I was thinking the whole paintball thing as well. Just like Team Fortress Classic (which I still love and play). This would add some serious fun to paintball matches, with each team getting one SG, playing Capture the Flag, and a hit means you sit out for 5 minutes. Literally TFC in the real world. Man, where do I sign up?
Now if someone could built a device that would let me actually rocket jump. And survive.;)
You are totally correct. I have been researching biodiesel, and while I have much to learn, I have learned alot. (main goal is to find companies to invest in, for my own purposes)
The net gains are huge, in both land utilization, soil conservation, employment, food distribution and all these add up to a nice way to prevent disease, war and hunger.
It is not an easy thing to do, but the technology is already here, and it is almost economically feasable TODAY. The main drawback to biodiesel is price (only slightly higher than today's prices) and that it gels at about 0C/32F which is not a problem in any part of Africa that I am aware of. When you make biodiesel out of used vegetable oil, (assuming the oil is free) its about 50c a gallon in materials and electricity (but not labor), so recycling is a bonus.
I am not a Christian, but there is something to be said about the Christian expression: "give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime". We need to find ways to give technology and equipment, instead of just bags of wheat. In the long run, they won't need the bags, or the technology.
If they'll still be able to afford fossil fuels in the next century.
You know, fossils are not the only way to get oil to burn and make CO2. You can make it bio and it makes just as much CO2. so does burning wood, trash, or anything else that burns.
Oh, that's not a real problem. CO2 can be extracted from the atmosphere with technical means. * The atmosphere is big. How do you process millions of cubic kilometers of air ? * The process, of course, requires energy. Lots of energy.
Its called "plants". You could gain more carbon reduction by irrigation of desert lands (like they have done in southern California) than with any magic machine.
Desalination and irrigation over sections of Africa would do wonders, with only minimum to moderate amounts of energy being used. Likely, you could grow soybeans, extract the oil for biodiesel to power the desalination and irrigation, and have fuel and food left over.
Solar power. I guess that isn't "green" enough for the truly militant left. Maybe we need "wind powered" rovers instead. Or we could have stayed home and wondered about those "canals" on Mars, I suppose.
Surely, this is W's fault, right?;) Let the doom and gloom conspiracies begin!
Actually, it clearly shows we do not have enough information about weather to make "predictions". Sometimes I wonder how we humans can be so arrogant. We can't figure out where Katrina is headed or how powerful it is, but we are "smart" enough to establish that global warming is real and will cause $x degrees increase over $y years.
If we were as powerful as we think we are, why didn't we just stop the hurricane while it was in the Gulf? We aren't powerful, we don't understand long term global weather, we probably need to take reasonable steps to reduce pollution, but we need to stop making "predictions" about things we, as a species, are very ignorant of.
This wasn't a "Linux Update Server". There is not such a thing. It was a virus planted in ONE APPLICATION, in ONE LANGUAGE. Mozilla also runs on several other platforms, in several other languages. Using any MS vs. Linux comparison is totally void in this context.
This is a reflection of the people managing the Korean servers, not of Mozilla. It is not Mozilla's server or under their control. All these references to yesterday's security report on Mozilla are irrelevent, as they simply do not apply.
You might as well say that Windows has bad security because you didn't lock your doors, and I went and stole your computer. The two are simply unrelated.
Wow, you don't get it. First, most albums have 10 songs, not 20. Secondly, there are typically 2 to 4 songs on an album, and 6 to 8 "filler" songs. Best case, 6 good, 4 crap. No one will buy the 4 crap.
Also, this assumes that every song has the same production cost. They don't. Cost to produce a single song can range from $1000 to $1 million. Literally. Boston did their debut album on a basement rig using a 12 track and 2 inch tape (although that was pretty nice basement gear in 1976-) Big names use big studios, which cost more.
Its not that $1 is too little, it is just your arguement is totally flawed, and has no founding in economics. Its just words.
The *real* problem is the industry itself, which has evolved over the last 20 years much slower than the technology that is used to utilize it. It is a dead business model, but they are clinging to it for all they have. This isn't a shocker.
AOL tried to hold on to their old biz model, but changed in time. MS was late with internet capability with 95. US car makers saw it in the 70s/80s, when Japan kicked their royal asses (AMC died, Chrysler almost died). But they held on to their old biz practices the last minute.
