If this crank extends the diameter of the rotation
Just making the crank longer would do that. The shape bears no effect on the diameter of the rotation as long as the distance between the pedal and the axle stays the same. The shape would only bear an effect if the crank dynamically changed shape during the rotation, but alas, this is a fixed construct.
It's possible that by moving the pedal so the cyclist's legs are in a different position during the pedal cycle
Doesn't work like that. Draw a crank like this on a piece of paper, jab a pen through the point where the crank would connect to the gear and rotate the paper: you'll quickly notice that the thing still follows the exact same circular motion as any old, regular crank does, and therefore the legs don't actually assume any different a position during cycling. If the crank was displaced from the center then there would be a difference as it would no longer follow the same path as a regular crank, but alas, that's not the case here.
It should be clear to you now, that for any command you send to the computer via an input device, I can send one more precise with a binary keyboard. If you use a mouse to move its coordinates 1.00 units to the left, I can send a command with my keyboard to move 1.000 units.
I'll just skip all the fluff you typed and concentrate on this: you're comparing apples and oranges. You are comparing a single action to a series of actions, and then claiming the latter one is superior because repeating it often enough results in more data! Now, if you were to compare apples to apples you could use either input device to get the exact same result if you just repeated the action often enough. You could enter 1.000 units with a mouse just as well as you could enter it with a keyboard.
You do realize what you just wrote, don't you? Your pressure sensor converts a pressure reading to a number between 0 and 255, which again can be represented by pressing the binary keyboard 8 times.
That's really poorly worded. You mean the values between 0-255 can be represented in binary by entering 8 ones or zeroes, not keyboard presses, as the typical keyboard has 104/105 keys and each key can have two different states. A "binary keyboard" is, again, logically impossible: "binary keyboard" would mean that the keyboard itself only has two states, ie. a single button with only two different positions. The keys themselves, on a typical keyboard, only have two positions so they represent binary values. If you mean the data that is being transmitted between the computer and the keyboard, however, there's a catch: as long as the device transmits digital data then it will automatically be binary data -- even the pressure sensor, as long as it's a digital one or there is a analog-to-digital converter in-between.
But if you want to get even more into it, the binary keyboard is still more precise due to the imprecise sensor you introduced. You can type out every single number between 0 and 256 easily and exactly with a binary keyboard.
Ease does not equal precision. A pressure sensor with 256 different values has larger precision than a single, digital keyboard key, as the key can only represent 2 values. You're confusing the term precision with something else.
Do you think you can apply 256 different levels of pressure? Do you think if I tell you "apply a pressure of 143" you could hit that exact number on your first try? I know I could with my binary keyboard. 10001111. No you go. I'll be waiting and you let me know how that goes.
You actually just proved your own argument as false there: the sensor only needs to be put in one, single position to reach the same value as you'd have to enter 8 different values in binary to get, ie. the sensor has much wider degree of precision. Again, ease of use is a completely different matter altogether, and definitely should NOT be confused with precision in computer sciences.
Alan Turing says I'm correct. Any 8bit register for example can be represented by a string of single bits. Your computer is a subset of a Turing machine, the fine grain control of which is a series of zeros and ones. Anything else is just an abstraction of this.
Actually, any number whatsoever can be represented by bits as long as you use enough bits. That however isn't a counter-argument to what I said.
I'm sorry this confused you, I was using the computer scientist shorthand "binary" meaning "binary code." Since absolutely everything on a computer is just binary code, by typing in a string of binary commands you could be as precise as the processor's architecture can handle. This is about as pure CS as you can get.
Again, that isn't a counter-argument. First, it doesn't matter which numeric representation system you use, the value stays the same, ie. a value of 254 in decimals is the same as 11111110 in binary. Secondly, you probably mean that the player would be toggling individual bits in the system on or off, but that still wouldn't be "playing in binary," instead it would be "playing with bits." Your use of the term is disingenuous.
Considering a bit is the limit for how fine grained you can get on a computer
Actually, no. A bit is the smallest logical unit a modern computer can handle, but the more bits you use the more fine-grained you get, ie. a 1bit register can only represent on or off, whereas an 8bit register can register 256 different values. Ergo, your assessment is incorrect.
the keyboard is the most precise input device you could create....
