but Excel and the rest of Office are big sellers and I'll bet they want to keep it that way.
So they make a new version of XL and the new version will load old files, but it will save in a new format not supported by older versions. Not only do they get incompatibility, but as another bonus they force everybody to update even if they don't need any new features.
Because the routing is being done in software instead, the cost driver is dramatically reduced; consequently, it becomes cost-effective to have a routing table with an entry for each node.
I was actually wondering how well Linux would handle this. The obvious algorithm to find the correct entry in the routing algorithm is linear in the number of entries. That doesn't sound like efficient to me, but it might be that 100 entires is still so small a number, that it doesn't matter. However this particular case can be done far more efficient than the general purpose algorithm. Because the number of possible targets is rather small, it is feasible to tabelize the IP->interface choice, it would take less than 1KB of RAM. Of course that algorithm would never work if you were to route packets to any destination on the internet. Did they have to modify the routing in the kernel? And how exactly is it done?
After reading about it on LWN earlier today, I tried to imagine this beowulf cluster computing how to build a larger beowulf cluster, or just compute how to improve it's own network. (Notice, they used a four node cluster to computer how to wire the network.)
So out of the 6+6 bits you find a way to save one bit of the destination. It would be at least as simple to save two bits of the source. Rather than encoding every possible square, encode only those at most 16 squares on which the player have a piece. That will take us down to 9 bits. Now the interesting question is, can this be taken even further? Is there any position in which there are more than 256 possible moves?
FPS are overrated. I once saw a person claiming he could tell the difference between 500 and 1000 FPS on a 100Hz monitor, yeah right. More FPS than your monitor can display is simply waste. When you can render enough FPS, the only improvement left to make is better timing. That requires help from the gfx hardware, nothing difficult though, the Amiga could do it 15-20 years ago or something like that.
See, quantum theories predict (and some effects of this have been observed, I think) that particles are randomply popping into the universe all the time and everywhere.
AFAIK they cannot pop out of nothing. However the pairs of particles you describe can be produced from energy like a photon.
No, because theoretically there can be multiple universes.
If there is another universe, which is in any way connected with our universe, I don't think you could really call it a different universe. It is just a part of our universe which has not been discovered yet.
If OTOH you think about a different universe in no way connected to our universe, they can not ever affect each other. In that case that different universe does not exist. At least it does not exist using physicist's definition of existence. It might exist using a mathematician's definition of existence. However in math any consistent universe you can think of exists, which doesn't make much sense either. So either we have to stick to the exists in our universe meaning of existence, or we would have a lot of trouble defining
existence.
In short there can be only one universe, because any other universe would be a part of ours or nonexistent.
NT4 does work with HPFS. But I think it was removed on the later NT releases.
Somebody suggested to use the HPFS driver from NT4 with later Windows versions, so you might be right about the support being removed. Do anybody know why HPFS support was removed?
Linux OTOH can boot from almost anything. However I allways boot Linux from ext2. A 31MB/boot partition is more than enough. I don't consider it any problem to have a small boot partition for each OS, even if none of the other OSes can access that partition. Some OSes might even want to (or at least be able to) boot from a partition with no filesystem at all. Linux versions prior to 2.6 could boot from a raw floppy.
Even on an old 3GB disk I had, a single file - no matter how little data was actually contained in the file - would take up at least 49 kilobytes!
My calculations say it should only be 48.5kb, but let's not discuss that minor detail any further. The problem you describe is very similar to one of the problems FAT16 has with large partitions. HFS is slightly better than FAT16 because it doesn't require cluster sizes being a power of two. And HFS allows partitions larger than 2GB (but maybe not much). Anyway both should be avoided for any partition larger than 511MB.
Another potential problem with HFS is that you can only have a maximum of something like 65000 files on a volume.
That is just a consequence of the previous problem. Every file takes up at least one 65536th of the disk space, so no matter how large the disk is, with that number of files it is full.
Unfortunately, same goes for ext2 in general. You can compile your kernel with large file support, but your applications and filesystem drivers need to support it as well.
It is true that applications need to support large files, however the most important applications already do. And ext2 does support files larger than 2GB. I just created a 17247252480 bytes file on my/boot filesystem (the only with ext2). This is the maximum with 1k blocks. The limit is caused by the maximum number of blocks addressable with three levels of indirection. It is slightly larger than 16GB because you can also use the direct, single, and double indirection. With three levels of indirection you get 2^4 times as large files by doubling the block size. In other words with 2kb block size you can create files as large as 256GB. With 4kb block size you run into another limitation at 2TB file size.
