CCP does get credit though for effort. 3 years ago you'd be LUCKY to pull off a 200 man fight. Now you can put 500 or so into a system and get your fight on without major game breaking things happening. It won't be silky smooth, but you can get it done.
They've made some pretty good progress lately.
I was in a system with 1300 people (49-, not Jita) and it was completely playable. Most of them were involved in the fleet fight too. I was astounded. But they had definitely reinforced the node, because the next day there were 800 and it was brokenly laggy.
I'm assuming here that you're some sort of administrator or something. Based on that assumption I offer this perspective: Your job only exists to enable them to do theirs. You're a meta-worker, they're the workers. Certainly there is some allowance for pride in your work in that it's "your" network or "your" computers, but you're really only there to enable them. Without them, you wouldn't be necessary. As long as you keep that in mind, everyone benefits.
That's it, instead of competing against free illegal copies of dubious quality with a superior, consistent, higher quality product, distributed as cheaply, try to strong arm an tangentially related industry into propping up your obsolete business model.
I'm sure that'll work out of ya, just look at the horse & cart industry.
This is why Hollywood video almost got 44 lbs of pennies ($80) from me once. I went so far as to verify this with both my bank and the post office. I made it absolutely clear everything I intended to do, and was given the green light all the way by both clerks and managers at both the bank and the post office. Fortunately, Hollywood video decided to sell me overdue the game for $30 instead.
I imagine they'll make baby monitors actually run on Wifi.
Upon reading that I couldn't help but think what a horrible idea that would be. I can foresee no end of problems with making that work reliably. People need something that just works when the turn it on.
With this context in mind I initially misread this:
Maybe as a side benefit you can capture baby audio noises to Wifi network as MP3 or something for posterity, with a noise detector to catch anything significant (I envision emailing grandma 12am baby babble heard through the monitor).
as "maybe as a side benefit you can capture baby audio noises to wifi network...I envision 12am baby babble sent to grandma's heart monitor" which is about how well I would expect a wifi baby monitor to work.
No, they're not objects. They're linguistic representations of a concept.
For example, 1 in its most simplistic use represents a single instance of something. You could call it Frselkbif instead of one or 1, but doubling it still results in twice as many, that is, two, 2, or Fluurfmoo. Converting it to a different number base doesn't change anything the count of those somethings, just the representation of their quantity.
It's just that most of us have agreed to call the number representing a single occurrence of something as "one" or "1", twice as many as "two" or "2" and so on that gives it meaning.
This is an opportunity for all the kids. Those that can utilize this boon without assistance from teachers or staff will excel, those that are less intelligent or less inclined deserver what they're capable of too.
Those that take advantage of it will be able to improve themselves, and I look forward to one day meeting them at a code reviews, development SCRUMs or as my new junior developers. Those that don't seize the opportunity to teach themselves will be welcome to pick up my garbage, ring me up at check out lines, and change my oil, and deliver my pizzas.
I for one, think that spending the bulk of our time and resources on the ill behaved or stupid children is a waste of resources. Even with the best teachers, opportunities and devotion, most still won't amount to anything, so the stuff would be better spent on the students that show academic promise. Maybe divert some of the disproportionate athletic budgets to the kids with brains. They're supposed to be schools after all, not athletic training camps.
Sadly most of them seem pretty motivated to me because they're incapable of anything else.
Looking back on my education - especially the early years - I'm furious at how little teaching they did and how much of my time they wasted with busy work.
I got where I am today (a developer with a 4 year bachelor degree in CS) despite most of my teachers, not because of them.
I had one course in which threads came into play; it was in the course that introduced GUI work, so our GUI wouldn't freeze while a worker thread was running, but that is the area where single-threading is most apparent to the user, after all.
Interestingly this is where Firefox failed.
It's the textbook case for a reason, it's what will affect your users the most, therefore it matters the most.
And yet Mozilla has utterly failed to take this into account. Which is why I'll happily drop like a bad habit as soon as Chrome supports adblock and flashblock. Xmarks, I'll find a way to live without.
You've clearly never worked for the DoD. I have. And I highly suspect that the drive wiping procedures dreamt up by the DoD are more as a result of some middle manager, or pseudo techie wanting to get bullet points on his resume for making some procedure "more secure" or something rather than real technical reason.* Add a few generations of this crap and you get the procedure we have today.
There's no sound technical reasoning for doing anything than a dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda or/dev/random as you like. It's just that too many people adhere to the brain dead fallacy of "if wiping it once is good, wiping it twice is more betterer!"
dd it once, that stuff is gone. Me, I'd just use DBAN cause it's easier.
