Then it shouldn't be considered cheating to use whatever data the server sends you to build your view.
By that logic, rearranging a couple of pieces on a chess board while your opponent steps away momentarily to grab a beer from the fridge shouldn't be considered cheating because you still had physical access to the board the whole time.
Visibilty testing server side is very straight forward it's not a hard problem. You just need basic representation of geometry via bounds and test for line intersection.
Straight forward and easy does not automatically mean scalable, which is what you need for a server. Visibility computation isn't really that hard, but it's still far too time consuming in the general case to relegate to a system which has to serve dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of people simultaneously.
The problem with that is that then the server will need to have visibility testing on its side. Anyone who has done some amount of research in this area should be able to tell you that this kind of testing is impractical for a server that needs to provide information to multiple clients.
While I was less than thrilled about Apple's lack of transparency over slowing down the older phones, I thought that all things considered, their efforts were still lengthening the useful life of the devices impacted. Working slower is better than not working, period.
Slowing down the device enabled it to keep working... yet, the AC to whom I responded above stated:
So you'd rather get a slower device that will completely die unexpectedly (done people would assign blame to other factors like app boat) instead of one that dies under heavy load but can be restarted...
Which is what prompted my query for a citation, because as far as I was aware, Apple's patch did exactly the opposite. I was even clear on the point that I was asking about info on the claim about dying unexpectedly, so I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was ever saying that the patch caused it to die.
Not lack of royalties, but a flood of low quality games that Atari had no control over.
Okay.... this is just my own opinion here, but one of the most spectacular examples of a game that played a significant role in the downfall of the console industry at the time was ET, the Extra Terrestrial, and that game was published by Atari, not a third party. Personally, I thought that Activision games were generally better than those published by Atari. Back in the day, I had about twice as many Activision cartridges that I enjoyed playing as I did Atari titles.
I think that the problem wasn't the low quality games that Atari had no control over.... they could not cope with the competition, and their failure in being able to compete in the software arena ended up killing their hardware as well.
Actually, the biggest fear nintendo have is not piracy, but unlicensed games.
You have to pay a big, big fee to nintendo to manufacture games for it, but if the publishers could avoid it somehow...
Without DRM, that could still be accomplished via a proprietary interface between the medium that the content is distributed upon and patents on that interface. It wouldn't stop people from possibly making their own and just not telling anyone about it, but it would stop other people from publishing unlicensed content for that system until the patents expired. Unlicensed games would only be playable on emulators, and why would Nintendo be so worried about emulators, exactly?
While I was less than thrilled about Apple's lack of transparency over slowing down the older phones, I thought that all things considered, their efforts were still lengthening the useful life of the devices impacted. Working slower is better than not working, period.
You've given an extreme example of doing something to probably avoid dying compared to something that, while certainly life altering, is not generally life threatening (although I know that it sometimes can be). I think the phase "apples and oranges" would be applicable here.
And to be fair, using antibiotics can weaken the body's own ability to fight infections, as well as inadvertently introduce infections for which no treatment exists at all. In the end, one is often better off trying to fight off an infection without the aid of antibiotics than with.
My point was that sometimes things that are a lot of fun, like fucking, can have undesired consequences (getting pregnant). If one is not prepared to live with those consequences, then to the extent that they have control over it (ie, they are not raped), then it may be prudent to not have sex in the first place.
Technically speaking, the woman hasn't abstained in that case... volition impacts abstinence only to the extent that one is actually in control of their own body (which in day-to-day experience is so much of the time as to typically be taken for granted).
Oh, perish the thought that choices and actions have consequences.
When you remove the negative consequences from something, you diminish the merits of those who would have have otherwise avoided it. (It's one of my beefs with the current education system refusing to fail elementary students).
Also: Kids will always tend to prefer things that make their parents angry. It makes them feel like "rebels".
That's an oversimplification.... to the point of being no more accurate than a half-truth.
Much of the reason that parents get angry with kids over stuff they do that they wouldn't do is because the parents themselves are the ones who are following a pattern brought about by comfort with what is familiar, not necessarily because of any particular intent by the younger generation to actively rebel against parental teachings.
... "close" only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
If they are short one vote, then they are still short.
Also, my understanding of US law is somewhat limited, but I thought the president could still veto a proposal like this, and that being the case, they are actually *two* votes shy of restoring it.... and to that end, for all intents and purposes, they may as well still be 50 votes away.
I wasn't contesting that was when the open source initiative started up, but I'm pretty sure I was using the term "open source" to refer to software whose source had been openly published and was available. I think the first such program for which I became aware of this was for the game nethack.
I'm pretty sure I was hearing the term in the late 1980's, especially in regards to unix software, and almost certainly by the time I first heard of Linux in '92.
I can only hope that the real need for a use for this never actually arises, because if it does, the fact that this goofup happened is going to cause people to not take any real one as seriously, and people will die who might not have if they had heeded the warning.
