Comment Re:We don't need more systemd hate! (Score 1) 416
Sounds like a job for Cron.
Better yet, systemd/Timers: https://wiki.archlinux.org/ind...
Sounds like a job for Cron.
Better yet, systemd/Timers: https://wiki.archlinux.org/ind...
And in any case property tax does end up being a tax on economic activity also, or at least on economic value, which is determined by economic activity.
The Broken Window Fallacy is the classic counterexample. Among other things, it's a means to disengage (and of course, tax) economic activity from the value of property.
I agree that the Broken Window Fallacy is a fallacy. I don't see how it's a counterexample to the claim that property tax is a tax on economic activity. Can you elaborate?
capitalism in which the cost of protecting property rights is paid for by taxing economic activity rather than the property rights themselves.
How do you tax property rights?
Have you ever owned property? It is quite simple and called property tax.
I wondered if that's what he was proposing, that all defense of property be funded by property taxes. Property tax isn't really a tax on property rights, though. And in any case property tax does end up being a tax on economic activity also, or at least on economic value, which is determined by economic activity. So I don't see the point.
capitalism in which the cost of protecting property rights is paid for by taxing economic activity rather than the property rights themselves.
How do you tax property rights?
Do a search for google car can't drive in rain and you will see that they haven't even been tested in heavy rain because of safety concerns.
That just means they haven't gotten to that yet, not that they expect it to be very hard.
If it wasn't an issue they would already be doing it. Of course it is nowhere near the first of the issues autonomous cars have, they are quite far from what people imagine.
The guys I know working on the Google cars disagree. Oh, they have plenty to do, but it's mostly because they've set an extraordinarily high bar for themselves.
Do a search for google car can't drive in rain and you will see that they haven't even been tested in heavy rain because of safety concerns.
That just means they haven't gotten to that yet, not that they expect it to be very hard.
Is this memory based on silicon, or something else, like GaAs or Germanium or Graphene or something else?
Given that they've released close to zero technical details on how it works, but stated that it's nonvolatile, has 1000x the endurance of NAND flash while being 1000x faster, is cheaper than DRAM, and will be available in 128GBit capacities any minute now, my guess is that it's based on magic.
Of course it's cheaper than DRAM; DRAM is expensive. TFA says it will be more expensive than NAND and cheaper than DRAM. So, it just adds another point on the continuum... the more speed and write cycles you need, the more it costs. Seems reasonable. And TFA says nothing about availability; not sure where you got that from.
There's no reason to conclude it's magic. There's also no reason to start designing new architectures around it until we see it in the real world.
It's going to cost more than NAND flash.
But it would make a GREAT cache for spinning rust. None of the longevity problems of NAND, 1,000 times faster. Ka-chow.
For that matter, it would be a pretty good cache for NAND SSDs. I could do with most of my writes being 1000X faster.
If you have 64GB of RAM, you can cache the entire SSD. Then you won't have to issue TRIM commands!
My SSD is 1 TB. The other one is 256 GB. SSDs today are a lot larger than you seem to realize.
Actually, they probably included a few big wrenches to assemble some of the rack systems, so they probably have the tools to break even 1024 bit encryption.
When you say "1024-bit encryption" you're talking about RSA, which is a completely different problem. 1024-bit RSA are too small to be used today and should be replaced.
2048-bit RSA keys, however, are roughly equivalent in security against brute force to a 112-bit symmetric key, and will be secure against anyone for quite some time. 3072-bit RSA keys are equivalent to a 128-bit symmetric key. Excascale, even yottascale, computers won't touch them.
But everyone really should be moving away from RSA anyway. ECC is better in virtually every respect. To get 128-bit security (meaning equivalency to 128-bit symmetric key), you only need a 256-bit EC key.
Range suffers a bit, not so much because the batteries are affected by cold, but because you use some juice to heat the cabin. As far as performance on snow, they're great. Their center of gravity is low, front wheel drive and the power applied to the wheels is finely controllable.
I drive my Nissan LEAF to the ski resort almost every morning during the winter.
Probably none at all. If you want to break today's encryption/hashing algorithms you would probably be using ASICs if not those then FPGAs with GPU compute being your last choice.
ASICs, FPGAs and GPUs are all utterly, utterly inadequate to attack today's encryption and hashing algorithms. Unless you have not only tens of billions of dollars but also don't mind waiting millions of years. http://tech.slashdot.org/comme....
For that, you would be using custom ASIC hardware, and lots of it.
No, for that you just laugh at the guy asking you to do it, and look for ways to steal the key, rather than brute forcing it. Even if an ASIC solution gets to way beyond exascale, say to yottascale (10^6 times faster than exascale), you're still looking at on the order of a million years to recover a single 128-bit AES key, on average.
Brute force is not how you attack modern cryptosystems. More detail: http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
Anyone can make an omelet with eggs. The trick is to make one with none.
