Sorry, I don't have mod points but that's vary insightful. Robots do compete with the cost of available labor so an increase in automation for most of these unskilled jobs would reduce the flow of immigrants. The is a lot of research into automating things like picking fruit which might start to reduce the tide of immigration but because their labor is so cheep it's their is less innovation which is feeding back to keep the flow of immigrants open.
I guess that most hotels don't have automated carpet cleaners because of the abundance of cheep labor. So you can probably apply this to most of the labor work done by immigrant labor as well.
That's like saying "I don't know if OJ killed his wife so I don't know if people kill other people in the US."
You can watch evolution just as you can watch people kill other people. The debate around a specific case of murder, history, or evolution does not change the fact that people kill people, things happened in the past, and things evolve.
Now in 100,000 years I don't think anyone will be able to name my grandfather but even though he is dead I still talked with him and I know he existed. At some point people might doubt 'POE' but someone still wrote The Raven.
My point still stands fewer people pay for real UNIX systems out there.
I don't need to work for Oracle they are laying developers off thus saturating the market thus hurting me.
MS might be doing "fine" but Open Office is close do cutting off a source of revenue just as Apache did.
People willing to pay for PS are not going to be using GIMP but they have more pieces of graphic software than just PS and GIMP is cutting into that revenue.
I stopped buying Chess master after GNU chess showed up. Now sure they can fire some developers now that GNU chess is open to all but that's my point it's hurting US.
Sorry but those who don't have their "fuck you" money are being hurt by Open Source software.
It's not the end of the world, but people only need so much software the more that's "free" the less people are willing to pay for and thus the less money that goes to us developers.
PS: IE is only really a complex issued because it's free anyway so I should have left that one alone.
I say use a few large mirrors and cut it up with sunlight. It might take a while to cool off but if you set things up right you can move the thing into earth orbit while cutting it to peaces and avoid using any rocket fuel to move the thing. The only real question is do we want to just cut up a lot of them or use some sort of forge to create a large habitat with.
What's your point lots of open source projects hirt closed software people.
Open BSD and Linux vs Solaris
FireFox vs IE
Oracle vs MySQl
OpenOffice vs MS Word
GIMP vs adobe Adobe Illustrator ect
Apachie vs what where those others called again?
Gnu Chess vs. Chessmaster
And let's not forget shareware. Lot's of people "dared" to request some cash for their work to have somone deside to do the same thing and GPL it.
Open source software has hirt a lot of people and companies but hey you got to support the cause right.
Umm there is zero debate about the existence of evolution by scientists. There are minor disagreements about the specifics, but even the "intelligent design people" agree that mutation and natural selection exist. Sure some people have there little pocket theory's about how closely related birds and dino's really are but there is no question that things evolve.
The best comparison is with history nobody questions the fact that Edgar Allen Poe was alive at some point they just debate what diseases he had.
Umm, we don't have nationwide coverage in the US or any other country that let "open markets" build their wireless networks.
So are you suggesting they use government contractors to build it for them or go with out because from what I can tell those where their options.
I hate to break this to you but it's more expensive to build using private contractors than government workers most of the time. The advantage to small companies is they tend to explore their options and try and make the system more efferent over time but for one-time projects like these they are not efferent. Either they all build overlapping towers and cause waste or you have each of them lease space from each other which creates a billing nightmare and more waste.
PS: Some people think it would have been cheaper to build the hover dam with thousands of small companies each competing for the same work. I can only assume they have been brainwashed.
I guess you are tying to paraphrase me with "If you can't define something it has no meaning." But clearly you did not understand what I said if you think I was ever talking about a specific object rather than the term for an object or idea. If your going to quote me then fine do so nitpicking something I did not say just makes you look foolish.
