Neither the DNS system (root servers), or the allocation/control of IP address(ing) is decentralized -- they may be heirarchial, but both still have a root.
This is a fundamental aspect of those systems. You want one domain name to map to one (set of) server, and similarly for IP addresses. If you don't have one authority dictating who gets what address, you'll have disagreements and things less reliable.
MAC addresses also have one authority behind them, but typically only the manufacturer has to deal with them. MAC addresses actually could be decentralized, since they only need to be unique on the local network, where the others need to be globally unique.
Anyway, I think the only way to avoid having one (or a small number of) central authority is to have these decisions part of the spec, ie decide on a scheme ahead of time that's unambiguous in nearly all cases.
I am looking for someone to plan and organize the project with me (preferably someone with experience at Mozilla programming and cvs), and looking for people to work on the project. I will be here to provide support and organize, but won't be able to do a lot of the coding at the moment (I'm working on Mozilla and also have a programming job where I am managing the project). If you want to help, then please email me.
I'm not gonna tell you that Mozilla isn't slow, it's uses a lot of memory, which takes a while to allocate and using Gecko for UI isn't all that speedy either. (in fact, it looks like openning a new window in Mozilla takes longer than starting IE on my system)
But there is a difference between loading a dll that's in the disk cache and mapping a dll from a different process. Usually Windows doesn't have to allocate another block of memory, rearrange the segments, and do relocation. The whole conversion from file format to memory image has already been done.
The rendering engine is preloaded, it gets used for HTML help and embedded in 20 million applications, such as AIM and for "Active Desktop" or those stupid sidepanels in explorer. The page retrieval and caching code is preloaded, it's used in even more programs than the rendering engine. The UI is preloaded, it's exactly the same as used in explorer (which is already in memory, because that's what draws the desktop). What's left that isn't preloaded?
perhaps you can inform me what parts of IE are already loaded
why not just make a portable audio player that allows you to flash any type of audio decoder into it.
I'm pretty sure most of them do that. The trouble is, you need to have the decoder written for the processor that the player uses and the right format to be flashed into rom. You can't just take the newest winamp plugin and have it work on anything.
Now, they could make it so you can mix and match which decoders you install instead of just throwing all the decoders in, but there's no benefit to that until they run out of flash rom.
I worked with the creator of GIF (Steve Wilhite) when I was still employed by CompuServe. Steve always pronounced it "jiff" and would correct those who pronounced it with a hard G. "Choosy developers choose GIF" (spinning off of a historically popular peanut butter commercial).
Yeah, but the alternative is to have MegaDrive, UltraDrive, ExtraHappyDrive, FuckingIncredibleDrive, etc.
I think in this case we're all just better off if we consider "SuperDrive" to mean "new drive from Apple that they're trippin' their egos on," so when the next one comes out we'll know what they're talking about immediately.
So is it really worth it to copy some of this stuff at any cost? I can't help but think that sometimes it would cost less time and aggravation to just go out and buy the damn software/music CD/DVD.
Yeah, but then how do I copy it onto my computer to play it? Or do you think that I really want to sort through my entire CD collection for one song?
I mean with this case specifically, you're right. There's no real reason to copy these "reviewer" CDs, but that's not a general rule. (and I think in this case most of the "this can be easily circumvented by..." things are just to point out how stupid it is.)
You can make the buttons smaller but it's rather confusing. You have to add an @import line to the userChrome.css file in your profile\chrome directory, before the @namespace line.
IMO it's worth it, orbits looks much nicer than pinball.
In following the time-honored/. tradition, I have not read the article, but there is a way to simulate more colors than you actually have besides dithering. What you do is to alternate rapidly between two slightly different images. The pixels will appear to be a mixture of them, so you can have halfway in between or whatever. This does not reduce your resulution, but it does introduce some flickering.
These are entirely different situations. There is one source for the movie, but you can create drugs anywhere. It's actually possible to keep track of everyone who's got the movie. (Well, maybe not anymore...)
I've heard of at least three circumstances where they tried to use a GA to develop something and the final solution ends up cheating, using some quirk of the system that wasn't anticipated. So it seems to me that evolution always cheats, though no doubt there are numerous experiments where that doesn't happen and no one think it's special.
I guess what I'm saying is: So what? We've seen this before, even if not this exact thing.
It is far too rare to see a discussion on evolution that admits much room for alternatives between "10000 year Earth" and "Science has disproven the existence of God."
Which just goes to show you don't understand the position of science. Science only considers the natural world and can say nothing about the existence or non-existence of any supernatural being.
Which just goes to show you need to work on your reading comprehension skills. It is not science that says God does not exist, it is the people who hold this position. The poster is specifically saying that these two positions are not the only options. He is not saying that "Science has disproven the existence of God," neither is he saying "10000 year Earth" is true. In fact, it is implied that they are both false. Unfortunately, and I have seen the same thing, these seem to often be the only positions argued against, and most of the time, the only positions given.
