if climate scientists are using applied physics to make their forecasts, then why is absolutely no one absolutely sure what specifically is causing the warming or what specifically could stop it?
oh, that's right, because they aren't applying physics, they are guessing.
this must be your first global warming thread. instead of discussing facts, and unbiased moderation, these threads degrade into uselessness almost instantly.
what i'm wondering is if the same forecasting supercomputers were used that were unable to predict the turn around, and burst the mortgage bubble.... sure it's been hot. sure it's been relatively hotter and hotter. that doesn't mean it will keep getting hotter and hotter forever. the next step will just as likely be a complete climate switch to extreme cold rather than continued warming.
there certainly exist people who have made services that haven't YET suffered errors as severe as this one made by valve.
is your vocabulary and logic always so limited when your sarcasm is turned on? why would you ever talk about the capability of errors? i think you meant possibility or proneness or potential for. being prone to errors is not a capability...
they allowed something designed to make the game more enjoyable completely remove all ability to enjoy the game from a very very large number of players. the "expensiveness" of the game provided in retribution is as relevant as their claims of billions lost due to piracy. this is far more than "an error" on their part... but an apology and access to content they've already produced and can duplicate trivially at ~no cost is pretty much all they have to give.
and now the market decides: do i want to pay to play games through a service that is capable of making such "errors"
the false implication is that the demo WILL happen. a demo has been scheduled... claims have been made, but there is certainly no certainty that the demo will actually happen and fulfill all the claims.
why would your new research mesh network node ever need to trick users of a competitors network and intercept their traffic? why not just demonstrate a call strictly over your own network relays? is it because the latency of such a network makes voice calls horribly awkward? the advertised device and method of interception has no applicable use for research other than unwarranted interception. the advertised demo is neither ethical or practical.
would it be evil for AT&T to give the FBI the location of the talk and express concern about the electronic transmitter being demoed, which broadcasts a signal to phones before they allow calls to be intercepted?
what about every single person in the audience and surrounding city that might not really care how cell phone security works as long as people aren't advertising how to listen to their calls. he might have an angry mob on his hands.
and what if your OS has a thread limit, or otherwise becomes unusable with the number of threads required? it depends on the load of the server, the number of requests, how much IO is required, the average IO waiting time, and the general nature of the application... sometimes it's better to let the OS handle the threads... sometimes it's better for the application to do it... sometimes it's better for the application to be the OS, which on a virtual machine platform like java, is basically the case anyways.
the entire point of asynchronous is to acknowledge you will be waiting for IO, and try to do something else useful rather than just wait... asynchronous will obviously end up taking more time because of the overhead of managing states and performing the switches, but the tradeoff is something useful was getting done while waiting for IO a little longer instead of doing nothing except wait for the IO to complete. which method is best is completely application specific.
the mess of you struggling to come to terms with BEING AN IDIOT WHO SHOULD STOP SHARING THEIR IDIOTIC THOUGHTS.
are you asking me to attempt to physically assault you?
you are an idiot. this isn't about me complaining... this is about the law and whether or not such actions ARE ILLEGAL. if i break something, i'm not going to complain... i'm going to YELL. OF COURSE IT'S MY FAULT.... also, OF COURSE IT'S LEGAL. the issue isn't whether or not i should be mad, or whether or not apple should have held my hand more... THE ISSUE IS LEGALITY.
performing a tightrope act without a net draws a bigger crowd. why? MORE POTENTIAL. if you want to plug an extra emergency backup chip in your phone, that will draw power ALL THE TIME, then go ahead... that is also not illegal. i'd rather have a smaller phone with a longer battery life.
IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO NOT ADD FAILSAFES. IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO BREAK YOUR PHONE. IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO FILL THE PROGRAM MEMORY WITH CUSTOM SOFTWARE THAT YOU HAVE THE RIGHTS TO, AND SET THE PROGRAM COUNTER TO BEGIN EXECUTING IT.
the only thing i'm forced to complain about is your idiocy, MORON.
the "key" you are talking about IS IN THE APPLE SOFTWARE. your original argument was that the hardware provided such keys. is your "word play" now about twisting your argument while at the same time remaining incorrect? is that a fun game for you?
there is a CPU. there is PROGRAM MEMORY. there is a PROGRAM COUNTER. there IS NO LOCK.
just because you don't know how to do it doesn't mean apple did anything to stop you from doing it.