So you keep the whole thing Fat32, but make a loopback filesystem of whatever MacOsX supports as well as Linux
That is not a good choice. You will still suffer from one of the worst performance problems in FAT32. Besides it is not much better than just making three partitions on the device (actually I think it is worse). And finally it is not much help, when you want to transfer files between the systems.
although ntfs write support is experimental, I've never had any
issues
Interesting. From what I have read, I got the impression, that loosing all of your files would be very likely, if you actually used NTFS write support.
There are however, some projects out there to bring other filesystems to windows.
Now the questions are:
Does ext2 under Windows work better than NTFS under Linux?
Which of the ext2 drivers for Windows works best?
How about other filesystems under Windows? (Sure ext2 is better than FAT, but you wouldn't want it as your primary filesystem).
But I guess its considered fratenizing with the enemy.
I don't think trying to make ext2 the best cross-OS filesystem is fratenizing with the enemy. Using the enemy's filesystem is worse.
FAT really does suck and it would be great if there was something else that everyone supported.
I agree, with the lists of currently supported systems HFS sounds like the best option, it is already supported by two of the systems, and it is AFAIK far better than FAT. However it might be, that something else is better. Minix is very simple, and is much better than FAT. But maybe minix has some size limitations. Another choice I would consider is HPFS. AFAIK HPFS was developed for OS/2 while Microsoft was still involved in the project, I have also heard that some of the technology from OS/2 was included in NT, which w2k and XP are based on. So why shouldn't all of those not have HPFS support? Did anybody try to make one of those Windows versions use HPFS?
There is no test you can apply to determine that 25 is random, while 44 is not.
Read the definition again, it actually does make some sense. The number 7^99 is not a random number because the description I just wrote is a lot shorter than the number itself. The number 61070941271139577504711647465813663675921309412553 1498031084978534953383702400017179 OTOH has the same length as the previous number, but I have no shorter description of this number. In fact I did get it from a random source, but I have no way to prove that this is a random number.
From a legal perspective, if a virtual item has real life value then what happens when the game finally goes off line?
You just need a creative programmer. Some time before you let the game go off line, you make a small modification of the game server, such that people will slowly loose those items.
Slashdot Mirror
Check those URLs!
There is nothing wrong with the URL. Just looks like the page doesn't exist anymore.
SOVIET! damn.
Oh, I thought the c was the joke.
But coffee is supposed to be hot, not cool.
but Excel and the rest of Office are big sellers and I'll bet they want to keep it that way.
So they make a new version of XL and the new version will load old files, but it will save in a new format not supported by older versions. Not only do they get incompatibility, but as another bonus they force everybody to update even if they don't need any new features.
Because the routing is being done in software instead, the cost driver is dramatically reduced; consequently, it becomes cost-effective to have a routing table with an entry for each node.
I was actually wondering how well Linux would handle this. The obvious algorithm to find the correct entry in the routing algorithm is linear in the number of entries. That doesn't sound like efficient to me, but it might be that 100 entires is still so small a number, that it doesn't matter. However this particular case can be done far more efficient than the general purpose algorithm. Because the number of possible targets is rather small, it is feasible to tabelize the IP->interface choice, it would take less than 1KB of RAM. Of course that algorithm would never work if you were to route packets to any destination on the internet. Did they have to modify the routing in the kernel? And how exactly is it done?
give an error to the person who actually sent the mail during SMTP
Parent deserves an Insightful moderation for that comment.
After reading about it on LWN earlier today, I tried to imagine this beowulf cluster computing how to build a larger beowulf cluster, or just compute how to improve it's own network. (Notice, they used a four node cluster to computer how to wire the network.)
That's 11 bits for encoding a move.
So out of the 6+6 bits you find a way to save one bit of the destination. It would be at least as simple to save two bits of the source. Rather than encoding every possible square, encode only those at most 16 squares on which the player have a piece. That will take us down to 9 bits. Now the interesting question is, can this be taken even further? Is there any position in which there are more than 256 possible moves?
How many fps were they getting ?
FPS are overrated. I once saw a person claiming he could tell the difference between 500 and 1000 FPS on a 100Hz monitor, yeah right. More FPS than your monitor can display is simply waste. When you can render enough FPS, the only improvement left to make is better timing. That requires help from the gfx hardware, nothing difficult though, the Amiga could do it 15-20 years ago or something like that.
At least they did mention you on the kernel mailing list.
See, quantum theories predict (and some effects of this have been observed, I think) that particles are randomply popping into the universe all the time and everywhere.
AFAIK they cannot pop out of nothing. However the pairs of particles you describe can be produced from energy like a photon.
No, because theoretically there can be multiple universes.
If there is another universe, which is in any way connected with our universe, I don't think you could really call it a different universe. It is just a part of our universe which has not been discovered yet.
If OTOH you think about a different universe in no way connected to our universe, they can not ever affect each other. In that case that different universe does not exist. At least it does not exist using physicist's definition of existence. It might exist using a mathematician's definition of existence. However in math any consistent universe you can think of exists, which doesn't make much sense either. So either we have to stick to the exists in our universe meaning of existence, or we would have a lot of trouble defining existence.
In short there can be only one universe, because any other universe would be a part of ours or nonexistent.
...how the hell do you pronounce it?
I'm going to pronounce it: "so what?"
Linux is pronounced LIE-nucks.
On kernel.org you can find the correct pronunciation.
NT4 does work with HPFS. But I think it was removed on the later NT releases.
Somebody suggested to use the HPFS driver from NT4 with later Windows versions, so you might be right about the support being removed. Do anybody know why HPFS support was removed?
plus, you can't boot MacOS from ext2
/boot partition is more than enough. I don't consider it any problem to have a small boot partition for each OS, even if none of the other OSes can access that partition. Some OSes might even want to (or at least be able to) boot from a partition with no filesystem at all. Linux versions prior to 2.6 could boot from a raw floppy.
Linux OTOH can boot from almost anything. However I allways boot Linux from ext2. A 31MB
Even on an old 3GB disk I had, a single file - no matter how little data was actually contained in the file - would take up at least 49 kilobytes!
My calculations say it should only be 48.5kb, but let's not discuss that minor detail any further. The problem you describe is very similar to one of the problems FAT16 has with large partitions. HFS is slightly better than FAT16 because it doesn't require cluster sizes being a power of two. And HFS allows partitions larger than 2GB (but maybe not much). Anyway both should be avoided for any partition larger than 511MB.
Another potential problem with HFS is that you can only have a maximum of something like 65000 files on a volume.
That is just a consequence of the previous problem. Every file takes up at least one 65536th of the disk space, so no matter how large the disk is, with that number of files it is full.
Unfortunately, same goes for ext2 in general. You can compile your kernel with large file support, but your applications and filesystem drivers need to support it as well.
/boot filesystem (the only with ext2). This is the maximum with 1k blocks. The limit is caused by the maximum number of blocks addressable with three levels of indirection. It is slightly larger than 16GB because you can also use the direct, single, and double indirection. With three levels of indirection you get 2^4 times as large files by doubling the block size. In other words with 2kb block size you can create files as large as 256GB. With 4kb block size you run into another limitation at 2TB file size.
It is true that applications need to support large files, however the most important applications already do. And ext2 does support files larger than 2GB. I just created a 17247252480 bytes file on my
So you keep the whole thing Fat32, but make a loopback filesystem of whatever MacOsX supports as well as Linux
That is not a good choice. You will still suffer from one of the worst performance problems in FAT32. Besides it is not much better than just making three partitions on the device (actually I think it is worse). And finally it is not much help, when you want to transfer files between the systems.
Sadly, it was amusing.
No, the really sad part is the fact, that it is true.
although ntfs write support is experimental, I've never had any issues
Interesting. From what I have read, I got the impression, that loosing all of your files would be very likely, if you actually used NTFS write support.
Now the questions are:
- Does ext2 under Windows work better than NTFS under Linux?
- Which of the ext2 drivers for Windows works best?
- How about other filesystems under Windows? (Sure ext2 is better than FAT, but you wouldn't want it as your primary filesystem).
But I guess its considered fratenizing with the enemy.I don't think trying to make ext2 the best cross-OS filesystem is fratenizing with the enemy. Using the enemy's filesystem is worse.
FAT really does suck and it would be great if there was something else that everyone supported.
I agree, with the lists of currently supported systems HFS sounds like the best option, it is already supported by two of the systems, and it is AFAIK far better than FAT. However it might be, that something else is better. Minix is very simple, and is much better than FAT. But maybe minix has some size limitations. Another choice I would consider is HPFS. AFAIK HPFS was developed for OS/2 while Microsoft was still involved in the project, I have also heard that some of the technology from OS/2 was included in NT, which w2k and XP are based on. So why shouldn't all of those not have HPFS support? Did anybody try to make one of those Windows versions use HPFS?
There is no test you can apply to determine that 25 is random, while 44 is not.
3 1498031084978534953383702400017179 OTOH has the same length as the previous number, but I have no shorter description of this number. In fact I did get it from a random source, but I have no way to prove that this is a random number.
Read the definition again, it actually does make some sense. The number 7^99 is not a random number because the description I just wrote is a lot shorter than the number itself. The number 6107094127113957750471164746581366367592130941255
From a legal perspective, if a virtual item has real life value then what happens when the game finally goes off line?
You just need a creative programmer. Some time before you let the game go off line, you make a small modification of the game server, such that people will slowly loose those items.