An interesting question, is what the most disadvantageous position known, that can still lead to a win is. If that is less than a 5.12 difference, I'd say he has a point in discarding those positions. Otherwise it is demonstrably not a certain conclusion.
I remember one famous game, where the winning side spends the last turns throwing away pieces, only to force a mate through to position gained. I wonder if that play would have been discarded with this approach?
While I agree that claiming a better picture from more expensive HDMI cables is just empty sales-talk, there is a valid point which is often/always overlooked in the HDMI debate: You *can* make a better digital cable. Just look at the different grades of network cables (CAT5, CAT6, etc). So there is a very real reason to make better HDMI cables - they will work over longer distances.
I'm not sure that higher price equals better quality, but no matter what, there is such a thing as a "good" and a "bad" HDMI cable. And since none of us really have any idea of the characteristics of the different cables being discussed here, we can't judge whether the cheap ones are as good as the expensive ones. They may very well be, but it isn't a god-given truth, that only simple, non-technical people would doubt.
There are many. many good reasons to laugh at the pricing of many HDMI-cables and the outrageous claims about what they will do, but I feel that a few more nuances in the debate would suit it.
Looks like a lot of fun to play around with, but is it all youtube videos, or can you actually get to try it on your own? Wouldn't mind buying the game to have a chance to see what a modern multicore CPU could pull off.
I don't really see where the trivial fix is, in the linked document. Are you talking about the fix that means renaming all domains to be too long to remember? How is that any better than using the raw IP-addresses?
If existing cards can be upgraded thrugh a software patch, NVidia should have been able to do this all along. Are the PhysX people just much better at coding physics, or is there another reason this haven't already been added?
In other words, did NVidia just buy some clever code?
Your math is wrong. 1000 GB for 381 hours means 2.6 GB/hour - not hour/GB. 2.6 GB per hour sounds just like HD to me.
However TFA states that the recorder can put 18 hours of full HD on a dual layer disc. 8GB/18hour = 0.44GB/hour. Now that sounds like DivX - low quality DivX even.
I know this story is about the continuous noise in a server room, but I'd really like to hear any thoughts on dampening the noise in an open office.
I work in an open office environment with a lot of different sources of noice: People walking on the wooden floor, people talking and laughing, cell phones ringing, copiers and printers, etc. etc. So the scenario is a bit more complicated, as it isn't just a single type.
What I would really like, is to be able to work in peace and quiet. Right now I listen to music on my earphones, but it really isn't the best solution - I just replace the noise with something else.
The maximum horisontal refresh rate is 67 KHz, but that's not the interesting figure. The interesting figure is maximum vertical refresh rate, which is 41 when running at max resolution.
And no it doesn't give you a headache, but still makes the monitor unusable for games. It's even slow enough that the cursor updates notably more sluggish, which makes it less suited for CAD and the likes.
SEGA's in trouble. They had a non-viable financial model for PSO (buy the game, get unlimited free online play). Every hour a player is online is expense without profit.
Can you say battle.net?
I think Blizzard is pretty happy with how their "non-viable financial model" is working.
If the register actually did tell the cashier to give back 6 times the coin 18, instead of 98 cents, you should really get it repaired. No need to give the customer an extra 10 cents every time.
It may just be bad luck on my part, but both my online bank and the only decent page listing the tv programmes where I live are IE only.
But generally the worst problem is plugins like Cult3D and Flash. Never a problem in IE and never without problems in the others - and often impossible for me to get working at all.
Actually I agree with most you say - we only disagree on how to react. Yes IE conforms to noone, and sites adopt to that. So it's unfair that all the conforming browsers are the ones suffering the consequences. But I'm not saving the world - I'm surfing the net.
The bottom line for me as a user has nothing to do with the technicalities behind - more sites work with IE so that's what I'm using, even though morally I ought to switch to punish MS for their evil doings.
