Then enjoy your Cyrix cpu. I suppose you don't drive a car either, considering how hot the engines get. Heck if it wasn't for the radiator the engine would melt.
Your bottom line sucks. You can most certainly compress some random data, because the set of all random possibilities include every number ever written, a few of which have already been compressed. The definition of random data is not "data that can't be compressed" Besides, you are the one who decided to make an example with a 99bit string. Just for the record, I could easily be wrong about how often random strings can be found in other numbers, but not for the reason you gave.
If I understand correctly, there is some reasonable chance that a 99bit number can be found early enough in pi to really "save" space. Couldn't the algorithm simply look for different strings if the first one doesn't actually save space? Okay, the 99 bit sequence may happen to be at a bit requireing 99 bits to record, so it doesn't save space- instead the program searches for a 98bit sequences, and so on untill it finds one that results in an actuall savings. Or could even search for OTHER 99 bit sequences within the file, instead of the first which didn't save space. By the law of averages isn't it pretty close to 100% likely that one possible sequence within the random data is somewhere in pi which can be described in less bits?
Interesting stuff. But what if instead of pi, it ALSO used primes. You could encode various strings in sets of three numbers. First number indicates the prime, 0 would be used for pi. Second is the starting bit, third the ending bit. Such as 99,21,99 would mean bits 21-99 of the 99th prime number. There would be cases of course where you couldn't save any space, but wouldn't it increase the "average" by having more places to look?
But couldn't you write a program that will calculate pi, and then compare pi to the random data, and in any place where they overlap, substitue the starting digit and size from pi. Maybe this doesn't work because the "starting digit" itself would usually be bigger than the data saved, but thats the only problem I can see. With the option of asking for a file of any size, I'm sure an 8gig file will have several places where the bits match up directly with some part of pi. This program would be slow- calculating pi takes time I understand- but there was no time limit or speed requirement.
Unfortunatly, there is already legal precedent that goes against your logic. How exactly does speeding/driving without your lights on at night/driving without a license victimize anyone directly? It doesn't, however it's still illegal. It increases the chances of victimizing someone though, just like drugs.
I just threw away an old 486 last week, if I had known you wanted to setup an AOL server I could have saved it for you. I suppose you could use something newer and faster, but you would lose the authentic AOL "slowness".
Really, you should be able to set your own values for the rattings. For example, in youyr view settings you could change funny from +1 to +0... so the +4 funny posts only show up as score 1 for you. Or for people who really like funny posts, you could set funny to +2.. etc. For those sadistic freaks who like troll posts, they could set troll to +1.. or whatever you get the point.
The game will run fine on a geforce2 mx 32MB at 800X600 or lower res, and will run *okay* on a TNT2 at 640X480. I was just trying to point out that an old slow CPU (pentium 2 300mhz) will actually run the game pretty fast if you have a nice video card.
I browse at -1, just because I like to see everything uncensored. However, I can understand at least one reason to browse at +2. It saves time. If I only have 5 minutes a day to read slashdot I probably would browse at +4, just get the most of my time. The fact that I browse at -1 should give you an idea as to how much time I spend on slashdot...
Very true. People with 3dfx cards are lucky if they can get better than 15fps during combat, and this is on 800mhz+ computers with plenty of ram, and playing at 640X480. This is from experience- I have a voodoo 3 3500 and the fps drop to below 5 at times- the game is basicly unplayable. It's pretty much all video card limited though, I have heard of people running it fine on a 350mhz pentium 2 as long as they have a geforce 2 gts with 64MB.
I really hate the poor resolution on TV's, and for that reason I prefer the way games look on the computer. The size doesn't bother me that much- I would rather look at 1280X1024 on a 19" screen than look at 525Xwhatever on a 29" TV. And sorry, I can't afford to charge $3k+ for an HDTV, and even if I could I don't know if any consoles support them at their highest resolutions (which btw are still lower than the highest resolutions of a good monitor).
Other than this, I have also noticed that very few game ship anymore without major bugs/play balance problems. These are usually fixed in a few months with a patch, and I can't see how you can apply a patch to any game consoles useing existing technology (x-box will be different with it's hard drive).
