Forgot your password?

Comment: Re: (Score 1) 371

by six (#45541061) Attached to: Bitcoin Tops $1,000 For the First Time

Forget CPU and GPU already. The mining difficulty has risen so much recently that what you can mine with them today won't event offset the power costs.

ASICs are the only viable option today for at-home mining, but I'm pretty sure they'll also be rendered useless soon by hosted mining services (CEX.IO already has 25% of the whole Bitcoin network mining power) that are able to consolidate costs and run their mining farms in countries with cheap electricity.

+ - A privacy centered alternative to Google location tracking & sharing on Andr->

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "Created as a privacy centered alternative to Google Latitude, PiLc is a secure location sharing and device tracking platform with end-to-end encryption, so you can safely share your real-time location with your family and friends, and no one else. PiLc ensures that your location data is only made available to whom you publish it for. This is accomplished by storing decryption keys on mobile devices and nowhere else, so even the PiLc servers never store decrypted data nor decryption keys. Quoting from the website :

We stronly believe that real-time location tracking data is very sensitive and should never be made available to anyone that is not extremely trusted, and that existing location sharing platforms simply don't provide the necessary privacy guarantees.


Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Q: Why are we still on x86 and 64bit and not 12 (Score 4, Informative) 151

by six (#40783609) Attached to: World's Most Powerful x86 Supercomputer Boots Up in Germany

Don't mix up addressing and computing.

The whole internet would fit in a 64 bit address space, there is really absolutely no need at all for more than 64 bit for addresses in CPUs, that's why x86_64 and other 64 bit archs are here to stay, and you'll probably never see "128 bit" processors at all.

On the other side, today's x86_64 CPUs are capable of 128 bit (SSE) and 256 bit (AVX) computing. The width of the compute units is also bound to increase for some time, with Intel already planning to go 1024 bit in the not-so-far future.

Comment: Re:To be fair... (Score 2) 169

by six (#35680470) Attached to: Pioneer Anomaly Solved By 1970s Computer Graphics

The technique for Phong Shading was introduced in 1973 as an improvement to Gouraud Shading, but was too computationally intensive to be used for graphics back then. This is no longer the case.

It was too computationally intensive for *realtime* rendering in 1973, but clearly not out of reach for the kind of modeling software NASA people were using ...

Also, it should be noted that realtime phong shading was already common in demos/intros running on 33 MHz 386 CPUs back in the 90s

Comment: Re:No NAT, no glory (Score 1) 425

by six (#33291792) Attached to: Why You Shouldn't Worry About IPv6 Just Yet

IPv4 multi-homing can't be done without BGP, either. The requirements for Provider Independent address space in IPv6 are identical to the requirements for PI address space in IPv4.

I meant "cheap" multi-homing without a PI address block, like it's used in many small/medium offices where you have multiple ISP links and just failover by changing the SNAT mapping at the gateway when one goes down.

Doing this with ipv6 requires renumbering the whole internal network each time you switch links, or the more costly alternative of getting your own PI block, which in turn isn't IMHO sustainable for the long term because everyone doing it would make the global BGP table grow an awful lot faster that it's already.

Comment: Re:No NAT, no glory (Score 1) 425

by six (#33291556) Attached to: Why You Shouldn't Worry About IPv6 Just Yet

OK, so it seems you agree (with the Founders of the Internet) that end-to-end is a good thing. .... and now you say it's a bad thing. So is it a good thing or a bad thing then?

My personal opinion is that end-to-end is *generally* a good thing, but shouldn't be *enforced* because there always will be edge cases where it will conflict with privacy.

Er, what??

Do you mean to say that without NAT a firewall is not needed, or that a firewall doesn't impact reachability ?

Comment: Re:IPv6 gives me a choice (Score 1) 425

by six (#33291354) Attached to: Why You Shouldn't Worry About IPv6 Just Yet

With IPv6 I can use NAT if I want.

I'm all for freedom of choice, my problem actually is that you can't use ipv6 NAT even if you want. Not with Linux anyway.

If people want anonymity within their local network, then there will be a market for devices that do IPv6 address cloaking and you can buy one and use it to hide your addresses.

Exactly, you would have to pay for something you can achieve with one iptables command line on ipv4. See my point ?

Comment: No NAT, no glory (Score 1, Flamebait) 425

by six (#33290962) Attached to: Why You Shouldn't Worry About IPv6 Just Yet

The lack of SNAT/DNAT targets in Linux ip6tables makes it quite impossible to use ipv6 for any serious enterprise networking. Ipv6 multihoming can't be done without BGP, other solutions like mobile ipv6 or shim6 are - at best - a big mess, also who wants to broadcast his internal network topology/numbering scheme to the whole internet ?

There seems to be some kind of religious taboo here, where the only - supposedly - evil use of NAT (N-to-1 mapping) being taken into consideration, but this is IMHO just plain wrong. Also the NAT haters main argument is that it doesn't preserve end to end reachability (which is not even true for N-to-N mappings), but without NAT everyone is gonna use a stateful firewall for ipv6, and guess what ... the effect on reachability is almost exactly the same.

The other problem I have is with anonymity, without NAT every PC in your local network may be identified individually, there are many cases where this may not be desirable.

IMO ipv6 brings some nice new stuff to the table, the most obvious being the xxl address space, but takes away too much for me to consider using it for myself or my customers at the moment.


The Proton Just Got Smaller 289

Posted by samzenpus
from the size-does-matter dept.
inflame writes "A new paper published in Nature has said that the proton may be smaller than we previously thought. The article states 'The difference is so infinitesimal that it might defy belief that anyone, even physicists, would care. But the new measurements could mean that there is a gap in existing theories of quantum mechanics. "It's a very serious discrepancy," says Ingo Sick, a physicist at the University of Basel in Switzerland, who has tried to reconcile the finding with four decades of previous measurements. "There is really something seriously wrong someplace."' Would this indicate new physics if proven?"

At these prices, I lose money -- but I make it up in volume. -- Peter G. Alaquon