This makes me think of the Bill Gates quote: "No one could ever use more than 640k."
Uhh.... no... bill gates said "640K ought to be enough for anybody." That was true at the time. He never said or implied that nobody would need more than that in the future.
say you have 6 billion nodes (since there's slightly over 6 billion people on earth) - each with a unique identifier requiring at least 33 bits (2^33 = 8,589,934,592). you also have to store the location of each of these nodes. the surface area of the earth is 5.1x10^14 square meters. lets say the earth is divided into locations 31.6x31.6m in size for a total area of 1000 square meters. that means we need 39 bits to store the location (2^39 = 549,755,813,888 > 5.1x10^11).
so to store the information about each node, you need 72 bits, or less 9 bytes of data. that's a total of 54 gigabytes of data needed to store the information about every single node on earth (and that's ignoring the fact that for far away nodes you'd only need to store the general area - the "directions" stored in devices would get more precise as you near the node). that kind of storage isn't a problem.
now, since people are moving around, this information would have to be constantly updated. bandwidth becomes a problem. let's say that 1% of the nodes move from one 31.6mx31.6m sector to the next every second. that's 540 megabytes of data per second that needs to be updated.
but as i said before, you wouldn't need data that precise about everyone on the other side of the world - but that establishes some sort of upper limit on the bandwidth required.
could hardware available today implement this? of course not. is it impossible that it may be possible eventually? of course not.
as for finding the path, just send the signal in the right direction and have the nodes on the way pick it up and send it to the next.
my point is, in theory, you don't necessarily need servers that know the routes or anyone to administer them.
you just gotta think beyond the way things are done today.
as for this being the "dumbest" question asked on slashdot (as someone mentioned above but i was too lazy to reply), i completely disagree. in theory, there's absolutely nothing that prevents the possibility of such a network existing one day.
The only successful Microsoft product where they managed to 100% control the user is the XBox, where they control both hardware, software (OS) and content (games).
The current passing through that thing is at MOST 0.02 mA (0.2 J = 0.02 mA x 20 kV). That's weak =)
and the worst slashdotter at both math and physics goes to...
0.02mA x 20kV = 0.4 Watts (not Joules). you screwed that up in quite a few ways. first of all, you assumed the discharge is spread out over a second. it probably discharges quite a bit faster. and multiplying amps times volts gives you power, not energy... you have to power by time to get the total energy.
let's, for arguments sake, say that the voltage discharges over 1 microsecond.
0.2 Joules/1us = 200kW
200kW/20kV = 10 A.
not such a small current now, is it?
but even with the inner loop, that's still O(number of slashes)... unless you're copying the string one character at a time... which is what they must have been doing before... which is just bad programming...
You guys in the US should revolt. It is disgusting that both caller and receiver should have to pay for a conversation
actually, the caller doesn't even have to pay when calling a cell, as long as its a local call (unless he's calling from a cell himself).
there's a simple reason why only charging the caller in north america won't work: cell phones use the same area codes as land lines. thus, there would be no way for the caller to tell whether he's making a free call to a land line or a paid call to a cell phone. to get around this problem, all cell phones would have to be issued new area codes. and that would be pretty chaotic.
For low-resolution formats such as VHS, full-screen may still be preferrable, since you've only got so many pixels[*] to play with, and using up a third of the picture with black bars further lowers the effective vertical resolution of the actual picture. ...
[*] I realise that in the video industry the term 'pixels' is discouraged since measurements are done in 'lines'. Video signals are stored and transmitted in pixels nonetheless.
video signals in VHS, an analog format, are not stored in pixels. the division between lines is obvious, since a new line is drawn every time the CRT scans across the screen. however, there is no division between pixels. it's a continuous signal. the term 'pixels', in this case is not just discouraged - it's simply incorrect. from a VHS tape to a CRT, no 'pixels' are stored or transmitted, as you suggest.
digital video signals are obviously another story.
why compare based on diagonals? there's no practical or mathematical reason for that.
in fact, its pretty ridiculous. the shape with the most surface area is not a circle... the shape with the most surface area is the shape that best fills the area which it has allocated. in the case of a rectangular room, this is some form of rectangular shape. if the area is limited by the human field of view, it's probably some sort of elliptical shape.
if you're going to bring mathematics into it, use mathematics that makes sense, rather than third grade geometry that really has nothing to do with the problem in question.
