The Nigerian Scammer has used all of his money he got from scamming people. I am Blahahe Blahemoni and managing his financials. I hate him. I think he might actually beat the charges so I want to make sure his money isn't here when he gets out. Please send me account information to dump this large pile of ill gotten money. You will have the last laugh. If you got ripped off by this scammer also include how much he got you for and your account will get preference. Although, judging from the account balances there is plenty of money to go around.
Oh, you note that Tatooine has two suns and not three but you miss the fact that Tatooine is not a hot Jupiter type planet. Hard for Jabba the Hutt's band to play when the planet is so massive the gravity would crush them, and if that fails it's still a few thousand degrees Kelvin.
>>Hybrid cars are an expensive band-aid to trade cost for effeciency.
No they aren't. They are more efficient. The higher cost is because supply cannot keep up with demand. Not because they cost more to make. Slapping several solar panels on it and adding an AC-DC converter isn't going to cause hell to break loose.
>>Take a history lesson, we've had cars with batteries before.
Take a reality check, I've never seen a (functional) car without a battery.
Hybrid cars require a much smaller engine than combustion engines because they just use it to charge the batteries. It's pretty much a computer, batteries, and small lawnmower sized engine.
>>I, for one, am a firm believer in H2 as the next power source.
How praytell do we get all this H2 without making it by electrolysis? How is this, less energy dense fuel that acts only as an inefficient storage substance going to save everybody? Who's going to make the H2 stations without the H2 cars? Who's going to make the H2 cars without the H2 stations?
Burning coal to make electricity to make H2 and then using the H2 to make electricity again losing a huge chunk energy in the process... just to say your car is environmentally friendly because it uses H2 but really got all the energy from coal isn't going to save the world. Shifting to multiple fuels which easily convert into electricity to allow for the switch to be gradual is going to happen.
Remember when scifi said we would have super intelligent computers on our geostationary satellites. What kind of idiot thought that up. All predictions of the future are wrong!
Except you overlook all the predictions that were ahead of their time. You just think they thought of that after it became common place for the time. Rather than were actual predictions. You notice what they got wrong after the fact but not what they got right. The AI isn't really that good, but the sats are there. Bladerunner and others are no exception. They had their moments.
Next, your argument for how I am incorrect is stupid. You insist we will be forced to continue using gasoline because that's where the money is. Riddle me this, what is flexible fuel? Could it be an engine that runs on gasoline and gasoline with biofuel additives? Yes. Yes it could! The current infrastructure isn't going to change over to something new. There's too much money in oil for companies to let it go. But, peak oil is going to hugely increase the need to make cars very highly efficient, and also to start (slowly) letting other forms of energy also power the car. Hybrids are currently the most efficient cars out and around. And they convert the gasoline to electricity to power the car. There's no reason you can't just charge up the batteries with a little solar to clip off a few dollars, or charge up the car directly. The infrastructure remains completely intact (gasoline and electricity), no new infrastructure is needed (H2 filling stations) and the cars are extra efficient and could be run without gasoline (if you don't drive more than like 50 miles). And perhaps could be run purely on solar if you really don't use it that often.
The reasons I think this idea is going to work is that it doesn't require any changes to anything. It's just a new car, that happens to only use gasoline as a last resort when the green energy sources are tapped (although with electricity coming from coal I dunno how green it is to get it directly). Also, with the size of fuel cells, even if H2 became plausible it could just have one of those too. Best of every world.
You are taking a highly efficient easy to transport form of energy (electricity) and using it to perform electrolysis of water (or in this case salt) and then going through a bunch of other steps to end up back at electricity. H2 is really hard to transport, and so long as it takes electricity to make, it's going to be less efficient than just putting the electricity right into the car. And by less efficient I mean way less efficient. It's really a gas so it's energy density is actually much less than that of gasoline. In fact, a gallon of gasoline has more hydrogen than a gallon of liquid hydrogen. Also, as a hydrocarbon you are burning, not only the hydrogen but also the carbon. Hydrogen is hard to transport, hard to use, hard to store, and hard to make. And we make it with the same stuff we want the fuel cell to make it back into.
As for your comments about NASA this argument is flawed in too many ways. First, hydrogen is used for electrical generation this is obviously true, but batteries just store energy. They are never used for electrical generation. Next we have the problem of scalability. Converting water to H2 takes electricity. And, for storage (if I am to understand) NASA would just store the H2 they could pull it off. There's a large energy loss converting from one form of energy to another. For NASA they can waste a bit of energy if it works out better for them in the long run. They can get the super expensive solar panels and use any amount of energy on land based operations if it saves anything in space based operations because even if it costs a boat load it will still be cheaper than doing it in space.
NASA could take a 40% loss in overall energy. Compare this loss with all the cars in the US. That's going to be huge. NASA is obviously a special case. They can use spend 20k dollars if it saves ten pounds they don't have to shoot into space.