I think the hardest part is there is no one "Creationism," it's more a moving target that can escape one argument by evolving into something else unless you pin down what it means to the person you are dealing with.
First of all, you had to write that bug into it. simplifying it to:
#include int main() { puts("Hello, World"); return 0; }
Would help immensely.
Secondly, who said I was going to use a compiler, or even a real OS for that matter? I could easily write a bug-free DOS based Hello World prog in assembly. Any bugs would be outside of its code, before or after it gets executed. I could go one step further and create an embedded device that would immediately start up with my code and halt when it's done. No bugs in software.
It's wierd, when you think about it, that programming is still done in flat text files. Almost nothing else is still done that way. One could argue for programs in HTML, with the code bracketed in XML so that the compiler could find it.
Ok, first of all, the actual storage method is irrelevant. As someone else mentioned, XML/HTML is still flat text files, at least as far as source is. (is it really flat if it's got nested namespaces?) Databases can be stored to flat text files.
What you're really interested in is how you find a piece of code and its documentation, whether you have to scan through that flat text file yourself to find it, or if there's some other access method. There *is* another access method, it's called an IDE. Ever use MS DevStudio? You can browse the source by objects, by project, "flat text file" groups, all sorts of things. You can jump from a call of a function to its implementation very quickly, or to the definition of a variable. I think it's probably the best Microsoft product ever.
Now, as for why flat text files (despite the fact that it's irrelevant), it's easier for the current tools to work with, it's backwards compatible, it's easy for the programmer to understand if the sugar on top fails to work right, it's portable. There is no good reason to *not* use flat text files. (well, ok it fails the buzzword test.)
Origin of *the* species, as in how we got here. Speciation in the present is still just the process.
Observing that a process can produce a result does not mean that that result must have been produced by that process. Saying that it must is inductive reasoning, thus theory.
Slashdot Mirror
Neither the DNS system (root servers), or the allocation/control of IP address(ing) is decentralized -- they may be heirarchial, but both still have a root.
This is a fundamental aspect of those systems. You want one domain name to map to one (set of) server, and similarly for IP addresses. If you don't have one authority dictating who gets what address, you'll have disagreements and things less reliable.
MAC addresses also have one authority behind them, but typically only the manufacturer has to deal with them. MAC addresses actually could be decentralized, since they only need to be unique on the local network, where the others need to be globally unique.
Anyway, I think the only way to avoid having one (or a small number of) central authority is to have these decisions part of the spec, ie decide on a scheme ahead of time that's unambiguous in nearly all cases.
I'm not gonna tell you that Mozilla isn't slow, it's uses a lot of memory, which takes a while to allocate and using Gecko for UI isn't all that speedy either. (in fact, it looks like openning a new window in Mozilla takes longer than starting IE on my system)
But there is a difference between loading a dll that's in the disk cache and mapping a dll from a different process. Usually Windows doesn't have to allocate another block of memory, rearrange the segments, and do relocation. The whole conversion from file format to memory image has already been done.
The rendering engine is preloaded, it gets used for HTML help and embedded in 20 million applications, such as AIM and for "Active Desktop" or those stupid sidepanels in explorer. The page retrieval and caching code is preloaded, it's used in even more programs than the rendering engine. The UI is preloaded, it's exactly the same as used in explorer (which is already in memory, because that's what draws the desktop). What's left that isn't preloaded?
perhaps you can inform me what parts of IE are already loaded
All of them.
Exactly.
Let's see, would I rather dl Win2k SP3 from microsoft 3 times, or 1 time and copy it to the other two computers at 100Mbps? Tough question.
Bandwidth to the internet is not always a bottleneck.
why not just make a portable audio player that allows you to flash any type of audio decoder into it.
I'm pretty sure most of them do that. The trouble is, you need to have the decoder written for the processor that the player uses and the right format to be flashed into rom. You can't just take the newest winamp plugin and have it work on anything.
Now, they could make it so you can mix and match which decoders you install instead of just throwing all the decoders in, but there's no benefit to that until they run out of flash rom.
http://www.colorado.edu/~hyperlst/html-developers
OpenSSL, OpenSSH...
Hm, if they made an "open source" processor, would it feature OpenSSE?
Yeah, but the alternative is to have MegaDrive, UltraDrive, ExtraHappyDrive, FuckingIncredibleDrive, etc.
I think in this case we're all just better off if we consider "SuperDrive" to mean "new drive from Apple that they're trippin' their egos on," so when the next one comes out we'll know what they're talking about immediately.
So is it really worth it to copy some of this stuff at any cost? I can't help but think that sometimes it would cost less time and aggravation to just go out and buy the damn software/music CD/DVD.