If you don't know what the "properties" of consciousness are then your talking about consciousness has no meaning. If you say consciousness is the ability to react to and model outside stimulus. Then clearly a rat or thermostat would have such a thing. But as such a definition would not fit your worldview you chose to provide a meaningless definition. The problem is your falling under the mistaken assumption that you can use some ill-defined method to separate humanity from machines, plants, or rat's and have a meaningful discourse. But when you leave something undefined your words lack meaning so you end up spouting gibberish and thinking your having an intelligent discussion.
I am not saying "if you can't define something it can't exist" but rather if you can't define a term with an observable interaction then it's meaningless to use that term. If anything in the world could "smell" rocks so that you could tell blocks apart that where identical in every other way then you can have some meaningful term that separates them but if they are truly identical then saying one is say smarter than the other is as meaningful as any other term you can come up with to separate them.
Wittgenstein failed to understand that you can share experiences like "happy" in a meaningful way even though you might not be able to look inside someone else's brain. As it turns out "happy" stands for a few chemical states that most brains can experience but you can define it by how it shapes your thoughts an thus use the term even if you can't describe it any other way. It might seem subjective but you can give an objective definition just fine. A loose but reasonably objective definition of happy is "a state where there is no perceived imminent threats causing a relaxation to conserve resources and prepare for more stressful conditions."
If I where able to see infra red and nobody else could I could still describe it as a color. If everyone else can only see black and white I can describe the colors of object as a more shades of gray between black and white. If every one but me was blind I could still describe sight as similar to smell in that it works at a distance and let's me tell what something is but it's also light touch in that I can easily tell where things are. I need light to carry this information in the same way you need the wind to carry smells.
What I can't do is describe something that is totally subjective. If races where talking to each other how could you tell them what was you right hand and what was your left? I can show someone an objective definiton of what is the right/left hand, but without an example it's a meaningless definition.
Go to www.answers.com and look up left try to use that to tell someone what side it is. AKA: My race has a blue side and a red side, which corresponds to your left? What are you going to say other than "I don't know pick one and if we ever send you something then we will mare what side is left."
The human lungs have the surface area of a tennis court and fit inside the body. The idea is the human brain needs to fold so it can have a large surface area and fit inside a small skull.
As for cost, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. You believe that there is a market for high-speed flights that cost several times more than regular flights. I do not.
How many customers have travelled on Concorde?
More than 2.5 million since it started commercial passenger services in 1976. *
I never said that the Concorde program was a success. However I feel a 20+% more efferent plane with a longer range could be vary successful. A new project needs to keep R&D costs low but "British Airways reportedly received £1.75 Billion in revenue for Concorde services against an operating cost of around £1 Billion." which is not bad for a single market and with more markets you end up with a lower R&D cost per flight. Air France made a much smaller profit, but only 14 entered airline service so a program that creates 50 Jet's with lower operating costs seems like a good idea to me.
It's going to be vary risky, but there is value in large projects like these. Once you become the only company that can make such a product you get to feed off of that market for a long time. You look at it as an open market where your competition sees a viable competitor, which prevents most competition yet governments see plenty of direct competition via normal Jet's so they are not going to try and break you up.
The crux of it is, you CAN'T define space in terms of any one reference.
No, you can define space time in terms of ANY reference but you can't compare data from difrent references. If you had two fleets of ship's going past eachother at.5c then every one of the ship's in each fleet would all agree that the other ship's where going at.5c that they all had Y mass ect. Relitivity means that fleet A can't say to fleet B look that star has a mass of X * 10^10 grams without fleet B saying not it's X * 1.3 * 10 ^ 10 grams.
The other point you seem to be forgeting is relitivity only realy shows up when you want to get extreamly accurate data or are dealing with reasonable fractions of C. The earth and the Sun are in slightly difrent frames of reference but the difrence is TINY. Saying the earth goes around the SUN because the SUN bends space time so that the earth's path is a straigt line is missing the fact that the "bends" in space time are TINY. Yes clocks on Pluto and Earth are not going to agree to the date over time but the diffrence in way to small for a human to notice. Hi my twin is 100 years old but HAHA I am 99.9999999 years old which is so important... err well he was born 7min after I was but still it's.00000001 seconds it's still important.
