Err, not really. The FCC limits the power of transmission, yes, but the Bluetooth Rifle (range 1.1 miles) and even the Pringles Reflector show that you can massively boost range without boosting power. If you want to be fancier, I'm pretty sure the Voyager deep-space probes were using less power than is permitted for WiFi. Ok, the data rates suffered a bit, but then what else is XZ for?
If you're running Windows over an unencrypted link, almost certainly yes. If you're running Linux over a Roofnet, almost certainly no. Remember, Microsoft says Linux is Un-American, which means judges will have to rule against it or be accused of being Communist Sympathizers.
I used SCO UnixWare at the Space and Naval Warfare group in the US. It took me all of a couple of days to persuade the powers that were that replacing it with Red Hat Linux would boost the NAS storage speeds beyond their wildest dreams (it did) and would accelerate development no end (you can run on a SCO box even if you don't develop on it).
Tidbits are said to include the following: "Our replacement for the SHA1 algorithm shall be SKA1, which will involve strangely-dressed men wielding saxophones".
Well, MIPS-based machines like the Broadcom BCM91250E use a BIOS called the Common Firmware Environment (CFE). Sun machines use a BIOS called OpenBOOT. The OpenBIOS pages are a little... old, but still informative about non-PC BIOSes as well as the platform-independent standards and their own open-source replacement.
Let's see. Claim 1 of the GP: The BIOS is where manufacturers lock up the hardware. Well, use OpenBIOS, Coreboot, Intel's Open Source TianoCore or any other replacement for that defective closed-source product you're using. Don't blame BIOSes, blame the implementation. Just because one BIOS developer was high on substances of questionable legality does not make all BIOSes equal.
Implicit Claim of the GP: All BIOSes are One BIOS. There Can Be Only One! Muahahahahaha!
Reality: There's so many fully or partially Open Source BIOSes out there it's not funny. There are plenty of alternative Closed Source BIOSes you can use as drop-in replacements as well. If you don't like the BIOS, don't blame the concept, blame yourself for not replacing it with something you DO like.
(Me? Suffer fools gladly? There may be suffering involved, yes. I'd make a great Grand Inquisitor.)
You should have listened to the tirade I got from EnterpriseDB (the Windows vendor for PostgreSQL). Because I need to do stuff too heavy for MySQL (and I don't like the problems Oracle has caused, nor the splintering), I'm increasingly interested in Ingres and other Open Source DBs.
That is why the ordering of threads should be done using more logical criteria, such as the most gratuitous use of the word floccinauccinilihilipilification* in a serious screenplay. *Ok, this should be a different and somewhat shorter f-word, but this seems so much better somehow.
Beatrix Potter was clearly interested in the telling of stories and was including the medium as part of the story, not something independent and transposable. As best as I can tell, it relates to eBooks only in that Beatrix would have used eBooks for stories that called specifically for an eBook format. In other words, she would neither be afraid of the format NOR use it merely because it existed. If it would be important, it would be used. If it wouldn't be important, it wouldn't be used. Since I cannot see any way in which it could be important to any of her work, I can't see any circumstance in which she would prefer it.
(Considering the medium to be intrinsic is very alien to much of modern thinking, which portrays the medium as merely the mechanism by which information is delivered, not information in is own right, or metadata for the interpreting of information.)
The thing with probability is that the past should not alter the future. If you toss a coin, the chances of it being heads on any given toss are fixed. Even if you have tossed tails a dozen times on a perfectly fair coin, the odds of the next toss being heads are still 50/50.
Gambling on a machine has little to do with probability. Even so, there is a difference between a system that is skewed in the house's favor because the game is unbalanced versus a system that is skewed in the house's favor because it's rigged. An unbalanced system can still be "fair" in that you know that you have a non-zero chance of winning at any given time. In a rigged game, the chance of winning is either 1 or 0. It can never be anything in between. Even if both produce the same number of winners and losers in a day, with the winnings for each being identical, anyone with a sense of fairness is going to prefer the "honestly unbalanced" system over the rigged one.