You don't have a problem with the sites that don't work, because you avoid them. That's like saying it's not a problem to have a car 5 metres wide, because you just avoid all the roads where it doesn't fit. I'll be damned if I'm going to go though all that hazzle to fight the fight against the evil nonconformists - in that sense I'm definitely not geeky enough.
And plzz...
"its people like you who are makeing the experiance worse for the rest of us"
I'm choosing the browser that I like best after trying all the alternatives. Am I morally obliged to use ecological, non-bleached, standards conforming, open source browsers? Crusade someone else Lionheart.
<flame>
I know it's a little tricky: Both liking and not liking IE in the same post, but I'll try to explain: I like some aspects and I dislike others.
Praising IE in one sentence and then criticizing it in the next - it's easy to get confused. Let me clarify:
I would like to use another browser, because IE furthers DRM.
If you go through my post really, really slowly I'm confident you'll find the passage, where I state excactly that (I'll give you a hint: It's the one that says "The only real reason I want to switch is because suspect to see DRM and the likes in IE Real Soon(TM)").
</flame>
99.9% of all website work perfectly with IE. That's not true for any other browser I've tried including Netscape, Mozilla and Opera.
I would love to change browser, but I won't accept a browser that doesn't render all the pages I visit. Give me a non-IE browser that renders as large a percentage, and we've got a deal.
I know real nerds prefer text-only (in theory anyway:) but I like to use all those fancy technologies appearing on the web, and so far IE is the only one that can cope with all.
And let's not forget: IE is a very nice browser in itself. The only real reason I want to switch is because suspect to see DRM and the likes in IE Real Soon(TM). Heck - every time I upgrade to a newer version it's a couple of cents out of MS's pockets for the bandwith - what other browser gives you that satisfaction?
I suppose the parent post is meant to be funny, but if you actually read the quote, it makes perfect sense: Apart from running two root servers, UUNET also handles half the world's internet traffic. The only way to misunderstand it, is to try really hard.
The project does have quite a number of steady contributors and regular visitors. But when I look at the overall stats, I notice that we could use some fresh publicity, since the number of new visitors is decreasing steadily. Therefore it will be much appreciated, if you - the steady participants - go ahead and promote the project on the web, e.g. write about it in news groups and so on.
To get it mentioned on Slashdot or some similarly popular news site would be optimal, of course.
50g gives 40 watts for 8 hours = 0,32 Wh. Where I live that's about 7 cents worth of electricity.
But the really interesting part is of course how it compares to conventional means of disposing garbage. And I'm pretty sure that 0,32 Wh of portable electricity is quite a lot better than the power output from burning 50g of sugar (or placing as part of a large smelly pile...)
The work you complete in a distributed project like this can be written as:
keys/sec for a typical CPU of the project
times
number of participants
times time spent (seconds).
As for the first we have Moore's law, which will probably continue to be accurate for some years to go. So that's a very good thing for d.net. Unfortunately the number of active participants isn't growing, and may well start to diminish with a timeframe as this. And that leaves time spent to get us there.
Rc5-72 is basicly just doing rc5-64 over again. There's no novelty value, no sense of accomplishment. It's just the same again, but 256 times bigger. I think people will change to other more instantly gratifying projects. SETI has a very pretty graphical client, public nterest and it's something new if you've been at d.net for 5 years.
In 10-20 years when Moore has made computers fast enough, that this project is accomplishable, there will be noone left to work at it.
Doesn't most hand-helds have more than enough processing power for encryption? Since you don't have broadband connections, the highest possible pressure on the processor is to encrypt/decrypt 56 kbit/s. With f.ex. 233 MHz, that's around 30 MHz pr. kbyte. And if you're encrypting financial transactions the amount of data transfered is very, very small.
The article cites that current encryption technology is based on 17th and 18th century mathematics - so is quite a lot of other things that work very well indeed. Mathematics don't deteriorate.
Of course this is a Good Thing (tm), but I honestly don't think that many people will ever notice a difference.
