I think there's some belief involved here, because we don't really know whatever the hell it was that Tesla was up to at the time. We don't have enough information, I don't think, about what went on in his head, what he was ultimately doing, to know if he had some theory in his brain that we haven't even come close to rediscovering, or not.
It seems clear that if we had a way to do this already, if we could prove out that this was possible, using the knowledge that we have right now, then we would already be doing it, if the technological progress wasn't out of our reach.
I think this kind of hints at an underlying question -- do you believe that Tesla knew what he was doing, and that he may well have had some idea that we haven't even yet thought of, that might've worked?
jquery makes an absolute mess out of javascript. Much of it involves DOM manipulation, which is something you generally want to avoid doing as much as possible. It's a pain in the ass to read, has a nasty learning curve, and it's slow as fk. Don't bother, unless you need to operate on existing jquery code, or have some other very specific reason to use it or interact with code that uses it.
... this shows how little you understand of poker. Primarily, that poker is a game played between people, and it does not involve the house. The house makes some money for providing the service of dealing the cards, but it is not involved in the game of poker.
Just playing the odds is an extremely exploitable strategy.
I paid attention pretty thoroughly to offline poker, from '02 to about '10... and I've only ever heard of him as a guy that writes articles for Bluff. He's certainly not a name anyone I know would say is #1, when there's players out there who churn through (lose-win) more than this guy has made in his entire life, on a weekly basis.
No -- There is an absolute best way to win in chess, from every possible position, and it can be calculated. The human opponent can only screw it up for themselves. (yes, I am aware that the 100% absolutely perfect chess program has not yet been written, that will win when given a time limit, but given unlimited time, a computer will always win at chess. The only reason computers have not already done this is because of time limits. It's the same reason all casinos have betting limits -- in a game with near 50-50 odds such as perfectly played Blackjack, you can do Martingale betting, and never lose.. if you have unlimited funds. The moment you hit the betting limit and lose a hand, you are now losing, and not recovering)
In poker, particularly in No Limit Hold'em, you are typically up against up to 9 other opponents. The only way TO win is to figure out how to play each player individually, and adjust strategy based on that. (or figure out one really bad player and capitalize:-) ) If you play entirely on the odds, a good player will capitalize on that, and make it only possible for the computer to win if given a literally unlimited amount of time and money.
...Is this any different from the quite common practice of buying links on multiple networks, so that you have faster connections to those networks? That thing that people have been doing for decades?
The point should be, that open source CAN be superior in these respects. It's probably pretty likely that no one but the original code author of this bug actually considered what the code was doing, and just said "Hey, looks good, accept pull request." and then no one else looked at it.
... and in a system with a good code review system, this probably would have never happened to begin with, because once you require more than a couple of people look at it, weird mistakes like that usually get caught. at least, if they are thinking about it. Pretty much all the major code errors i've seen in peer review systems get through when people just start blindly accepting code, or only comb it for style related issues. Serious flaws like what caused Heartbleed are pretty difficult to get through multiple people that are thinking.
He makes a case that 240/ addresses are not allowed with current stacks, but I just tested that with a few computers here, and it seemed to work fine.. 2 ver of Windows, and a modern Linux install.
Which is why super huge ISPs like Comcast are going way out of their way (finally) to enable IPv6, and in Comcast's case, they've even released GPL router upgrades. Sure.
Nice. I have about a dozen "saved sessions" in Opera, where I had over a hundred tabs open, and finally got annoyed, but didn't want to go through them all at the time, so i saved the list, and started anew.
wow, you don't do shit in your browsers do you? My average browser workload has Opera over 500meg commit charge, the same in Firefox is enough to get Windows to say "YOU ARE RUNNING OUT OF MEMORY PLEASE KILL FIREFOX.EXE" (64-bit system, with a 4-gig swapfile and 2gigs ram.. yeah, it's a bit light on the RAM, but i'm broke right now)
and using a Firefox without extensions is terribad.
I'm sure Opera's performance kicks the shit out of the rest of them still, anyway, too. Although the betas have been a lot more crashy than normal lately.
Slashdot Mirror
I think there's some belief involved here, because we don't really know whatever the hell it was that Tesla was up to at the time. We don't have enough information, I don't think, about what went on in his head, what he was ultimately doing, to know if he had some theory in his brain that we haven't even come close to rediscovering, or not.
It seems clear that if we had a way to do this already, if we could prove out that this was possible, using the knowledge that we have right now, then we would already be doing it, if the technological progress wasn't out of our reach.
I think this kind of hints at an underlying question -- do you believe that Tesla knew what he was doing, and that he may well have had some idea that we haven't even yet thought of, that might've worked?
