"When the Steam servers go down and your client fails to connect just throw it into offline mode. Then burn a back-up DVD of your game collect for future use."
Having a CD/DVD copy of the game + a CD-Key has all those features built-in without the user having to do anything.
I can install pre-Steam Half-Life 1 on any computer and play a quick game without having to go online to activate for the installation or download cracks (whether they are official or unofficial).
"Use Steam or develop a system where people aren't chained to a CD or Jewel case with a cryptic serial number on it"
I actually much prefer the Cd-Key system over Steam.
Take Half-Life 1 before Steam was available for example. On installing from the CD I simply had to enter the CD-Key. I could enter a pirated CD-Key but I wouldn't be able to play online then, so there was incentive to buy it.
Steam on the other hand probably won't let me activate games in the distant future when Steam is no longer around.
Damn i'm getting modded funny but i'm serious.
There's a paper on negative quantum channels by Horodecki who's earlier work is referenced in this current paper.
link: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0505062
Basically a channel that doesn't exist can be thought of as both a channel of 0 positive information capacity and as a channel of 0 negative information capacity.
The negative channel can be treated in the exact same way as the positive channel. Once you have worked out the net capacity of each the total capacity is the positive channel - the negative channel.
So when this paper says that you can use a 0 capacity channel for information transfer, there is a paradox as a 0 capacity channel can be thought of as a channel that doesn't exist.
In this case the positive information capacity of 2 channels can be increased, but i beleive that the negative information capacity would also increase in exactly the same way.
The data looking random or not has nothing to do with the information capacity of the channel.
Shannons definition of information capacity is simply the maximum amount of information that can be recovered by the receiver on the channel.
A channel where the receiver can't recover data under any circumstances is a 0 capacity channel, that reason could be interfering noise or the fact that the channel doesn't exist.
Which poses a problem with this theory, it basically says 2 channels that don't exist can transmit information, which is intuitively incorrect.
Because quantum information can be negative it would seem this theory could be applied to make a channel with 0 negative capacity have some cpacity from nothing in the same way.
So really any extra positive capacity could be cancelled out.
Actually a better example of C/C++ knowing the size of the arrays would of been the sizeof() operator.
Anyway the point still stands, C/C++ intentionally don't test array bounds.
C++ does know the size of arrays. That's why you call call delete [] myArray; without specifying the size of the array.
What C++ doesn't do is test if the index is out of bounds every time you access the array. It makes it faster but you should remember to put the test in if the index isn't guaranteed to be correct.
Slashdot Mirror
"When the Steam servers go down and your client fails to connect just throw it into offline mode. Then burn a back-up DVD of your game collect for future use."
Having a CD/DVD copy of the game + a CD-Key has all those features built-in without the user having to do anything.
I can install pre-Steam Half-Life 1 on any computer and play a quick game without having to go online to activate for the installation or download cracks (whether they are official or unofficial).
"Use Steam or develop a system where people aren't chained to a CD or Jewel case with a cryptic serial number on it"
I actually much prefer the Cd-Key system over Steam.
Take Half-Life 1 before Steam was available for example. On installing from the CD I simply had to enter the CD-Key. I could enter a pirated CD-Key but I wouldn't be able to play online then, so there was incentive to buy it.
Steam on the other hand probably won't let me activate games in the distant future when Steam is no longer around.
Damn i'm getting modded funny but i'm serious. There's a paper on negative quantum channels by Horodecki who's earlier work is referenced in this current paper.
link: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0505062
Basically a channel that doesn't exist can be thought of as both a channel of 0 positive information capacity and as a channel of 0 negative information capacity.
The negative channel can be treated in the exact same way as the positive channel. Once you have worked out the net capacity of each the total capacity is the positive channel - the negative channel.
So when this paper says that you can use a 0 capacity channel for information transfer, there is a paradox as a 0 capacity channel can be thought of as a channel that doesn't exist.
In this case the positive information capacity of 2 channels can be increased, but i beleive that the negative information capacity would also increase in exactly the same way.
The data looking random or not has nothing to do with the information capacity of the channel.
Shannons definition of information capacity is simply the maximum amount of information that can be recovered by the receiver on the channel.
A channel where the receiver can't recover data under any circumstances is a 0 capacity channel, that reason could be interfering noise or the fact that the channel doesn't exist.
Which poses a problem with this theory, it basically says 2 channels that don't exist can transmit information, which is intuitively incorrect.
Because quantum information can be negative it would seem this theory could be applied to make a channel with 0 negative capacity have some cpacity from nothing in the same way.
So really any extra positive capacity could be cancelled out.
Actually a better example of C/C++ knowing the size of the arrays would of been the sizeof() operator. Anyway the point still stands, C/C++ intentionally don't test array bounds.
C++ does know the size of arrays. That's why you call call delete [] myArray; without specifying the size of the array.
What C++ doesn't do is test if the index is out of bounds every time you access the array. It makes it faster but you should remember to put the test in if the index isn't guaranteed to be correct.