Slashdot Mirror
An interesting question, is what the most disadvantageous position known, that can still lead to a win is. If that is less than a 5.12 difference, I'd say he has a point in discarding those positions. Otherwise it is demonstrably not a certain conclusion.
I remember one famous game, where the winning side spends the last turns throwing away pieces, only to force a mate through to position gained. I wonder if that play would have been discarded with this approach?
While I agree that claiming a better picture from more expensive HDMI cables is just empty sales-talk, there is a valid point which is often/always overlooked in the HDMI debate: You *can* make a better digital cable. Just look at the different grades of network cables (CAT5, CAT6, etc). So there is a very real reason to make better HDMI cables - they will work over longer distances.
I'm not sure that higher price equals better quality, but no matter what, there is such a thing as a "good" and a "bad" HDMI cable. And since none of us really have any idea of the characteristics of the different cables being discussed here, we can't judge whether the cheap ones are as good as the expensive ones. They may very well be, but it isn't a god-given truth, that only simple, non-technical people would doubt.
There are many. many good reasons to laugh at the pricing of many HDMI-cables and the outrageous claims about what they will do, but I feel that a few more nuances in the debate would suit it.
Looks like a lot of fun to play around with, but is it all youtube videos, or can you actually get to try it on your own? Wouldn't mind buying the game to have a chance to see what a modern multicore CPU could pull off.
FtFP (From the F***ing Paper):
We report on a computation of congruent numbers, which subject to the Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture is an accurate list up to 10^12.
The article is a year old, and basicly just rehashes part of this paper from 2004...
I don't really see where the trivial fix is, in the linked document. Are you talking about the fix that means renaming all domains to be too long to remember? How is that any better than using the raw IP-addresses?
If existing cards can be upgraded thrugh a software patch, NVidia should have been able to do this all along. Are the PhysX people just much better at coding physics, or is there another reason this haven't already been added?
In other words, did NVidia just buy some clever code?
Your math is wrong. 1000 GB for 381 hours means 2.6 GB/hour - not hour/GB. 2.6 GB per hour sounds just like HD to me.
However TFA states that the recorder can put 18 hours of full HD on a dual layer disc. 8GB/18hour = 0.44GB/hour. Now that sounds like DivX - low quality DivX even.
Uhm, they're dutch. Holland isn't Denmark (just as Denmark isn't the capital of Sweden :).
Uhm, according my beliefs (and wikipedia) espresso is indeed coffee. Might not come from a pot, but I would still call it "coffee based" :)
I know this story is about the continuous noise in a server room, but I'd really like to hear any thoughts on dampening the noise in an open office.
I work in an open office environment with a lot of different sources of noice: People walking on the wooden floor, people talking and laughing, cell phones ringing, copiers and printers, etc. etc. So the scenario is a bit more complicated, as it isn't just a single type.
What I would really like, is to be able to work in peace and quiet. Right now I listen to music on my earphones, but it really isn't the best solution - I just replace the noise with something else.
Any thoughts on what would work best here?
The maximum horisontal refresh rate is 67 KHz, but that's not the interesting figure. The interesting figure is maximum vertical refresh rate, which is 41 when running at max resolution.
And no it doesn't give you a headache, but still makes the monitor unusable for games. It's even slow enough that the cursor updates notably more sluggish, which makes it less suited for CAD and the likes.
I think Blizzard is pretty happy with how their "non-viable financial model" is working.
If the register actually did tell the cashier to give back 6 times the coin 18, instead of 98 cents, you should really get it repaired. No need to give the customer an extra 10 cents every time.
LOOOOOOOL - now *that's* funny! Luckily IE crashed around the 20th new window mocking me :)
It may just be bad luck on my part, but both my online bank and the only decent page listing the tv programmes where I live are IE only.
But generally the worst problem is plugins like Cult3D and Flash. Never a problem in IE and never without problems in the others - and often impossible for me to get working at all.