PS: I can do the math and find out the real numbers on this stuff but you get my point.
Re:Holely Cheese (Score:1)
by Qzukk (229616) Alter Relationship on Friday June 17, @12:52AM (#12838873)
Actually, if you tried to do that, you'd probably get the drive to hit at least one sector that wasn't quite right, and it would begin remapping sectors. Once it starts remapping blocks on the drive, you've got no way of knowing that you've overwritten everything, since the naughty bits might end up mapped out of the visible part of the drive by the drive's firmware.
Umm, with your system 5 IP's got to 25 = 5IP's * 5Nodes/IP out of 10,000 nodes or one in 400 nodes. My point was 50ip's is at the low end but could still mount a reasonable attack on a 10,000 node system if they varified vs 5 nodes. That 5 was my N i said moving it to 10 would provide a lot more safty vs that type of attack. (You could get 50 ip's from a tiny guild with ease.) I then pointed out what was bad about this tradeoff.
With a voting system every time data went from each N (5) node branch to each N(5) node brach each sending node needs to send data to each receving node as you can't trust one sender to send the correct data or one recever to recive the correct data. It's just one of many problems with adding to the size of each node.
I can see how you could get 4 out of 5 people on the other side of a NAT to talk with somone who is not not but I don't see how you can get 2 people behind difrent NAT's to talk to eachother without somone to send messages between them unless you can point out some funky part of TCP/IP that I have never heard of that is still suported as part of the standard. You can send "fake" packets from some systems but that does not work from all systems and most ISP's should block that type of traffic. If you can point out how to do this with say some java code cool. But you need something other than an odd UNIX hack to build a system off of.
B) When any node gets the login request, it saves its IP and port, and hashes the IP. It determines in which direction (or, if close enough, precisely where) the newcomer belongs. It sends this information back, along with the IP and port.
The loing on off trashing has nothing to do with finding the right node. It's finding nodes which cause a split. Voting sytems are great but they operate at N^2 network trafic so going from say 10 nodes to 11 nodes might force a split. As the new guy is in the middle you could add a lot off trafic at the end of a login and the average user might only be on for 1 hour so that's a lot of people loging on off each second. It's not an isue when your sending a few packets around but MMO's do need to send a 'lot" of data so this is going to start to be a good chunk of overall network trafic.
Anyway, the reason why I think most nodes need to know about other nodes is Say node A sent data to node B how can node B tell if node A is a real node? You might say the hashes need to be within 0.1% but that's a much larger target than trying to take over a node. You could have a central netork or node that can tell you who is where but that's going to get hit with a lot of trafic and add even more loading time.
Again with the NAT keepalive I can see how sending a UDP packet to say 11.11.11.11 let's you keep a port open and talk with one person but a good firewall should not let trafic connect back to you from that port unless it's from 11.11.11.11 From what I can tell about 50% of online users are behind a NAT so you can't just hope that nodes don't fill up with people behind a NAT and never have to talk with somone on the other side of a NAT.
D) I like how this is done and have no problems with it.
E) This needs to be fast 5 nodes needs to be kept as a hard minimum if nodes drop down to 3 it's going to be easy to crack them. So it becomes a speed isue if it takes 10 seconds to update a node then you need to keep node sizes to around 7 or lot's of nodes will drop into the range of 3.
F) No problem with this but once again it's a traffic isue. The more base data and computation per player that needs to take plase the worse things get FAST.
I hope you don't feel I was nit picking I am trying to say the network is going to get a LOT of traffic even of overhead. I have a public IP and 60KBps of upload bandwith but I don't see most users being able to say that. Another probelm is lag MMO's have problems with anything over 200ms. You can deal with it but it's a thin line between slightly anoying and unplayable.
You don't need landing gear in orbit hell you don't need them above 50 feet so you could easly have 2 sets the "fuel tank empty we are back from orbit type" and the "we need to get off the runway type" which could fall off. Using a system like this much of the weight at takeoff need not go above 50 feet in the air which means the fuel costs are vary minimal.
