"And I suppose you carry all your water from the well in buckets."
Well, I get all my bottled water from whichever shop happens to be open. I certainly don't have it piped from a single supplier to my flat.
And curiously enough, I want my BT packets to come from whoever can most conveniently supply them at the time, I certainly don't want to be tied to one peer.
It's easier for the client (recipient) to simply realise that if it's repeatedly getting fragmented blocks due to dropped packets from a particular server, then it might as well _stop requesting blocks_ from that server, and request them from a different server instead. No need for ACKs, that's just more packets to clog things up. To get less, simply make fewer requests. The client is already maintaining state, there's no need for the protocol stack to do a poor approximation of the same job with an unnecessary overhead that, in order to get *less* data transmitted, sends *more* control.
How on earth does TCP, when it detects an expected packet hasn't arrived long after it was requested, attempt to get the packet from another different machine instead?
Clue: It doesn't. Yet that's the kind of retry logic that BitTorrent needs. TCP connections are mostly unnecessary for torrenting, it's really not a connection-based protocol at all, it's already designed with failure (to receive packets) in mind, and doesn't need the overhead of TCP to operate.
When it comes to Security Council vetoes, it's clear that the only country that is less in tune with the views of the others than Russia is,... well, it would be impolite of me to point the finger west.
Yup, retarded embedded script crap; however, not malicious: http://movies.itpro.co.uk/pcpro/online/appleadlow_DI_New_4x3_001.flv Downloads OK and plays fine in vlc.
I say "downloads OK" as I noticed something really annoying on some OSS site the other day such that you couldn't download the source given a link to it. It would always redirect to itself, and only let you have the download if you followed the pointless redirect. wget doesn't follow redirects to the same location, so I simply couldn't wget the file! Presumably that was to stop web robots downloading binary packages needlessly, but it was certainly annoying.
Dropped off now. However, what's utterly clear from the current top 100 is that almost the entirety of it is full of googlespam, presumably from zombie botnets.
Do you have any evidence that the servos are acting based on voice inflection? It looks like they simply recorded the voice and the face-grab conclusions, and just played them back. If it was responding to voice inflection, I'm sure there would have been a demo video of someone speaking into a microphone and have the bot mimic from just the sound.
1) It can't read their emotions, it can only (approximately) detect the mouth/eye positions. 2) It can't demonstrate emotions, it can only (poorly) mimic mouth/eye positions.
Given that some expressions of fear are almost indistinguishable from some expressions of happy surprise, the above is mostly useless fluff designed only to impress suits and teens at consumer-electronics fairs. There's not one shred of actual AI in either of the above.
Can you port Dan Bernstein's DJBFFT to it? And then benchmark a complex double-precision 8192-limb FFT against the CUDA libraries. If you can provide me with the benchmark results, then I'll be able to tell if it's a good platform for big-number number-crunching. (In particular, prime number hunting.)
I think you'll find that I'm the one who is seeing a trunk, a tail, and big flapping ears, and claiming that I do see an elephant.
If you think that I was interpretting the things on the left to be an input because it's on the left, then you must think I'm fucking idiot. Look further. See those bricks which are clearly a tiled bitmap? If they're procedural, then the only question to then ask is "why the fuck make bricks procedural, it's just a tiled bitmap?". It's possible, and stupid, to make any tiled bitmap procedurally generated. If they are so obsessed with having everything procedurally generated no matter how stupid that might be, then I have less respect for that software than I do for their fanbois.
A good language for almost all procedural content generation will often be functional. That may sound bizarre at first, but when you consider the recursive nature of most procedural content generation (such as landscape height-maps, textures, plantlife, etc.) it can be a perfect match for functional languages.
I checked the screenshots for DT. Seems to have an awful lot of predefined patterns - I wouldn't call that procedural generation, it's just combining bitmaps with filters.
I'd wager HP makes more money from its presence in the 10-500 zone than IBM does. However, impressive and money are not necessarily correlated.
I'm not so sure there's much that's impressive here, as the benchmark used is a pitifully out-of-date one. Most of the big boxes are simple evolutions. There have been very few revolutions for several years. (Earth simulator, perhaps, and the very low-power POWER clusters.)
It should I hope be clear in my original post (now buried at -1, as it seems some people didn't understand the kernel of my message) that the word "Muslim" could be replaced by many other alternatives. I was only drawn to the word "Muslim" because that was, bizarrely, specifically mentioned in the story summary. If there were to be a similar story about the UK, would it be introduced as "the Christian country UKoGBaNI"?
You can't slash my tyres - I don't have a car. If I can't get there by foot, bus, or train, I generally don't go there. Fortunately I live in a country with a very good public transport system, as do the neighbouring countries (OK, include boat in my prior list), so I get to see more foreign countries every year than 90% of Americans; and I almost certainly have a smaller carbon footprint to boot.
I like your logic. I however, have some even better logic.
They're a Muslim country. So why don't they simply request that their omnipotent god stops the sea level rising? If the god refuses that simple request and they drown, then it's because their god wanted them to die. Who are we westerners to step in the way of the wants of their god?
Slashdot Mirror
"For what it's worth, a jury of several members of the IWF would be considered to be as representative of the population as a typical jury."
I disagree. A typical jury isn't self-selecting, the IWF presumably is, and no doubt they all share a similar agenda.
It'll have a cache. Let's not pretend it's something it's not.
With all this talk of "connections" being a problem, why hasn't anyone thought of moving BT to a connectionless protocol, like UDP? ;-)
"And I suppose you carry all your water from the well in buckets."