Why? Because in an unbalanced system, the house is also gambling. It is a contest, no matter how warped. It is possible, as with the coin tossing, for the house to lose more than it expects on a given day. It is also possible for the house to win more. It'll even out in the end. In the rigged system, the winnings are pre-determined. The house is guaranteed to win around X amount from a given machine. It has zero risk.
In this particular case, a valid result according to the rules of the game was rejected because the game wasn't corrupt enough. It would be on-par to someone racing in Formula 1 being disqualified despite a perfect race because the bribed engineer failed to remove the fuel tank. IMHO, if a player plays by the rules and wins by the rules, they are entitled to victory under the rules. It is a bet, with agreed-upon odds, agreed-upon stakes and agreed-upon victory conditions. If a betting office was found doping racehorses or bribing footballers, do you seriously imagine they'd be able to claim they could withhold winnings when the person they tried to make lose won anyway?
Casinos in the US are not betting offices or really "gambling". You can't gamble in a deterministic world, you can merely win or lose when instructed to do so. I doubt this case will force any kind of change to the system, but I'd rather see ACTUAL gambling legalized in the US and game-rigging of any kind banned outright. Mind you, this would mean putting half of Nevada in jail. Not that I can see anything wrong with doing that.
When configuration files get horribly long and complex, it is usually true that they are configuring multiple distinct sub-components. In which case, those sub-components might be best pulled out of the main configuration file and placed in distinct configuration files. Further, sub-components should be responsible for loading their configuration on use. No sense loading, parsing and storing state information that won't be used in a specific PHP application - that just adds to the start-up time without adding any benefits.
My personal opinion of deprecated functions is that if the new function is THAT much better, the maintainers can provide a wrapper that provides the old API but uses the new functions. This can be done as an extra module written in PHP itself, so that those not using the old API don't suffer from overheads and the actual maintained codebase doesn't have extra arcs that need to be tested. The module can then be released as an unmaintained object. Users who wish to keep using the old API permanently can then maintain the wrapper themselves. Those who wish to migrate will have the time to do so, as the old API will only fail when there is an incompatibility between the new API as used and the new API as implemented.
I'll agree that they're out-of-the-box and easy. They're listed because the challenge given by the original article is how to boost network performance. Ultimately, ease-of-use is always going to involve some extra chatter and some additional overhead per packet because they're less reliant on tight configurations. And that is where the problem ultimately lies. Networks are inefficient, not because of any inherent flaw in the mechanisms used but because IT networks are a bugger to set up and maintain. Because they're a pain, because the pressure is on for network admins to do things instantly and because the requirements are often designed to allow idiots to do stupid things (yes, I've been a net admin a few times), admins will go for chattier, less-efficient protocols. It's a simple trade-off that has to be done to meet the user demands of right-now, even though it actually violates the user's needs of tomorrow and the day after.
What did you expect to happen? Companies never pay royalties unless there's a bigger thug than them leaning on them. Of course, this means the Australian Government has now p4ned those bits of the US economy not bought up by China.
Perhaps they should have said "possibly marginally less corrupt quango". (Let's face it, you can't vote out a corporate board of directors but you can vote out a quango's paymaster.)
AFS has been around a LONG time and I'd hate to be within a mile of you if you go around telling IBM that the distributed file system they ship on their mainframes isn't production ready. However, if you want another option, try Polyserve FS. That is most certainly production-ready.
I still play Zaxxon on MAME and that's a hell of a lot older than 12 years. I even play XTrek and occasionally BSD Sail. I can't wait until someone makes a movie version of Hunt the Wumpus.
Slashdot Mirror
Err, not really. The FCC limits the power of transmission, yes, but the Bluetooth Rifle (range 1.1 miles) and even the Pringles Reflector show that you can massively boost range without boosting power. If you want to be fancier, I'm pretty sure the Voyager deep-space probes were using less power than is permitted for WiFi. Ok, the data rates suffered a bit, but then what else is XZ for?
