The earliest you could possibly get a reply would be in about 8 years, round trip to alpha centauri. Not that it's very likely there is anyone that close.
How the hell did this get moderated up to 3??? I mean, sure, it's true, but it's redundant and obvious. At least use your moderator points to bring out those who bothered to write more than 2 lines, people.
There are two problems with having 32bits/byte. One is that your neo-ascii table would need, let's see...2^32 ~= 4e9 characters, 40 chars/column, 3columns/page, 500pgs/book, 25books/encyclopedia set, 2encyclopedia sets/shelf, 6shelves/book shelf .... about 200 large book shelves to hold it. 16 bit/byte would "only" take a 500 page book. While i suppose 16 bit is still reasonable considering the benifits of supporting chinese and such, 32 is just rediculous. And either way, it is much more unweildy than a 4 page ascii table. The second problem: i dont want to quadruple the size of my text files. In fact, if it were reasonable to use 6bit bytes for 64 characters, i'd be happy to use the 25% compression. Our hard drives have not progressed to the point where we can just throw space away yet, i have some 8meg text files that i would rather were 6megs and really dont want to be 32megs.
um, no, it should not be base ten, computers are binary, therefore the bases it uses only make sense if they are a power of 2. Granted we _could_ use 10 bit bytes, but it would make things more messy and it would be a waste of space. 8 was chosen as the standard because there are 26 letters, two cases (52) and 50 or so special characters (~102). To store these characters at one character/byte, you only need 7 bit bytes, but no one wants to use a prime number when you could use a power of two, plus you want to leave room for expansion, so they settled on 8. 10 would make avaliable 1024 characters, more than anyone needs, and consequently, most of them wouldn't be used, wasting the extra 2 bits.
ok, this is off topic, but it came from a topic. If you go to: http://www.itknowledge.com/tpj/obfusc-3-writeup.ht ml you find a graph of what languages suck and rule supposedly based on a altavista-using perl program. However, when you try to do exactly the same thing manually, the results you get aren't even close. It has a time stamp marking it less than an hour old. Does anyone know what is up with this?
The imprtant point in here that needs to be emphasized (while you quibble over the morals of using handguns) is that sex and violence are different things. Our movie rating system, however, seems to think otherwise. If a movie has an R rating, I have no way of knowing (from the rating) why it was given that rating. If it got the rating for violence, because characters in the movie spend the whole time dismembering each other and showing blatent disregard for human life, then I probably wouldn't want my children seeing it. On the other hand, if it got the rating because it showed a few naked people or a sex scene, I would have far fewer objections.
Here is why: Yes, violence is occasionally a way to solve problems, i admit that, i don't like it, but it is true. However, the kind of violence in R rated movies is ususally not like this. It is ususally just a lot of people killing each other and not showing any remorse or recognition that they have ended a human life. I do not want my children to get the message that people are expendable and that violence is a good response to any and all problems they might have. In fact, I would love it if my children never hurt anybody in their life (unrealistic, but the closer to this goal, the better I'd like it). I certainly never want them killing anyone.
Now for sex: there are two reasons not to expose children to sex (as it is found in most movies) early in life. First, you don't want them to run off and get pregnant or get STD's that they are going to have to live with for the rest of their lives. Second, you don't want them to learn that women should be treated as objects. The first problem can be solved with sex education, preferably mandatory, continuous and starting at the age of, say, 11 or so. The second problem is more difficult when it is present, but for good movies with well developed characters and such (read: not an action film), it is usually not a problem. When in doubt, you can read a review of the movie and find out. I hope that my children will have sex and that they will be responsible about it. i hope that my children will not hurt anyone, ever. So i believe that our current rating system, and also our general moral judgement of the two as being equivalent is in error. In my mind, we as a society should come to the realization that sex is good and killing is not. Our system for rating movies should reflect that. At the very least, movie ratings should resemble the new tv ratings and specify what earned them them the rating (R-V or R-S, for instance).
Wrong wrong wrong! Why don't you pay attention sometimes? Kubric wanted the movie to get the R rating in the states and made the changes himself. It was not done after he died or behind his back by greedy, frightened executives. If you don't believe me, call up NPR, which did a report on Kubrick and Eyes Wide Shut just yesterday, and ask them about it.
First facts, then intelligent points, then less intelligent ones:
>>There are 5126 users and 43774 invisible on 46 servers >>190 operator(s) online >>20630 channels formed >>I have 7907 clients and 1 servers >>- >>Highest connection count: 7923 (7922 clients) >>- >>[23:41] -irc.concentric.net- You are client >>#124934 to connect since Wed Jul 21 15:27:57 1999 PDT
1."Four thousand maybe?" well, here's 49,000. Note that this is the number of people actually connected NOW, not the number of people that have the ability to connect. Note also that this is only efnet (maybe only part of efnet, i'm not sure), not all irc.
2.AOL does have netsplits after a fashion, or have you never gotten "AIM service cannot be reached"? Ditto with ICQ, but i don't use it enough to quote the error message.
3.If you don't know who the person you are talking to is, you ought to get to know them better, anyway, i happen to like being able to change my nick whenever i feel like it and be as anonymous as i want.