Disdain? The Internet as a whole has been applauding and attempting to follow, where it can.
How much longer will the community itself keep going on with the same memes? There's a lot more to Fark than memes.
I'm so sorry to hear that seeing 3 ads on a page hurts your brain so much, that you turn into a giant raging spewmachine.
And even then, all you can do is throw models at it and strategies to attempt to use on those models.
jquery makes an absolute mess out of javascript. Much of it involves DOM manipulation, which is something you generally want to avoid doing as much as possible. It's a pain in the ass to read, has a nasty learning curve, and it's slow as fk. Don't bother, unless you need to operate on existing jquery code, or have some other very specific reason to use it or interact with code that uses it.
... this shows how little you understand of poker. Primarily, that poker is a game played between people, and it does not involve the house. The house makes some money for providing the service of dealing the cards, but it is not involved in the game of poker.
Just playing the odds is an extremely exploitable strategy.
Heads-up or even 4-handed, you're going to clear 100 hands an hour on a single table.
I paid attention pretty thoroughly to offline poker, from '02 to about '10... and I've only ever heard of him as a guy that writes articles for Bluff. He's certainly not a name anyone I know would say is #1, when there's players out there who churn through (lose-win) more than this guy has made in his entire life, on a weekly basis.
No -- There is an absolute best way to win in chess, from every possible position, and it can be calculated. The human opponent can only screw it up for themselves. (yes, I am aware that the 100% absolutely perfect chess program has not yet been written, that will win when given a time limit, but given unlimited time, a computer will always win at chess. The only reason computers have not already done this is because of time limits. It's the same reason all casinos have betting limits -- in a game with near 50-50 odds such as perfectly played Blackjack, you can do Martingale betting, and never lose .. if you have unlimited funds. The moment you hit the betting limit and lose a hand, you are now losing, and not recovering)
In poker, particularly in No Limit Hold'em, you are typically up against up to 9 other opponents. The only way TO win is to figure out how to play each player individually, and adjust strategy based on that. (or figure out one really bad player and capitalize :-) ) If you play entirely on the odds, a good player will capitalize on that, and make it only possible for the computer to win if given a literally unlimited amount of time and money.
...Is this any different from the quite common practice of buying links on multiple networks, so that you have faster connections to those networks? That thing that people have been doing for decades?
The point should be, that open source CAN be superior in these respects. It's probably pretty likely that no one but the original code author of this bug actually considered what the code was doing, and just said "Hey, looks good, accept pull request." and then no one else looked at it.
... and in a system with a good code review system, this probably would have never happened to begin with, because once you require more than a couple of people look at it, weird mistakes like that usually get caught. at least, if they are thinking about it. Pretty much all the major code errors i've seen in peer review systems get through when people just start blindly accepting code, or only comb it for style related issues. Serious flaws like what caused Heartbleed are pretty difficult to get through multiple people that are thinking.
He makes a case that 240/ addresses are not allowed with current stacks, but I just tested that with a few computers here, and it seemed to work fine .. 2 ver of Windows, and a modern Linux install.
I doubt that, there'd be no reason for anyone to write it up to not understand 240*
This is slashdot. I'm certain there are plenty of people here capable of reprogramming their ISPs routers, with out the ISP even noticing.
Which is why super huge ISPs like Comcast are going way out of their way (finally) to enable IPv6, and in Comcast's case, they've even released GPL router upgrades. Sure.
Stay off the Opera betas and previews, and you should be fine. The cutting edge is a bit bloody lately.
Nice. I have about a dozen "saved sessions" in Opera, where I had over a hundred tabs open, and finally got annoyed, but didn't want to go through them all at the time, so i saved the list, and started anew.
wait.. 5-8 years ago, wasn't everyone on this entire site railing against a certain company for integrating their web browser to the Operating System?
It was -really- terrible about 6 months ago, when it would take minutes to load pages.
It's not so bad now. It's still bad, though.
Your operating system should be dealing with that, not the browser.
Now open up 90-120 tabs as I usually run. :)
wow, you don't do shit in your browsers do you? My average browser workload has Opera over 500meg commit charge, the same in Firefox is enough to get Windows to say "YOU ARE RUNNING OUT OF MEMORY PLEASE KILL FIREFOX.EXE" (64-bit system, with a 4-gig swapfile and 2gigs ram .. yeah, it's a bit light on the RAM, but i'm broke right now)
and using a Firefox without extensions is terribad.
I'm sure Opera's performance kicks the shit out of the rest of them still, anyway, too. Although the betas have been a lot more crashy than normal lately.