No the first one's free. Let's say there are 10,000 nodes and you have 50 IP's.
First IP Lands on node A
2:B
3: C
4: D
5: E
Now you need 2 out of 45 to land on the same 1 in (2,000 / 5) = 400 nodes which much better. If your using a hash function where you put each new IP is random so any new IP can go anywhere even if they are realy close together. Anyway a 50 user bot net is TINY. Bot Net's are worth around.06c a PC.
I don't recall the formula for more than 2 out of a set off hand but with ~20 people you have a 50/50 chance for two of them to have the same birthday so bot net's a lot smaller than you might think could take over a network like this. And it's a 10% chance that at least two in 21 random numbers out of 2000 will land on the same number. (1/2000) + (2/2000) +...+ (20/2000)
As I said Kademlia would work well for say chess but People in a MMO network are a lot more mobile. The point of people loging on and off all the time is you need to know who (which servers) is part of what node which means you need to update lists for every node. You don't need to update the list more than once every few seconds but the longer the "login" the worse the system can preform.
If somone walks into a bar they need a lot of new state information sent to (N) severs from (N) servers the user then needs to connect to (N) servers and download state and map information about the world from them. The "point" of second life is each server can have a vary complex map which the user could cash but they need to get an update for a "lot" of world data if they are going to try and simulate that from the home pc. A "car" in second life is not a simple ID with location and speed information it's a complex data construct that has enough data to build the car from world components and script information to deside what it's going to look like and do. Walking into somones house could easly be a 30mb download if you where trying to simulate it.
I am not saying you can't build a MMO like this but you can't build something as complex as second life with a bunch of random PC's and expect it to work well. Hell you can't even use random IP because you can't build a node using modem users or people behind a nat which you can't tell from an IP address alone so you need some "test" nodes to work though the login process with each new user thus taking even longer.
I can define consciousness as "awareness of the environment", "having subjective experience", or whatever,
No you can't you can only define things by their properties. The point of my HS algibra was if you can't difrentiate between things then they are the same. Consciousness was defined long before we had any idea how the brain worked so anything else meets that definitiion IS a Consciousness.
but that isn't sufficient to establish that the subjective elements of that awareness can themselves be defined.
They don't need to be. If you can't define somehting then it has no meaning. If you say "love" is subjective well aka you can't define it then it has no meaning. The same with any definition that is totaly subjective. Things only have meaning when they can be comunicated.
Wittgenstein was full of shit. If their was something in a box that can't be opened it can still be defined. "It's the part of the box that makes a sound when I shake it." If their was a box with something in it that had no effect on the outside world then it has no meaning. Saying 2 gold bars are difrent because one of them has a FNK in it has no meaning if the FNK does nothing and can't be detected. I can define things that you have not seen though language. A proton is...
A Philosoper can say something but chances are his words have no meaning. That's my point as soon as you stop being able to define something then talking about it has no meaning.
Most of the work done on GPL software is done by people paid to do so. So saying the value of programming time is 0 is silly somone is playing for most of this development work. Anyway, I have done work on systems like this and the problem is the system needs to be real time and be able to send messages between system.
But let's say your right each node has 5 controwlers well you only need 3 to crack it which is way to low but now let's go to 10. Well if each of those nodes needs to be part of 5 nodes then they need to connect to 50 pc's and send real time data around which is a TUN of overhead and then your modeling 5 worlds with 10+ actors each... it get's bad fast. But what if 300 people show up to one node well how are you going to scale that? SPlit the node? that's going to be MASAVE lag for a several seconds for everybody on that network and it's going to have an arbritray zone line so people will not be able to gather in large groups if you split nodes off like that.
Add to that your checksums need to have all the data from all nodes (they are not going to agree on who did what when because of lost packets so you need to compare actions for 100's of players from 50 nodes...)
For non real time system like say poker I can see this but you need to send around 20 packets a second from each player and... it's just get's bad fast.