A wide screen box will not always be smaller than a 4:3 box as you claim. A wide screen box with the same surface area as a 4:3 box is the same size, not smaller - and it's easier on the eyes and brain (arguably).
my jvc dv1 (one of the first mini dv camcorders ever made) had a widescreen mode 6-7 years ago. i'm sure there have been quite a few consumer camcorders released since that do too.
Before people say that this is different because it's a desktop (unmodified), do I need to point out that the average user won't need this much power?
Darn it!! While I was thinking about how much fun a gamer could have with a machine like this, I completely forgot to consider that this machine is probably targeted at the average user!! Stupid me!!
20 minutes!!!! geez, who wants to wait 20 minutes for anything? i suppose waiting 20 minutes for a cd to burn is okay too, right (especially when you have to burn 10)?
with video editing, only real time is fast enough.
Re:Around for Years - Pharmacist STILL required
on
Robot Pharmacists
·
· Score: 1
i thought about that, and i realize that my calculations aren't exact.
but if you're to have 7 different checks, they should all be executed quite differently. and i assume they are in this case - otherwise there wouldn't be any point in having any.
the point i'm trying to make is that if you have 7 checks, all using well-designed but significantly different methods, the amount of errors the system produces should be minute.
Gas tax only works to a certain amount. If the taxes are significantly higher in one state than the neighbouring state, guess where people living sufficiently close to the border are going to go to buy their gas? The more you increase your gas taxes, the more people from further away will be willing to drive to the next state for gas. Once the tax is high enough, an increase in the tax rate will result in a decrease in tax revenue.
I won't take a stand on whether or not GPS is *the* answer, but it does have certain advantages (and obviously disadvantages) over gas tax.
Slashdot Mirror
This makes me think of the Bill Gates quote: "No one could ever use more than 640k."
Uhh.... no... bill gates said "640K ought to be enough for anybody." That was true at the time. He never said or implied that nobody would need more than that in the future.
who says the nodes can't store that information?
say you have 6 billion nodes (since there's slightly over 6 billion people on earth) - each with a unique identifier requiring at least 33 bits (2^33 = 8,589,934,592). you also have to store the location of each of these nodes. the surface area of the earth is 5.1x10^14 square meters. lets say the earth is divided into locations 31.6x31.6m in size for a total area of 1000 square meters. that means we need 39 bits to store the location (2^39 = 549,755,813,888 > 5.1x10^11).
so to store the information about each node, you need 72 bits, or less 9 bytes of data. that's a total of 54 gigabytes of data needed to store the information about every single node on earth (and that's ignoring the fact that for far away nodes you'd only need to store the general area - the "directions" stored in devices would get more precise as you near the node). that kind of storage isn't a problem.
now, since people are moving around, this information would have to be constantly updated. bandwidth becomes a problem. let's say that 1% of the nodes move from one 31.6mx31.6m sector to the next every second. that's 540 megabytes of data per second that needs to be updated.
but as i said before, you wouldn't need data that precise about everyone on the other side of the world - but that establishes some sort of upper limit on the bandwidth required.
could hardware available today implement this? of course not. is it impossible that it may be possible eventually? of course not.
as for finding the path, just send the signal in the right direction and have the nodes on the way pick it up and send it to the next.
my point is, in theory, you don't necessarily need servers that know the routes or anyone to administer them.
you just gotta think beyond the way things are done today.
as for this being the "dumbest" question asked on slashdot (as someone mentioned above but i was too lazy to reply), i completely disagree. in theory, there's absolutely nothing that prevents the possibility of such a network existing one day.
The only successful Microsoft product where they managed to 100% control the user is the XBox, where they control both hardware, software (OS) and content (games).
100%? hmmm... my mod chip says otherwise...
The current passing through that thing is at MOST 0.02 mA (0.2 J = 0.02 mA x 20 kV). That's weak =)
and the worst slashdotter at both math and physics goes to...
0.02mA x 20kV = 0.4 Watts (not Joules). you screwed that up in quite a few ways. first of all, you assumed the discharge is spread out over a second. it probably discharges quite a bit faster. and multiplying amps times volts gives you power, not energy... you have to power by time to get the total energy.
let's, for arguments sake, say that the voltage discharges over 1 microsecond.
0.2 Joules/1us = 200kW
200kW/20kV = 10 A.
not such a small current now, is it?
you sure it's not "degrees Kelvin"?
i don't know about you, but when someone asks me my height and weight i always say "130 weight units pound" and "70 height units inch".