4.Simple text and the ability to configure your chat program however you want instead of having to use the exact same windows etc. as everyone else make IRC inherently better than AIM and ICQ.
5.IRC is free and will stay free.
6.Um, five minute lags, i've seen 12 sec maybe, usually under 2 sec (and i'm on a 28.8 modem) perhaps i just use the wrong server or something.
7. We like "fun debates and political wars" dammit, the only problem is thinking up a clever enough channel name that people will be willing to fight for!
Feasible? well.... yes in the sence that it could be done. No in the sense that it would be incredibly expensive to make and then would probably have problems: 1. the "high speed shutter glasses" would probably vibrate horribly from having to click open and shut god knows how many times per second, also they would probably be really heavy so they could include all the parts that make it do this. I would expect that the first generation of this (at least) would be full head sets to distribute the wieght and vibrations.
2. iirc, the monitor does not cycle between showing the whole screen at once and being black x times per second, but rather it has a point of light that races across the screen continuously (probably top left to bottom right). therefore, the refresh capability of the monitor would have to be high enough that it could quickly cover the whole screen while your shutter was open, then display something while your shutter was closed that was sufficiently different to prevent other people from being able to tell what the real image was AND cycle the whole thing fast enough so that your personal refresh rate was decently high. The hardest part would be designing the confuser image, which would probably have to be quite dynamic to fool everyone.
And then there is the problem of setting up a secure, dependable and wireless conection between glasses and monitor. In any case, it could work someday when have sufficiantly advanced components to work with (and someone feels a need for this level of security), but (not that i really know about these things), i don't think it would work too well right now.
To clarify: "Logged in users start at 1 (although this can vary from 0 to 2 based on their overall contribution to discussions) and anonymous users start at 0." (from http://slashdot.org/moderation.shtml)
"separating salt into natrium and chlorid ions and smearing it some unfortunate kids lunch in kindergarten..."
What is this supposed to mean? Since you could not have possibly really seperated salt into its elements in any real sence of the word, the only interperatation I can come up with is that you disolved it and poured salt water on your friend's sandwich. This is hardly an impressive feat.
Slashdot Mirror
The earliest you could possibly get a reply would be in about 8 years, round trip to alpha centauri. Not that it's very likely there is anyone that close.
How the hell did this get moderated up to 3???
I mean, sure, it's true, but it's redundant and obvious. At least use your moderator points to bring out those who bothered to write more than 2 lines, people.
There are two problems with having 32bits/byte.
One is that your neo-ascii table would need, let's
see...2^32 ~= 4e9 characters, 40 chars/column,
3columns/page, 500pgs/book, 25books/encyclopedia
set, 2encyclopedia sets/shelf, 6shelves/book shelf
.... about 200 large book shelves to hold it. 16
bit/byte would "only" take a 500 page book. While
i suppose 16 bit is still reasonable considering
the benifits of supporting chinese and such, 32 is
just rediculous. And either way, it is much more unweildy than a 4 page ascii table. The second problem: i dont want to quadruple the size of my text files. In fact, if it were reasonable to use 6bit bytes for 64 characters, i'd be happy to use the 25% compression. Our hard drives have not progressed to the point where we can just throw space away yet, i have some 8meg text files that i would rather were 6megs and really dont want to be 32megs.
um, no, it should not be base ten, computers are binary, therefore the bases it uses only make sense if they are a power of 2. Granted we _could_ use 10 bit bytes, but it would make things more messy and it would be a waste of space. 8 was chosen as the standard because there are 26 letters, two cases (52) and 50 or so special characters (~102). To store these characters at one character/byte, you only need 7 bit bytes, but no one wants to use a prime number when you could use a power of two, plus you want to leave room for expansion, so they settled on 8. 10 would make avaliable 1024 characters, more than anyone needs, and consequently, most of them wouldn't be used, wasting the extra 2 bits.
ok, this is off topic, but it came from a topic. If you go to: http://www.itknowledge.com/tpj/obfusc-3-writeup.ht ml
you find a graph of what languages suck and rule supposedly based on a altavista-using perl program. However, when you try to do exactly the same thing manually, the results you get aren't even close. It has a time stamp marking it less than an hour old. Does anyone know what is up with this?
The information i have came from http://search.npr.org/cf/cmn/cmnps05fm.cfm?SegID=5 4513
if you click thru "entire program" you can get a real audio recording of it (you will also have to find the part about kubrick, it's about 20% in).
The imprtant point in here that needs to be emphasized (while you quibble over the morals of using handguns) is that sex and violence are different things. Our movie rating system, however, seems to think otherwise. If a movie has an R rating, I have no way of knowing (from the rating) why it was given that rating. If it got the rating for violence, because characters in the movie spend the whole time dismembering each other and showing blatent disregard for human life, then I probably wouldn't want my children seeing it. On the other hand, if it got the rating because it showed a few naked people or a sex scene, I would have far fewer objections.
