Limewire does address these problems. Instead of every single client forwarding every single request among every attached client, they have implemented what they call 'ultrapeers'. Each of these clients is capable of handling the searches for up to 75 non-ultrapeer clients, and each 'normal' client usually connects to 3 of the ultrapeers, while the ultrapeers try to maintain 6 or so connections to other ultrapeers and older clients. They are changing the way not the network works, not just building a faster client.
Seriously. The latest version (2.1) seems to have solved quite a few of the problems outlines in the 'study'. Anyone who is doubting the scalability of the protocol should give it a try.
What Mr. Dalke seems to ignore when he makes the statement against opening source code:
"I countered that the arguments in favor of the petition, like encouraging standardization and supporting incremental improvements, are not as strong as the originators' claim. Because of all these problems I see in the Open Informatics petition, I find that I cannot sign it."
Is that the originator, in this case, is being funded by public money. If I am working for a company to produce a software product, I don't have any rights to that finished product. Similarly, if you are working for the government when you develop something, everyone in the country should gain access to the work. I'm not even saying it should be GPL'd, but released straight into the public domain.
The thing people forget is that most programmers started learning programming as means to an income.
If that's all they are into programming for, the world doesn't need them as programmers.
If that income market doesn't exist we won't have future programmers.
We'll have plenty of programmers, just not the ones that are only involved because they think they are going to make mad cash at this 'programming' thing. People who fit this description are generally shitty programmers anyway.
The availablity of GPL and free software is very dependant on the size of the comercial software industry. The two "feed" off each other.
No they don't. GPL programmers generally do it because they like programming, and want to have access to as much code as possible. A person who just decided one day to be a programmer because of the money isn't going to see any point in writing free software.
Yes, there would. Even if there was *no* commercial software being sold anywhere in the world, businesses would still need custom software written for their specific needs, and would have to pay programmers to write it.
Even random number generator algorithms used on PCs don't generate truly random numbers
Actually, that depends on the hardware for that particular PC. For instance, the Pentium 2 (and possibly above), have a builtin source of real random numbers based on the thermal noise of the processor itself. Another possible source of randomness is a microphone input that isn't connected to anything.
If when you say "for everyone else", you mean the public at large, releasing the code is anything but a disaster. If you are talking about companies that try and sell similar code, you might have a point. Still, hardly a disaster for most people...
No, a crystal is simply responding to its environment. It is a completely passive response to a change in temperature. A self-replicating molecule is actively manipulating its environment to produce more of itself.
What the MIT researchers have done is isolate one property of a pre-existing biological reaction which is itself part of an immense chicken-and-egg problem. They have not generated anything essentially new, nor anything which could form spontaneously, or form from pre-biotic material, or exist outside a very specialised laboratory environment.
I wasn't trying to say that that particular molecule was a precursor to modern life. It is more of a proof of the concept that tiny self-replicating molecules do exist. No biologist in the world believes that the first cell appeared, fully formed, out of nothingness. The first cell was built out of smaller things that were not cells. My personal guess is that self-replicating molecules gave rise to virus-like entities that gave rise to proto-cells that gave rise to cells. Can I prove any of this right now? Nope. But it is an explaination that doesn't require anything supernatural.
More importantly, think about those 580,000 base pairs. That's over half a million combinations (choice of 4 at each point) which have been randomly generated, selected, and integrated into the population in only 4 billion years, which is asking a bit much, even ignoring the problem of the complex machinery within which said generation and selection takes place, and of propagating a change through squillions of precursors.
Not really. First off, Evolution isn't random. It is a system that builds on the successes of the past. Once a mechanism has evolved, it doesn't have to evolve again. Serious mistakes are removed from the gene pool so that they can't propagate on. The number of base pairs in a DNA molecule isn't really all that impressive when you consider that a single mutation can double the length of the molecule. You seem to think something magical is going on, when all there is is chemistry.
What we're seeing with these programs is not deity being squeezed into a niche ecology, it's people putting their wishful materialistic ideas into practice.
Hahaha! We're the ones with wishful ideas?
In each case, this has helped Diety to shoulder His way back into the general scientific consciousness.
Yeah. When was the last time you saw a peer-reviewed study whose conclusion was "goddidit!"?
The simplest ``self-replicating'' molecule is one atom.
You have an example of an atom that can replicate itself? I'd love to see that. Starting with one atom and ending up with two would be a very neat trick, indeed.
Oxygen ice, for example, forms more of itself from surrounding liquid oxygen on the more temperate planets of our solar system. But if we're talking structure, maybe salt's two-atom cubic form will do.