If you're running Windows over an unencrypted link, almost certainly yes. If you're running Linux over a Roofnet, almost certainly no. Remember, Microsoft says Linux is Un-American, which means judges will have to rule against it or be accused of being Communist Sympathizers.
I used SCO UnixWare at the Space and Naval Warfare group in the US. It took me all of a couple of days to persuade the powers that were that replacing it with Red Hat Linux would boost the NAS storage speeds beyond their wildest dreams (it did) and would accelerate development no end (you can run on a SCO box even if you don't develop on it).
Tidbits are said to include the following: "Our replacement for the SHA1 algorithm shall be SKA1, which will involve strangely-dressed men wielding saxophones".
One copy of SCO UnixWare is bad enough. You want to create a fork of it as well?!?!?!?!?
I thought it involved feeding it Tom Jones. Or was that another sci-fi story?
If 3 is divided by 2, they will argue over who has the bigger portion.
It all depends on which base you're working in. I suggest trying for home base.
Well, MIPS-based machines like the Broadcom BCM91250E use a BIOS called the Common Firmware Environment (CFE). Sun machines use a BIOS called OpenBOOT. The OpenBIOS pages are a little... old, but still informative about non-PC BIOSes as well as the platform-independent standards and their own open-source replacement.
Let's see. Claim 1 of the GP: The BIOS is where manufacturers lock up the hardware. Well, use OpenBIOS, Coreboot, Intel's Open Source TianoCore or any other replacement for that defective closed-source product you're using. Don't blame BIOSes, blame the implementation. Just because one BIOS developer was high on substances of questionable legality does not make all BIOSes equal.
Implicit Claim of the GP: All BIOSes are One BIOS. There Can Be Only One! Muahahahahaha!
Reality: There's so many fully or partially Open Source BIOSes out there it's not funny. There are plenty of alternative Closed Source BIOSes you can use as drop-in replacements as well. If you don't like the BIOS, don't blame the concept, blame yourself for not replacing it with something you DO like.
(Me? Suffer fools gladly? There may be suffering involved, yes. I'd make a great Grand Inquisitor.)
So a Cult Clique would be suffering deadlocks?
Only if someone has ported the Z Interpreter, so you can run Infocom games.
You should have listened to the tirade I got from EnterpriseDB (the Windows vendor for PostgreSQL). Because I need to do stuff too heavy for MySQL (and I don't like the problems Oracle has caused, nor the splintering), I'm increasingly interested in Ingres and other Open Source DBs.
That is why the ordering of threads should be done using more logical criteria, such as the most gratuitous use of the word floccinauccinilihilipilification* in a serious screenplay. *Ok, this should be a different and somewhat shorter f-word, but this seems so much better somehow.
Cults involve not being able to leave the cabal. You need a different term for groups where you can't join.
Beatrix Potter was clearly interested in the telling of stories and was including the medium as part of the story, not something independent and transposable. As best as I can tell, it relates to eBooks only in that Beatrix would have used eBooks for stories that called specifically for an eBook format. In other words, she would neither be afraid of the format NOR use it merely because it existed. If it would be important, it would be used. If it wouldn't be important, it wouldn't be used. Since I cannot see any way in which it could be important to any of her work, I can't see any circumstance in which she would prefer it.
(Considering the medium to be intrinsic is very alien to much of modern thinking, which portrays the medium as merely the mechanism by which information is delivered, not information in is own right, or metadata for the interpreting of information.)
...using William Gibson's "black ice" from Neuromancer.
The thing with probability is that the past should not alter the future. If you toss a coin, the chances of it being heads on any given toss are fixed. Even if you have tossed tails a dozen times on a perfectly fair coin, the odds of the next toss being heads are still 50/50.