Here is why:
Yes, violence is occasionally a way to solve problems, i admit that, i don't like it, but it is true. However, the kind of violence in R rated movies is ususally not like this. It is ususally just a lot of people killing each other and not showing any remorse or recognition that they have ended a human life. I do not want my children to get the message that people are expendable and that violence is a good response to any and all problems they might have. In fact, I would love it if my children never hurt anybody in their life (unrealistic, but the closer to this goal, the better I'd like it). I certainly never want them killing anyone.
Now for sex: there are two reasons not to expose children to sex (as it is found in most movies) early in life. First, you don't want them to run off and get pregnant or get STD's that they are going to have to live with for the rest of their lives. Second, you don't want them to learn that women should be treated as objects. The first problem can be solved with sex education, preferably mandatory, continuous and starting at the age of, say, 11 or so. The second problem is more difficult when it is present, but for good movies with well developed characters and such (read: not an action film), it is usually not a problem. When in doubt, you can read a review of the movie and find out.
I hope that my children will have sex and that they will be responsible about it. i hope that my children will not hurt anyone, ever. So i believe that our current rating system, and also our general moral judgement of the two as being equivalent is in error. In my mind, we as a society should come to the realization that sex is good and killing is not. Our system for rating movies should reflect that. At the very least, movie ratings should resemble the new tv ratings and specify what earned them them the rating (R-V or R-S, for instance).
With that kind of capacity to work with, you could use full quality wav files at 1440kb/s (or something like that) and still have years of music.
Wrong wrong wrong! Why don't you pay attention sometimes? Kubric wanted the movie to get the R rating in the states and made the changes himself. It was not done after he died or behind his back by greedy, frightened executives. If you don't believe me, call up NPR, which did a report on Kubrick and Eyes Wide Shut just yesterday, and ask them about it.
First facts, then intelligent points, then less intelligent ones:
>>There are 5126 users and 43774 invisible on 46 servers
>>190 operator(s) online
>>20630 channels formed
>>I have 7907 clients and 1 servers
>>-
>>Highest connection count: 7923 (7922 clients)
>>-
>>[23:41] -irc.concentric.net- You are client >>#124934 to connect since Wed Jul 21 15:27:57 1999 PDT
1."Four thousand maybe?" well, here's 49,000. Note that this is the number of people actually connected NOW, not the number of people that have the ability to connect. Note also that this is only efnet (maybe only part of efnet, i'm not sure), not all irc.
2.AOL does have netsplits after a fashion, or have you never gotten "AIM service cannot be reached"? Ditto with ICQ, but i don't use it enough to quote the error message.
3.If you don't know who the person you are talking to is, you ought to get to know them better, anyway, i happen to like being able to change my nick whenever i feel like it and be as anonymous as i want.
4.Simple text and the ability to configure your chat program however you want instead of having to use the exact same windows etc. as everyone else make IRC inherently better than AIM and ICQ.
5.IRC is free and will stay free.
6.Um, five minute lags, i've seen 12 sec maybe, usually under 2 sec (and i'm on a 28.8 modem) perhaps i just use the wrong server or something.
7. We like "fun debates and political wars" dammit, the only problem is thinking up a clever enough channel name that people will be willing to fight for!
Feasible? well.... yes in the sence that it could be done. No in the sense that it would be incredibly expensive to make and then would probably have problems:
1. the "high speed shutter glasses" would probably vibrate horribly from having to click open and shut god knows how many times per second, also they would probably be really heavy so they could include all the parts that make it do this. I would expect that the first generation of this (at least) would be full head sets to distribute the wieght and vibrations.
2. iirc, the monitor does not cycle between showing the whole screen at once and being black x times per second, but rather it has a point of light that races across the screen continuously (probably top left to bottom right). therefore, the refresh capability of the monitor would have to be high enough that it could quickly cover the whole screen while your shutter was open, then display something while your shutter was closed that was sufficiently different to prevent other people from being able to tell what the real image was AND cycle the whole thing fast enough so that your personal refresh rate was decently high. The hardest part would be designing the confuser image, which would probably have to be quite dynamic to fool everyone.
And then there is the problem of setting up a secure, dependable and wireless conection between glasses and monitor. In any case, it could work someday when have sufficiantly advanced components to work with (and someone feels a need for this level of security), but (not that i really know about these things), i don't think it would work too well right now.
What is Tempest? Somebody educate me, it sounds interesting.
Just goes to show: if you mark a comment flamebait, it will get flamed...
To clarify: "Logged in users start at 1 (although this can vary from 0 to 2 based on their overall contribution to discussions) and anonymous users start at 0." (from http://slashdot.org/moderation.shtml)
funny, but wrong. At least by the rules. correct by any sort of logic.
one million seconds? about 12 days?
yes, but the first bracket was 0-18, implying that there weren't enough really young people to merit further division. That is the joke.
"separating salt into natrium and chlorid ions and smearing it some unfortunate kids lunch in kindergarten..."
What is this supposed to mean? Since you could not have possibly really seperated salt into its elements in any real sence of the word, the only interperatation I can come up with is that you disolved it and poured salt water on your friend's sandwich. This is hardly an impressive feat.
Oh, and in english, we call it sodium.