Shitty upload speeds will allow an inflexible bittorrent client to saturate your upload. If the upload gets saturated, TCP ACK packets get dropped, which means the server re-sends packets you've already received. Thus, shitty downloads.
There are three solutions - the best is to simply adjust your client's max upload limit. WoW doesn't allow this, so the next option is to prioritize TCP ACK packets in your router. Most consumer grade routers don't allow this, so your last option is to uncheck the peer-to-peer box in WoW.
If you could limit the WoW client's upload limit, you'd almost certainly saturate your download speed when you download patches.
Usually people who see improved speeds by unchecking the peer to peer option have shitty upload speeds. If the upload gets saturated, the download will plummet. If you have decent upload speeds (around 35-40% of your download speed is plenty) you'll probably be able to saturate your download. DSL users are usually stuck with uploads of 25% or less than their download speed, which is easilly saturated if the bittorrent client is inflexible.
5 billion torrents though, that would take you forever to download.
The trouble with Linux patches though, is that is exactly what it would be. Except for a handful of core components, the updates are from separate groups. It's not a single distribution source like Microsoft.
Which is probably why they are saying it means nothing, for the blazon simply says "zeros and ones", allowing any configuration of zeros and ones to be the correct depiction of the coat of arms.
Technical accomplishments pale in comparison to cultural accomplishments.
Are you really arguing that emacs is a greater accomplishment than the entire open source software movement? GPL is what made OSS possible, without license the software would have been stolen before it could get off its feet. That's exactly what prompted the GPL in the first place - Stallman and his MIT buddies were writing software that vendors were picking up, incorporating into their own products, and then forcing Stallman and his buddies to pay for in the next iteration.
GCC would not have mattered one lick without the license.
Really, it's just a C compiler. It's important, but rudimentary. Anybody with sufficient programming skills can write one for a given machine (and they do). The license was the stroke of genius. GCC only exists in its current form because of the license. Without it GCC would be just another compiler in the dustbin of history.
The real important contribution was the counter-culture he started, and that was only able to survive the extremely proprietary world of computers because of the license.
I don't even like Stallman (I think he's an asshole, frankly), but that's clearly one thing he got very right. It was a brilliant move to use the same copyright laws that were used to steal his (and his compatriates') software in order to ensure their software would be free to use by everyone forever.
In other words, open source software - GCC included - would likely not exist today without the GPL.
GCC would not be important today at all without the license, because it would be proprietary software, therefore the license trumps it in my opinion. They are kinda two faces of the same coin though. Without GCC, the GPL probably would have never taken off at all.
So he's got two huge contributions, a lot of big ones (Linux was just GNU with Torvald's kernel at first), and then a bunch of crazy wacko rants.
You scratch my back, I scratch yours. You don't pay me my protection money, though, and you'd better watch your ass - an unpleasant surprise is on its way.
We tried that, it was called "The Articles of Confederation", and was the first government of the United States of America.
Frankly, it failed miserably. It was way too weak. It only lasted about 12 years before the current Constitution of the United States of America went into effect.
I agree we need to scale things back a lot, but what you suggest goes way too far. What we need is some serious house-cleaning and re-evaluation of some of the major drains on our economy, but many of the things the government does are done because the government is the only entity that can do them. It would not be wise to blindly throw them away.
If we just made a few simple (but painful) changes, we would be in much better shape. Cut medicare in half, cut social security in half, and eliminated our overseas military presence (hardly justifiable any more except for areas where we are in active conflict) and we could cut our national budget by half or more. Obviously get rid of this bullshit "healthcare reform" that isn't reform at all before it can do serious damage to the economy. That would be a huge weight lifted, and allow the economic engine to ramp up very quickly. If we could stomach eliminating medicare and social security all together we would be in even better shape, and a national sales tax at a reasonable rate would be more than feasible.
It'll never happen though, it's just a pipe dream.
Apparently you don't understand the difference between hiring a lobbyist and being a lobbyist.
Google's CEO is not a lobbyist, obviously. He hires them, because he has a business to run and it's the only way to get shit done. That does not mean he enjoys it and wants the practice to continue.
Telling the world how fucked up the lobby system is clearly falls under point 4, dumbass.
Anybody who hasn't been asleep the past 20 or more years already knows that organizations have stolen the government.
I've got news for you: it's always been this way.
This is not some new phenomenon in the last 20 years, the industry has always written its own laws. Most recently, the financial industry wrote the Financial Reform Act. 200 years ago, guess who wrote the copyright laws? If you said the book industry, you win a gold star! Today it's the music and movie industry writing the copyright laws - welcome the new boss, same as the old boss. Guess who is going to be writing the offshore drilling laws that will be coming out in the next year or so?
The fact is, there is no other way to do it. Politicians do not know shit about a lot of this stuff. Sad, but true. Frankly, they can't. So when a new law needs to be written, they turn to the experts: industry insiders. This is a double edged sword, and over the years politicians have gotten very good at cutting themselves with it. Unfortunately, the politicians don't hold themselves accountable for following bad advice, and the people rarely hold politicians accountable for fucking their lives over.
