As the sample set's size tends to infinity, so does the computational power and/or the time required for effective mining (ceteris paribus, of course).
Not one hour straight away, but if you scan it down, find it says "Reaching the end of its life" (0-4 hours remaining), then come back about three hours later and it's still there, you can be pretty sure it only has one hour left of its life.
What Dyinobal said: the server cluster employs time dilation to cope with the load of many characters present in one system or constellation (one level up from systems in the three-tier location system) - the greater the load, the greater the slowdown (which, by the way, is only indicated to players by a small dial on the screen, not an actual slowdown). In extreme cases, such as the 1000+-ship Battle of Asakai, the system or constellation may be moved to a separate server node to avoid crashing the entire cluster the game runs on.
For most of the content in EVE, you simply need to be there, on site, to experience it to its fullest. Sure, you can watch a live stream of the Battle of Asakai, where enough ships were present to instate a time dilation factor of 90%, and force the movement of the system to its separate physical node, but it doesn't capture the pure awe at the number and size of ships, the cacophony of fleet chatter, and such. You can read a comic about how a young, intrepid explorer (yours truly, in fact...) went through a decaying wormhole to explore the hostile system on the other side, forgetting about the 1-hour timer, then found that the wormhole vanished, forcing him to take the "clone express" home, but it doesn't capture the terror upon finding no trace of your exit, and the realization that you're alone in a hostile system, with no chance of rescue, and any moment, hostiles may come hunting for your little frigate. You can read about how an organized wormhole raid got stuck inside when their salvaging Noctis went through the low-mass wormhole first (instead of yours truly's scanner ship, which could have found the new exit), followed by some combat ships before the wormhole vanished, stranding the rest of the fleet outside, but it doesn't really do justice to the uproarious laughter of the fleet, then the creeping dread that the enemy knows we've arrived and are actively hunting us, and we don't know where to run, nor the relief when our commanding officer begins negotiations for the location of the new exit, and we return to known space 10 million credits poorer, but with our ships intact.
Most content in EVE is like real life - you gotta be there to fully appreciate the joke/story.
Think mucking with the tempomat's speed sensor while simultaneously turning the speedometer needle back with your pliers. The car does indeed go faster.
Hmm, avoiding making, supporting, or refuting points: I've seen this behavior before. I think those exhibiting it are called... "trolls". Or politicians. Take your pick.
Is she someone I know? No, she's a complete stranger. Is she someone important to me? No, I don't even know her name. Therefore she bears no weight, no importance, nothing.
On the other hand, could you address the point I made in response to yours, if you're replying?
Once again, assaulting the person in question and then robbing him is a clearly illegal act. Assault and battery is punishable, and so is theft, but taking possession of lost property is not.
Actually, it isn't. I explained before, according to Michael v First Chicago Corp. Illinois, 1985, "A finder of property acquires no rights in mislaid property, is entitled to possession of lost property against everyone except the true owner, and is entitled to keep abandoned property.". Therefore, unless the true owner comes to claim it from you after having tracked you down, and you refuse to return the wallet, it becomes theft. If you return it, or the owner doesn't turn up, it's nothing, since you're entitled to possession of the lost wallet against everyone but the original owner.
At the end of the day, you have to answer to the person in the mirror, andlike and respect that person.
That's... actually a rather nice way of summing up just what makes most people law-abiding, apart from the threat of punishment. As for faith in mankind? Personally, I've lost that a long time ago, so it wouldn't be any surprise to me if I returned such a wallet and were turned away with barely a thanks. All the more reason for me to keep it, even if I'm enforcing the stereotype. My needs and interests come first for me, after all. And I assume the same for every rational person.
As far as I know, however, no rules state that you must try to locate the original owners. Given that my knowledge of US law is not exactly in-depth, I may stand corrected, though...
Let me start from the end of your comment, your example. Frankly, aside from her family and friends, nobody cares if you don't help her. Oh sure, people say you're an asshole, and you should help her, take her to the hospital, etc. But tell them to do it themselves, and they make up an excuse and hurry on: Bystander Effect. On the other hand, raping her is a crime unto itself, punishable by law. That's where your analogy goes astray, in that you attempt to substitute a clearly illegal act for a legal, if unethical one.