Most companies or industries that will not adapt as fast as their market, die. No matter how "powerful" the RIAA seems with their lawsuits (and MPAA, for that matter, but thats different), what you are hearing is a death rattle. Either they will radically change, or they will become irrelevant because someone(s) will create a whole new model and leave them behind.
I have read about a few theatres that are doing it different: meals served, large comfy chairs with a table to eat on, cocktails (serving is before the movie). This is basically a take off on the dinner theatre.
I haven't gone to the theatre in about 10 years, mainly because the screens are too small, the people are too loud, the food is overpriced (its just freaking popcorn and coke, for god's sake...) and all too often, the movie sucks.
If they would work to improve the EXPERIENCE, then I would gladly go. There are too few entertainment choices for an adult as it is. Clubs are boring (been there, done that). Most evening entertainment is geared for 25 year olds. Dinner is fine, but not the movie afterwards in the current environment.
Give me a pleasant experience where they kick out people on cell phones, give me a nice meal (not too fancy, like baked chicken or fish, 2 veg & bread), a glass of wine or two (extra $), a comfy chair, and I will happily pay $25 to $50 each person, depending upon meal and comfort. Make it 18+ and I'm golden. They are missing out on a market that is already begging for a product.
I don't mind paying more, I just get fscking tired of getting less and less.
The reason I gave 25 is that many people die before they are 25 for various reasons. Children from childhood diseases before 6, and kids 16 to 24 are way more likely to get in a fatal car crash than a 28 year old, or get involved in crime (and thus shot). Its was just statistical, for the US anyway.
I would assume that Belgium has similar statistics, although I have been been to Hasselt and Brussels, and would say your streets are a bit more scary that many US cities.;) Lots of scratches on cars parked on the street from getting slightly "side swipped". And delivery guys on Vespas everywhere.
I noticed that too. 65% of the raw fuel is NOT expelled out the back. I believe most cars are over 99% efficient at burning the fuel, just 35% at turning that burn into the motion of the crankshaft (ie: waste heat, as you state).
I also wonder how the CO2 is reduced from 5.5% to 0%, unless the hydrocarbons go up, and the simple oxidized carbons go down. There were other statements in the article that looked a bit odd as well. Still, conceptually interesting.
Ok, that IS funny. But seriously, they would like this product much more than other alternatives, like solar, electric or biodiesel (my personal favorite)
According to TFA, the main advantage of this system is it makes much less polution. The fuel savings looks around 10%-20% realistically. This is very good but is about the same as global fuel need growth. It means people will have a reason to still use gas instead of alternate technology, so the move to full hydrogen might be slower since this would take some of the urgency out of it.
Very interesting (slightly fishy...) and worth more investigation. Don't look for it soon, it seems the different companies making similar stuff are more interested in margin % than in producing millions of them.
It would be nice if BT clients broadcast for other local clients & allowed them to connect directly.... that wouldn't need much of a change to the protocol (since BT is already p2p, except for the tracker) and would achieve the benefits the OP wanted.
The client can't "just broadcast" magically. Since that is the tracker's job, you would need to install your own local tracker server, edit the primary client's torrent file to show both trackers, and then edit the torrent for each other client to only show the private tracker. This is a bit more than a trivial effort. Even then, would have to make sure the primary client accessed both tracker servers.
I haven't sniffed the network to see if it does that, but I am betting that it doesn't as long as it is getting the minimum clients from the primany tracker, so as long as there are 20 clients who want to connect to you, it won't work. It would be very inefficient if it DID connect to multiple trackers when it already have enough clients.
Even if it did, then you have a problem with upload speed, since most savvy people throttle their upload to about 80% maximum, it would be either be choked back for the local clients, or make upload speeds unlimited, and your download speed would be throttled because your uplink is maxed out and ACK's become slow. This assumes an asynk setup, which is the defacto standard for cable and dsl.
I am by no means a BT expert, but I understand enough about networking to know that this is not a reasonable configuration. If you really wanted the file on 10 peers in the same NAT, you would just download with the one client, and the other peers would copy the file from them, reducing 99% of the overhead. When all is said and done, as long as you have trackers, this setup is not a good idea, and is more effort that just letting them all rip through the NAT individually.
Bittorrent IS p2p now, with the tracker. The tracker just provides information and doesn't make it more or less "P2P". All p2p systems currently have something similar (but different), or you wouldn't know who has the files you want to get.