If there are 100,000 nodes each of which needs to get updates for the 1000 servers / players loging on or off the network each second your going to have major problems seting up a kademlia netowrk to do this type of varification. As far as your centrial server once you need to build say 10 of these things you need to have somone paying for them which means the network is under the controwl of 1 person or group who needs to be paid ect ect.
I can see a system like this working for poker or chess but not a game like 2nd life where players need to interact at a high level with a lot of data and are vary mobile.
PS: The point of the loging on off isue is even with the same IP you can start thrashing the network if somone logs onto a node then they change which node somone else is on which means they have to get a full game state update from every player...
PPS: Lot's of people don't have a public IP so only 1/2 of the players can act as servers which is going to make this even worse on the servers.
PPPS: You allso need some sort of global messaging system so any player can message any other player anywhere on the system.
I am not saying you can't build a system for a MMO like this but it's not going to be anywhere as nice as 2nd life.
There was an interesting AC post to my last comment that you might want to read but I think you do know what your talking about. The only real disagreements we seem to be having is your saying that a plane that takes 3x the pasangers will have less than 3x the drag and that there are people willing to pay for such services.
Looking at your above post you seem to say that 3.2 Lift-induced wave drag is going to overtake the others. However these components are not so easly modeled. I can't find good numbers for the Concorde so it's hard to say but once again these are all in terms of drag per person. The has been a "lot" of research into super sonic flight and the other point your missing is you can make aircraft that produce a less turbulance which also reduces drag. I don't have the numbers on hand but this does not change my argument at all 16% savings from the engines seems reasonable and 2% drop in weight per person is seems vary low (they might get that just from skiping the mobile nose section). I still think they can get 2% reduction in drag by building a modern airframe and increasing the size of the plane but it's not all that important and we don't have good numbers for this.
As to who is willing to pay for such things the top 1% of the US population has had had gotten much richer over time. The middle class has stayed about the same the lower class has fallen behind but the rich have been doing vary well for them selves. Now fuel costs vary a lot but over the last 20 years fuel costs have not gone up anywhere near as much as the net weath owned by the rich.
I am talking about 20-30% fuel savings per mile vs the Concorde. Yes, it will use ~4x what a sub sonic plane does but fuel is also cheeper now than it was in 1970. Yes, it's going up but the rich are geting richer a lot faster than fuel prices are goign up.
When you look at fuel costs per person mile large planes work better. There are many reasons for this. Even stuff as simple as having 1/3 of the cockpit weight per person is a large savings. Also they can skip the droped nose from the Concorde which will save them a lot of weight add in a few composits and I expect it's going to easly have 5% less drag.
I expect they can reuse a lot of the R&D from the Concorde. Add to that computer aided design and the R&D costs might not be as bad as most people think. You also devide the R&D costs by the number of planes so if they are going to build 50 of them the R&D per plane is going to be ~1/5 what the Concorde was facing. I expect with a longer range it will be a lot more usefull so 50 seems like a reasonable target to me.
PS: Wing drag is based on weight (heavyer objects need more wing) but the body needs to move the same amount of air out of it's path if it's 100' long or 300' long. The wings on a 747 are huge and produce a lot of drag but the "body" provides drag independent of the weight.
Let's say their are 200 regions in the game each of which have 10 controwl nodes. Well if you don't have a central system for who get's what nodes then you can have 6 IP's log on and off till they become part of the same node. AKA IP 1 and 2 get node C, IP's 3-6 keep loging on and off till each of them become part of node C. Clearly this is faster with more IP's but with a good block of say 30 IP's there is no way to stop this. And it's not hard to get 30 IP's from say a collage network late at night.
Your also going to get into span of controwl isues as each node is going to be limited in size as each of it's PC's need to do all of the same math or the voting system does not work. So node sizes over 4 or 5 is going to start pushing what you can do. Also with a truly distributed system you are going to have probelms with when to create a new node. It's going to be hard to keep 10IP's from faking being a node.