Both of these suffer from the same problem. They loop through the same type of fuel (electricity). This is never going to work. It's too inefficient when we are talking about large scale deployment.
From what I can tell here the argument is that hydrogen makes for really crappy batteries so we should use it as such. Even if this were the case the lack of fueling stations for hydrogen should mean that you should just replace your batteries with a closed system electrolysis/water/fuelcell battery, to store the energy. They would have to be secondary to actual batteries and just take in the overflow. Because, we aren't talking energy creation here, we are talking energy storage. In any case putting hydrogen into the car isn't really going to work out on a large scale. And if you're going to burn off that much energy in the process there's probably better ways to have such inefficient batteries.
And unlike hydrogen powered cars, my suggested design could start rolling off the lines next year.
Well, this is a pretty nice idea. I see it working in only one way. As a storage for the fuel. NaCl doesn't have any energy. H2O doesn't have any energy (chemical). So no matter what the only energy you get out is going to have been put in in a more efficient form. However, if the powder is dense enough in energy that it could be used as the power source itself, and then just recycle the water.
Ofcourse the original power still come from (mostly) coal to make the electricity to make the split the salt, to break the water, to create the electricity, to power the car, to drive to the house that Jack built. The electrity to electricity conversion is the reason H2 will not be used in cars, unless you can dodge it with a *real* breakthrough, or have the H2 source beat the crap out of batteries it's not going to work. If you could get a pound of Cesium to power the car for a few months that might be worthwhile.
This said, I'll let you savvy people in on the future. The cars of the future are going to be several generation advanced hybrid cars. They will be flexible fuel hybrids that you can directly charge with your house's power. They will also be augmented with solar panels on the roof, which will also be used to charge the batteries. And if by some freak event H2 becomes available it will also have a fuel cell to charge up the batteries. They will work like a normal car, an electric car, and a solar car all in one, with reclaiming breaks and shocks ofcourse. In theory you could do your driving for the day without using a drop of your gas, but it's there if you need it. And if it's not there you could probably do a few miles per hour with just the solar.
1) The sun may be using up it's energy but that energy is not the energy being used to let the Earth revolve around it. 2) The moon causes the tides on the Earth. The sun provides the ocean with heat. When the moon is gone is called a new moon. The friction isn't the issue. There's no friction between the Earth and Moon so whatever is done in the closed system that is the Earth is rather moot. Although it can be used to generate energy so you are minorly correct, but it's such a small amount that the universe would end sooner it's not going to cause any problems. 3) So just remove the small and tiny variables. The fact is the Earth isn't going to stop revolving around the Sun until the Sun swollows us or something hits us.
Sure, the universe is going to end so nothing is perpetual. But, if you can stay in motion from the first second until the end of spacetime. That should count for something.
There's also they would need a cover story. If they said they were selling the stock the stock price would drop suddenly. And they'd be screwed. They need to say they are holding and slowly sell it back if they don't want the loss to be really bad.
Firstly, no if it remains a superfluid it will not stop.
Secondly, yes it will flow forever. Some scientists checked exactly this. They ran it for a few months. It still had the charge.
Eh, who needs a slight electrical energy or kinetic energy? I suppose there might be a related idea to this that would allow a battery of huge energy with a different basic design than the ones we've had for a few hundred years. Along with the huge number of other potential improvements if we get this stuff to run. There are plenty of great What-if things, but they are all conditional on "What-if we got this crap to run at room temperature."
Most PMM are suppose to create more energy to constantly be extracted. They are all fake (violates conservation of momentum and 2nd law of thermodynamics). In a sense you could say the Earth and the Sun are a PMM. We don't seem to be stopping anytime soon. Furthermore, energy is destroyed, it's rather converted to a less orderly form over time. So if you ever move you can never fully stop.
The point of PMM is to steal this energy all the time. That's not possible. But, yeah, in any frictionless situation crap always keeps moving.
Hate to say it but, I think MS might be right to an extent. I think the FEC blocks might actually make the Tit-for-Tat distribution algorithm function better than it did for content only blocks.
First, generating the blocks before they are needed is wrong. And really you should allowed to generate all the blocks. Which is actually (2^X)-1 blocks, where X is the number of blocks. So after a user has 10 unique blocks they really have about a 1023 different blocks they can make. A majority of which should be able to be given to any peer. The problem with Tit-for-Tat is scarcity. But for with FEC swarming there are 2^N-1 blocks of which you need N. So long as you don't already have the block in question and cannot create the blocks with the blocks you have, that block is useful.
For example, if you have a swarm with 100 blocks. There are 100 blocks. There are 2^100-1 total blocks you can make. If you have 10 blocks. You can make 2^10-1 blocks.
Almost any peer you connect to, you can send about as many blocks as you currently have and they would find them useful.
