Like my stupid high cshool programming teacher who yankee-ily kept saying "disenable," when it's really "disable," you don't have to include BOTH positive and negative prefixes -- only one.
Anyway, you're pretty much right. Though I think the original intent was a bit more distributed than a cluster (wan), since such a thing (with oh, just a couple athlons) is beyond most would-be rippers, I'd assume.
However, if you had a good sized pool of cohorts, and they all had cable modems that can sustain 100k+ between them boh ways, then the networking part seems more feasible than one might at first think. But it's not something I'd release and let and old Joe 56k try, of course, but I wouldn't (personally) consider it McGyver-ish.
Yeah, I've been around since b21 or so. When fpn nearly died, and the core modules had added features that weren't complete (as they are now) and those themes were being shoved down my throat (hate theme.rc), I got out of the habit of using it.
I have geoshell set up on a user in xp, but it crashes as often as it did before r3, imo, and has quirky features. But some of those features kick ass and all have fairly easy-to-adjust registry entry configs (which gets rid of open *.ini, forget to save, allow litestep to take metapad/notepad down with it, etc.).
The real upshot of litestep, though, compared to the realitvely small (or small-voiced) geoshell community, is the willingness to help and support and develop.
So, until they get those gui config editors released with the core modules, I'm sticking with xp explorer (fwiw, better than 98's) and/or geOShell.
Ooo, interesting article. But you see the reasons he gives for not liking it: even 'fixed,' "People have created laws to protect intellectual property, and if something like Freenet ever took off, it would be impossible to enforce those laws..." Proves my point in my mind, anyway. Thanks for the link.
Whoa, you need to read the documentation, buddy. The "implementation sucks" argument's been used before, and there's rebuttal on the site. It requires sifting through technical docs, though.
See, you take it from a traditional, file-sharing p2p perspective -- don't lump it in with other programs. That's the problem. You say: "People don't want to store information they did not request." That's the whole point in FreeNet, otherwise something would be near-to/totally centralized, wouldn't it? If not, then it surely isn't anonymous to the degree it is (which is where the security layers, the so-called sucky implementation, comes in). If that's not your purpose (if you "have nothing to hide"), then forget about it! Don't criticize it for starting to do something, the goals (goals via, for example, anonymity and a plan of storage) of which you don't agree with.
Look, I hear griping for a "real" implementation. Well, freenet and some gnutella clients (e.g., gnucleus) are open-source. You fix it if you don't like it. But, don't beat on the system when IT is not the bottleneck of acceptance, which is really what this is about.
BitTorrent, on the surface, is just a commercial distro plan that the mpaa wants to use (though heavily mod'd, I'm sure. Oh, that's why you call it "actual content," eh? But what if you didn't request that pr0n movie, but your computer/box is used to distribute the content?
P2P does not mean only one thing. It is not embodied in either gnutella, freenet, or other projects; they work differently. They're called mediocre, but where's the specific criticism? I mean, working as it does, excluding the leeches and the anti-leech methods (as it existed years ago), the gnutella system accomplished things. It is "an option" for me and millions. Options can be many things. Some people don't care if you don't like it. If it's not spyware, and if it gets a job done, then what's the problem?
There are positive, identifiable problems with freenet, and it's also a baby of a project -- just because people run it doesn't mean anything to or about it. But it's running, and it's ideas of storage and implementation have yet to be seriously debated and critiqued.
Right now FreeNet is slow mainly because there aren't that many people on it. Read some of the documentation at the site. More people = a better cache and better responsiveness. Now, given its current state, I'd say the relative (very high) anonymity of it makes it drollingly appealing. So START A NODE, people!
A FreeNet with millions running nodes globally is our goal, according to my wishes and yours, as well as both our economic means.
Ok, I've been thinking of this for years, anyway: who wants to build a better math app/lib? Something cross-platform and easily usable in other apps (like, write a graphing calc in a few lines built on it). Or, once again, has such a thing been done to such a level? The state of the field is interesting, considering the number of people using it....
You have a point, you know. In my class, most the things we were using (read: forced to use) matlab for were dull and insane. However, some of the things I did (and experimented with) you'd (ok, I'd) just go crazy over without _some_ software to hold it all together.
But since you do it by hand, please grace us with a project competitive with matlab.
Oh, and let's see you pencil those eigenvalues in seconds. Damn those poorly-worded tests!
I had to use matlab on Linux (RedHat) in a 2000-level math course last semester. Let me tell you, it wasn't fun. At least, what we had to do required more time and energy figuring out what's what than it should have. Granted, it was low-er level math; granted we didn't go far into the program -- but the thing was strangely designed. It's kinda like ms office: there are things in there that could be improved, interfaces made more consistent, to actually encourage productivity. No?
I did like te console-ish interface of it, but it couldn't do everything you could do graphically, which is why I spent so much time with the poorly documented dialogs (unless it was an incomplete installation, but then not everything was left without help files).
