It explains the architecture of the 7011/250 in detail. When I was much younger I was working with a group to get Linux on there. We got to the point of making a boot floppy that would display a 3 digit number on the front panel.
I'll get back to it eventually, I have 8 7011s with the intention of circularly netbooting them to rapidly test kernel builds. Also have a bunch of others (several of each 7006, 7009, 7012, 7013 and then the newer prep, chrp, P4/5/6/7/8/9). Most my free time is spent working on FreeBSD networking right now.
Set up an eBay saved search, they are the most common of the MCA RS/6000s to show up. Price target $150-200. If that doesn't work out in a reasonable timeframe (say 1 year) contact me.. otherwise better to rescue from the market than other collectors, dollar for dollar, to keep more machines out of the landfill.
There is a 220, which have the interesting RSC chip (good for AIX 3.2.5, probably not a good target for anything else including NetBSD due to specialized CPU support that would be necessary):
https://www.ebay.com/itm/335464230008
You'd want a [250,25T,25W] (66 or 80mhz, hard to determine which without seeing the planar) for NetBSD or AIX up to 4.3.3 (5.1 will run but is a little heavy for the hardware).
There is a now rare 7248, this is a second gen prep system that is special because it can boot Solaris, OS/2, NT, AIX, NetBSD. It looks similar to the more ubiquitous 7043-140 which is also a good machine but can't do all those OSes. Price is close to reasonable for what it is:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/186792645248
That's not accurate - when a telephone company registers a block of numbers (at least in the US), you specify if it's landline, pager, VoIP, cellular, etc.
It's not hard, it's complex. I spent a few years going through 834 and later at a different company, 811. For the first I embedded a javascript interpreter to do translations. For the second I put most of the logic in the code.
That's also why Assange (and others) developed the Rubberhose file system[0].
It's based on the game theoretic idea that if your adversary has no way of knowing how many hidden partitions you have, then you have no way of proving to them that you've given them all your secrets.
As such, there is no benefit to you revealing any secrets under torture, because the torture would continue even after you've told them everything, therefore there is no point to them torturing you in the first place.
If they don't understand game theory, that just means they will act sub-optimally. In any case, the correct strategy for the user is still to not decrypt any partitions, since, as you say, the sooner the user stops decrypting, the sooner the torturers give up.
That seems like a pretty foolish assumption to make of your adversaries/captors.
If a torturer has good reason to believe you have valuable information regarding subject X, they'll simply torture you until they possess that information or you die. If you don't possess the information, you're screwed. If you do possess the information, it's likely that they'll stop after they get what they're after.
A state liable to torture you may simply kill you instead. Or torture you and kill you, even if it serves no particular purpose.
If you're in the business of protecting your secrets against torture then you need to also be protecting them against death because that is grimly inevitable.
That's not really making the case for clever crypto solutions. Assange is rotting in prison and is probably going to die in the US in the near future. What secret information could he be protecting at this point?
There is still a lot of it in service. Sometimes you'll see a tank of nitrogen chained to a pole. It is there to put pressure through the cable to keep water out of a cut/nick on the lead sheath. The lines are pressurized normally from the central office and if the monitoring shows a drop in pressure (a cut in the sheath), they roll out cable maintenance.
I was one of two providers in their 13 state region that used it. It was really successful and let us put in ADSL and then Ethernet over Copper in business parks.
By the time you're publicly traded you're not looking to raise money via equity as you have excellent access to loans by that point. You're not talking about a startup that can't get a loan.
Why? If a company prints a single stock then sells it for $100, I would expect the company's market cap to go up by $100 since it now has $100 more dollars in its bank account.
Because the company printing a single stock is already a signal it is worth a little bit less. If you have N stock for capital valuation $V, each stock is worth $V/N. If you emit one more, you basically need either to argue your company total valuation should rise or you dilluted all stock to be worth now $V/(N+1).
The company valuation is not stock price * stock count, which is your confusion, it's more tangible asset + speculative future assets, so the more stock you emit the less they each is worth. Companies become popular by doing stock buyback (increasing each remaining stock individual value).
Market cap, which is the stuff they do for amateur and children, to multiply stock count by stock price, is entirely meaningless because it ignores value when stocks were actually transacted and liquidity. If you emit a million stock at 0.1c and then create a marketing fad while locking the supply in the hands of a few and refuse to sell, you create a huge gap between low supply and high demand, increasing the individual price manyfold, arriving at a huge market cap... but you paid nothing for most stocks and a few people paid a LOT for a little. In investment banking we use volume weighted average price to try to get a view of what's the short term intraday value of a stock instead.
Imagine, I dont know, a crypto asset with a market cap of a trillion and a single individual owning 1/21 of the entire asset pool, if this single individual signal just one token sale, the entire market starts selling to people who dont want to buy anymore: what is then the value of considering the market cap ? It can go to 0 tomorrow just if demand disappear. Basically you need to include liquidity, a metric of the stability of the supply and demand, that's why I prefer to look at earnings per share to evaluate a company, it is way more significative of what you just bought. For a crypto asset it's 0 for instance.
> Because the company printing a single stock is already a signal it is worth a little bit less.
Good point. But I was responding to someone who said "theoretically", which I took to mean ignoring psychology things like this and just looking at numbers. Of course "theoretically" can have many different meanings, and I might have been misunderstanding how that commenter was using it.
> it's more tangible asset + speculative future assets
When you sell a stock for $100 the tangible assets went up by $100. So the second equation is actually ($V+$100)/(N+1).
> Imagine, I dont know, a crypto asset
Bitcoin is a bit different because people believe Satoshi's coins are literally gone, lost. I don't think that happens with stocks.
It explains the architecture of the 7011/250 in detail. When I was much younger I was working with a group to get Linux on there. We got to the point of making a boot floppy that would display a 3 digit number on the front panel.