Can this be done well shure but when each programer buys you 20 servers so it stops being worth it to optomise and it's just time to buy some bandwith. In bulk it's down to like 30c a gig.
There is no point in sending people to space without a fusion reactor. It just costs way to much to go to to other planets right now so it's not worth it. We don't know who to build a self sustaning habitat on earth now let alone one that can build replacement part's for everything it needs from moon dust.
Want to servive the next 10million years? Why not build 200 self contained habitats all over the globe (under the ocean ect). It would he a LOT more effecent than going to the moon and they (most of them) would be easly capable of serviving a 20km comet droped from the sky. Now I don't know the teck we will have in 100 years but 10,000,000! no clue.
Fire Fox is free and not tied with MS so if the felt the "need" they could bundel that at 0 cost to them and thus 0 cost to me vs including a copy of IE which they and thus I am paying for.
Ditto for the ADSL modem/Router they can bundel a copy of Fire Fox at 0 cost to them or me or skip over the port 80 based setup system.
Not all R&D is specific to a project. The is a lot of value in being the company that makes the "latest and greatest teck" even though most video cards are not the top of the line NVIDIA is willing to spend a tun of money to be able to say "we build the fastest cards."
Second, if the Concorde was only operating at a profit decades after starting service, then that's hopeless. It started making a profit because somone else started running the program. They simply doubled the price and people kept using the thing which is all about the users not a built in need to wait x years to turn a profet.
The drag on a plane is a function of how much lift it produces. Drag is a function of altitude, speed, shape, and weight. Geting a 16% savings from the engine and 2% from a better shape and 2% from a reduced weight would let them reach ~20% overall savings. Then again they are trying to go faster so their is going to be some loss but they are also going to be flying higher which helps some. 30% fuel savings seems a little extream but a 'LOT' of the drag has to do with pushing to body of the craft though the air (not the wings) which is going to be helped a lot by building a longer craft that holds more people. Hell they are geting some savings just from having 2 or 3 pilots for 300 people vs 2 or 3 pilots for 100 people.
They are also going to be able to keep a much more stable pasanger list. It will cost them about as much to send 150 people as it would to send 300 but they can be less conservitve with their pricing to try and fill 150 seats vs 50. AKA you can be more accurate when hiting a larger target.
The largest probelms with the Concorde where it's range, the limited number of airports it could use, and the mis management of initial pricing some or all of which could be fixed with this project.
There is an old idea in manufacturing "some people will pay 10x as much for a part if they can keep using it." If somone stops making some a 10c part for your tractor it's easly worth 10$ to you for somone else to make one. Ditto for the rich people who would use the Concorde most of them had no idea what it cost they had somone else taking care of those details.
Most users don't have 300k upload bandwith. Now let's say you have a "local" system that has 4 people on it well each of them needs 300k download now if the seeder had 256k upload bandwith it's not going to work. Now let's say they have 512k upload bandwith well all 4 users need that so they each need 512k upload and then they are going to get lag as each person would need to download from the others as well. Then again if you walk to some other property then you need to provide your "share" of that bandwith so basicly to use a 300k download system they need to have 600+Kbps of upload bandwith.
Now if they drop the bandwith down to say 30Kbps then they could have a P2P system but the whole point is they can have a secure system where people can't cheet. So they need to have central servers.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, I don't have mod points but that's vary insightful. Robots do compete with the cost of available labor so an increase in automation for most of these unskilled jobs would reduce the flow of immigrants. The is a lot of research into automating things like picking fruit which might start to reduce the tide of immigration but because their labor is so cheep it's their is less innovation which is feeding back to keep the flow of immigrants open.
I guess that most hotels don't have automated carpet cleaners because of the abundance of cheep labor. So you can probably apply this to most of the labor work done by immigrant labor as well.
That's like saying "I don't know if OJ killed his wife so I don't know if people kill other people in the US."