Anyway, another math prof was always talking about running these theoretical experiments on Maple, and suggested that we might need it for a class (didn't turn out to need it, thank God). I searched around and found that it (maple) had quite the vehement dislikers, who, incidentally, suggested free alternatives. It's been more than a semester since that, so I don't remember what they were. Anybody know of any free/open progs that can do the same thing... and maybe a tad more productively?
ok, i'm not sure what you #2 means, but I see that the equip only takes 8 processors, so you'd need two of these (+the extra proc.s that aren't included)... and the reserve's not met, so it'll probably cost upwards of $4g. damn.
Unless I am completely daft (please note if so), then we're talking about a general progression in processing power, a certain configuration of which (e.g., compiling a piece of software) can serve as a preliminary benchmark against other systems (considering it's a task many are familiar with and can carry such a "wow" factor). It's not some strange optimization that only affect kernel compiles; it's about memory optimization (read the definition of the NUMA tech.).
Exactly. He is confusing lossy archiving/transfering with LOSSY COMPRESSION, which only has to (and does, technically) apply to the tranformation of usually analog or just uncompressed (in a certain manner) data to (in this case) digitized, compressed data. When compressed, an audio track -- whether compressed at the studio or here at home -- looses some data; hence "lossy." The true definiton of this term is evident most simply because in use, it refers to the difference in quality between real and compressed (e.g., bitmap/png v jpg or wav/shn v mp3/ogg).
Well, Bernard, there are little things called "laws" in THIS country, and every now and then one pops up that's intended to protect the citizens' privacy and rights. Those regarding unsolicited (and the following barratous and obnoxious) email fall under that description.
For legal purposes, the EFF is an org. of the U.S., and may (somebody want to look this up? where?) be organized elsewhere. However, it's not in Canada, so it can't legally issue a tax recipt, which has certain other legal ramifications.
Slashdot Mirror
What errors? During the last season the guy submitted on thing; now he has published an expanded thing.
No, it's possible. Just use a big png and an imap.... unless you need to count video cards and bit depths.
Please, it's "decode," not "deencode."
Like my stupid high cshool programming teacher who yankee-ily kept saying "disenable," when it's really "disable," you don't have to include BOTH positive and negative prefixes -- only one.
Anyway, you're pretty much right. Though I think the original intent was a bit more distributed than a cluster (wan), since such a thing (with oh, just a couple athlons) is beyond most would-be rippers, I'd assume.
However, if you had a good sized pool of cohorts, and they all had cable modems that can sustain 100k+ between them boh ways, then the networking part seems more feasible than one might at first think. But it's not something I'd release and let and old Joe 56k try, of course, but I wouldn't (personally) consider it McGyver-ish.
Yeah, I've been around since b21 or so. When fpn nearly died, and the core modules had added features that weren't complete (as they are now) and those themes were being shoved down my throat (hate theme.rc), I got out of the habit of using it.
I have geoshell set up on a user in xp, but it crashes as often as it did before r3, imo, and has quirky features. But some of those features kick ass and all have fairly easy-to-adjust registry entry configs (which gets rid of open *.ini, forget to save, allow litestep to take metapad/notepad down with it, etc.).
The real upshot of litestep, though, compared to the realitvely small (or small-voiced) geoshell community, is the willingness to help and support and develop.
So, until they get those gui config editors released with the core modules, I'm sticking with xp explorer (fwiw, better than 98's) and/or geOShell.
Ooo, interesting article. But you see the reasons he gives for not liking it: even 'fixed,' "People have created laws to protect intellectual property, and if something like Freenet ever took off, it would be impossible to enforce those laws..." Proves my point in my mind, anyway. Thanks for the link.
Whoa, you need to read the documentation, buddy. The "implementation sucks" argument's been used before, and there's rebuttal on the site. It requires sifting through technical docs, though.
See, you take it from a traditional, file-sharing p2p perspective -- don't lump it in with other programs. That's the problem. You say: "People don't want to store information they did not request." That's the whole point in FreeNet, otherwise something would be near-to/totally centralized, wouldn't it? If not, then it surely isn't anonymous to the degree it is (which is where the security layers, the so-called sucky implementation, comes in). If that's not your purpose (if you "have nothing to hide"), then forget about it! Don't criticize it for starting to do something, the goals (goals via, for example, anonymity and a plan of storage) of which you don't agree with.
Look, I hear griping for a "real" implementation. Well, freenet and some gnutella clients (e.g., gnucleus) are open-source. You fix it if you don't like it. But, don't beat on the system when IT is not the bottleneck of acceptance, which is really what this is about.
BitTorrent, on the surface, is just a commercial distro plan that the mpaa wants to use (though heavily mod'd, I'm sure. Oh, that's why you call it "actual content," eh? But what if you didn't request that pr0n movie, but your computer/box is used to distribute the content?
P2P does not mean only one thing. It is not embodied in either gnutella, freenet, or other projects; they work differently. They're called mediocre, but where's the specific criticism? I mean, working as it does, excluding the leeches and the anti-leech methods (as it existed years ago), the gnutella system accomplished things. It is "an option" for me and millions. Options can be many things. Some people don't care if you don't like it. If it's not spyware, and if it gets a job done, then what's the problem?