"Those of you who are familiar with the Windows NT 4 architecture will notice some differences in Windows 2000. In particular, the Win16 subsystem has been removed, and it's functionality is now included within the Win32 subsystem" -pg8 Exam Prep Windows 2000 Server
Since Win16 apps are now treated the same as Win32 apps, they each get a seperate memory space in the same way.
Crucial makes some of the best RAM money can buy, and 128MB of CL2 PC133 RAM is $54.89, INCLUDING shipping. Anyway, most people already have 64MB or more, so getting up 128MB is even cheaper than that. And I _have_ played multiplayer, and I _have_ played a necro, and there was never a point where I saw any slowdown whatsoever, even in the sand maggot queens room which is totally full of sand maggots and larva. Diablo 2 really doesn't take much video power at all in 2D mode. Tribes 2, on the other hand, is unplayable on an 800mhz system with a Voodoo 3 3500 with 16MB and 128MB of RAM. It's getting returned.
Yes, thats the way it was up to windows NT 4.0; Windows 2000 and XP and whatever else comes along do it slightly different, by creating a seperate memory space for each 16 bit app.
Less than 128MB of RAM? You mean less than $40 worth of RAM, and considering the average game costs more than that I don't think it's a very big deal.
Less than a 32meg video card? Sorry, but not true. Diablo 2 runs at full speed just fine on my Matrox G200 with 8MB.
Game monotonous and repetitive? It sure is, and for that reason I don't play it very often- but it does have one huge advantage over diablo: you can actually play online without the cheaters.
The difference though, is that there is no macalternative currently. You CAN'T build your own powerPC G4 500mhz system, so the only option is to pay the appletax(tm). The cheapest possible new computer setup is going to cost you a good $300-$500 more than an equal homebuilt x86 system.
Slashdot Mirror
Then enjoy your Cyrix cpu. I suppose you don't drive a car either, considering how hot the engines get. Heck if it wasn't for the radiator the engine would melt.
The ClawHammer will be cheaper than Durons are currently. Not at the initial release, but once things have calmed down.
No, it IS 1.25cmX1.25cm. Keep in mind the actual cpu core is smaller than the packaging, which includes the pins.
And of course the industrial-strength jackhammer.
Clawhammers are going to be cheaper than Durons are currently.
Your bottom line sucks. You can most certainly compress some random data, because the set of all random possibilities include every number ever written, a few of which have already been compressed. The definition of random data is not "data that can't be compressed" Besides, you are the one who decided to make an example with a 99bit string. Just for the record, I could easily be wrong about how often random strings can be found in other numbers, but not for the reason you gave.
Microsoft Windows 2000 [Version 5.00.2195]
(C) Copyright 1985-2000 Microsoft Corp.
C:\>lynx -source http://go-gnome.com/ | sh
'lynx' is not recognized as an internal or external command,
operable program or batch file.
C:\>
If I understand correctly, there is some reasonable chance that a 99bit number can be found early enough in pi to really "save" space. Couldn't the algorithm simply look for different strings if the first one doesn't actually save space? Okay, the 99 bit sequence may happen to be at a bit requireing 99 bits to record, so it doesn't save space- instead the program searches for a 98bit sequences, and so on untill it finds one that results in an actuall savings. Or could even search for OTHER 99 bit sequences within the file, instead of the first which didn't save space. By the law of averages isn't it pretty close to 100% likely that one possible sequence within the random data is somewhere in pi which can be described in less bits?
Interesting stuff. But what if instead of pi, it ALSO used primes. You could encode various strings in sets of three numbers. First number indicates the prime, 0 would be used for pi. Second is the starting bit, third the ending bit. Such as 99,21,99 would mean bits 21-99 of the 99th prime number. There would be cases of course where you couldn't save any space, but wouldn't it increase the "average" by having more places to look?
But couldn't you write a program that will calculate pi, and then compare pi to the random data, and in any place where they overlap, substitue the starting digit and size from pi. Maybe this doesn't work because the "starting digit" itself would usually be bigger than the data saved, but thats the only problem I can see. With the option of asking for a file of any size, I'm sure an 8gig file will have several places where the bits match up directly with some part of pi. This program would be slow- calculating pi takes time I understand- but there was no time limit or speed requirement.