The bottom line for me as a user has nothing to do with the technicalities behind - more sites work with IE so that's what I'm using, even though morally I ought to switch to punish MS for their evil doings.
You don't have a problem with the sites that don't work, because you avoid them. That's like saying it's not a problem to have a car 5 metres wide, because you just avoid all the roads where it doesn't fit. I'll be damned if I'm going to go though all that hazzle to fight the fight against the evil nonconformists - in that sense I'm definitely not geeky enough.
And plzz... I'm choosing the browser that I like best after trying all the alternatives. Am I morally obliged to use ecological, non-bleached, standards conforming, open source browsers? Crusade someone else Lionheart.
A bit cranky I suppose, but...
<flame>
I know it's a little tricky: Both liking and not liking IE in the same post, but I'll try to explain: I like some aspects and I dislike others.
Praising IE in one sentence and then criticizing it in the next - it's easy to get confused. Let me clarify:
I would like to use another browser, because IE furthers DRM.
If you go through my post really, really slowly I'm confident you'll find the passage, where I state excactly that (I'll give you a hint: It's the one that says "The only real reason I want to switch is because suspect to see DRM and the likes in IE Real Soon(TM)").
</flame>
99.9% of all website work perfectly with IE. That's not true for any other browser I've tried including Netscape, Mozilla and Opera.
:) but I like to use all those fancy technologies appearing on the web, and so far IE is the only one that can cope with all.
I would love to change browser, but I won't accept a browser that doesn't render all the pages I visit. Give me a non-IE browser that renders as large a percentage, and we've got a deal.
I know real nerds prefer text-only (in theory anyway
And let's not forget: IE is a very nice browser in itself. The only real reason I want to switch is because suspect to see DRM and the likes in IE Real Soon(TM). Heck - every time I upgrade to a newer version it's a couple of cents out of MS's pockets for the bandwith - what other browser gives you that satisfaction?
I suppose the parent post is meant to be funny, but if you actually read the quote, it makes perfect sense: Apart from running two root servers, UUNET also handles half the world's internet traffic. The only way to misunderstand it, is to try really hard.
50g sugar is about 5 cents.
50g gives 40 watts for 8 hours = 0,32 Wh. Where I live that's about 7 cents worth of electricity.
But the really interesting part is of course how it compares to conventional means of disposing garbage. And I'm pretty sure that 0,32 Wh of portable electricity is quite a lot better than the power output from burning 50g of sugar (or placing as part of a large smelly pile...)
Radio observatories have detected fast-moving particle streams gushing from the cores of many such galaxies for millions of light-years.
For millions of light-years - yes that *is* a long time....
Just like 10 kg is indeed very fast.
The work you complete in a distributed project like this can be written as:
keys/sec for a typical CPU of the project
times
number of participants
times time spent (seconds).
As for the first we have Moore's law, which will probably continue to be accurate for some years to go. So that's a very good thing for d.net. Unfortunately the number of active participants isn't growing, and may well start to diminish with a timeframe as this. And that leaves time spent to get us there.
Rc5-72 is basicly just doing rc5-64 over again. There's no novelty value, no sense of accomplishment. It's just the same again, but 256 times bigger. I think people will change to other more instantly gratifying projects. SETI has a very pretty graphical client, public nterest and it's something new if you've been at d.net for 5 years.
In 10-20 years when Moore has made computers fast enough, that this project is accomplishable, there will be noone left to work at it.
Doesn't most hand-helds have more than enough processing power for encryption? Since you don't have broadband connections, the highest possible pressure on the processor is to encrypt/decrypt 56 kbit/s. With f.ex. 233 MHz, that's around 30 MHz pr. kbyte. And if you're encrypting financial transactions the amount of data transfered is very, very small.
The article cites that current encryption technology is based on 17th and 18th century mathematics - so is quite a lot of other things that work very well indeed. Mathematics don't deteriorate.
Of course this is a Good Thing (tm), but I honestly don't think that many people will ever notice a difference.