Yeah, but then how do I copy it onto my computer to play it? Or do you think that I really want to sort through my entire CD collection for one song?
I mean with this case specifically, you're right. There's no real reason to copy these "reviewer" CDs, but that's not a general rule. (and I think in this case most of the "this can be easily circumvented by..." things are just to point out how stupid it is.)
You can make the buttons smaller but it's rather confusing. You have to add an @import line to the userChrome.css file in your profile\chrome directory, before the @namespace line.
IMO it's worth it, orbits looks much nicer than pinball.
Consumers don't like being lied to
Yeah, but who's lying to them?
AMD rates their processors with a number that looks like a clock speed, but isn't labelled as one.
Intel gives their processors a high clock speed and implies that that makes them inherently superior, when it clearly doesn't.
Technically, neither is lying, but they're both being slightly dishonest. And what are people gonna do to avoid being "lied" to, buy a Mac?
I dunno about that, blurring is what you want with this technique. You *want* the two different colors at each pixel to blur together.
But no, I haven't used one, so it might still not work.
In following the time-honored /. tradition, I have not read the article, but there is a way to simulate more colors than you actually have besides dithering. What you do is to alternate rapidly between two slightly different images. The pixels will appear to be a mixture of them, so you can have halfway in between or whatever. This does not reduce your resulution, but it does introduce some flickering.
These are entirely different situations. There is one source for the movie, but you can create drugs anywhere. It's actually possible to keep track of everyone who's got the movie. (Well, maybe not anymore...)
I've heard of at least three circumstances where they tried to use a GA to develop something and the final solution ends up cheating, using some quirk of the system that wasn't anticipated. So it seems to me that evolution always cheats, though no doubt there are numerous experiments where that doesn't happen and no one think it's special.
I guess what I'm saying is: So what? We've seen this before, even if not this exact thing.
It is far too rare to see a discussion on evolution that admits much room for alternatives between "10000 year Earth" and "Science has disproven the existence of God."
Which just goes to show you don't understand the position of science. Science only considers the natural world and can say nothing about the existence or non-existence of any supernatural being.
Which just goes to show you need to work on your reading comprehension skills. It is not science that says God does not exist, it is the people who hold this position. The poster is specifically saying that these two positions are not the only options. He is not saying that "Science has disproven the existence of God," neither is he saying "10000 year Earth" is true. In fact, it is implied that they are both false. Unfortunately, and I have seen the same thing, these seem to often be the only positions argued against, and most of the time, the only positions given.
I think the hardest part is there is no one "Creationism," it's more a moving target that can escape one argument by evolving into something else unless you pin down what it means to the person you are dealing with.
The irony of it all is that IE identifies itself as Netscape:
"Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 5.0)"
First of all, you had to write that bug into it. simplifying it to:
#include
int main() { puts("Hello, World"); return 0; }
Would help immensely.
Secondly, who said I was going to use a compiler, or even a real OS for that matter? I could easily write a bug-free DOS based Hello World prog in assembly. Any bugs would be outside of its code, before or after it gets executed. I could go one step further and create an embedded device that would immediately start up with my code and halt when it's done. No bugs in software.
It's wierd, when you think about it, that programming is still done in flat text files. Almost nothing else is still done that way. One could argue for programs in HTML, with the code bracketed in XML so that the compiler could find it.
Ok, first of all, the actual storage method is irrelevant. As someone else mentioned, XML/HTML is still flat text files, at least as far as source is. (is it really flat if it's got nested namespaces?) Databases can be stored to flat text files.
What you're really interested in is how you find a piece of code and its documentation, whether you have to scan through that flat text file yourself to find it, or if there's some other access method. There *is* another access method, it's called an IDE. Ever use MS DevStudio? You can browse the source by objects, by project, "flat text file" groups, all sorts of things. You can jump from a call of a function to its implementation very quickly, or to the definition of a variable. I think it's probably the best Microsoft product ever.
Now, as for why flat text files (despite the fact that it's irrelevant), it's easier for the current tools to work with, it's backwards compatible, it's easy for the programmer to understand if the sugar on top fails to work right, it's portable. There is no good reason to *not* use flat text files. (well, ok it fails the buzzword test.)
I have yet to see ANY software put out by ANYONE that is bug free.
I can write you a bug free "Hello, World" program if you like.
No, Rubberhose is much better. They can't even prove you're hiding anything.
Eh? I'm not *trying* to make an argument, and I'm not denying that speciation has been observed. Whose posts are you reading?
Origin of *the* species, as in how we got here. Speciation in the present is still just the process.
Observing that a process can produce a result does not mean that that result must have been produced by that process. Saying that it must is inductive reasoning, thus theory.
Evolution as a process is a fact.
Evolution as the origin of the species is a theory.
This is because we can't go back in time and observe it directly, while we *can* observe the process itself today.