nothing at all. Or maybe that Windows is not ready for the desktop.
Your rants are a bit... dated. Come back when you've found your time machine.
Setting up a dual boot environment has, for the last 5 years at least, just been to tick the box in the installer. Sound just works since years back. The most popular Linux distribution has removed pretty much all options with regards to "tweaking". In fact, that's their whole point, and why they are the most popular.
Slashdot Mirror
Uhm yeah, these are guys at NASA transmitting data to the moon. Maybe you should give them a call and tell them all you know about binary digits, checksums and error correction?
And if "going with the flow" means having to stop using a computer because it gives you a headache, that's ok? Because developers constantly force their own colour schemes instead of respecting the choice that the user made? Doesn't sound very nice.
No one is talking about 3D film here, and the OP talks about polarized sunglasses, not 3D glasses.
So you want to emulate the SNES and chose a screen with an even lower resolution than this 20 years old console. You wouldn't even be able to play Amiga PAL games on this, or show border sprites on the C64 emulation without ugly scaling. I mean, wtf? Who is this for?
There are better ones. Check out the Kobo Glo for one example.
Maybe Sweden isn't populated by clones.
There's nothing in the article about FOSS. There's not even anything about "open source", just that the tax agency should have access to the source code.
Whine whine whine I have to pay taxes to the evil gubmint so I have to whine in this article even when I don't have anything to add!
If you're not happy with the way your peers vote, then your options are to influence them in the right direction or move to a place with better peers. Whining just makes you seem like a sucker.
And we consider the Danes a bunch of fat, loud-mouthed alcoholics. No wonder you consider us cold.
$40 per month for uncapped 100 down and 100 up in olde Sweden. :)
3) takes time to make. The quicker it is to create the hash, the quicker it is to brute-force your way through all possible combinations to find a hash that matches.
Most password cracking happens by getting a list of hashed password values through some other securitu exploit, and running as many hashes as you can as quickly as you can to find match. If they're claiming a fast hash is a good thing, they're missing the point.
Bullshit. You don't bruteforce a 512 bit hash, no matter how fast it is. It simply doesn't work like that. You must find a weakness in the algorithm to break even much smaller hashes.
Yeah, what crazy people would risk anything at all for a little freedom? Crazytalk. I better just shut up and keep updating my facebook status.
The problem is not the exit node, no information of any value contains there, and nothing that can incriminate you will be on the exit node.
The problem is the complete raid of everything of value you own and depend on that had no part in the exit node, no matter what is stored on the machines. Likely keeping them for months, even years depending on how far they want to go with the case.
Why would you find a new host when you're obviously not a customer at the hosting provider implementing this change? Or did you mean that you want to change from your current one to actually use this new, because you approve of the changes? Your two messages here are very conflicting.
It can actually replace both, which is pretty interesting and might change how our current computing model is built.
There are already applications and systems in place to model the data storage like this, for example memory-mapped file I/O, where you basically tell the operating system that "please let me pretend that this huge file on the hard drive is already in RAM", and let the RAM be some sort of huge cache. The same model would apply to storage here, except we would get rid of the whole RAM layer between storage and CPU.
It is, which is why it's sold as 750 GB, not 750 GiB.
Actually, when you buy a HD you will always get a few more bytes than what is specified. I just checked my 1.5TB drive, it gives me 1500301910016 bytes, 301910016 more than rated. Same with my 750GB drive, giving me 750155292160 sweet bytes.
Of course, but that doesn't account for power loss in the distribution network: long power lines, transformers, etc. That's probably what the issue is about here. The AT&T network has its own overhead, something the customer can not measure nor influence, and AT&T charge for this overhead but refuse to release the details.
You could measure your power usage to 17653.8 kWh, your provider measures 19877.2 on its end. What's the number they should use for billing?
And when this is done, you as a consumer can now chose an optimal weight for your shipment that more closely matches your requirements, instead of having to guess which tools the shipper will use.
Or AT&T's competitor can now optimize their network layout and offer you a lower price.
They have ALWAYS used the standard and correct interpretation. Always. One gigabyte is one gigabyte, 1000000000 bytes. From the first hard drives to the current. You don't need to tell them what a gigabyte is.
It's not their fault your operating system doesn't know the difference between 1000 and 1024.
More expensive and complex hardware. The mouse already has a USB interface.
If you buy a 12 or 16-core CPU, it's not because you want your Facebook page to load faster. It's because you have some serious parallel workload to process, likely involving a lot of calculations.
And as recently as 2012, I had problems with my sound card in Windows, while it worked fine in Linux on the same computer. What does that prove? Nothing at all. Or maybe that Windows is not ready for the desktop.
Your rants are a bit... dated. Come back when you've found your time machine.
Setting up a dual boot environment has, for the last 5 years at least, just been to tick the box in the installer. Sound just works since years back. The most popular Linux distribution has removed pretty much all options with regards to "tweaking". In fact, that's their whole point, and why they are the most popular.