You can watch evolution just as you can watch people kill other people. The debate around a specific case of murder, history, or evolution does not change the fact that people kill people, things happened in the past, and things evolve.
Now in 100,000 years I don't think anyone will be able to name my grandfather but even though he is dead I still talked with him and I know he existed. At some point people might doubt 'POE' but someone still wrote The Raven.
My point still stands fewer people pay for real UNIX systems out there.
I don't need to work for Oracle they are laying developers off thus saturating the market thus hurting me.
MS might be doing "fine" but Open Office is close do cutting off a source of revenue just as Apache did.
People willing to pay for PS are not going to be using GIMP but they have more pieces of graphic software than just PS and GIMP is cutting into that revenue.
I stopped buying Chess master after GNU chess showed up. Now sure they can fire some developers now that GNU chess is open to all but that's my point it's hurting US.
Sorry but those who don't have their "fuck you" money are being hurt by Open Source software. It's not the end of the world, but people only need so much software the more that's "free" the less people are willing to pay for and thus the less money that goes to us developers.
PS: IE is only really a complex issued because it's free anyway so I should have left that one alone.
I say use a few large mirrors and cut it up with sunlight. It might take a while to cool off but if you set things up right you can move the thing into earth orbit while cutting it to peaces and avoid using any rocket fuel to move the thing. The only real question is do we want to just cut up a lot of them or use some sort of forge to create a large habitat with.
What's your point lots of open source projects hirt closed software people.
Open BSD and Linux vs Solaris
FireFox vs IE
Oracle vs MySQl
OpenOffice vs MS Word
GIMP vs adobe Adobe Illustrator ect Apachie vs what where those others called again?
Gnu Chess vs. Chessmaster
And let's not forget shareware. Lot's of people "dared" to request some cash for their work to have somone deside to do the same thing and GPL it.
Open source software has hirt a lot of people and companies but hey you got to support the cause right.
Umm there is zero debate about the existence of evolution by scientists. There are minor disagreements about the specifics, but even the "intelligent design people" agree that mutation and natural selection exist. Sure some people have there little pocket theory's about how closely related birds and dino's really are but there is no question that things evolve.
The best comparison is with history nobody questions the fact that Edgar Allen Poe was alive at some point they just debate what diseases he had.
Umm, we don't have nationwide coverage in the US or any other country that let "open markets" build their wireless networks.
So are you suggesting they use government contractors to build it for them or go with out because from what I can tell those where their options.
I hate to break this to you but it's more expensive to build using private contractors than government workers most of the time. The advantage to small companies is they tend to explore their options and try and make the system more efferent over time but for one-time projects like these they are not efferent. Either they all build overlapping towers and cause waste or you have each of them lease space from each other which creates a billing nightmare and more waste.
PS: Some people think it would have been cheaper to build the hover dam with thousands of small companies each competing for the same work. I can only assume they have been brainwashed.
I guess you are tying to paraphrase me with "If you can't define something it has no meaning." But clearly you did not understand what I said if you think I was ever talking about a specific object rather than the term for an object or idea. If your going to quote me then fine do so nitpicking something I did not say just makes you look foolish.
If you don't know what the "properties" of consciousness are then your talking about consciousness has no meaning. If you say consciousness is the ability to react to and model outside stimulus. Then clearly a rat or thermostat would have such a thing. But as such a definition would not fit your worldview you chose to provide a meaningless definition. The problem is your falling under the mistaken assumption that you can use some ill-defined method to separate humanity from machines, plants, or rat's and have a meaningful discourse. But when you leave something undefined your words lack meaning so you end up spouting gibberish and thinking your having an intelligent discussion.
I am not saying "if you can't define something it can't exist" but rather if you can't define a term with an observable interaction then it's meaningless to use that term. If anything in the world could "smell" rocks so that you could tell blocks apart that where identical in every other way then you can have some meaningful term that separates them but if they are truly identical then saying one is say smarter than the other is as meaningful as any other term you can come up with to separate them.