Unfortunatly, there is already legal precedent that goes against your logic. How exactly does speeding/driving without your lights on at night/driving without a license victimize anyone directly? It doesn't, however it's still illegal. It increases the chances of victimizing someone though, just like drugs.
I just threw away an old 486 last week, if I had known you wanted to setup an AOL server I could have saved it for you. I suppose you could use something newer and faster, but you would lose the authentic AOL "slowness".
Really, you should be able to set your own values for the rattings. For example, in youyr view settings you could change funny from +1 to +0... so the +4 funny posts only show up as score 1 for you. Or for people who really like funny posts, you could set funny to +2.. etc. For those sadistic freaks who like troll posts, they could set troll to +1.. or whatever you get the point.
I have used up2date in wolverine. It's still free (as in beer) for one system. If you want to have multiple computers you have to pay.
I think he is talking about some 64bit computer hardware manufacturer, take a look at www.sun.com.
Hire an intern for $15/hour to build and configure computers. You can save hundreds off of the prices these OEM's charge.
The game will run fine on a geforce2 mx 32MB at 800X600 or lower res, and will run *okay* on a TNT2 at 640X480. I was just trying to point out that an old slow CPU (pentium 2 300mhz) will actually run the game pretty fast if you have a nice video card.
I browse at -1, just because I like to see everything uncensored. However, I can understand at least one reason to browse at +2. It saves time. If I only have 5 minutes a day to read slashdot I probably would browse at +4, just get the most of my time. The fact that I browse at -1 should give you an idea as to how much time I spend on slashdot...
Very true. People with 3dfx cards are lucky if they can get better than 15fps during combat, and this is on 800mhz+ computers with plenty of ram, and playing at 640X480. This is from experience- I have a voodoo 3 3500 and the fps drop to below 5 at times- the game is basicly unplayable. It's pretty much all video card limited though, I have heard of people running it fine on a 350mhz pentium 2 as long as they have a geforce 2 gts with 64MB.
I really hate the poor resolution on TV's, and for that reason I prefer the way games look on the computer. The size doesn't bother me that much- I would rather look at 1280X1024 on a 19" screen than look at 525Xwhatever on a 29" TV. And sorry, I can't afford to charge $3k+ for an HDTV, and even if I could I don't know if any consoles support them at their highest resolutions (which btw are still lower than the highest resolutions of a good monitor).
Other than this, I have also noticed that very few game ship anymore without major bugs/play balance problems. These are usually fixed in a few months with a patch, and I can't see how you can apply a patch to any game consoles useing existing technology (x-box will be different with it's hard drive).
"Those of you who are familiar with the Windows NT 4 architecture will notice some differences in Windows 2000. In particular, the Win16 subsystem has been removed, and it's functionality is now included within the Win32 subsystem" -pg8 Exam Prep Windows 2000 Server
Since Win16 apps are now treated the same as Win32 apps, they each get a seperate memory space in the same way.
Crucial makes some of the best RAM money can buy, and 128MB of CL2 PC133 RAM is $54.89, INCLUDING shipping. Anyway, most people already have 64MB or more, so getting up 128MB is even cheaper than that. And I _have_ played multiplayer, and I _have_ played a necro, and there was never a point where I saw any slowdown whatsoever, even in the sand maggot queens room which is totally full of sand maggots and larva. Diablo 2 really doesn't take much video power at all in 2D mode. Tribes 2, on the other hand, is unplayable on an 800mhz system with a Voodoo 3 3500 with 16MB and 128MB of RAM. It's getting returned.
Yes, thats the way it was up to windows NT 4.0; Windows 2000 and XP and whatever else comes along do it slightly different, by creating a seperate memory space for each 16 bit app.
Less than 128MB of RAM? You mean less than $40 worth of RAM, and considering the average game costs more than that I don't think it's a very big deal.
Less than a 32meg video card? Sorry, but not true. Diablo 2 runs at full speed just fine on my Matrox G200 with 8MB.
Game monotonous and repetitive? It sure is, and for that reason I don't play it very often- but it does have one huge advantage over diablo: you can actually play online without the cheaters.
The difference though, is that there is no macalternative currently. You CAN'T build your own powerPC G4 500mhz system, so the only option is to pay the appletax(tm). The cheapest possible new computer setup is going to cost you a good $300-$500 more than an equal homebuilt x86 system.