Incorrect, see above.
Imagine gaming in binary.
That doesn't even make sense. Binary literally means a representation of two different values -- how do you game in a representation of two different values? Well, the answer is easy: you can't play a logical, numerical representation of a system with only two possible values. That's like saying "imagine gaming in biodiversity."
The graphics itself is NOT streamed, so your comparison is utterly silly.
What current or proposed gaming device streams graphics from the cloud?
Onlive, for one. Nvidia's Project Shield for a second.
It mentioned streaming games from a PC (not the cloud)
"Cloud" is just a fancy word for server, and it doesn't matter if it streams from your own server or from someone else's -- it's still streaming.
So yes, please point out where in the 3 links it mentions a console or game that streams remotely generated graphics from the cloud (not a PC with hints about future "cloud" capabilities).
Nvidia's Project Shield: "this clever contraption also streams games from your PC to wherever you are over Wi-Fi, including anything you’ve downloaded from Steam, and you can hook it up to your TV to play them too."
I don't see what the problem is with MMORPG, it's remotely generated content, displayed locally.
It's still rendered locally, which is a completely different thing altogether.
Wall hacks and such don't happen in WoW.
Oh, yes, they do. You've never met any of the hundreds of bots that usually roam under the landscape, farming mineral veins and herbs? Going under the landscape is still a wall-hack.
That's only when you have a non-cloud server solution for Counterstrike or whatever.
Heh. The naivety.
Or do you know of any wall hack that works on WoW?
No, because I don't use such and therefore haven't needed to research them. But go ahead, look up. There's STILL plenty of bots going under the landscape to farm stuff, and they go under the landscape exactly so that players wouldn't be able to attack them or target them.
MMORPGs are "cloud gaming" in that the game is hosted online elsewhere. Seems to work for the most popular game ever.
Only the game-logic is running on the server, and even then not all of it actually is; the reason why so many wall-hacks and such work so well is exactly because the logic for those runs on the client. The graphics itself is NOT streamed, so your comparison is utterly silly.
It isn't hard to stream data to render, then render it in a simple manner. You have to have a video card of some type, and so far, most run android games, rather than "cloud" games. None of the current (or near future ones) run remotely. They all run on local hardware, so I'm not sure why so many put the "must run remotely" requirement on it, then misrepresent what that would take, so not only are they arguing something that isn't true, they are doing so with very flawed arguments. Why not just say "I irrationally hate change." That way people wouldn't waste time actually trying to inform the irrational Luddites.
Uh, the article itself literally talks about it, not Slashdotters. The article suggests that games -- including all their rendering -- happens on the server and the end-result is being streamed, so yes, "must run remotely" becomes a hard requirement. Alas, your comparison to MMORPGs already showed you have no idea what you're talking about.
I have to agree with the other commenters: you've just been silly and short-sighted, and didn't really know what the heck you were doing in the first place. A 5-6 years old PC can perfectly well play games at similar settings as a PS3 or Xbox360, so if you feel their image quality is fine why would you need to chase after newer and newer specs? Or is it just the "since it's POSSIBLE I feel it's my responsibility to continue upgrading!" - mentality?
I myself have a Phenom II x4, 8GB RAM and a GeForce GTX 460 -- all already out-dated parts -- and I can still play all the games I throw at it at 1080p and high/max details. This setup will be able to play games just fine for several more years to come.
Games are applications. They do lots of IO to read in the massive levels. Unless you like waiting for loading.
Games usually load their levels in large, sequential blocks, so it's not really that bad. If you have two or three smaller spinning disks in a striped configuration then the difference between an SSD and spinning disks in gaming-related situations gets a lot smaller, but the spinning disks also win hands-down in the amount of storage available. I, for example, have two 500GB spinning disks in a striped configuration on my desktop PC and I get sustained read-speeds between 170-200 megabytes/second, and I get only 30-40 megabytes more per second from my SSD -- sure, the SSD has almost zero latency when seeking so it it the obvious choice for installing the OS and all the applications on it, but the spinning disks are perfectly valid for mostly-sequential data like games.