290 Kelvin is about 17ÂC, not 25
Since around 2/3rds of the households in the US don't have computers and only 1/2 have Internet, it's better to compare PDA use to that number.
what do the 1/6 of people that have internet and no computer use the internet for?
Um, the correct form is viruses.
Um, the correct plural form is virus.
Um, the correct plural form is viruses.
but even with the inner loop, that's still O(number of slashes)... unless you're copying the string one character at a time... which is what they must have been doing before... which is just bad programming...
DRM? It would be nice if you wouldn't use not-so-common acronyms in posts without explaining them... now i gotta go look it up, how boring.
i was at that same party tomorrow!!!
plug headphones in... there's no reason it should be any worse than a tiny mp3 player
that's actually a really good idea. i dont know why it's not more common.
You guys in the US should revolt. It is disgusting that both caller and receiver should have to pay for a conversation
actually, the caller doesn't even have to pay when calling a cell, as long as its a local call (unless he's calling from a cell himself).
there's a simple reason why only charging the caller in north america won't work: cell phones use the same area codes as land lines. thus, there would be no way for the caller to tell whether he's making a free call to a land line or a paid call to a cell phone. to get around this problem, all cell phones would have to be issued new area codes. and that would be pretty chaotic.
first post!!
the order makes absolutely no difference. the end result is the same.
why's that racist? thailand does have inexpensive workers when compared to western countries. is it racist to point that out in a humorous way?
For low-resolution formats such as VHS, full-screen may still be preferrable, since you've only got so many pixels[*] to play with, and using up a third of the picture with black bars further lowers the effective vertical resolution of the actual picture.
...
[*] I realise that in the video industry the term 'pixels' is discouraged since measurements are done in 'lines'. Video signals are stored and transmitted in pixels nonetheless.
video signals in VHS, an analog format, are not stored in pixels. the division between lines is obvious, since a new line is drawn every time the CRT scans across the screen. however, there is no division between pixels. it's a continuous signal. the term 'pixels', in this case is not just discouraged - it's simply incorrect. from a VHS tape to a CRT, no 'pixels' are stored or transmitted, as you suggest.
digital video signals are obviously another story.
why compare based on diagonals? there's no practical or mathematical reason for that.
in fact, its pretty ridiculous. the shape with the most surface area is not a circle... the shape with the most surface area is the shape that best fills the area which it has allocated. in the case of a rectangular room, this is some form of rectangular shape. if the area is limited by the human field of view, it's probably some sort of elliptical shape.
if you're going to bring mathematics into it, use mathematics that makes sense, rather than third grade geometry that really has nothing to do with the problem in question.
A wide screen box will not always be smaller than a 4:3 box as you claim. A wide screen box with the same surface area as a 4:3 box is the same size, not smaller - and it's easier on the eyes and brain (arguably).
my jvc dv1 (one of the first mini dv camcorders ever made) had a widescreen mode 6-7 years ago. i'm sure there have been quite a few consumer camcorders released since that do too.
too bad he couldn't get the "soviet russia" part right ;)
Before people say that this is different because it's a desktop (unmodified), do I need to point out that the average user won't need this much power?
Darn it!! While I was thinking about how much fun a gamer could have with a machine like this, I completely forgot to consider that this machine is probably targeted at the average user!! Stupid me!!
20 minutes!!!! geez, who wants to wait 20 minutes for anything? i suppose waiting 20 minutes for a cd to burn is okay too, right (especially when you have to burn 10)? with video editing, only real time is fast enough.
i thought about that, and i realize that my calculations aren't exact. but if you're to have 7 different checks, they should all be executed quite differently. and i assume they are in this case - otherwise there wouldn't be any point in having any. the point i'm trying to make is that if you have 7 checks, all using well-designed but significantly different methods, the amount of errors the system produces should be minute.
Gas tax only works to a certain amount. If the taxes are significantly higher in one state than the neighbouring state, guess where people living sufficiently close to the border are going to go to buy their gas? The more you increase your gas taxes, the more people from further away will be willing to drive to the next state for gas. Once the tax is high enough, an increase in the tax rate will result in a decrease in tax revenue. I won't take a stand on whether or not GPS is *the* answer, but it does have certain advantages (and obviously disadvantages) over gas tax.