Well, it's a better idea then one site that required everyone to have a 1.1 ratio or higher. (Think about what's wrong with that)
Quality sites don't "require" a 1.1 ratio, they reward it, usually by giving first access to a torrent, ie "power user" ranking. Usually there is a 2 to 4 week wait list too, to prevent people from spamming the registration system every time they get a.1 ratio, and get banned. Others users have to wait 24, 48 or 72 hours to start downloading.
Obviously it is impossible for everyone to have a 1.1 ratio, and your claim is based on you not knowing what you are talking about, reading the rules of a site entirely wrong.
Ratio enforcement SHOULD be enforced by the tracker, not the client. If you don't want to be a 1.1 or better seeder, go join another group. There are plenty of them out there. The groups that reward higher ratios generally are the better qualtiy sites, thus, worth belonging to, thus worth seeding more than you leech.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but cant you also do simple GET requests using telnet? I used to have a simple script for surfing websites using telnet. pretty wierd, but worked. It would be very easy to make a telnet script in windows with cygwin or even perl installed. Obviously super easy with Linux.
Also, if multiple machines are behind the same nat and downloading the same file then bittorrent should be smart enough to only bring 1 copy of the file down through the natbox and distribute it throughout the local peers..
If I am hearing you correctly, you are saying that if two people are behind a NAT firewall and downloading the same file, the NAT (or bittorrent) should only download it once and give it to both clients? I am pretty sure this is NOT a function of either the bittorrent protocol, or any NAT protocol. Maybe you could configure a proxy to do this, but this is WAY beyond the purpose of bittorrent as I know it.
The bittorrent client would have to be aware of the other client, what it was downloading, and what parts it had, and the two would have to communicate this information. This seems more in the Ethernet protocol than bittorrent itself.
Or if it was the NAT doing the distribution, it would have to be aware of the bittorrent clients, what they download, what pieces they have, and then cache the downloads. My understanding is that a NAT is pretty ignorant of this, it just knows how to route packettes according to source and destination, interfering as little as possible.
This idea sounds not only unfeasible, but a serious security risk. If I am behind a NAT, I don't need to be advertising what I am doing and what parts I have and don't have with other clients on my network.
Also, bittorrent works fine with NAT, from my experience. Configuring a firewall is sometimes tricky to keep connectable, but I use a NAT at home and work with bittorrent every day with no problems. Some SITES choose to only allow one connection per IP address, affecting NAT's, but this is a choice of the site owners, not a limitation of the bittorrent protocol.
You got modded as Funny, but should have been as insightful. According this this then because I am now 40, I will "average" living until I am at least 80 (rough math from extracting data in first document, USA, white, male).
Seems that middle age starts at 40, NOT 30. Even at birth, the average life expectancy in the US is 73 years, and gets higher as you get older, especially after you are 25.
do a comparison and please don't bring up Dell. they are ridiculed even in the pc world for being shit.
Now, I hear a lot of this, but I have two Dell cheap servers from 1999 1400 series, a newer Dell server (dual xeon, raid 5, decent), and about 17 Dell "home" mid grade computers at work, 2 "biz" grade, and one workstation. Also using an older 2550 for a media center at home right now, and bought Mom a Celeron 2gh for the web 2 years ago. So I have a fair amount of experience with Dell, mainly over the last two years. I also have about two dozen other computers I mess with, half I built, half other brands.
I wouldn't call Dell state of the art, or the fastest per cpu rating, but they have been the most reliable systems I have ever owned, just as reliable as my older IBM servers. Pay a little more for the 3 year warranty, and I don't have any reason to build basic boxes, when they are cheaper and easier to maintain with Dell on the label. I will still build my own boxes for special purposes (and been doing it for over a decade and kinda like it) but not for business desktops, ever.
Dell is kinda like Walmart: You can bitch about them, and tell everyone you hate them, but they still represent the best value for most people.
Your reboot times in Linux are dependent on what you are loading on boot, not what version you have, since booting is more or less the same software on all versions (kernel and some utils). Laptops may be very different, also.
I tend to keep both Windows and Linux as stripped as possible when it comes to booting. If I don't use a daemon everytime I am at the computer, then I don't want it to load automatically.
Your comment is valid in many ways, but for many tasks, Linux is actually much less complicated. It is often easier to find answers to questions, and often you can change a program by a simple edit of a text file, instead of point and click hell of the typical Windows app and GUI.