There are positive, identifiable problems with freenet, and it's also a baby of a project -- just because people run it doesn't mean anything to or about it. But it's running, and it's ideas of storage and implementation have yet to be seriously debated and critiqued.
Hence all the "moving around..." hehe
Excuse me while I fill my 20 seconds:
la la... who'll stop the rain?
Oh, now it's 2 min between posts... excuse me while I full a minute: e=mc^2
Right now FreeNet is slow mainly because there aren't that many people on it. Read some of the documentation at the site. More people = a better cache and better responsiveness. Now, given its current state, I'd say the relative (very high) anonymity of it makes it drollingly appealing. So START A NODE, people!
A FreeNet with millions running nodes globally is our goal, according to my wishes and yours, as well as both our economic means.
Ok, I've been thinking of this for years, anyway: who wants to build a better math app/lib? Something cross-platform and easily usable in other apps (like, write a graphing calc in a few lines built on it). Or, once again, has such a thing been done to such a level? The state of the field is interesting, considering the number of people using it....
You have a point, you know. In my class, most the things we were using (read: forced to use) matlab for were dull and insane. However, some of the things I did (and experimented with) you'd (ok, I'd) just go crazy over without _some_ software to hold it all together.
But since you do it by hand, please grace us with a project competitive with matlab.
Oh, and let's see you pencil those eigenvalues in seconds. Damn those poorly-worded tests!
I had to use matlab on Linux (RedHat) in a 2000-level math course last semester. Let me tell you, it wasn't fun. At least, what we had to do required more time and energy figuring out what's what than it should have. Granted, it was low-er level math; granted we didn't go far into the program -- but the thing was strangely designed. It's kinda like ms office: there are things in there that could be improved, interfaces made more consistent, to actually encourage productivity. No?
I did like te console-ish interface of it, but it couldn't do everything you could do graphically, which is why I spent so much time with the poorly documented dialogs (unless it was an incomplete installation, but then not everything was left without help files).
Anyway, another math prof was always talking about running these theoretical experiments on Maple, and suggested that we might need it for a class (didn't turn out to need it, thank God). I searched around and found that it (maple) had quite the vehement dislikers, who, incidentally, suggested free alternatives. It's been more than a semester since that, so I don't remember what they were. Anybody know of any free/open progs that can do the same thing... and maybe a tad more productively?
ok, i'm not sure what you #2 means, but I see that the equip only takes 8 processors, so you'd need two of these (+the extra proc.s that aren't included)... and the reserve's not met, so it'll probably cost upwards of $4g. damn.
Unless I am completely daft (please note if so), then we're talking about a general progression in processing power, a certain configuration of which (e.g., compiling a piece of software) can serve as a preliminary benchmark against other systems (considering it's a task many are familiar with and can carry such a "wow" factor). It's not some strange optimization that only affect kernel compiles; it's about memory optimization (read the definition of the NUMA tech.).
I concur: let's get us some benchmarks!
That's what I was thinking...
But, Here's a 4-P3 system, and it's nearly $1.5g, and a cpu alone isn't more than $50, so...
Like yours is?
"1: characterized by slinking : stealthily quiet <slinky movements>
2: sleek and sinuous in movement or outline; especially: following the lines of the figure in a gracefully flowing manner <a slinky evening gown>"
So, if it moves sinuously or wears an evening gown, there's no doubt.
No arguments here, but what have they done to her feet!?
Newton's Apple (anybody remember that show?) c. 1987.
... ex...pan...d....
Big thing: contract... expand... contract... expand... *move wheeled support* contract...
Happy fun wave!
Does that mean that an intelligent discussion in unwarranted? No.
Exactly. He is confusing lossy archiving/transfering with LOSSY COMPRESSION, which only has to (and does, technically) apply to the tranformation of usually analog or just uncompressed (in a certain manner) data to (in this case) digitized, compressed data. When compressed, an audio track -- whether compressed at the studio or here at home -- looses some data; hence "lossy." The true definiton of this term is evident most simply because in use, it refers to the difference in quality between real and compressed (e.g., bitmap/png v jpg or wav/shn v mp3/ogg).
I must say, the word is "quirks."
Consult http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?quark and http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?quirk.
Well, Bernard, there are little things called "laws" in THIS country, and every now and then one pops up that's intended to protect the citizens' privacy and rights. Those regarding unsolicited (and the following barratous and obnoxious) email fall under that description.
For legal purposes, the EFF is an org. of the U.S., and may (somebody want to look this up? where?) be organized elsewhere. However, it's not in Canada, so it can't legally issue a tax recipt, which has certain other legal ramifications.
Yes, the deep links don't work anymore, but I have one good question: why is it still listed as the top story at timecanada.com?
Did somebody tell somebody to leave it there to entice somebody's TW-AOL/Apple conspiracy theory?