Unless the hard drive manufacturer specifically built in hardware methods of hiding the data from normal use, or making copies to hidden locations, dban or dd are more than sufficient for even the most sensitive data. All else is senseless wankery and a waste of time.
*People who look for jobs in the government are typically more after something stable, possibly with decent pay and long term with good benefits more than they're after challenging problems to sharpen their skills. As a result it's chock full of cruft.
Recently a company that monitors peer-to-peer networks said it found classified information about the systems used onboard the president's helicopter in a shared folder on a computer in Iran, after a file containing the data was accidentally leaked on a peer-to-peer network last summer.
This is a problem for the person or persons responsible for leaking that file and has nothing to do with peer to peer networks.
This all seems to assume that having anti-virus software is better than not. A point not yet settled, in my opinion.
I've personally seen an instance where the virus scanner was doing more harm than good. It brought the productivity of about six software developers sharing a remote terminal server to a near halt for weeks because it was so busy running "in the background". I've literally seen viruses less destructive than that. And to think it was something my company paid for. It's was paying for something that did nothing but cost us more money.
It also seems to assume that you're running an operating system which needs a virus scanner. Mac OS and Linux often do not.
More accurately, and more abstractly, it's cracking the DRM on matter.
Once you can replicate something perfectly right down to the molecular level, there is no longer any difference between the original and the duplicate, because there's
Sure you could say that you know, because you made the replica, but if I take both pieces, hold them behind my back for a moment, shifting my arms, you've lost that.certainty too.
Personally, I love seeing scarce goods copied perfectly and can't wait for this to happen to more things.
The diamond industry comes to mind. DeBeers has been trying desperately to convince everyone that "diamonds are valuable", and now that we're getting good at making copies, they're changing their tune to be, "natural diamonds are valuable". Which basically just proves them to be shysters all along. There was really nothing special about them before, and there's even less now, but they're trying desperately to cling to their business model of convincing people that something is valuable, then holding monopolistic stockpiles of it and releasing just a trickle.
My philosophy is simpler. Never spend more than $250 tops, and only when the shit I want to play doesn't run smoothly on what I have. Never, ever buy the new hot shit.
Slashdot Mirror
They've made some pretty good progress lately.
I was in a system with 1300 people (49-, not Jita) and it was completely playable. Most of them were involved in the fleet fight too. I was astounded. But they had definitely reinforced the node, because the next day there were 800 and it was brokenly laggy.
I think you've got a skewed perspective.
I'm assuming here that you're some sort of administrator or something. Based on that assumption I offer this perspective: Your job only exists to enable them to do theirs. You're a meta-worker, they're the workers. Certainly there is some allowance for pride in your work in that it's "your" network or "your" computers, but you're really only there to enable them. Without them, you wouldn't be necessary. As long as you keep that in mind, everyone benefits.
I don't mean to troll, but don't we have actual pirates now?
There's no need to call copyright infringers pirates, and it confuses the two crimes which are worlds apart.
Accuracy, not code quality is relevant to the case.
Most production code is crap.
Most - if not all - developers know it.
What matters is, are the results accurate?
Or the only ones that survive are the ones that just happen to never feed on humans for one reason or another.
Then they're not in cereal boxes, are they?
It's almost certainly a patent of the procedure for isolating/identifying/testing with the genes.
This is why procedures shouldn't be patentable.
By definition, they're not inventions, but procedures.
There's an easy solution to this.
Disconnect France from the internet until they stop this nonsense.
That's it, instead of competing against free illegal copies of dubious quality with a superior, consistent, higher quality product, distributed as cheaply, try to strong arm an tangentially related industry into propping up your obsolete business model.
I'm sure that'll work out of ya, just look at the horse & cart industry.
This is why Hollywood video almost got 44 lbs of pennies ($80) from me once. I went so far as to verify this with both my bank and the post office. I made it absolutely clear everything I intended to do, and was given the green light all the way by both clerks and managers at both the bank and the post office. Fortunately, Hollywood video decided to sell me overdue the game for $30 instead.
Upon reading that I couldn't help but think what a horrible idea that would be. I can foresee no end of problems with making that work reliably. People need something that just works when the turn it on.
With this context in mind I initially misread this:
as "maybe as a side benefit you can capture baby audio noises to wifi network...I envision 12am baby babble sent to grandma's heart monitor" which is about how well I would expect a wifi baby monitor to work.
No, they're not objects. They're linguistic representations of a concept.
For example, 1 in its most simplistic use represents a single instance of something. You could call it Frselkbif instead of one or 1, but doubling it still results in twice as many, that is, two, 2, or Fluurfmoo. Converting it to a different number base doesn't change anything the count of those somethings, just the representation of their quantity.