Which leads me on to the first part of your comment. Given that the wallet was lost, it left possession of its owner. According to Michael v First Chicago Corp. Illinois, 1985, "A finder of property acquires no rights in mislaid property, is entitled to possession of lost property against everyone except the true owner, and is entitled to keep abandoned property.". Meaning unless the original owner tracks you down (which, let's face it, is quite unlikely in any moderately sized city, let alone a metropolis) and reclaims his wallet, it is, indeed, yours to keep. Whether it was ethical to keep or not. The fact that there was contact information inside is quite irrelevant, given that the true owner has to claim the wallet from you to enforce his possession, in which case you must yield it. Sure, people might think even less of you for not even attempting to return it, but that doesn't make it any less legal.
One is a crime, the other is a legitimate, if unethical action. If there's money to be made, ethics may take a backseat.
To put it into a better context for you, it's like finding a lost wallet on the ground: you should turn it in to the police, but frankly, aside from the owner, who cares if you don't? You won't get punished for taking it, but you might not get rewarded for returning it, whereas if you take it, the reward is guaranteed. After all, "Finders keepers, losers weepers!".
Just a matter f switching the right genes/bits, it would seem (based on how fast we're accomplishing things deemed impossible with the human body before)...
If the game is offline, it could just as easily unload portions of the map that are outside of line-of-sight, or a given radius from the character. Events taking place in the unloaded areas that impact the visible ones may be abstracted away to use less memory, with terrain and mob states saved and loaded as the player approaches them again. That should take care of repetition as well as keeping the memory use constant.
It certainly would, for turning the equivalent of an FMJ round into a shotgun shell. My vote is for a big-ass chemical thruster, those still have the greatest specific impulse we can muster on short notice.
Aside from Google Reader not being a definitive source, since it's only an integrator for RSS feeds specified by the user, and let's not go anywhere near Facebook as a news source, it's quite possible. I'm not following any of these, and I'm pretty sure there's a sizable percentage of the tech community who's the same way. The idea of his setup being an independent achievement is quite conceivable, for me at least.
According to Elixir, the AK8973 magnetometer in my Nexus S, from Asahi Kasei Microdevices has a resolution of 0,0625uT with a temporal resolution of 16667us. With an extensive enough database, that should be enough to distinguish between types of devices at the very least. Differentiating between individual devices or makes/models, now that's a whole other can of worms. It may or may not be possible, but on this one, I'm leaning to go with you and say that such in-depth profiling is indeed impossible.
I'm replying to you in particular because it pisses me off when people accuse me of giving up principles or points I have taken.
I'm not saying "no big deal. sucks anyway.", I only revised my argument to accommodate my belief that patented inventions should present a leap in thought not reproducible by an outsider, which this patent clearly fails to do, as a complete stranger arrived at the same conclusion independently.
I may prefer Android over Apple, but I'm most certainly not a 'fanboi'.
I think people are interpreting my words the wrong way purposely. The Apple patent is not innovative enough as in not making a leap, logical or intuitive, that others cannot make. This is proven by a hacker, without access to a multi-million dollar research budget, who arrived at the same conclusion. Note that this does not belittle his efforts in any way, rather, it's a praise to him and it's belittling Apple's research department for being matched by a tinkerer.
I believe that the only inventions that should be patentable are those that are were born of such a leap of thought that they demonstrably cannot be reproduced without access to the original research material and/or reverse engineering the device itself. It is on this belief that I base my argument of "not innovative", since the hackaday article clearly shows that a simple hacker can independently arrive at the same solution Apple arrived at, without accessing the Apple research documentation or reverse-engineering a prototype (if prototypes even exist of this device).
Yes, sorry, I didn't notice the 2009 Q4 filing date there. Allow me to revise the argument: "not innovative" (I hesitate to write "obvious", since, it's not really that obvious) if a garage tinkerer can arrive at the same conclusion.
Slashdot Mirror
As the sample set's size tends to infinity, so does the computational power and/or the time required for effective mining (ceteris paribus, of course).