Industry should be afraid of the government, and the government should be afraid of the people. We let things slide though, and it just gets perpetually worse and worse. Maybe some day we'll snap out of it, but I think it's far more likely that we'll just get used to it instead.
I'm not sure what you're protesting here - a company with one of the biggest lobbying machines letting everybody know that lobbyists write the rules, and that it should not be that way.
Sounds downright noble to me.
You think Sony is going to tell you that (they've helped write a number of copyright laws, fyi)?
Dependencies in Linux are murder if you go off the beaten path. You can't just go find some nifty piece of software, install it, and expect it to work. Chances are, if it's not in the repository, you're not going to get it to work. Talk about lock in!
Linux dependencies suck balls, I'll take Windows executables and dll hell over that any day.
A $40k per year Linux admin is unheard of. The average is almost $90k, $10k more than the average Windows admin. That's great if you're a Linux guy, not so much if you're a business trying to save money. That's a Windows server every year down the drain, and that's just to maintain.
Factor in the costs of re-training all your staff (and yes, you will need to re-train them - a lot of business people are pretty stupid wrt computer stuff), and the costs just to switch skyrocket.
Anybody who is involved in IT from a business perspective should understand that, while Microsoft's prices and licensing schemes are ridiculous, they are a drop in the bucket compared to the real costs of doing business.
Anybody who chooses Linux over Windows because the OS is free is a fool. There are plenty of reasons to choose Linux over Windows, but "cheaper" isn't one of them.
That particular paper was written by a physicist as a hoax, it was not computer generated.
There have been several CG papers that have been published, though. They are almost always done to embarrass the institution they are published to.
Occasionally, it's not necessarily a hoax, but instead the paper writers have no real understanding about what they are writing about, and are trying to get by on jargon and buzzwords. They often succeed.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, meant Blizzard, not WoW.
Shitty upload speeds will allow an inflexible bittorrent client to saturate your upload. If the upload gets saturated, TCP ACK packets get dropped, which means the server re-sends packets you've already received. Thus, shitty downloads.
There are three solutions - the best is to simply adjust your client's max upload limit. WoW doesn't allow this, so the next option is to prioritize TCP ACK packets in your router. Most consumer grade routers don't allow this, so your last option is to uncheck the peer-to-peer box in WoW.
If you could limit the WoW client's upload limit, you'd almost certainly saturate your download speed when you download patches.
Usually people who see improved speeds by unchecking the peer to peer option have shitty upload speeds. If the upload gets saturated, the download will plummet. If you have decent upload speeds (around 35-40% of your download speed is plenty) you'll probably be able to saturate your download. DSL users are usually stuck with uploads of 25% or less than their download speed, which is easilly saturated if the bittorrent client is inflexible.
In other words, multicast works wonderfully for your cable tv, but sucks balls for your cable internet.
5 billion torrents though, that would take you forever to download.
The trouble with Linux patches though, is that is exactly what it would be. Except for a handful of core components, the updates are from separate groups. It's not a single distribution source like Microsoft.
The matrix was written in Japanese, the only ones or zeros in that movie were phone numbers.
Someone who doesn't know what a palindrome is?
Which is probably why they are saying it means nothing, for the blazon simply says "zeros and ones", allowing any configuration of zeros and ones to be the correct depiction of the coat of arms.
Not really, since it's mentioned in the summary.
Technical accomplishments pale in comparison to cultural accomplishments.
Are you really arguing that emacs is a greater accomplishment than the entire open source software movement? GPL is what made OSS possible, without license the software would have been stolen before it could get off its feet. That's exactly what prompted the GPL in the first place - Stallman and his MIT buddies were writing software that vendors were picking up, incorporating into their own products, and then forcing Stallman and his buddies to pay for in the next iteration.
GCC would not have mattered one lick without the license.
Really, it's just a C compiler. It's important, but rudimentary. Anybody with sufficient programming skills can write one for a given machine (and they do). The license was the stroke of genius. GCC only exists in its current form because of the license. Without it GCC would be just another compiler in the dustbin of history.
The real important contribution was the counter-culture he started, and that was only able to survive the extremely proprietary world of computers because of the license.
I don't even like Stallman (I think he's an asshole, frankly), but that's clearly one thing he got very right. It was a brilliant move to use the same copyright laws that were used to steal his (and his compatriates') software in order to ensure their software would be free to use by everyone forever.
In other words, open source software - GCC included - would likely not exist today without the GPL.
I don't see how that can be, since he has yet to actually contribute Hurd yet.
GCC would not be important today at all without the license, because it would be proprietary software, therefore the license trumps it in my opinion. They are kinda two faces of the same coin though. Without GCC, the GPL probably would have never taken off at all.
So he's got two huge contributions, a lot of big ones (Linux was just GNU with Torvald's kernel at first), and then a bunch of crazy wacko rants.