Also, your comment about choosing less RAM because you have an SSD is silly: an SSD only helps you when stuff needs to be loaded or saved, but RAM helps you at all times. RAM is also hundreds of times faster than an SSD, an SSD simply is not good as a replacement for RAM. Even if you were running a 32-bit game (32-bit applications are limited to 3 gigabytes address space) you'd still benefit from extra RAM in the sense that all the RAM that wasn't used by the game could be used to cache its files or keep your other applications running -- I, atleast, always keep a few PuTTY-sessions and Firefox running at all times, and I still find myself running low on RAM quite often, even with 8GB of it.
That's because you're doing it wrong. Unless you're processing data from your basement super collider, there's no way you need faster than 1Gig.
That's where YOU are wrong.
Most likely you have your network setup improperly and are NOT getting 1gig per second.
I actually do get 1Gbps speeds.
Does your switch support Jumbo frames? Are they turned on? What are you transgering? What speed are your NICs? What speed is your buss? What speed are your hard drives.
Yes. Yes. Files. 1Gbps. PCI-E x2. Irrelevant, they're in a RAID and can perfectly well saturate the network as-is.
The most likely problem that would cause transferring of files from one computer to another over a network is the hard drives.
That would be true if they weren't in a RAID.
Their transfer rates are no where near 1gig per second.
Cache reads/writes well exceed the 1Gbps, and I get around 400 megabytes/second read-speeds from the array which translates to 3.2Gbps -- well over the network limit.
Your buss likely can't support that speed either.
You might wanna read up on PCI-E.
Last thing I'd check is your jumbo frames setting.
Funny thing is that all the consumer-oriented networking equipment is still only up to 1Gbps and anything higher simply costs way, way too much. This makes me wonder if the new USB3 could be used as a replacement? How long can the cables be and still maintain 10Gbps speeds? And could one just connect two computers via USB3 without any additional equipment required in-between? Will someone come up with some USB3-based network routing solution before 10Gbps ethernet - solution become cheap enough for general consumer use? I would have use for higher speeds as 1Gbps just ain't good enough.
I do mind. The important factors are taste and structure. Both are from how the animal has lived. If the animal walked around free, the meat will be less tender as the muscles have done more work. (meat is muscle)
Yes, and? You're assuming that it won't be possible to manufacture such meat in a lab, yet TFA actually *does* talk about exactly this. It's only a matter of time. Sooner or later there will be such meat.
I doubt that. I've actually seen myself an old CRT bursting into flames shortly after I noticed the plastic on its side turning brownish and starting to melt. The thing is, CRTs are a very much different kind of a beast than our LCDs and a CRT can indeed be permanently damaged just by sending a wrong kind of a signal. Sending a wrong signal enough could cause the capacitors to blow and this could result in a fire. Have you ever opened a CRT-display? Those things have huge voltages going on there. I once opened this 21" high-end CRT and the warning labels on the rails there read 17,000 volts.
Me neither. I would actually be delighted to eat lab-grown meat, with no bacteria on it, no steroids, no antibiotics, with a consistent quality and so on. I'm just hoping for some real breakthrough in the area so that such meat will become easy and cheap to produce so that it can be properly brought into mass-market. I assume that lab-grown meat will also mean less by-products and environmental waste than the regular method, but alas, I'm not an expert in either area.
So, let me get this straight: John McAfee is the founding-father of a large anti-virus company, he's worked with Zonelabs on their firewall software and so on, and then in the end he ends up doing exactly the same thing he's tried to protect people from -- namely, installing keyloggers and spying on everything they type on their computers?
Pretty much, and continuously. Have you seen someone with norovirus?
Funny thing about norovirus is that it doesn't really affect me. Like a while ago my roommate was totally devastated by it, but I only had slight fever, nothing else. I didn't even feel qualm:)
Slashdot Mirror
Trust me, when you are constantly breaking wind
If you are constantly breaking wind you should either change your diet or go see a doctor.
If this crank extends the diameter of the rotation
Just making the crank longer would do that. The shape bears no effect on the diameter of the rotation as long as the distance between the pedal and the axle stays the same. The shape would only bear an effect if the crank dynamically changed shape during the rotation, but alas, this is a fixed construct.
But why would anyone go to such lengths to "test" this when it's already perfectly-well proven that it's bull?