It's just that most of us have agreed to call the number representing a single occurrence of something as "one" or "1", twice as many as "two" or "2" and so on that gives it meaning.
This is an opportunity for all the kids. Those that can utilize this boon without assistance from teachers or staff will excel, those that are less intelligent or less inclined deserver what they're capable of too.
Those that take advantage of it will be able to improve themselves, and I look forward to one day meeting them at a code reviews, development SCRUMs or as my new junior developers. Those that don't seize the opportunity to teach themselves will be welcome to pick up my garbage, ring me up at check out lines, and change my oil, and deliver my pizzas.
I for one, think that spending the bulk of our time and resources on the ill behaved or stupid children is a waste of resources. Even with the best teachers, opportunities and devotion, most still won't amount to anything, so the stuff would be better spent on the students that show academic promise. Maybe divert some of the disproportionate athletic budgets to the kids with brains. They're supposed to be schools after all, not athletic training camps.
Sadly most of them seem pretty motivated to me because they're incapable of anything else.
Looking back on my education - especially the early years - I'm furious at how little teaching they did and how much of my time they wasted with busy work.
I got where I am today (a developer with a 4 year bachelor degree in CS) despite most of my teachers, not because of them.
Interestingly this is where Firefox failed.
It's the textbook case for a reason, it's what will affect your users the most, therefore it matters the most.
And yet Mozilla has utterly failed to take this into account. Which is why I'll happily drop like a bad habit as soon as Chrome supports adblock and flashblock. Xmarks, I'll find a way to live without.
You've clearly never worked for the DoD. I have. And I highly suspect that the drive wiping procedures dreamt up by the DoD are more as a result of some middle manager, or pseudo techie wanting to get bullet points on his resume for making some procedure "more secure" or something rather than real technical reason.* Add a few generations of this crap and you get the procedure we have today.
There's no sound technical reasoning for doing anything than a dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda or /dev/random as you like. It's just that too many people adhere to the brain dead fallacy of "if wiping it once is good, wiping it twice is more betterer!"
dd it once, that stuff is gone. Me, I'd just use DBAN cause it's easier.
Unless the hard drive manufacturer specifically built in hardware methods of hiding the data from normal use, or making copies to hidden locations, dban or dd are more than sufficient for even the most sensitive data. All else is senseless wankery and a waste of time.
*People who look for jobs in the government are typically more after something stable, possibly with decent pay and long term with good benefits more than they're after challenging problems to sharpen their skills. As a result it's chock full of cruft.
Assuming this is true:
This is a problem for the person or persons responsible for leaking that file and has nothing to do with peer to peer networks.
This all seems to assume that having anti-virus software is better than not. A point not yet settled, in my opinion.
I've personally seen an instance where the virus scanner was doing more harm than good. It brought the productivity of about six software developers sharing a remote terminal server to a near halt for weeks because it was so busy running "in the background". I've literally seen viruses less destructive than that. And to think it was something my company paid for. It's was paying for something that did nothing but cost us more money.
It also seems to assume that you're running an operating system which needs a virus scanner. Mac OS and Linux often do not.
How is that 99% effective doesn't sound that good, but it depends heavily on how it was measured.
Is it 1% of couples? That would be excellent?
Is it 1% of all intercourses produced a baby? That would be about as effective abstaining when you think she's fertile, which is to say bad.
But when you're dying of cancer, what are you going to do if it doesn't work, die?
More accurately, and more abstractly, it's cracking the DRM on matter.
Once you can replicate something perfectly right down to the molecular level, there is no longer any difference between the original and the duplicate, because there's
Sure you could say that you know, because you made the replica, but if I take both pieces, hold them behind my back for a moment, shifting my arms, you've lost that.certainty too.
Personally, I love seeing scarce goods copied perfectly and can't wait for this to happen to more things.
The diamond industry comes to mind. DeBeers has been trying desperately to convince everyone that "diamonds are valuable", and now that we're getting good at making copies, they're changing their tune to be, "natural diamonds are valuable". Which basically just proves them to be shysters all along. There was really nothing special about them before, and there's even less now, but they're trying desperately to cling to their business model of convincing people that something is valuable, then holding monopolistic stockpiles of it and releasing just a trickle.
One word: Deception.
My philosophy is simpler. Never spend more than $250 tops, and only when the shit I want to play doesn't run smoothly on what I have. Never, ever buy the new hot shit.
Sumatra is to Foxit what Foxit is to Adobe Acrobat Reader.
Only lawyers can say things like this with a straight face: