We know that putting monkeys on typewriters will result in the works of Shakespeare. We know that Shakespeare has significantly better quality than Wikipedia. You claim that monkeys on computers will produce something with comparable quality to Wikipedia.
So what makes you think that monkeys would produce less quality texts on computers than on typewriters?
Another thing to note is that the file, enwiki8, isn't actually 100mb, it's 100,000,000 byte, ie 10^8 byte, not 100*2^20 byte. So not really 100mb. To me this is strange, I mean any real CS guy would have gone with binary, right? Only a real newbie would go with the exact decimal number that make very little sense in computer terms.
Of course the file is not just 100 millibits (100mb); that would amount to 1/10 of a bit. It is however 100 MB (100 000 000 bytes). It is, of course, not 100 MiB (104 857 600 Bytes). See here to get enlightened.
In theory, you can end up with a location that takes a number so large that you need more than 100MB (mb = milibits ?) to store it.
Not only can, but will the vast majority of the time.
Well, then the solution is easy: Instead of searching the position in pi for "compression" and reading from for "decompression", do it the opposite way: For compression, look up what is at the corresponding position of pi, and for decompression, find the position in pi where the coded information can be found. Given that the first method vastly increases the size almost always on "compression" and therefore vastly decreases the size on "decompression", doing the reverse should of course vastly decrease the size on compression and vastly increase it on decompression.:-)
You get the text of Wikipedia by just running this program often enough. As a bonus, you also get the complete works of Shakespeare. For greater clarity of the algorithm, you may want to make a symlink to/dev/random named/dev/monkey and use that in the program.
Is it actually AJAX? That is, does it secretly make a round trip through the server, instead of just manipulating the already loaded page content (aka DHTML)?
Javascript, despite what people used to think, is actually quite powerful and well designed
Well, the problem with JavaScript was never that it is not powerfull enough (although before DOM it indeed was much less powerfull). The problem always was the security risks. And those still exist. Especially with XmlHttpRequest!
In an ideal world, all the world's software/data/operatingsystems/etc would just live on the web
I strongly disagree! I don't want to be dependent on an internet connection when I access my data/applications. And I like to have my data on my own hard disk. Ok, in an ideal world, internet access would be free, ultra-high bandwidths would be the norm, there are never any problems whatsoever...
If you use it cleverly to say, change the table and only the table instead of reloading all the sidebars as well as teh button to update the table, you can SAVE bandwidth.
You'll especially save the bandwidth formerly used by those customers which left you because they can't bookmark your pages any more.
Well, it's still better (both in handling and in safety) e.g. to have three copies of the same content, than three disks containing 1/3 of the content each.
Ok, I've now googled around a bit and found this. Given that it is from a Philips server, it should be a reliable source. Seems what I've heared was not entirely correct, but also not entirely wrong either:-)
I've heared that the reason was Herbert von Karajan complaining that Beethoven's 9th symphony, when played correctly, would not fit onto the disk as originally specified.
This is especially important since they probably will ship the exact same hardware configuration with Windows. That is, hardware vendors have a better chance to get on their preloaded Windows offerings if that hardware is supported by Linux. Which is a big advantage for Linux even if the number of preloaded Linux sales is small compared to the Windows sales. That number just has to be high enough that the sale isn't stopped (i.e. selling the Linux machines must have an net advantage).
Slashdot Mirror
Let's analyze your statement.
We know that putting monkeys on typewriters will result in the works of Shakespeare.
We know that Shakespeare has significantly better quality than Wikipedia.
You claim that monkeys on computers will produce something with comparable quality to Wikipedia.
So what makes you think that monkeys would produce less quality texts on computers than on typewriters?
Mod parent inciteful!
Of course the file is not just 100 millibits (100mb); that would amount to 1/10 of a bit. It is however 100 MB (100 000 000 bytes). It is, of course, not 100 MiB (104 857 600 Bytes).
See here to get enlightened.
Well, then the solution is easy: Instead of searching the position in pi for "compression" and reading from for "decompression", do it the opposite way: For compression, look up what is at the corresponding position of pi, and for decompression, find the position in pi where the coded information can be found. Given that the first method vastly increases the size almost always on "compression" and therefore vastly decreases the size on "decompression", doing the reverse should of course vastly decrease the size on compression and vastly increase it on decompression.
You get the text of Wikipedia by just running this program often enough.
As a bonus, you also get the complete works of Shakespeare.
For greater clarity of the algorithm, you may want to make a symlink to
Now, where can I get my money?
I'm still trying to find out the difference between verbing a noun, verbizing it, verbifying it and verbificating it ...
Is it actually AJAX? That is, does it secretly make a round trip through the server, instead of just manipulating the already loaded page content (aka DHTML)?
Well, the problem with JavaScript was never that it is not powerfull enough (although before DOM it indeed was much less powerfull). The problem always was the security risks. And those still exist. Especially with XmlHttpRequest!
I strongly disagree! I don't want to be dependent on an internet connection when I access my data/applications. And I like to have my data on my own hard disk.
Ok, in an ideal world, internet access would be free, ultra-high bandwidths would be the norm, there are never any problems whatsoever
You'll especially save the bandwidth formerly used by those customers which left you because they can't bookmark your pages any more.
Actually it's: Russia Soviet Windows YOU runs in
Money seems to be one of the most addictive substances. It should be forbidden.
No, RMS is just a mathematical operation (root mean square).
You're right about capacity, but absolutely wrong about audio quality. Recordings of 4'33" tend to have a quite bad signal to noise ratio!
You know that atheism was one of the building blocks of communism?
Yes, but will they find his lost writings about quantum gravitation?
It took 12 hours for the scientists to get it, it should also take 12 hours for the surfers! :-)
Well, it's still better (both in handling and in safety) e.g. to have three copies of the same content, than three disks containing 1/3 of the content each.
Ok, I've now googled around a bit and found this. Given that it is from a Philips server, it should be a reliable source. Seems what I've heared was not entirely correct, but also not entirely wrong either :-)
I've heared that the reason was Herbert von Karajan complaining that Beethoven's 9th symphony, when played correctly, would not fit onto the disk as originally specified.
This is especially important since they probably will ship the exact same hardware configuration with Windows. That is, hardware vendors have a better chance to get on their preloaded Windows offerings if that hardware is supported by Linux. Which is a big advantage for Linux even if the number of preloaded Linux sales is small compared to the Windows sales. That number just has to be high enough that the sale isn't stopped (i.e. selling the Linux machines must have an net advantage).
So what does it look like if you post non-anonymously?
That way you only can hide from the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal.
Someone played Jessica Alba, and she was played not convincingly enough?
Scientist thinks predicting future developments correctly may be possible in the future :-)
Water. Just send a jet of water where you suspect someone might be. If there's indeed someone, it will not cross that space.