Honestly, without the problems of block scarcity tit-for-tat might actually be usable. It goes horrific for pure content blocks because there's only N of them. If three people have roughly half the needed blocks to finish there is about a 100% chance that the three have all the blocks needed to finish. And as most of their blocks are usable between each other should be able to trade back and forth properly.
Where the idea really breaks down is that after a while your direct peers are going to go stale. They will have blocks they sent you and you sent them and the likelihood that you can derive that same block increases a lot. Although with more than 4 peers this should be fine. Even then, it's doubtful that BT would manage to have a complete file between 4 partial (40% or so) downloaded peers, so it's much less of a problem than it would be for BT.
I think MS stumbled onto a very good idea. And now they want to add a bunch of total crap to it. I think with scarcity gone T4T could work. And in theory it could work faster than BT. That said Bram's right. Somebody has to blow a month and a half of their time coding this sucker up to get a test model, to know for sure.
Also, if you happen into a trojan'd script it's pretty easy to disect it and figure out how to control the zombies. I managed to find a zombie channel with 300 people on it. It took two days for my script to have their scripts delete the scripts and unload them with all the stragglers. Not that it every happened for legal purposes mind you.
But, that was years ago. I doubt there are many large bot nets around today on IRC. Too centralized. Too easy to crush. Also, I'd say anything compiled and run would be better than standard scripts.
If this idea is setup like it says 500 segments would actually yield 2^500-1 possible packets. And for that last packet there would actually be 2^499 different packets it could get to fill that last gap.
This idea destroys scarcity. This idea also destroys redundancy as each packet could in theory be unique on each system and setup in such a way that any 500 physical packets (out of a few trillion trillion trillion) could be used to solve for the entire file. So much so, it might be more efficient to skip the whole check what segments a person already has step, and just make a segment and send it.
For each segment you have you have ((2^X-1)-X) derivable segments, and X segments. In fact, it would be possible to make this scheme completely trackerless. Given any piece simply have the person who got the peice from you return a piece to you, which they derived. So tracking who is uploading and downloading and at what speeds is unneeded. Two people could just trade peices. Without very little redundancy (although 2^X-1 diverges pretty quick, but still has 2^(N-1) non-overlapping possibilities.) Actually, without checking for redundancy your chance that the last piece is redundant is only.5,.25 for the penultimate piece,.125... ect... down to 1/(2^N-1) for the second piece. Assuming random distribution.
At first glance this looked a lot crappier than it is. I'm starting to believe their 20-30% line.
If you need blocks 'a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f'. You can be sent any of 2^6-1 different packets to get *some* information. Once you have any information, so long as the as a person doesn't already have that exact combined packet or a complete set of non-overlapping subsets (for example a^b^c is worthless to a person with a^b^c | a^b & c | a & b & c | a & b|c, but not to a person with a^b^d et al.) The the very first packet you have. You have information needed by a likely majority of people assuming that that packet is unique enough (w/ 2^N-1 possible packets it should be). So right out of the gate your upload speed should be maxed. With properly random xor'd packets of any number of packets combined you should be able to send that data to anybody who has not derived a perfect subset of that data.
If you get a^b^c and a^b^d you can derive packet c^d, then if you get e^f^c^d you can derive packets e^f, a^b^e^f^d, a^b^e^f^c. You now have a^b^c, a^b^d, e^f^c^d, -> c^d, a^b^e^f^d, a^b^e^f^c, e^f. So anybody can still send any of the (2^N-1 - 2^X-1; N total packets, X packets received) remaining possible packets for information. So for the last packet there are ((2^N-1) - (2^(N-1)-1) = 2^(N-1)) different possibilities. Which is vastly more than (N-(N-1) = 1) in BT proper.
You still must receive N packets, but rather than N possible candidate there are 2^N-1 possible candidates, which only gets 2^X-1 fewer for each packet.
As for the original question: In theory, you could have every every packet, save one, and still have no actual data. Eg, a^b, b^c, c^d, d^e, e^f. Or, at the upper bound every packet save one of real data. But, this is the upper bound. 90% of data is *at most* 90% of real data and at the very least 0% of real data.
As for the claim of 20-30% speed increase, I will go ahead and agree that it is feasible. This scheme adds a lot of computational overhead but it gets rid of scarcity and last packet problems. As soon as anybody has a packet they can send that packet to *almost* everybody, as not only scarcity is gone but also redundancy. Not only that, but if two people have 60% of the file done, odds are actually good that they have the entire file between them (assuming random pieces, which in theory man not be the case if they have overlap of physical data due to a person sending out the same piece to a number of people, which would occur if it is the only piece they have).