Not one hour straight away, but if you scan it down, find it says "Reaching the end of its life" (0-4 hours remaining), then come back about three hours later and it's still there, you can be pretty sure it only has one hour left of its life.
What Dyinobal said: the server cluster employs time dilation to cope with the load of many characters present in one system or constellation (one level up from systems in the three-tier location system) - the greater the load, the greater the slowdown (which, by the way, is only indicated to players by a small dial on the screen, not an actual slowdown). In extreme cases, such as the 1000+-ship Battle of Asakai, the system or constellation may be moved to a separate server node to avoid crashing the entire cluster the game runs on.
For most of the content in EVE, you simply need to be there, on site, to experience it to its fullest.
Sure, you can watch a live stream of the Battle of Asakai, where enough ships were present to instate a time dilation factor of 90%, and force the movement of the system to its separate physical node, but it doesn't capture the pure awe at the number and size of ships, the cacophony of fleet chatter, and such.
You can read a comic about how a young, intrepid explorer (yours truly, in fact...) went through a decaying wormhole to explore the hostile system on the other side, forgetting about the 1-hour timer, then found that the wormhole vanished, forcing him to take the "clone express" home, but it doesn't capture the terror upon finding no trace of your exit, and the realization that you're alone in a hostile system, with no chance of rescue, and any moment, hostiles may come hunting for your little frigate.
You can read about how an organized wormhole raid got stuck inside when their salvaging Noctis went through the low-mass wormhole first (instead of yours truly's scanner ship, which could have found the new exit), followed by some combat ships before the wormhole vanished, stranding the rest of the fleet outside, but it doesn't really do justice to the uproarious laughter of the fleet, then the creeping dread that the enemy knows we've arrived and are actively hunting us, and we don't know where to run, nor the relief when our commanding officer begins negotiations for the location of the new exit, and we return to known space 10 million credits poorer, but with our ships intact.
Most content in EVE is like real life - you gotta be there to fully appreciate the joke/story.
Think mucking with the tempomat's speed sensor while simultaneously turning the speedometer needle back with your pliers. The car does indeed go faster.
Erds number: that's all I have to say on this issue...
Hmm, avoiding making, supporting, or refuting points: I've seen this behavior before. I think those exhibiting it are called ... "trolls". Or politicians. Take your pick.
Is she someone I know? No, she's a complete stranger. Is she someone important to me? No, I don't even know her name. Therefore she bears no weight, no importance, nothing.
On the other hand, could you address the point I made in response to yours, if you're replying?
Once again, assaulting the person in question and then robbing him is a clearly illegal act. Assault and battery is punishable, and so is theft, but taking possession of lost property is not.
Actually, it isn't. I explained before, according to Michael v First Chicago Corp. Illinois, 1985, "A finder of property acquires no rights in mislaid property, is entitled to possession of lost property against everyone except the true owner, and is entitled to keep abandoned property.". Therefore, unless the true owner comes to claim it from you after having tracked you down, and you refuse to return the wallet, it becomes theft. If you return it, or the owner doesn't turn up, it's nothing, since you're entitled to possession of the lost wallet against everyone but the original owner.
Short version of your statement is something like this.
Stealing money from someone is not illegal if you can find a way to justify it.
Ethics is optional, and often overrated. Legality is what matters. Welcome to reality.
At the end of the day, you have to answer to the person in the mirror, andlike and respect that person.
That's ... actually a rather nice way of summing up just what makes most people law-abiding, apart from the threat of punishment.
As for faith in mankind? Personally, I've lost that a long time ago, so it wouldn't be any surprise to me if I returned such a wallet and were turned away with barely a thanks. All the more reason for me to keep it, even if I'm enforcing the stereotype. My needs and interests come first for me, after all. And I assume the same for every rational person.
As far as I know, however, no rules state that you must try to locate the original owners. Given that my knowledge of US law is not exactly in-depth, I may stand corrected, though...
Let me start from the end of your comment, your example. Frankly, aside from her family and friends, nobody cares if you don't help her. Oh sure, people say you're an asshole, and you should help her, take her to the hospital, etc. But tell them to do it themselves, and they make up an excuse and hurry on: Bystander Effect. On the other hand, raping her is a crime unto itself, punishable by law. That's where your analogy goes astray, in that you attempt to substitute a clearly illegal act for a legal, if unethical one.