It's possible that by moving the pedal so the cyclist's legs are in a different position during the pedal cycle
Doesn't work like that. Draw a crank like this on a piece of paper, jab a pen through the point where the crank would connect to the gear and rotate the paper: you'll quickly notice that the thing still follows the exact same circular motion as any old, regular crank does, and therefore the legs don't actually assume any different a position during cycling. If the crank was displaced from the center then there would be a difference as it would no longer follow the same path as a regular crank, but alas, that's not the case here.
Fowl.
It should be clear to you now, that for any command you send to the computer via an input device, I can send one more precise with a binary keyboard. If you use a mouse to move its coordinates 1.00 units to the left, I can send a command with my keyboard to move 1.000 units.
I'll just skip all the fluff you typed and concentrate on this: you're comparing apples and oranges. You are comparing a single action to a series of actions, and then claiming the latter one is superior because repeating it often enough results in more data! Now, if you were to compare apples to apples you could use either input device to get the exact same result if you just repeated the action often enough. You could enter 1.000 units with a mouse just as well as you could enter it with a keyboard.
You do realize what you just wrote, don't you? Your pressure sensor converts a pressure reading to a number between 0 and 255, which again can be represented by pressing the binary keyboard 8 times.
That's really poorly worded. You mean the values between 0-255 can be represented in binary by entering 8 ones or zeroes, not keyboard presses, as the typical keyboard has 104/105 keys and each key can have two different states. A "binary keyboard" is, again, logically impossible: "binary keyboard" would mean that the keyboard itself only has two states, ie. a single button with only two different positions. The keys themselves, on a typical keyboard, only have two positions so they represent binary values. If you mean the data that is being transmitted between the computer and the keyboard, however, there's a catch: as long as the device transmits digital data then it will automatically be binary data -- even the pressure sensor, as long as it's a digital one or there is a analog-to-digital converter in-between.
But if you want to get even more into it, the binary keyboard is still more precise due to the imprecise sensor you introduced. You can type out every single number between 0 and 256 easily and exactly with a binary keyboard.
Ease does not equal precision. A pressure sensor with 256 different values has larger precision than a single, digital keyboard key, as the key can only represent 2 values. You're confusing the term precision with something else.
Do you think you can apply 256 different levels of pressure? Do you think if I tell you "apply a pressure of 143" you could hit that exact number on your first try? I know I could with my binary keyboard. 10001111. No you go. I'll be waiting and you let me know how that goes.
You actually just proved your own argument as false there: the sensor only needs to be put in one, single position to reach the same value as you'd have to enter 8 different values in binary to get, ie. the sensor has much wider degree of precision. Again, ease of use is a completely different matter altogether, and definitely should NOT be confused with precision in computer sciences.
Alan Turing says I'm correct. Any 8bit register for example can be represented by a string of single bits. Your computer is a subset of a Turing machine, the fine grain control of which is a series of zeros and ones. Anything else is just an abstraction of this.
Actually, any number whatsoever can be represented by bits as long as you use enough bits. That however isn't a counter-argument to what I said.
I'm sorry this confused you, I was using the computer scientist shorthand "binary" meaning "binary code." Since absolutely everything on a computer is just binary code, by typing in a string of binary commands you could be as precise as the processor's architecture can handle. This is about as pure CS as you can get.
Again, that isn't a counter-argument. First, it doesn't matter which numeric representation system you use, the value stays the same, ie. a value of 254 in decimals is the same as 11111110 in binary. Secondly, you probably mean that the player would be toggling individual bits in the system on or off, but that still wouldn't be "playing in binary," instead it would be "playing with bits." Your use of the term is disingenuous.
Considering a bit is the limit for how fine grained you can get on a computer
Actually, no. A bit is the smallest logical unit a modern computer can handle, but the more bits you use the more fine-grained you get, ie. a 1bit register can only represent on or off, whereas an 8bit register can register 256 different values. Ergo, your assessment is incorrect.
the keyboard is the most precise input device you could create....
Incorrect, see above.
Imagine gaming in binary.
That doesn't even make sense. Binary literally means a representation of two different values -- how do you game in a representation of two different values? Well, the answer is easy: you can't play a logical, numerical representation of a system with only two possible values. That's like saying "imagine gaming in biodiversity."