Well, I get all my bottled water from whichever shop happens to be open. I certainly don't have it piped from a single supplier to my flat.
And curiously enough, I want my BT packets to come from whoever can most conveniently supply them at the time, I certainly don't want to be tied to one peer.
It's easier for the client (recipient) to simply realise that if it's repeatedly getting fragmented blocks due to dropped packets from a particular server, then it might as well _stop requesting blocks_ from that server, and request them from a different server instead. No need for ACKs, that's just more packets to clog things up. To get less, simply make fewer requests. The client is already maintaining state, there's no need for the protocol stack to do a poor approximation of the same job with an unnecessary overhead that, in order to get *less* data transmitted, sends *more* control.
How on earth does TCP, when it detects an expected packet hasn't arrived long after it was requested, attempt to get the packet from another different machine instead?
Clue: It doesn't. Yet that's the kind of retry logic that BitTorrent needs. TCP connections are mostly unnecessary for torrenting, it's really not a connection-based protocol at all, it's already designed with failure (to receive packets) in mind, and doesn't need the overhead of TCP to operate.
When it comes to Security Council vetoes, it's clear that the only country that is less in tune with the views of the others than Russia is, ... well, it would be impolite of me to point the finger west.
Yup, retarded embedded script crap; however, not malicious:
http://movies.itpro.co.uk/pcpro/online/appleadlow_DI_New_4x3_001.flv
Downloads OK and plays fine in vlc.
I say "downloads OK" as I noticed something really annoying on some OSS site the other day such that you couldn't download the source given a link to it. It would always redirect to itself, and only let you have the download if you followed the pointless redirect. wget doesn't follow redirects to the same location, so I simply couldn't wget the file! Presumably that was to stop web robots downloading binary packages needlessly, but it was certainly annoying.
Dropped off now. However, what's utterly clear from the current top 100 is that almost the entirety of it is full of googlespam, presumably from zombie botnets.
Do you have any evidence that the servos are acting based on voice inflection? It looks like they simply recorded the voice and the face-grab conclusions, and just played them back. If it was responding to voice inflection, I'm sure there would have been a demo video of someone speaking into a microphone and have the bot mimic from just the sound.
1) It can't read their emotions, it can only (approximately) detect the mouth/eye positions.
2) It can't demonstrate emotions, it can only (poorly) mimic mouth/eye positions.
Given that some expressions of fear are almost indistinguishable from some expressions of happy surprise, the above is mostly useless fluff designed only to impress suits and teens at consumer-electronics fairs. There's not one shred of actual AI in either of the above.
Can you port Dan Bernstein's DJBFFT to it? And then benchmark a complex double-precision 8192-limb FFT against the CUDA libraries. If you can provide me with the benchmark results, then I'll be able to tell if it's a good platform for big-number number-crunching. (In particular, prime number hunting.)
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/20/0410224
Oh, are you on their mailing list too?
From what I've seen of dataflow languages, most are indeed functional. In particular ones in the field of audio/graphics generation.
I think you'll find that I'm the one who is seeing a trunk, a tail, and big flapping ears, and claiming that I do see an elephant.
If you think that I was interpretting the things on the left to be an input because it's on the left, then you must think I'm fucking idiot. Look further. See those bricks which are clearly a tiled bitmap? If they're procedural, then the only question to then ask is "why the fuck make bricks procedural, it's just a tiled bitmap?". It's possible, and stupid, to make any tiled bitmap procedurally generated. If they are so obsessed with having everything procedurally generated no matter how stupid that might be, then I have less respect for that software than I do for their fanbois.
"... which *results* in a 3D bitmap." eh?
Sorry, either it's you who is awfully wrong, or the screenshots on the website are awfully misleading. They _clearly_ show bitmaps as _inputs_.
A good language for almost all procedural content generation will often be functional. That may sound bizarre at first, but when you consider the recursive nature of most procedural content generation (such as landscape height-maps, textures, plantlife, etc.) it can be a perfect match for functional languages.
I checked the screenshots for DT. Seems to have an awful lot of predefined patterns - I wouldn't call that procedural generation, it's just combining bitmaps with filters.
I'd wager HP makes more money from its presence in the 10-500 zone than IBM does. However, impressive and money are not necessarily correlated.
I'm not so sure there's much that's impressive here, as the benchmark used is a pitifully out-of-date one. Most of the big boxes are simple evolutions. There have been very few revolutions for several years. (Earth simulator, perhaps, and the very low-power POWER clusters.)
In as much that anyone owns the means of production, the workers do.
"He talks about freedom, but wants to dictate how I, as a developer, can market or sell the product of my effort."
No he doesn't.
It should I hope be clear in my original post (now buried at -1, as it seems some people didn't understand the kernel of my message) that the word "Muslim" could be replaced by many other alternatives. I was only drawn to the word "Muslim" because that was, bizarrely, specifically mentioned in the story summary. If there were to be a similar story about the UK, would it be introduced as "the Christian country UKoGBaNI"?
You can't slash my tyres - I don't have a car. If I can't get there by foot, bus, or train, I generally don't go there. Fortunately I live in a country with a very good public transport system, as do the neighbouring countries (OK, include boat in my prior list), so I get to see more foreign countries every year than 90% of Americans; and I almost certainly have a smaller carbon footprint to boot.
I like your logic. I however, have some even better logic.
They're a Muslim country. So why don't they simply request that their omnipotent god stops the sea level rising? If the god refuses that simple request and they drown, then it's because their god wanted them to die. Who are we westerners to step in the way of the wants of their god?