You seem to be talking about simple crystallization. I am talking about a molecule manipulating its environment to produce another copy of the same molecule.
However, if we're talking about something that actively seeks out food to convert to more of itself, either a larger ``it'' or more ``its,'' the smallest known (Mycoplasma genitalium) consists of 470 genes (another poster placed this at 400) with a 580,000 base-pair genome
Actually, I'm talking about something like this. Something that does not necessarily fit all of our current definitions of what life is, but which could lead to it eventually.
or the more complex but similarly flawed ev program, the simulation had somewhere to start, intelligently designed rules to live by, and an intelligently designed, relatively benign ``environment'' to develop in.
Of course if we no longer need a deity to explain the actual origin of life, people will continue to squeeze him into whatever gaps are left. No big surprise there.
Something that always puzzeled me in the search for milestones of genetic evolution is why the evolutionists look to the living things ? I mean if they evolved why the hell are they still around ??
This is a very common misconception about evolution, and is roughly equivalent to saying that since you are alive, your cousin can't be. Just because you have undergone some genetic change doesn't mean that every other member of your family (or species) has the same genetic change. Actually, the odds against it are phenomenal. While it's true that the mutation might allow you (and your children) to outcompete other members of your species, eventually driving them to extinction, it might just allow you to exploit some resources that others can't. Don't think of evolution as relacement of species, instead picture it just like a family tree.
---Either way, you've got to accept some form of supernaturalism, because "something coming from nothing" is not a natural (as in naturalism) phenomena.---
Yes, it is. Read up on quantum physics. "Something from nothing" is the cause of all sorts of phenomena, from radioactive decay to Hawking radiation.
You are ignoring the fact that if it weren't for man's impact on nature, there wouldn't be anywhere near 6 species per year disappearing. Even so, it generally takes a long period of time for evolution to create new species.
Since we don't have any idea how complex the simplest self-replicating molecule is, speculating on the odds of its forming is a bit pointless, don't you think?
This brings to mind the Tierra program (sorry, couldn't find a good link). It was a system that simulated evolution in a simple way. The man who wrote the program also seeded it with what he thought was the simplest self-replicator within the system. Well, after letting the system run for a few million cycles, a self-replicating program *one quarter* the size of the one he designed had evolved. Point is that nature is not constrained by your views of it.
Could 'disable' all of the money in a bank vault. Seriously, if somebody wanted to undermine the currency, all they would have to do is wait somewhere that large amounts of currency would be passing by and set off an EMF pulse that would fry any circuitry that is put on the cash. Do it to enough money, and nobody would trust it anymore.
The problem is that you had to install something to your base system in order to listen to the stream. There are millions (yes, millions) of users who don't want to have to install anything else, they just want things to work straight of the box.
Strange that users haven't had such a difficult time for the past 10 years with installing things on their PCs. *Everyone* who has been online for more than a week knows how to download and install something. I don't see why people are suddenly making a big deal out of doing something routine.
Check out LimeWire.org. The next version of the software (2.0) will have an implementation of the concept of super peers - similar to what the FastTrack network does - but with no central servers at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Limewire does address these problems. Instead of every single client forwarding every single request among every attached client, they have implemented what they call 'ultrapeers'. Each of these clients is capable of handling the searches for up to 75 non-ultrapeer clients, and each 'normal' client usually connects to 3 of the ultrapeers, while the ultrapeers try to maintain 6 or so connections to other ultrapeers and older clients. They are changing the way not the network works, not just building a faster client.
Then why are the movie theatres *not* having the same problems?
Seriously. The latest version (2.1) seems to have solved quite a few of the problems outlines in the 'study'. Anyone who is doubting the scalability of the protocol should give it a try.
What Mr. Dalke seems to ignore when he makes the statement against opening source code:
"I countered that the arguments in favor of the petition, like encouraging standardization and supporting incremental improvements, are not as strong as the originators' claim. Because of all these problems I see in the Open Informatics petition, I find that I cannot sign it."
Is that the originator, in this case, is being funded by public money. If I am working for a company to produce a software product, I don't have any rights to that finished product. Similarly, if you are working for the government when you develop something, everyone in the country should gain access to the work. I'm not even saying it should be GPL'd, but released straight into the public domain.
If that's all they are into programming for, the world doesn't need them as programmers.
We'll have plenty of programmers, just not the ones that are only involved because they think they are going to make mad cash at this 'programming' thing. People who fit this description are generally shitty programmers anyway.
No they don't. GPL programmers generally do it because they like programming, and want to have access to as much code as possible. A person who just decided one day to be a programmer because of the money isn't going to see any point in writing free software.