For many people, stepping outside and only going to the end of their own walkway is not considered particularly expensive or burdensome, even for someone who wants to stay at home. Many must do this just to retrieve their mail.
Slashdot Mirror
By that logic, rearranging a couple of pieces on a chess board while your opponent steps away momentarily to grab a beer from the fridge shouldn't be considered cheating because you still had physical access to the board the whole time.
Straight forward and easy does not automatically mean scalable, which is what you need for a server. Visibility computation isn't really that hard, but it's still far too time consuming in the general case to relegate to a system which has to serve dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of people simultaneously.
The problem with that is that then the server will need to have visibility testing on its side. Anyone who has done some amount of research in this area should be able to tell you that this kind of testing is impractical for a server that needs to provide information to multiple clients.
What percentage of Hawaiians actually knew about the alert between the time it was sent and the time an announcement of the error was made?
Slowing down the device enabled it to keep working... yet, the AC to whom I responded above stated:
Which is what prompted my query for a citation, because as far as I was aware, Apple's patch did exactly the opposite. I was even clear on the point that I was asking about info on the claim about dying unexpectedly, so I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was ever saying that the patch caused it to die.
No, I meant where did you read that their slowdown would cause the device to turn off unexpectedly?
Okay.... this is just my own opinion here, but one of the most spectacular examples of a game that played a significant role in the downfall of the console industry at the time was ET, the Extra Terrestrial, and that game was published by Atari, not a third party. Personally, I thought that Activision games were generally better than those published by Atari. Back in the day, I had about twice as many Activision cartridges that I enjoyed playing as I did Atari titles.
I think that the problem wasn't the low quality games that Atari had no control over.... they could not cope with the competition, and their failure in being able to compete in the software arena ended up killing their hardware as well.
Without DRM, that could still be accomplished via a proprietary interface between the medium that the content is distributed upon and patents on that interface. It wouldn't stop people from possibly making their own and just not telling anyone about it, but it would stop other people from publishing unlicensed content for that system until the patents expired. Unlicensed games would only be playable on emulators, and why would Nintendo be so worried about emulators, exactly?
Here's a big hint... it's not unlicensed games.
"die unexpectedly"??? Citation, please. Undesired app slowdown sure... but where did you read that it caused the devices to become bricks?
While I was less than thrilled about Apple's lack of transparency over slowing down the older phones, I thought that all things considered, their efforts were still lengthening the useful life of the devices impacted. Working slower is better than not working, period.
You've given an extreme example of doing something to probably avoid dying compared to something that, while certainly life altering, is not generally life threatening (although I know that it sometimes can be). I think the phase "apples and oranges" would be applicable here.
And to be fair, using antibiotics can weaken the body's own ability to fight infections, as well as inadvertently introduce infections for which no treatment exists at all. In the end, one is often better off trying to fight off an infection without the aid of antibiotics than with.
My point was that sometimes things that are a lot of fun, like fucking, can have undesired consequences (getting pregnant). If one is not prepared to live with those consequences, then to the extent that they have control over it (ie, they are not raped), then it may be prudent to not have sex in the first place.
For values of "known" == "alleged" or even "highly suspected", perhaps.
Technically speaking, the woman hasn't abstained in that case... volition impacts abstinence only to the extent that one is actually in control of their own body (which in day-to-day experience is so much of the time as to typically be taken for granted).
Oh, perish the thought that choices and actions have consequences.
When you remove the negative consequences from something, you diminish the merits of those who would have have otherwise avoided it. (It's one of my beefs with the current education system refusing to fail elementary students).
That's an oversimplification.... to the point of being no more accurate than a half-truth.
Much of the reason that parents get angry with kids over stuff they do that they wouldn't do is because the parents themselves are the ones who are following a pattern brought about by comfort with what is familiar, not necessarily because of any particular intent by the younger generation to actively rebel against parental teachings.
If they are short one vote, then they are still short.
Also, my understanding of US law is somewhat limited, but I thought the president could still veto a proposal like this, and that being the case, they are actually *two* votes shy of restoring it.... and to that end, for all intents and purposes, they may as well still be 50 votes away.
I wasn't contesting that was when the open source initiative started up, but I'm pretty sure I was using the term "open source" to refer to software whose source had been openly published and was available. I think the first such program for which I became aware of this was for the game nethack.
No single person can be blamed for that, however.
I'm pretty sure I was hearing the term in the late 1980's, especially in regards to unix software, and almost certainly by the time I first heard of Linux in '92.
Honestly, I hope you're right...
Although I hope even more that we never need to find out.
I can only hope that the real need for a use for this never actually arises, because if it does, the fact that this goofup happened is going to cause people to not take any real one as seriously, and people will die who might not have if they had heeded the warning.
Would it help if we said that we're sorry?
For many people, stepping outside and only going to the end of their own walkway is not considered particularly expensive or burdensome, even for someone who wants to stay at home. Many must do this just to retrieve their mail.
Presumably the distance from your front door to the street is not consider so far as to be detracting from the service of home delivery.