Networking Linux is easier to me, even using SMB. Linux servers are absolutely less complicated, assuming you have at least a moderate amount of knowlege on both. Setting up Samba, Apache or ftpd is very easy. Try settng up SSHD on XP. Oh yea, it does't have that.
Also, because Linux doesn't have crippled versions (read: xp home) or network limitations (10 computers in a peer group on xp pro) there is never a reason to do a workaround. Updating is also way easier on Linux, and is easily setup to be fully automated. On Redhat, rename K01yum to S01yum, type "./S01yum start" and you are done.
(ok, if you are a complete newb, windows is easier. Most people are not complete newbs.)
If $100 Million dollars won't make you want to switch to Vista, what will?"
No DRM, no trying to control my computer, faster reboots and fewer reasons to need to. More control with less complications. Interoperability. Open standards. The ability to use software my way.
No "fall of civilization" as Hollywood predicts every other day, or massive Slipstreams that make airplanes the only viable tech. Life will continue on, and we'll adapt. Okay?:-)
Yea, but if you make a Hollywood blockbuster about how everything is ok, and no one will die, you won't even be able to get people to pirate it, no less sell it to the masses. As to media news, "If it bleeds, it leads", and if they have to invent the problem, thats ok, too.
My conclusion is that we have no freaking idea what is going on with the climate, because we have too little base line data to compare with, as you state. Its not that I don't care, its just that I can't see why we are assuming we are so freaking powerful and smart, and we couldn't even tell that a catagory I hurricane in Florida was going to wipe New Orleans off the face of the map.
I also see that UK pulled out of Kyoto, and I applaud them for this. Biodiesel counts against Kyoto, even though it turns more CO2 into carbon than the other way around, just one of the major flaws of the treaty. We need solutions to pollution and to research the potential of global warming, but it would be preferable if they were less political, and more scientific in basis.
Slashdot Mirror
I was thinking the whole paintball thing as well. Just like Team Fortress Classic (which I still love and play). This would add some serious fun to paintball matches, with each team getting one SG, playing Capture the Flag, and a hit means you sit out for 5 minutes. Literally TFC in the real world. Man, where do I sign up?
;)
Now if someone could built a device that would let me actually rocket jump. And survive.
Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 10 years.
Can't remember where I had heard that, and frankly, I had forgotten that. That does raise an interesting point.
Its not totally impossible for 1 to equal 2?
0010 = 2
You are totally correct. I have been researching biodiesel, and while I have much to learn, I have learned alot. (main goal is to find companies to invest in, for my own purposes)
The net gains are huge, in both land utilization, soil conservation, employment, food distribution and all these add up to a nice way to prevent disease, war and hunger.
It is not an easy thing to do, but the technology is already here, and it is almost economically feasable TODAY. The main drawback to biodiesel is price (only slightly higher than today's prices) and that it gels at about 0C/32F which is not a problem in any part of Africa that I am aware of. When you make biodiesel out of used vegetable oil, (assuming the oil is free) its about 50c a gallon in materials and electricity (but not labor), so recycling is a bonus.
I am not a Christian, but there is something to be said about the Christian expression: "give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime". We need to find ways to give technology and equipment, instead of just bags of wheat. In the long run, they won't need the bags, or the technology.
If they'll still be able to afford fossil fuels in the next century.
You know, fossils are not the only way to get oil to burn and make CO2. You can make it bio and it makes just as much CO2. so does burning wood, trash, or anything else that burns.
Oh, that's not a real problem. CO2 can be extracted from the atmosphere with technical means.
* The atmosphere is big. How do you process millions of cubic kilometers of air ?
* The process, of course, requires energy. Lots of energy.
Its called "plants". You could gain more carbon reduction by irrigation of desert lands (like they have done in southern California) than with any magic machine.
Desalination and irrigation over sections of Africa would do wonders, with only minimum to moderate amounts of energy being used. Likely, you could grow soybeans, extract the oil for biodiesel to power the desalination and irrigation, and have fuel and food left over.
What do they run on anyway?
Solar power. I guess that isn't "green" enough for the truly militant left. Maybe we need "wind powered" rovers instead. Or we could have stayed home and wondered about those "canals" on Mars, I suppose.
Surely, this is W's fault, right? ;) Let the doom and gloom conspiracies begin!