What do you mean? Obama got rid of lots of lobbyists... by adding them to his cabinet!
However, his cabinet didn't have room for all of them, so he keeps having to create czars for stuff.
Don't worry though, he'll get all of the lobbyists out soon.
Hope! Change! Yay!
More a mix of both.
You scratch my back, I scratch yours. You don't pay me my protection money, though, and you'd better watch your ass - an unpleasant surprise is on its way.
We tried that, it was called "The Articles of Confederation", and was the first government of the United States of America.
Frankly, it failed miserably. It was way too weak. It only lasted about 12 years before the current Constitution of the United States of America went into effect.
I agree we need to scale things back a lot, but what you suggest goes way too far. What we need is some serious house-cleaning and re-evaluation of some of the major drains on our economy, but many of the things the government does are done because the government is the only entity that can do them. It would not be wise to blindly throw them away.
If we just made a few simple (but painful) changes, we would be in much better shape. Cut medicare in half, cut social security in half, and eliminated our overseas military presence (hardly justifiable any more except for areas where we are in active conflict) and we could cut our national budget by half or more. Obviously get rid of this bullshit "healthcare reform" that isn't reform at all before it can do serious damage to the economy. That would be a huge weight lifted, and allow the economic engine to ramp up very quickly. If we could stomach eliminating medicare and social security all together we would be in even better shape, and a national sales tax at a reasonable rate would be more than feasible.
It'll never happen though, it's just a pipe dream.
Apparently you don't understand the difference between hiring a lobbyist and being a lobbyist.
Google's CEO is not a lobbyist, obviously. He hires them, because he has a business to run and it's the only way to get shit done. That does not mean he enjoys it and wants the practice to continue.
Telling the world how fucked up the lobby system is clearly falls under point 4, dumbass.
Really, is "I" too hard for you guys to type?
Damn you guys are lazy!
I don't know if you have actually read about any of this though.
Odd, since he mentions them in the second paragraph.
Apparently you never got past the first sentence.
Anybody who hasn't been asleep the past 20 or more years already knows that organizations have stolen the government.
I've got news for you: it's always been this way.
This is not some new phenomenon in the last 20 years, the industry has always written its own laws. Most recently, the financial industry wrote the Financial Reform Act. 200 years ago, guess who wrote the copyright laws? If you said the book industry, you win a gold star! Today it's the music and movie industry writing the copyright laws - welcome the new boss, same as the old boss. Guess who is going to be writing the offshore drilling laws that will be coming out in the next year or so?
The fact is, there is no other way to do it. Politicians do not know shit about a lot of this stuff. Sad, but true. Frankly, they can't. So when a new law needs to be written, they turn to the experts: industry insiders. This is a double edged sword, and over the years politicians have gotten very good at cutting themselves with it. Unfortunately, the politicians don't hold themselves accountable for following bad advice, and the people rarely hold politicians accountable for fucking their lives over.
Industry should be afraid of the government, and the government should be afraid of the people. We let things slide though, and it just gets perpetually worse and worse. Maybe some day we'll snap out of it, but I think it's far more likely that we'll just get used to it instead.
Shouldn't that lend credibility to the argument?
I'm not sure what you're protesting here - a company with one of the biggest lobbying machines letting everybody know that lobbyists write the rules, and that it should not be that way.
Sounds downright noble to me.
You think Sony is going to tell you that (they've helped write a number of copyright laws, fyi)?
God what Linux have you been using? I want it!
Dependencies in Linux are murder if you go off the beaten path. You can't just go find some nifty piece of software, install it, and expect it to work. Chances are, if it's not in the repository, you're not going to get it to work. Talk about lock in!
Linux dependencies suck balls, I'll take Windows executables and dll hell over that any day.
A $40k per year Linux admin is unheard of. The average is almost $90k, $10k more than the average Windows admin. That's great if you're a Linux guy, not so much if you're a business trying to save money. That's a Windows server every year down the drain, and that's just to maintain.
Factor in the costs of re-training all your staff (and yes, you will need to re-train them - a lot of business people are pretty stupid wrt computer stuff), and the costs just to switch skyrocket.
Anybody who is involved in IT from a business perspective should understand that, while Microsoft's prices and licensing schemes are ridiculous, they are a drop in the bucket compared to the real costs of doing business.
Anybody who chooses Linux over Windows because the OS is free is a fool. There are plenty of reasons to choose Linux over Windows, but "cheaper" isn't one of them.
He means 'misanthropes'.
Mythanthropes sounds like a title for a Terry Pratchet novel.
Also, I got 145 hits for the word, which Google are you using?
That particular paper was written by a physicist as a hoax, it was not computer generated.
There have been several CG papers that have been published, though. They are almost always done to embarrass the institution they are published to.
Occasionally, it's not necessarily a hoax, but instead the paper writers have no real understanding about what they are writing about, and are trying to get by on jargon and buzzwords. They often succeed.