However AP2P folks could start dropping faulty data on you and, there's not a very good scheme to discover the villainy until you have N packets and can solve for the file. This would also destroy any packet you derived by using this faulty packet. You can't realistically store 2^N-1 hashes. You can't ask a seed as they might be AP2P and lie, although you could ask them something you already knew to figure it out, and processing that much data on demand would be hard for any computer (although the packet doesn't have to be sent out or derived from until verified, so there is plenty of time). So one corrupt packet in this scheme could corrupt any number of derived packets until a faulty packet is used to derive a real data packet to be hashed. And even then it wouldn't know which parent packet did it until you have N packets.
It would also be possible to withhold a specific packet (having specially crafted all other packets), without which, nobody could derive any real data. Which would might waste a good chunk of time for people caught in a AP2P honey-pot.
When they say that this is only for legal trading, they might be right. It raises a lot of red flags when it comes to catching the introduction of faulty data. Although, it might just take a scheme a little more advanced than hashing.
So if you're the only person who makes some super custom government level super expensive dohicky within the United States. You can charge whatever you want. Regardless if they could get it at cost from Germany?
I guess it does have the added benefit of having US companies that can make them after we piss off the rest of the world.
But where are the transitional forms? There is a missing link between IRC and Napster!
Okay, you got me there. The programs are great examples of macroevolution, but on the micro-scale it's all ID.
In the absense of reliable radio-carbon...dating
This is just science fiction. I mean, do you know what kind of geeks write this stuff? They would be lucky to date anything. Carbon-dating by phone, internet or radio is pretty well out of the question.
of file sharing technology, one must presume both originated from some intelligent designer at around the same time.
Evolution does not concern itself itself with the original genesis of the things in question. Only how it changes over time based on fitness.
But, if you must know. Sir Tim Berners-Lee gets some major credit, but also some of the very early packet switching technology inventers back in the Cold War era. And some more goes to Shannon's information theory. And even the inventer of the telegraph. Perhaps written language itself... *scratches head*... Evolution does not concern itself with the original genesis of the things in question!
>>This is not an example of evolution but rather of Intelligent Design. An intelligence is required to implement the irreducibly complex decentralization.
Nonsense. This is quite obviously a form of evolution.
First off, we get IRC. It wasn't well known by the public and searching was quite difficult for the masses.
Next, we get Napster. It was a good server, with huge increases in fitness due to searching, but it was too centralized (even more so than IRC). The main servers got killed with lawsuits and it died.
Next we got Morpheus, which started because of the success of Napster (and to fill the niche left by Napster's extinction), which was more decentralized and used Kazaa's network. And included file searches for non-MP3 files. Kazaa killed it off because they were greedy, and owned the core part of the network.
Kazaa was far enough away from the courts that they lived longer. However a series of lawsuits against users and the general peer to peer operation made it less fit.
Bittorrent came out with the primary advantage of the uploading while download protocol set. Which also added a more decentralized aspect to the peer-to-peer paradigm. It constituted a huge leap in fitness.
Bittorrent however is still based on trackers and torrent files. It needs a centralized location to start. These centralized locations are easy prey for predators such as MPAA and RIAA.
This addition, frees that restriction. Improving the overall fitness of the product by increasing it's decentralization which reduces predation from anti-piracy services.
Now, if, for example, back in 1998 decentralized Bittorrent networks showed up out of the blue. This would be a sign of intelligent design. No trial or error and it appeared fully formed. But, still not irreducibly complex. Each step towards decentralization adds fitness to the product. A slight increase (of decentralization) still yields an increase in fitness, which is all that is required for evolution.
Overall, it is true that the program was designed and implemented by intelligent people. But, this is just the nature of programs. If it is a good idea it should have more fitness and do well, if it is a poor idea it gets sent off to Limewire limbo. This is the product of evolution.
Well, the idea is to replace mined silicon with all it's imperfections (and low melting point). The yellow and blue stuff in it do make the diamonds worth more. However, crap in them makes them worth less when it comes to building electronics. The title did seem to imply that the clear stuff was worth more.
Crystallized carbon is worthless regardless what crap it has in it.
You see, they did a lot of studies about abiogenesis and had some findings that support evolution (really a different subject). But, this study goes to show that they had the early atmosphere wrong. See, it's all mistake after mistake. God exists.
You disagree? What cult is crappier, stupider, and eviler than Scientology? A few suicide cults can be eviler. A few rapture cults hit stupider. A few LGATs are crappier. But, honestly all three and you have Scientology baby...
Slashdot Mirror
The Nigerian Scammer has used all of his money he got from scamming people. I am Blahahe Blahemoni and managing his financials. I hate him. I think he might actually beat the charges so I want to make sure his money isn't here when he gets out. Please send me account information to dump this large pile of ill gotten money. You will have the last laugh. If you got ripped off by this scammer also include how much he got you for and your account will get preference. Although, judging from the account balances there is plenty of money to go around.
T-3 days. Just you wait.
Linux could definitely benefit from *some* consolidation.
It sure could, if it does so now it can lock in at 3.99% for the next 6 months, with no closing costs.
Oh, you note that Tatooine has two suns and not three but you miss the fact that Tatooine is not a hot Jupiter type planet. Hard for Jabba the Hutt's band to play when the planet is so massive the gravity would crush them, and if that fails it's still a few thousand degrees Kelvin.
>>Hybrid cars are an expensive band-aid to trade cost for effeciency.
No they aren't. They are more efficient. The higher cost is because supply cannot keep up with demand. Not because they cost more to make. Slapping several solar panels on it and adding an AC-DC converter isn't going to cause hell to break loose.
>>Take a history lesson, we've had cars with batteries before.
Take a reality check, I've never seen a (functional) car without a battery.
Hybrid cars require a much smaller engine than combustion engines because they just use it to charge the batteries. It's pretty much a computer, batteries, and small lawnmower sized engine.
>>I, for one, am a firm believer in H2 as the next power source.
How praytell do we get all this H2 without making it by electrolysis? How is this, less energy dense fuel that acts only as an inefficient storage substance going to save everybody? Who's going to make the H2 stations without the H2 cars? Who's going to make the H2 cars without the H2 stations?
Burning coal to make electricity to make H2 and then using the H2 to make electricity again losing a huge chunk energy in the process... just to say your car is environmentally friendly because it uses H2 but really got all the energy from coal isn't going to save the world. Shifting to multiple fuels which easily convert into electricity to allow for the switch to be gradual is going to happen.
Selective recall.
Remember when scifi said we would have super intelligent computers on our geostationary satellites. What kind of idiot thought that up. All predictions of the future are wrong!
Except you overlook all the predictions that were ahead of their time. You just think they thought of that after it became common place for the time. Rather than were actual predictions. You notice what they got wrong after the fact but not what they got right. The AI isn't really that good, but the sats are there. Bladerunner and others are no exception. They had their moments.
Next, your argument for how I am incorrect is stupid. You insist we will be forced to continue using gasoline because that's where the money is. Riddle me this, what is flexible fuel? Could it be an engine that runs on gasoline and gasoline with biofuel additives? Yes. Yes it could! The current infrastructure isn't going to change over to something new. There's too much money in oil for companies to let it go. But, peak oil is going to hugely increase the need to make cars very highly efficient, and also to start (slowly) letting other forms of energy also power the car. Hybrids are currently the most efficient cars out and around. And they convert the gasoline to electricity to power the car. There's no reason you can't just charge up the batteries with a little solar to clip off a few dollars, or charge up the car directly. The infrastructure remains completely intact (gasoline and electricity), no new infrastructure is needed (H2 filling stations) and the cars are extra efficient and could be run without gasoline (if you don't drive more than like 50 miles). And perhaps could be run purely on solar if you really don't use it that often.
The reasons I think this idea is going to work is that it doesn't require any changes to anything. It's just a new car, that happens to only use gasoline as a last resort when the green energy sources are tapped (although with electricity coming from coal I dunno how green it is to get it directly). Also, with the size of fuel cells, even if H2 became plausible it could just have one of those too. Best of every world.
You are taking a highly efficient easy to transport form of energy (electricity) and using it to perform electrolysis of water (or in this case salt) and then going through a bunch of other steps to end up back at electricity. H2 is really hard to transport, and so long as it takes electricity to make, it's going to be less efficient than just putting the electricity right into the car. And by less efficient I mean way less efficient. It's really a gas so it's energy density is actually much less than that of gasoline. In fact, a gallon of gasoline has more hydrogen than a gallon of liquid hydrogen. Also, as a hydrocarbon you are burning, not only the hydrogen but also the carbon. Hydrogen is hard to transport, hard to use, hard to store, and hard to make. And we make it with the same stuff we want the fuel cell to make it back into.
As for your comments about NASA this argument is flawed in too many ways. First, hydrogen is used for electrical generation this is obviously true, but batteries just store energy. They are never used for electrical generation. Next we have the problem of scalability. Converting water to H2 takes electricity. And, for storage (if I am to understand) NASA would just store the H2 they could pull it off. There's a large energy loss converting from one form of energy to another. For NASA they can waste a bit of energy if it works out better for them in the long run. They can get the super expensive solar panels and use any amount of energy on land based operations if it saves anything in space based operations because even if it costs a boat load it will still be cheaper than doing it in space.
NASA could take a 40% loss in overall energy. Compare this loss with all the cars in the US. That's going to be huge. NASA is obviously a special case. They can use spend 20k dollars if it saves ten pounds they don't have to shoot into space.
Coal -> Electricity -> Hydrogen -> Electricity -> Kinetic.
or
Coal -> Electricity -> Sodium -> Hydrogen -> Electricity -> Kinetic.
Both of these suffer from the same problem. They loop through the same type of fuel (electricity). This is never going to work. It's too inefficient when we are talking about large scale deployment.
Coal (powerplant) -> Electricity -> Kinetic.
Solar -> Electricity -> Kinetic.
Gasoline -> Electricity -> Kinetic.
Biofuel -> Electricity -> Kinetic.
Hydrogen (assuming there's a major breakthrough) -> Electricity -> Kinetic.
From what I can tell here the argument is that hydrogen makes for really crappy batteries so we should use it as such. Even if this were the case the lack of fueling stations for hydrogen should mean that you should just replace your batteries with a closed system electrolysis/water/fuelcell battery, to store the energy. They would have to be secondary to actual batteries and just take in the overflow. Because, we aren't talking energy creation here, we are talking energy storage. In any case putting hydrogen into the car isn't really going to work out on a large scale. And if you're going to burn off that much energy in the process there's probably better ways to have such inefficient batteries.
And unlike hydrogen powered cars, my suggested design could start rolling off the lines next year.
Well, this is a pretty nice idea. I see it working in only one way. As a storage for the fuel. NaCl doesn't have any energy. H2O doesn't have any energy (chemical). So no matter what the only energy you get out is going to have been put in in a more efficient form. However, if the powder is dense enough in energy that it could be used as the power source itself, and then just recycle the water.
Ofcourse the original power still come from (mostly) coal to make the electricity to make the split the salt, to break the water, to create the electricity, to power the car, to drive to the house that Jack built. The electrity to electricity conversion is the reason H2 will not be used in cars, unless you can dodge it with a *real* breakthrough, or have the H2 source beat the crap out of batteries it's not going to work. If you could get a pound of Cesium to power the car for a few months that might be worthwhile.
This said, I'll let you savvy people in on the future. The cars of the future are going to be several generation advanced hybrid cars. They will be flexible fuel hybrids that you can directly charge with your house's power. They will also be augmented with solar panels on the roof, which will also be used to charge the batteries. And if by some freak event H2 becomes available it will also have a fuel cell to charge up the batteries. They will work like a normal car, an electric car, and a solar car all in one, with reclaiming breaks and shocks ofcourse. In theory you could do your driving for the day without using a drop of your gas, but it's there if you need it. And if it's not there you could probably do a few miles per hour with just the solar.
1) The sun may be using up it's energy but that energy is not the energy being used to let the Earth revolve around it.
2) The moon causes the tides on the Earth. The sun provides the ocean with heat. When the moon is gone is called a new moon. The friction isn't the issue. There's no friction between the Earth and Moon so whatever is done in the closed system that is the Earth is rather moot. Although it can be used to generate energy so you are minorly correct, but it's such a small amount that the universe would end sooner it's not going to cause any problems.
3) So just remove the small and tiny variables. The fact is the Earth isn't going to stop revolving around the Sun until the Sun swollows us or something hits us.
Sure, the universe is going to end so nothing is perpetual. But, if you can stay in motion from the first second until the end of spacetime. That should count for something.
There's also they would need a cover story. If they said they were selling the stock the stock price would drop suddenly. And they'd be screwed. They need to say they are holding and slowly sell it back if they don't want the loss to be really bad.
Please say I can run this over the network and have it kill my roommate's retardobots!
Firstly, no if it remains a superfluid it will not stop.
Secondly, yes it will flow forever. Some scientists checked exactly this. They ran it for a few months. It still had the charge.
Eh, who needs a slight electrical energy or kinetic energy? I suppose there might be a related idea to this that would allow a battery of huge energy with a different basic design than the ones we've had for a few hundred years. Along with the huge number of other potential improvements if we get this stuff to run. There are plenty of great What-if things, but they are all conditional on "What-if we got this crap to run at room temperature."
Most PMM are suppose to create more energy to constantly be extracted. They are all fake (violates conservation of momentum and 2nd law of thermodynamics). In a sense you could say the Earth and the Sun are a PMM. We don't seem to be stopping anytime soon. Furthermore, energy is destroyed, it's rather converted to a less orderly form over time. So if you ever move you can never fully stop.
The point of PMM is to steal this energy all the time. That's not possible. But, yeah, in any frictionless situation crap always keeps moving.
Hate to say it but, I think MS might be right to an extent. I think the FEC blocks might actually make the Tit-for-Tat distribution algorithm function better than it did for content only blocks.
First, generating the blocks before they are needed is wrong. And really you should allowed to generate all the blocks. Which is actually (2^X)-1 blocks, where X is the number of blocks. So after a user has 10 unique blocks they really have about a 1023 different blocks they can make. A majority of which should be able to be given to any peer. The problem with Tit-for-Tat is scarcity. But for with FEC swarming there are 2^N-1 blocks of which you need N. So long as you don't already have the block in question and cannot create the blocks with the blocks you have, that block is useful.
For example, if you have a swarm with 100 blocks.