Which leads me on to the first part of your comment. Given that the wallet was lost, it left possession of its owner. According to Michael v First Chicago Corp. Illinois, 1985, "A finder of property acquires no rights in mislaid property, is entitled to possession of lost property against everyone except the true owner, and is entitled to keep abandoned property.". Meaning unless the original owner tracks you down (which, let's face it, is quite unlikely in any moderately sized city, let alone a metropolis) and reclaims his wallet, it is, indeed, yours to keep. Whether it was ethical to keep or not.
The fact that there was contact information inside is quite irrelevant, given that the true owner has to claim the wallet from you to enforce his possession, in which case you must yield it. Sure, people might think even less of you for not even attempting to return it, but that doesn't make it any less legal.
One is a crime, the other is a legitimate, if unethical action. If there's money to be made, ethics may take a backseat.
To put it into a better context for you, it's like finding a lost wallet on the ground: you should turn it in to the police, but frankly, aside from the owner, who cares if you don't? You won't get punished for taking it, but you might not get rewarded for returning it, whereas if you take it, the reward is guaranteed. After all, "Finders keepers, losers weepers!".
Just a matter f switching the right genes/bits, it would seem (based on how fast we're accomplishing things deemed impossible with the human body before)...
First step along the road to creating the Solanum virus?
If the game is offline, it could just as easily unload portions of the map that are outside of line-of-sight, or a given radius from the character. Events taking place in the unloaded areas that impact the visible ones may be abstracted away to use less memory, with terrain and mob states saved and loaded as the player approaches them again. That should take care of repetition as well as keeping the memory use constant.
Wrong reference there. Eh, does nobody watch Doctor Who?
Little boxes?
"The little boxes will make you angry!"
It certainly would, for turning the equivalent of an FMJ round into a shotgun shell. My vote is for a big-ass chemical thruster, those still have the greatest specific impulse we can muster on short notice.
Aside from Google Reader not being a definitive source, since it's only an integrator for RSS feeds specified by the user, and let's not go anywhere near Facebook as a news source, it's quite possible. I'm not following any of these, and I'm pretty sure there's a sizable percentage of the tech community who's the same way. The idea of his setup being an independent achievement is quite conceivable, for me at least.
According to Elixir, the AK8973 magnetometer in my Nexus S, from Asahi Kasei Microdevices has a resolution of 0,0625uT with a temporal resolution of 16667us. With an extensive enough database, that should be enough to distinguish between types of devices at the very least. Differentiating between individual devices or makes/models, now that's a whole other can of worms. It may or may not be possible, but on this one, I'm leaning to go with you and say that such in-depth profiling is indeed impossible.
I'm replying to you in particular because it pisses me off when people accuse me of giving up principles or points I have taken.
I'm not saying "no big deal. sucks anyway.", I only revised my argument to accommodate my belief that patented inventions should present a leap in thought not reproducible by an outsider, which this patent clearly fails to do, as a complete stranger arrived at the same conclusion independently.
I may prefer Android over Apple, but I'm most certainly not a 'fanboi'.
I think people are interpreting my words the wrong way purposely. The Apple patent is not innovative enough as in not making a leap, logical or intuitive, that others cannot make. This is proven by a hacker, without access to a multi-million dollar research budget, who arrived at the same conclusion. Note that this does not belittle his efforts in any way, rather, it's a praise to him and it's belittling Apple's research department for being matched by a tinkerer.
I believe that the only inventions that should be patentable are those that are were born of such a leap of thought that they demonstrably cannot be reproduced without access to the original research material and/or reverse engineering the device itself. It is on this belief that I base my argument of "not innovative", since the hackaday article clearly shows that a simple hacker can independently arrive at the same solution Apple arrived at, without accessing the Apple research documentation or reverse-engineering a prototype (if prototypes even exist of this device).
Yes, sorry, I didn't notice the 2009 Q4 filing date there. Allow me to revise the argument: "not innovative" (I hesitate to write "obvious", since, it's not really that obvious) if a garage tinkerer can arrive at the same conclusion.