Actually, it clearly shows we do not have enough information about weather to make "predictions". Sometimes I wonder how we humans can be so arrogant. We can't figure out where Katrina is headed or how powerful it is, but we are "smart" enough to establish that global warming is real and will cause $x degrees increase over $y years.
If we were as powerful as we think we are, why didn't we just stop the hurricane while it was in the Gulf? We aren't powerful, we don't understand long term global weather, we probably need to take reasonable steps to reduce pollution, but we need to stop making "predictions" about things we, as a species, are very ignorant of.
This wasn't a "Linux Update Server". There is not such a thing. It was a virus planted in ONE APPLICATION, in ONE LANGUAGE. Mozilla also runs on several other platforms, in several other languages. Using any MS vs. Linux comparison is totally void in this context.
This is a reflection of the people managing the Korean servers, not of Mozilla. It is not Mozilla's server or under their control. All these references to yesterday's security report on Mozilla are irrelevent, as they simply do not apply.
You might as well say that Windows has bad security because you didn't lock your doors, and I went and stole your computer. The two are simply unrelated.
Why do I have these images from "Office Space" running through my head? So who at Microsoft has a red stapler anyway?
Wow, you don't get it. First, most albums have 10 songs, not 20. Secondly, there are typically 2 to 4 songs on an album, and 6 to 8 "filler" songs. Best case, 6 good, 4 crap. No one will buy the 4 crap.
Also, this assumes that every song has the same production cost. They don't. Cost to produce a single song can range from $1000 to $1 million. Literally. Boston did their debut album on a basement rig using a 12 track and 2 inch tape (although that was pretty nice basement gear in 1976-) Big names use big studios, which cost more.
Its not that $1 is too little, it is just your arguement is totally flawed, and has no founding in economics. Its just words.
The *real* problem is the industry itself, which has evolved over the last 20 years much slower than the technology that is used to utilize it. It is a dead business model, but they are clinging to it for all they have. This isn't a shocker.
AOL tried to hold on to their old biz model, but changed in time. MS was late with internet capability with 95. US car makers saw it in the 70s/80s, when Japan kicked their royal asses (AMC died, Chrysler almost died). But they held on to their old biz practices the last minute.
Most companies or industries that will not adapt as fast as their market, die. No matter how "powerful" the RIAA seems with their lawsuits (and MPAA, for that matter, but thats different), what you are hearing is a death rattle. Either they will radically change, or they will become irrelevant because someone(s) will create a whole new model and leave them behind.
I have read about a few theatres that are doing it different: meals served, large comfy chairs with a table to eat on, cocktails (serving is before the movie). This is basically a take off on the dinner theatre.
I haven't gone to the theatre in about 10 years, mainly because the screens are too small, the people are too loud, the food is overpriced (its just freaking popcorn and coke, for god's sake...) and all too often, the movie sucks.
If they would work to improve the EXPERIENCE, then I would gladly go. There are too few entertainment choices for an adult as it is. Clubs are boring (been there, done that). Most evening entertainment is geared for 25 year olds. Dinner is fine, but not the movie afterwards in the current environment.
Give me a pleasant experience where they kick out people on cell phones, give me a nice meal (not too fancy, like baked chicken or fish, 2 veg & bread), a glass of wine or two (extra $), a comfy chair, and I will happily pay $25 to $50 each person, depending upon meal and comfort. Make it 18+ and I'm golden. They are missing out on a market that is already begging for a product.
I don't mind paying more, I just get fscking tired of getting less and less.
The reason I gave 25 is that many people die before they are 25 for various reasons. Children from childhood diseases before 6, and kids 16 to 24 are way more likely to get in a fatal car crash than a 28 year old, or get involved in crime (and thus shot). Its was just statistical, for the US anyway.
;) Lots of scratches on cars parked on the street from getting slightly "side swipped". And delivery guys on Vespas everywhere.
I would assume that Belgium has similar statistics, although I have been been to Hasselt and Brussels, and would say your streets are a bit more scary that many US cities.
Most importantly, the food was exceptional!
I noticed that too. 65% of the raw fuel is NOT expelled out the back. I believe most cars are over 99% efficient at burning the fuel, just 35% at turning that burn into the motion of the crankshaft (ie: waste heat, as you state).