There are 100 blocks.
There are 2^100-1 total blocks you can make.
If you have 10 blocks.
You can make 2^10-1 blocks.
Almost any peer you connect to, you can send about as many blocks as you currently have and they would find them useful.
Honestly, without the problems of block scarcity tit-for-tat might actually be usable. It goes horrific for pure content blocks because there's only N of them. If three people have roughly half the needed blocks to finish there is about a 100% chance that the three have all the blocks needed to finish. And as most of their blocks are usable between each other should be able to trade back and forth properly.
Where the idea really breaks down is that after a while your direct peers are going to go stale. They will have blocks they sent you and you sent them and the likelihood that you can derive that same block increases a lot. Although with more than 4 peers this should be fine. Even then, it's doubtful that BT would manage to have a complete file between 4 partial (40% or so) downloaded peers, so it's much less of a problem than it would be for BT.
I think MS stumbled onto a very good idea. And now they want to add a bunch of total crap to it. I think with scarcity gone T4T could work. And in theory it could work faster than BT. That said Bram's right. Somebody has to blow a month and a half of their time coding this sucker up to get a test model, to know for sure.
Also, if you happen into a trojan'd script it's pretty easy to disect it and figure out how to control the zombies. I managed to find a zombie channel with 300 people on it. It took two days for my script to have their scripts delete the scripts and unload them with all the stragglers. Not that it every happened for legal purposes mind you. But, that was years ago. I doubt there are many large bot nets around today on IRC. Too centralized. Too easy to crush. Also, I'd say anything compiled and run would be better than standard scripts.
If this idea is setup like it says 500 segments would actually yield 2^500-1 possible packets. And for that last packet there would actually be 2^499 different packets it could get to fill that last gap.
.5, .25 for the penultimate piece, .125... ect... down to 1/(2^N-1) for the second piece. Assuming random distribution.
This idea destroys scarcity. This idea also destroys redundancy as each packet could in theory be unique on each system and setup in such a way that any 500 physical packets (out of a few trillion trillion trillion) could be used to solve for the entire file. So much so, it might be more efficient to skip the whole check what segments a person already has step, and just make a segment and send it.
For each segment you have you have ((2^X-1)-X) derivable segments, and X segments. In fact, it would be possible to make this scheme completely trackerless. Given any piece simply have the person who got the peice from you return a piece to you, which they derived. So tracking who is uploading and downloading and at what speeds is unneeded. Two people could just trade peices. Without very little redundancy (although 2^X-1 diverges pretty quick, but still has 2^(N-1) non-overlapping possibilities.) Actually, without checking for redundancy your chance that the last piece is redundant is only
At first glance this looked a lot crappier than it is. I'm starting to believe their 20-30% line.
If you need blocks 'a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f'.
You can be sent any of 2^6-1 different packets to get *some* information. Once you have any information, so long as the as a person doesn't already have that exact combined packet or a complete set of non-overlapping subsets (for example a^b^c is worthless to a person with a^b^c | a^b & c | a & b & c | a & b|c, but not to a person with a^b^d et al.) The the very first packet you have. You have information needed by a likely majority of people assuming that that packet is unique enough (w/ 2^N-1 possible packets it should be). So right out of the gate your upload speed should be maxed. With properly random xor'd packets of any number of packets combined you should be able to send that data to anybody who has not derived a perfect subset of that data.
If you get a^b^c and a^b^d you can derive packet c^d, then if you get e^f^c^d you can derive packets e^f, a^b^e^f^d, a^b^e^f^c. You now have a^b^c, a^b^d, e^f^c^d, -> c^d, a^b^e^f^d, a^b^e^f^c, e^f. So anybody can still send any of the (2^N-1 - 2^X-1; N total packets, X packets received) remaining possible packets for information. So for the last packet there are ((2^N-1) - (2^(N-1)-1) = 2^(N-1)) different possibilities. Which is vastly more than (N-(N-1) = 1) in BT proper.
You still must receive N packets, but rather than N possible candidate there are 2^N-1 possible candidates, which only gets 2^X-1 fewer for each packet.
As for the original question: In theory, you could have every every packet, save one, and still have no actual data. Eg, a^b, b^c, c^d, d^e, e^f. Or, at the upper bound every packet save one of real data. But, this is the upper bound. 90% of data is *at most* 90% of real data and at the very least 0% of real data.
As for the claim of 20-30% speed increase, I will go ahead and agree that it is feasible. This scheme adds a lot of computational overhead but it gets rid of scarcity and last packet problems. As soon as anybody has a packet they can send that packet to *almost* everybody, as not only scarcity is gone but also redundancy. Not only that, but if two people have 60% of the file done, odds are actually good that they have the entire file between them (assuming random pieces, which in theory man not be the case if they have overlap of physical data due to a person sending out the same piece to a number of people, which would occur if it is the only piece they have).