I'm happy to admit that I was engaging in wordplay and that there is some analogy involved, but nothing I said should be particularly obscure or unclear to anyone with some degree of technical literacy and a decent knowledge of American English
you said the iphone added locks. they did not add locks... they didn't even provide the door to put the lock on. you analogy is invalid. "WORD PLAY" ?!#% that is what you call using words while you are making claims that are incorrect? playing the game LIAR?
the provided software makes installing arbitrary software. the lack of something can never be analogous to the existence of something... especially something restricting access to something else.
how is it inaccurate? the original iphone modification process to enable 3rd party application execution would often leaves phones in a state that could not be restored by the existing software. that isn't entirely the case anymore, but when all i was talking about was the potential of that happening, and it's it irrefutably DID HAPPEN...........
Slashdot Mirror
oh, that's right, because they aren't applying physics, they are guessing.
flamebait for answering a question honestly? retarded moderators. valve drones. serve your master.
you don't want to know what people pay, you want to know what their costs are.
what i'm wondering is if the same forecasting supercomputers were used that were unable to predict the turn around, and burst the mortgage bubble.... sure it's been hot. sure it's been relatively hotter and hotter. that doesn't mean it will keep getting hotter and hotter forever. the next step will just as likely be a complete climate switch to extreme cold rather than continued warming.
is your vocabulary and logic always so limited when your sarcasm is turned on? why would you ever talk about the capability of errors? i think you meant possibility or proneness or potential for. being prone to errors is not a capability...
What's the cost to them got to do with anything?
uh... that was my point. the original poster called the software they gave them "expensive"... i pointed out that is irrelevant and logically fuzzy.
not that i'm suggesting you should, but you aren't even going to consider your option to start your own competing service?
and now the market decides: do i want to pay to play games through a service that is capable of making such "errors"
the false implication is that the demo WILL happen. a demo has been scheduled... claims have been made, but there is certainly no certainty that the demo will actually happen and fulfill all the claims.
why would your new research mesh network node ever need to trick users of a competitors network and intercept their traffic? why not just demonstrate a call strictly over your own network relays? is it because the latency of such a network makes voice calls horribly awkward? the advertised device and method of interception has no applicable use for research other than unwarranted interception. the advertised demo is neither ethical or practical.
what about every single person in the audience and surrounding city that might not really care how cell phone security works as long as people aren't advertising how to listen to their calls. he might have an angry mob on his hands.
many emulators are designed from the ground up to match the original hardware's capacity precisely... this article is FUD.
torch something.
i don't think you know what "obscurity" means.
yours was unnecessary.
and what if your OS has a thread limit, or otherwise becomes unusable with the number of threads required? it depends on the load of the server, the number of requests, how much IO is required, the average IO waiting time, and the general nature of the application... sometimes it's better to let the OS handle the threads... sometimes it's better for the application to do it... sometimes it's better for the application to be the OS, which on a virtual machine platform like java, is basically the case anyways.
the entire point of asynchronous is to acknowledge you will be waiting for IO, and try to do something else useful rather than just wait... asynchronous will obviously end up taking more time because of the overhead of managing states and performing the switches, but the tradeoff is something useful was getting done while waiting for IO a little longer instead of doing nothing except wait for the IO to complete. which method is best is completely application specific.
shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, enough from you, idiot.
the mess of you struggling to come to terms with BEING AN IDIOT WHO SHOULD STOP SHARING THEIR IDIOTIC THOUGHTS. are you asking me to attempt to physically assault you?
performing a tightrope act without a net draws a bigger crowd. why? MORE POTENTIAL. if you want to plug an extra emergency backup chip in your phone, that will draw power ALL THE TIME, then go ahead... that is also not illegal. i'd rather have a smaller phone with a longer battery life.
IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO NOT ADD FAILSAFES. IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO BREAK YOUR PHONE. IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO FILL THE PROGRAM MEMORY WITH CUSTOM SOFTWARE THAT YOU HAVE THE RIGHTS TO, AND SET THE PROGRAM COUNTER TO BEGIN EXECUTING IT.
the only thing i'm forced to complain about is your idiocy, MORON.
more concerned with how i'll be right than how you'll be wrong? that's what gets you into these messes.
there is a CPU. there is PROGRAM MEMORY. there is a PROGRAM COUNTER. there IS NO LOCK.
just because you don't know how to do it doesn't mean apple did anything to stop you from doing it.
anybody that bought an iphone was happy to purchase a device with locks to prevent installing arbitrary software
INCORRECT.
I'm happy to admit that I was engaging in wordplay and that there is some analogy involved, but nothing I said should be particularly obscure or unclear to anyone with some degree of technical literacy and a decent knowledge of American English
you said the iphone added locks. they did not add locks... they didn't even provide the door to put the lock on. you analogy is invalid. "WORD PLAY" ?!#% that is what you call using words while you are making claims that are incorrect? playing the game LIAR?
the provided software makes installing arbitrary software. the lack of something can never be analogous to the existence of something... especially something restricting access to something else.
you are an idiot.
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, IDIOT?