I also wonder how the CO2 is reduced from 5.5% to 0%, unless the hydrocarbons go up, and the simple oxidized carbons go down. There were other statements in the article that looked a bit odd as well. Still, conceptually interesting.
Ok, that IS funny. But seriously, they would like this product much more than other alternatives, like solar, electric or biodiesel (my personal favorite)
According to TFA, the main advantage of this system is it makes much less polution. The fuel savings looks around 10%-20% realistically. This is very good but is about the same as global fuel need growth. It means people will have a reason to still use gas instead of alternate technology, so the move to full hydrogen might be slower since this would take some of the urgency out of it.
Very interesting (slightly fishy...) and worth more investigation. Don't look for it soon, it seems the different companies making similar stuff are more interested in margin % than in producing millions of them.
It would be nice if BT clients broadcast for other local clients & allowed them to connect directly.... that wouldn't need much of a change to the protocol (since BT is already p2p, except for the tracker) and would achieve the benefits the OP wanted.
The client can't "just broadcast" magically. Since that is the tracker's job, you would need to install your own local tracker server, edit the primary client's torrent file to show both trackers, and then edit the torrent for each other client to only show the private tracker. This is a bit more than a trivial effort. Even then, would have to make sure the primary client accessed both tracker servers.
I haven't sniffed the network to see if it does that, but I am betting that it doesn't as long as it is getting the minimum clients from the primany tracker, so as long as there are 20 clients who want to connect to you, it won't work. It would be very inefficient if it DID connect to multiple trackers when it already have enough clients.
Even if it did, then you have a problem with upload speed, since most savvy people throttle their upload to about 80% maximum, it would be either be choked back for the local clients, or make upload speeds unlimited, and your download speed would be throttled because your uplink is maxed out and ACK's become slow. This assumes an asynk setup, which is the defacto standard for cable and dsl.
I am by no means a BT expert, but I understand enough about networking to know that this is not a reasonable configuration. If you really wanted the file on 10 peers in the same NAT, you would just download with the one client, and the other peers would copy the file from them, reducing 99% of the overhead. When all is said and done, as long as you have trackers, this setup is not a good idea, and is more effort that just letting them all rip through the NAT individually.
Bittorrent IS p2p now, with the tracker. The tracker just provides information and doesn't make it more or less "P2P". All p2p systems currently have something similar (but different), or you wouldn't know who has the files you want to get.
Well, it's a better idea then one site that required everyone to have a 1.1 ratio or higher. (Think about what's wrong with that)
.1 ratio, and get banned. Others users have to wait 24, 48 or 72 hours to start downloading.
Quality sites don't "require" a 1.1 ratio, they reward it, usually by giving first access to a torrent, ie "power user" ranking. Usually there is a 2 to 4 week wait list too, to prevent people from spamming the registration system every time they get a
Obviously it is impossible for everyone to have a 1.1 ratio, and your claim is based on you not knowing what you are talking about, reading the rules of a site entirely wrong.
Ratio enforcement SHOULD be enforced by the tracker, not the client. If you don't want to be a 1.1 or better seeder, go join another group. There are plenty of them out there. The groups that reward higher ratios generally are the better qualtiy sites, thus, worth belonging to, thus worth seeding more than you leech.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but cant you also do simple GET requests using telnet? I used to have a simple script for surfing websites using telnet. pretty wierd, but worked. It would be very easy to make a telnet script in windows with cygwin or even perl installed. Obviously super easy with Linux.
Also, if multiple machines are behind the same nat and downloading the same file then bittorrent should be smart enough to only bring 1 copy of the file down through the natbox and distribute it throughout the local peers..
If I am hearing you correctly, you are saying that if two people are behind a NAT firewall and downloading the same file, the NAT (or bittorrent) should only download it once and give it to both clients? I am pretty sure this is NOT a function of either the bittorrent protocol, or any NAT protocol. Maybe you could configure a proxy to do this, but this is WAY beyond the purpose of bittorrent as I know it.
The bittorrent client would have to be aware of the other client, what it was downloading, and what parts it had, and the two would have to communicate this information. This seems more in the Ethernet protocol than bittorrent itself.
Or if it was the NAT doing the distribution, it would have to be aware of the bittorrent clients, what they download, what pieces they have, and then cache the downloads. My understanding is that a NAT is pretty ignorant of this, it just knows how to route packettes according to source and destination, interfering as little as possible.
This idea sounds not only unfeasible, but a serious security risk. If I am behind a NAT, I don't need to be advertising what I am doing and what parts I have and don't have with other clients on my network.
Also, bittorrent works fine with NAT, from my experience. Configuring a firewall is sometimes tricky to keep connectable, but I use a NAT at home and work with bittorrent every day with no problems. Some SITES choose to only allow one connection per IP address, affecting NAT's, but this is a choice of the site owners, not a limitation of the bittorrent protocol.
You got modded as Funny, but should have been as insightful. According this this then because I am now 40, I will "average" living until I am at least 80 (rough math from extracting data in first document, USA, white, male).
Seems that middle age starts at 40, NOT 30. Even at birth, the average life expectancy in the US is 73 years, and gets higher as you get older, especially after you are 25.
do a comparison and please don't bring up Dell. they are ridiculed even in the pc world for being shit.
Now, I hear a lot of this, but I have two Dell cheap servers from 1999 1400 series, a newer Dell server (dual xeon, raid 5, decent), and about 17 Dell "home" mid grade computers at work, 2 "biz" grade, and one workstation. Also using an older 2550 for a media center at home right now, and bought Mom a Celeron 2gh for the web 2 years ago. So I have a fair amount of experience with Dell, mainly over the last two years. I also have about two dozen other computers I mess with, half I built, half other brands.
I wouldn't call Dell state of the art, or the fastest per cpu rating, but they have been the most reliable systems I have ever owned, just as reliable as my older IBM servers. Pay a little more for the 3 year warranty, and I don't have any reason to build basic boxes, when they are cheaper and easier to maintain with Dell on the label. I will still build my own boxes for special purposes (and been doing it for over a decade and kinda like it) but not for business desktops, ever.
Dell is kinda like Walmart: You can bitch about them, and tell everyone you hate them, but they still represent the best value for most people.
Your reboot times in Linux are dependent on what you are loading on boot, not what version you have, since booting is more or less the same software on all versions (kernel and some utils). Laptops may be very different, also.
I tend to keep both Windows and Linux as stripped as possible when it comes to booting. If I don't use a daemon everytime I am at the computer, then I don't want it to load automatically.
Your comment is valid in many ways, but for many tasks, Linux is actually much less complicated. It is often easier to find answers to questions, and often you can change a program by a simple edit of a text file, instead of point and click hell of the typical Windows app and GUI.
Networking Linux is easier to me, even using SMB. Linux servers are absolutely less complicated, assuming you have at least a moderate amount of knowlege on both. Setting up Samba, Apache or ftpd is very easy. Try settng up SSHD on XP. Oh yea, it does't have that.
Also, because Linux doesn't have crippled versions (read: xp home) or network limitations (10 computers in a peer group on xp pro) there is never a reason to do a workaround. Updating is also way easier on Linux, and is easily setup to be fully automated. On Redhat, rename K01yum to S01yum, type "./S01yum start" and you are done.
(ok, if you are a complete newb, windows is easier. Most people are not complete newbs.)
G5? Isn't that one of those old procesors that Apple used to put in their computers? ;)
If $100 Million dollars won't make you want to switch to Vista, what will?"
No DRM, no trying to control my computer, faster reboots and fewer reasons to need to. More control with less complications. Interoperability. Open standards. The ability to use software my way.
Shit, I just described Linux. Never mind.
No "fall of civilization" as Hollywood predicts every other day, or massive Slipstreams that make airplanes the only viable tech. Life will continue on, and we'll adapt. Okay? :-)
Yea, but if you make a Hollywood blockbuster about how everything is ok, and no one will die, you won't even be able to get people to pirate it, no less sell it to the masses. As to media news, "If it bleeds, it leads", and if they have to invent the problem, thats ok, too.
My conclusion is that we have no freaking idea what is going on with the climate, because we have too little base line data to compare with, as you state. Its not that I don't care, its just that I can't see why we are assuming we are so freaking powerful and smart, and we couldn't even tell that a catagory I hurricane in Florida was going to wipe New Orleans off the face of the map.
I also see that UK pulled out of Kyoto, and I applaud them for this. Biodiesel counts against Kyoto, even though it turns more CO2 into carbon than the other way around, just one of the major flaws of the treaty. We need solutions to pollution and to research the potential of global warming, but it would be preferable if they were less political, and more scientific in basis.