Yes, there would. Even if there was *no* commercial software being sold anywhere in the world, businesses would still need custom software written for their specific needs, and would have to pay programmers to write it.
At least they won't try and repo...
Check this link out. Not that I have any sort of problem with stoners, but maybe the guy has just been high this whole time?
Actually, that depends on the hardware for that particular PC. For instance, the Pentium 2 (and possibly above), have a builtin source of real random numbers based on the thermal noise of the processor itself. Another possible source of randomness is a microphone input that isn't connected to anything.
We Love it!
If when you say "for everyone else", you mean the public at large, releasing the code is anything but a disaster. If you are talking about companies that try and sell similar code, you might have a point. Still, hardly a disaster for most people...
This from a guy who has recently compared RMS with Osama Bin Laden. His blind hatred of the GPL has robbed him of all objectivity.
No, a crystal is simply responding to its environment. It is a completely passive response to a change in temperature. A self-replicating molecule is actively manipulating its environment to produce more of itself.
I wasn't trying to say that that particular molecule was a precursor to modern life. It is more of a proof of the concept that tiny self-replicating molecules do exist. No biologist in the world believes that the first cell appeared, fully formed, out of nothingness. The first cell was built out of smaller things that were not cells. My personal guess is that self-replicating molecules gave rise to virus-like entities that gave rise to proto-cells that gave rise to cells. Can I prove any of this right now? Nope. But it is an explaination that doesn't require anything supernatural.
Not really. First off, Evolution isn't random. It is a system that builds on the successes of the past. Once a mechanism has evolved, it doesn't have to evolve again. Serious mistakes are removed from the gene pool so that they can't propagate on. The number of base pairs in a DNA molecule isn't really all that impressive when you consider that a single mutation can double the length of the molecule. You seem to think something magical is going on, when all there is is chemistry.
Hahaha! We're the ones with wishful ideas?
I think you are referring to the Mindcraft studies, not the Netcraft web server survey...
You have an example of an atom that can replicate itself? I'd love to see that. Starting with one atom and ending up with two would be a very neat trick, indeed.
You seem to be talking about simple crystallization. I am talking about a molecule manipulating its environment to produce another copy of the same molecule.
Actually, I'm talking about something like this. Something that does not necessarily fit all of our current definitions of what life is, but which could lead to it eventually.
Of course if we no longer need a deity to explain the actual origin of life, people will continue to squeeze him into whatever gaps are left. No big surprise there.
This is a very common misconception about evolution, and is roughly equivalent to saying that since you are alive, your cousin can't be. Just because you have undergone some genetic change doesn't mean that every other member of your family (or species) has the same genetic change. Actually, the odds against it are phenomenal. While it's true that the mutation might allow you (and your children) to outcompete other members of your species, eventually driving them to extinction, it might just allow you to exploit some resources that others can't. Don't think of evolution as relacement of species, instead picture it just like a family tree.
Yes, it is. Read up on quantum physics. "Something from nothing" is the cause of all sorts of phenomena, from radioactive decay to Hawking radiation.
You are ignoring the fact that if it weren't for man's impact on nature, there wouldn't be anywhere near 6 species per year disappearing. Even so, it generally takes a long period of time for evolution to create new species.
Since we don't have any idea how complex the simplest self-replicating molecule is, speculating on the odds of its forming is a bit pointless, don't you think?
This brings to mind the Tierra program (sorry, couldn't find a good link). It was a system that simulated evolution in a simple way. The man who wrote the program also seeded it with what he thought was the simplest self-replicator within the system. Well, after letting the system run for a few million cycles, a self-replicating program *one quarter* the size of the one he designed had evolved. Point is that nature is not constrained by your views of it.
Could 'disable' all of the money in a bank vault. Seriously, if somebody wanted to undermine the currency, all they would have to do is wait somewhere that large amounts of currency would be passing by and set off an EMF pulse that would fry any circuitry that is put on the cash. Do it to enough money, and nobody would trust it anymore.
Strange that users haven't had such a difficult time for the past 10 years with installing things on their PCs. *Everyone* who has been online for more than a week knows how to download and install something. I don't see why people are suddenly making a big deal out of doing something routine.
Funny how the man still has the exact same pair of shoes, even after you 'stole' them!
If you could walk up to your friend who owns a BMW and copy it for free, wouldn't you be insane to go out and buy one?
Check out LimeWire.org. The next version of the software (2.0) will have an implementation of the concept of super peers - similar to what the FastTrack network does - but with no central servers at all.
Not quite. What you would find is that amphetamines, in non-excessive doses, will help *anyone* concentrate.