Comment Re:How is this possible? (Score 1) 161
And we consider the Danes a bunch of fat, loud-mouthed alcoholics. No wonder you consider us cold.
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.
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.
I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning. -- Plato