Gambling on a machine has little to do with probability. Even so, there is a difference between a system that is skewed in the house's favor because the game is unbalanced versus a system that is skewed in the house's favor because it's rigged. An unbalanced system can still be "fair" in that you know that you have a non-zero chance of winning at any given time. In a rigged game, the chance of winning is either 1 or 0. It can never be anything in between. Even if both produce the same number of winners and losers in a day, with the winnings for each being identical, anyone with a sense of fairness is going to prefer the "honestly unbalanced" system over the rigged one.
Why? Because in an unbalanced system, the house is also gambling. It is a contest, no matter how warped. It is possible, as with the coin tossing, for the house to lose more than it expects on a given day. It is also possible for the house to win more. It'll even out in the end. In the rigged system, the winnings are pre-determined. The house is guaranteed to win around X amount from a given machine. It has zero risk.
In this particular case, a valid result according to the rules of the game was rejected because the game wasn't corrupt enough. It would be on-par to someone racing in Formula 1 being disqualified despite a perfect race because the bribed engineer failed to remove the fuel tank. IMHO, if a player plays by the rules and wins by the rules, they are entitled to victory under the rules. It is a bet, with agreed-upon odds, agreed-upon stakes and agreed-upon victory conditions. If a betting office was found doping racehorses or bribing footballers, do you seriously imagine they'd be able to claim they could withhold winnings when the person they tried to make lose won anyway?
Casinos in the US are not betting offices or really "gambling". You can't gamble in a deterministic world, you can merely win or lose when instructed to do so. I doubt this case will force any kind of change to the system, but I'd rather see ACTUAL gambling legalized in the US and game-rigging of any kind banned outright. Mind you, this would mean putting half of Nevada in jail. Not that I can see anything wrong with doing that.
When configuration files get horribly long and complex, it is usually true that they are configuring multiple distinct sub-components. In which case, those sub-components might be best pulled out of the main configuration file and placed in distinct configuration files. Further, sub-components should be responsible for loading their configuration on use. No sense loading, parsing and storing state information that won't be used in a specific PHP application - that just adds to the start-up time without adding any benefits.
My personal opinion of deprecated functions is that if the new function is THAT much better, the maintainers can provide a wrapper that provides the old API but uses the new functions. This can be done as an extra module written in PHP itself, so that those not using the old API don't suffer from overheads and the actual maintained codebase doesn't have extra arcs that need to be tested. The module can then be released as an unmaintained object. Users who wish to keep using the old API permanently can then maintain the wrapper themselves. Those who wish to migrate will have the time to do so, as the old API will only fail when there is an incompatibility between the new API as used and the new API as implemented.
I'll agree that they're out-of-the-box and easy. They're listed because the challenge given by the original article is how to boost network performance. Ultimately, ease-of-use is always going to involve some extra chatter and some additional overhead per packet because they're less reliant on tight configurations. And that is where the problem ultimately lies. Networks are inefficient, not because of any inherent flaw in the mechanisms used but because IT networks are a bugger to set up and maintain. Because they're a pain, because the pressure is on for network admins to do things instantly and because the requirements are often designed to allow idiots to do stupid things (yes, I've been a net admin a few times), admins will go for chattier, less-efficient protocols. It's a simple trade-off that has to be done to meet the user demands of right-now, even though it actually violates the user's needs of tomorrow and the day after.
Nonono. They are dinosaur HURDs.
What did you expect to happen? Companies never pay royalties unless there's a bigger thug than them leaning on them. Of course, this means the Australian Government has now p4ned those bits of the US economy not bought up by China.
Perhaps they should have said "possibly marginally less corrupt quango". (Let's face it, you can't vote out a corporate board of directors but you can vote out a quango's paymaster.)
AFS has been around a LONG time and I'd hate to be within a mile of you if you go around telling IBM that the distributed file system they ship on their mainframes isn't production ready. However, if you want another option, try Polyserve FS. That is most certainly production-ready.
If you ban the shares, then the beancounters won't try and make you buy Microsoft products.
I still play Zaxxon on MAME and that's a hell of a lot older than 12 years. I even play XTrek and occasionally BSD Sail. I can't wait until someone makes a movie version of Hunt the Wumpus.