The graphics itself is NOT streamed, so your comparison is utterly silly.
What current or proposed gaming device streams graphics from the cloud?
Onlive, for one. Nvidia's Project Shield for a second.
It mentioned streaming games from a PC (not the cloud)
"Cloud" is just a fancy word for server, and it doesn't matter if it streams from your own server or from someone else's -- it's still streaming.
So yes, please point out where in the 3 links it mentions a console or game that streams remotely generated graphics from the cloud (not a PC with hints about future "cloud" capabilities).
Nvidia's Project Shield: "this clever contraption also streams games from your PC to wherever you are over Wi-Fi, including anything you’ve downloaded from Steam, and you can hook it up to your TV to play them too."
I don't see what the problem is with MMORPG, it's remotely generated content, displayed locally.
It's still rendered locally, which is a completely different thing altogether.
Wall hacks and such don't happen in WoW.
Oh, yes, they do. You've never met any of the hundreds of bots that usually roam under the landscape, farming mineral veins and herbs? Going under the landscape is still a wall-hack.
That's only when you have a non-cloud server solution for Counterstrike or whatever.
Heh. The naivety.
Or do you know of any wall hack that works on WoW?
No, because I don't use such and therefore haven't needed to research them. But go ahead, look up. There's STILL plenty of bots going under the landscape to farm stuff, and they go under the landscape exactly so that players wouldn't be able to attack them or target them.
MMORPGs are "cloud gaming" in that the game is hosted online elsewhere. Seems to work for the most popular game ever.
Only the game-logic is running on the server, and even then not all of it actually is; the reason why so many wall-hacks and such work so well is exactly because the logic for those runs on the client. The graphics itself is NOT streamed, so your comparison is utterly silly.
It isn't hard to stream data to render, then render it in a simple manner. You have to have a video card of some type, and so far, most run android games, rather than "cloud" games. None of the current (or near future ones) run remotely. They all run on local hardware, so I'm not sure why so many put the "must run remotely" requirement on it, then misrepresent what that would take, so not only are they arguing something that isn't true, they are doing so with very flawed arguments. Why not just say "I irrationally hate change." That way people wouldn't waste time actually trying to inform the irrational Luddites.
Uh, the article itself literally talks about it, not Slashdotters. The article suggests that games -- including all their rendering -- happens on the server and the end-result is being streamed, so yes, "must run remotely" becomes a hard requirement. Alas, your comparison to MMORPGs already showed you have no idea what you're talking about.
I have to agree with the other commenters: you've just been silly and short-sighted, and didn't really know what the heck you were doing in the first place. A 5-6 years old PC can perfectly well play games at similar settings as a PS3 or Xbox360, so if you feel their image quality is fine why would you need to chase after newer and newer specs? Or is it just the "since it's POSSIBLE I feel it's my responsibility to continue upgrading!" - mentality?
I myself have a Phenom II x4, 8GB RAM and a GeForce GTX 460 -- all already out-dated parts -- and I can still play all the games I throw at it at 1080p and high/max details. This setup will be able to play games just fine for several more years to come.
Games are applications. They do lots of IO to read in the massive levels. Unless you like waiting for loading.
Games usually load their levels in large, sequential blocks, so it's not really that bad. If you have two or three smaller spinning disks in a striped configuration then the difference between an SSD and spinning disks in gaming-related situations gets a lot smaller, but the spinning disks also win hands-down in the amount of storage available. I, for example, have two 500GB spinning disks in a striped configuration on my desktop PC and I get sustained read-speeds between 170-200 megabytes/second, and I get only 30-40 megabytes more per second from my SSD -- sure, the SSD has almost zero latency when seeking so it it the obvious choice for installing the OS and all the applications on it, but the spinning disks are perfectly valid for mostly-sequential data like games.
Also, your comment about choosing less RAM because you have an SSD is silly: an SSD only helps you when stuff needs to be loaded or saved, but RAM helps you at all times. RAM is also hundreds of times faster than an SSD, an SSD simply is not good as a replacement for RAM. Even if you were running a 32-bit game (32-bit applications are limited to 3 gigabytes address space) you'd still benefit from extra RAM in the sense that all the RAM that wasn't used by the game could be used to cache its files or keep your other applications running -- I, atleast, always keep a few PuTTY-sessions and Firefox running at all times, and I still find myself running low on RAM quite often, even with 8GB of it.