However AP2P folks could start dropping faulty data on you and, there's not a very good scheme to discover the villainy until you have N packets and can solve for the file. This would also destroy any packet you derived by using this faulty packet. You can't realistically store 2^N-1 hashes. You can't ask a seed as they might be AP2P and lie, although you could ask them something you already knew to figure it out, and processing that much data on demand would be hard for any computer (although the packet doesn't have to be sent out or derived from until verified, so there is plenty of time). So one corrupt packet in this scheme could corrupt any number of derived packets until a faulty packet is used to derive a real data packet to be hashed. And even then it wouldn't know which parent packet did it until you have N packets.
It would also be possible to withhold a specific packet (having specially crafted all other packets), without which, nobody could derive any real data. Which would might waste a good chunk of time for people caught in a AP2P honey-pot.
When they say that this is only for legal trading, they might be right. It raises a lot of red flags when it comes to catching the introduction of faulty data. Although, it might just take a scheme a little more advanced than hashing.
It can be measured on a scale of nanometres.... Amazing. In other news... 150,000,000,000,000,000,000nm is the distance from the Earth to the Sun.
I agree, lets bundle it with Linux.
Hmm..
So if you're the only person who makes some super custom government level super expensive dohicky within the United States. You can charge whatever you want. Regardless if they could get it at cost from Germany?
I guess it does have the added benefit of having US companies that can make them after we piss off the rest of the world.
But where are the transitional forms? There is a missing link between IRC and Napster!
Okay, you got me there. The programs are great examples of macroevolution, but on the micro-scale it's all ID.
In the absense of reliable radio-carbon...dating
This is just science fiction. I mean, do you know what kind of geeks write this stuff? They would be lucky to date anything. Carbon-dating by phone, internet or radio is pretty well out of the question.
of file sharing technology, one must presume both originated from some intelligent designer at around the same time.
Evolution does not concern itself itself with the original genesis of the things in question. Only how it changes over time based on fitness.
But, if you must know. Sir Tim Berners-Lee gets some major credit, but also some of the very early packet switching technology inventers back in the Cold War era. And some more goes to Shannon's information theory. And even the inventer of the telegraph. Perhaps written language itself... *scratches head*... Evolution does not concern itself with the original genesis of the things in question!
>>This is not an example of evolution but rather of Intelligent Design. An intelligence is required to implement the irreducibly complex decentralization.
Nonsense. This is quite obviously a form of evolution.
First off, we get IRC. It wasn't well known by the public and searching was quite difficult for the masses.
Next, we get Napster. It was a good server, with huge increases in fitness due to searching, but it was too centralized (even more so than IRC). The main servers got killed with lawsuits and it died.
Next we got Morpheus, which started because of the success of Napster (and to fill the niche left by Napster's extinction), which was more decentralized and used Kazaa's network. And included file searches for non-MP3 files. Kazaa killed it off because they were greedy, and owned the core part of the network.
Kazaa was far enough away from the courts that they lived longer. However a series of lawsuits against users and the general peer to peer operation made it less fit.
Bittorrent came out with the primary advantage of the uploading while download protocol set. Which also added a more decentralized aspect to the peer-to-peer paradigm. It constituted a huge leap in fitness.
Bittorrent however is still based on trackers and torrent files. It needs a centralized location to start. These centralized locations are easy prey for predators such as MPAA and RIAA.
This addition, frees that restriction. Improving the overall fitness of the product by increasing it's decentralization which reduces predation from anti-piracy services.
Now, if, for example, back in 1998 decentralized Bittorrent networks showed up out of the blue. This would be a sign of intelligent design. No trial or error and it appeared fully formed. But, still not irreducibly complex. Each step towards decentralization adds fitness to the product. A slight increase (of decentralization) still yields an increase in fitness, which is all that is required for evolution.
Overall, it is true that the program was designed and implemented by intelligent people. But, this is just the nature of programs. If it is a good idea it should have more fitness and do well, if it is a poor idea it gets sent off to Limewire limbo. This is the product of evolution.
Well, the idea is to replace mined silicon with all it's imperfections (and low melting point). The yellow and blue stuff in it do make the diamonds worth more. However, crap in them makes them worth less when it comes to building electronics. The title did seem to imply that the clear stuff was worth more.
Crystallized carbon is worthless regardless what crap it has in it.
Have the other rover come by and give this guy a tow.
Some people can't tell the difference. Sarcasm is not troll.
You see, they did a lot of studies about abiogenesis and had some findings that support evolution (really a different subject). But, this study goes to show that they had the early atmosphere wrong. See, it's all mistake after mistake. God exists.
You disagree? What cult is crappier, stupider, and eviler than Scientology? A few suicide cults can be eviler. A few rapture cults hit stupider. A few LGATs are crappier. But, honestly all three and you have Scientology baby...