-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Travis Northrup:
Yes, it can. The program can spend the processor time to run that extra instruction set. Do we actually need or want that? Would it be worth spending the cpu time in exchange for just a miniscule effort to do it ourselves?
Are you really arguing something like 1000 cycles on a modern processor (so, what, a microsecond, tops) vs 5 minutes of human effort? Is this maybe an example of why crypto software UX is almost universally god-awful? Best, - -Gordon M.
On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 3:53:25 PM, Gordon Morehouse wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
Travis Northrup:
This argument (Mbit/s versus GiB/month) reminds me of the old saw about the most useless unit of velocity (furlongs/fortnight instead of m/sec).
Mick
I know exactly what you mean. Personally, I consider any change to be a convenience modification only. In reality the only current differences are in defining storage rate and traffic rate (1024/1000 respectively) and its defined in bits. From there all conversions are simple math that should be operator responsibility.
Why, when the config file can be liberal in what it accepts in the numerator, and in the denominator (seconds, days, weeks, mean months)?
Calculating numbers is a job for a computer.
Best, - -Gordon M.
_______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
- -- Sent from my thing that sends email. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJSm+Y+AAoJED/jpRoe7/ujPRYH/1agvqhrhhk7/uqNr9oEW+Wi A7fJ2Z6Dt/j+b1A9ty05regLN5q+4t9JE5A492j146v8aJEcZoAWU6718ug8n1Kq wzX0t5oWl36UivFr99pVvKTf1YHEQ9BCx4S88bbkUn6IvYFv/z8n4o+Kw2dutYDO Zgl0NGaPrc5IgAglGv6p2Kjc9TON8bkIYJENkbaW58kVEeCad9Sel3i2ZDrC7E2R WJw8E51n472HpbYbCu5L/zuijzjxpYdjI0Nu3KI3Qci9Uozkpgq2N7bo3n2rzYMI ufwSnyqAwQLH1ZCkYhYVbR4uEuNRGP2/sAUXrKdhYVNE6c3MsCY/Zm51nnDzHX4= =GzbJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----