Could be cool though steam could really help to move the market towards more linux gaming which would be massive for the linux desktop.
The problem, though, is that there is no actually good desktop environment for Linux.
That's because you're doing it wrong. Unless you're processing data from your basement super collider, there's no way you need faster than 1Gig.
That's where YOU are wrong.
Most likely you have your network setup improperly and are NOT getting 1gig per second.
I actually do get 1Gbps speeds.
Does your switch support Jumbo frames? Are they turned on? What are you transgering? What speed are your NICs? What speed is your buss? What speed are your hard drives.
Yes. Yes. Files. 1Gbps. PCI-E x2. Irrelevant, they're in a RAID and can perfectly well saturate the network as-is.
The most likely problem that would cause transferring of files from one computer to another over a network is the hard drives.
That would be true if they weren't in a RAID.
Their transfer rates are no where near 1gig per second.
Cache reads/writes well exceed the 1Gbps, and I get around 400 megabytes/second read-speeds from the array which translates to 3.2Gbps -- well over the network limit.
Your buss likely can't support that speed either.
You might wanna read up on PCI-E.
Last thing I'd check is your jumbo frames setting.
Already said that it is on.
Funny thing is that all the consumer-oriented networking equipment is still only up to 1Gbps and anything higher simply costs way, way too much. This makes me wonder if the new USB3 could be used as a replacement? How long can the cables be and still maintain 10Gbps speeds? And could one just connect two computers via USB3 without any additional equipment required in-between? Will someone come up with some USB3-based network routing solution before 10Gbps ethernet - solution become cheap enough for general consumer use? I would have use for higher speeds as 1Gbps just ain't good enough.
There is a common mis-conception amongst carnivores that a meal has to contain meat to be tasty.
It's not a misconception: I have yet to eat a single tasty meal without any meat in it!
I do mind. The important factors are taste and structure. Both are from how the animal has lived. If the animal walked around free, the meat will be less tender as the muscles have done more work. (meat is muscle)
Yes, and? You're assuming that it won't be possible to manufacture such meat in a lab, yet TFA actually *does* talk about exactly this. It's only a matter of time. Sooner or later there will be such meat.
how would you not tell the consumers?
label it as "not-pork,not-beef,not-vegetarian,not-meat, mystery fun product!"
There is food-stuffs in World of Warcraft called "mystery meat," so just slap a Blizzard and World of Warcraft logo on the package and profit!
Bullshit...
I doubt that. I've actually seen myself an old CRT bursting into flames shortly after I noticed the plastic on its side turning brownish and starting to melt. The thing is, CRTs are a very much different kind of a beast than our LCDs and a CRT can indeed be permanently damaged just by sending a wrong kind of a signal. Sending a wrong signal enough could cause the capacitors to blow and this could result in a fire. Have you ever opened a CRT-display? Those things have huge voltages going on there. I once opened this 21" high-end CRT and the warning labels on the rails there read 17,000 volts.
I don't understand the yuck-factor.
Me neither. I would actually be delighted to eat lab-grown meat, with no bacteria on it, no steroids, no antibiotics, with a consistent quality and so on. I'm just hoping for some real breakthrough in the area so that such meat will become easy and cheap to produce so that it can be properly brought into mass-market. I assume that lab-grown meat will also mean less by-products and environmental waste than the regular method, but alas, I'm not an expert in either area.
he could have used these spying capabilities to bust the scam and reveal the real killers with live audio.
Why do you so naively assume that he knows who the real killers are?
>So, let me get this straight.
"Gaygirlie", you don't seem to have the best suited nick for the job.
Touché, my dear, touché.
So, let me get this straight: John McAfee is the founding-father of a large anti-virus company, he's worked with Zonelabs on their firewall software and so on, and then in the end he ends up doing exactly the same thing he's tried to protect people from -- namely, installing keyloggers and spying on everything they type on their computers?
Pretty much, and continuously. Have you seen someone with norovirus?
Funny thing about norovirus is that it doesn't really affect me. Like a while ago my roommate was totally devastated by it, but I only had slight fever, nothing else. I didn't even feel qualm :)