Wittgenstein failed to understand that you can share experiences like "happy" in a meaningful way even though you might not be able to look inside someone else's brain. As it turns out "happy" stands for a few chemical states that most brains can experience but you can define it by how it shapes your thoughts an thus use the term even if you can't describe it any other way. It might seem subjective but you can give an objective definition just fine. A loose but reasonably objective definition of happy is "a state where there is no perceived imminent threats causing a relaxation to conserve resources and prepare for more stressful conditions."
If I where able to see infra red and nobody else could I could still describe it as a color. If everyone else can only see black and white I can describe the colors of object as a more shades of gray between black and white. If every one but me was blind I could still describe sight as similar to smell in that it works at a distance and let's me tell what something is but it's also light touch in that I can easily tell where things are. I need light to carry this information in the same way you need the wind to carry smells.
What I can't do is describe something that is totally subjective. If races where talking to each other how could you tell them what was you right hand and what was your left? I can show someone an objective definiton of what is the right/left hand, but without an example it's a meaningless definition.
Go to www.answers.com and look up left try to use that to tell someone what side it is. AKA: My race has a blue side and a red side, which corresponds to your left? What are you going to say other than "I don't know pick one and if we ever send you something then we will mare what side is left."
It's one of those surface area to volume things.
The human lungs have the surface area of a tennis court and fit inside the body. The idea is the human brain needs to fold so it can have a large surface area and fit inside a small skull.
As for cost, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. You believe that there is a market for high-speed flights that cost several times more than regular flights. I do not.
How many customers have travelled on Concorde?
More than 2.5 million since it started commercial passenger services in 1976. *
I never said that the Concorde program was a success. However I feel a 20+% more efferent plane with a longer range could be vary successful. A new project needs to keep R&D costs low but "British Airways reportedly received £1.75 Billion in revenue for Concorde services against an operating cost of around £1 Billion." which is not bad for a single market and with more markets you end up with a lower R&D cost per flight. Air France made a much smaller profit, but only 14 entered airline service so a program that creates 50 Jet's with lower operating costs seems like a good idea to me.
It's going to be vary risky, but there is value in large projects like these. Once you become the only company that can make such a product you get to feed off of that market for a long time. You look at it as an open market where your competition sees a viable competitor, which prevents most competition yet governments see plenty of direct competition via normal Jet's so they are not going to try and break you up.
* http://www.concordesst.com/retire/faq_r.html
I still smell spin.
RIAA: "We want copyright protection!"
Development: "Hmm, this works on stupid people..."
Marketing: "We can spin that!"
And that's how we get a new useless product.
The crux of it is, you CAN'T define space in terms of any one reference.
.5c then every one of the ship's in each fleet would all agree that the other ship's where going at .5c that they all had Y mass ect. Relitivity means that fleet A can't say to fleet B look that star has a mass of X * 10^10 grams without fleet B saying not it's X * 1.3 * 10 ^ 10 grams.
.00000001 seconds it's still important.
No, you can define space time in terms of ANY reference but you can't compare data from difrent references. If you had two fleets of ship's going past eachother at
The other point you seem to be forgeting is relitivity only realy shows up when you want to get extreamly accurate data or are dealing with reasonable fractions of C. The earth and the Sun are in slightly difrent frames of reference but the difrence is TINY. Saying the earth goes around the SUN because the SUN bends space time so that the earth's path is a straigt line is missing the fact that the "bends" in space time are TINY. Yes clocks on Pluto and Earth are not going to agree to the date over time but the diffrence in way to small for a human to notice. Hi my twin is 100 years old but HAHA I am 99.9999999 years old which is so important... err well he was born 7min after I was but still it's
PS: I can do the math and find out the real numbers on this stuff but you get my point.
Sorry nope.
Re:Holely Cheese (Score:1)
by Qzukk (229616) Alter Relationship on Friday June 17, @12:52AM (#12838873)
Actually, if you tried to do that, you'd probably get the drive to hit at least one sector that wasn't quite right, and it would begin remapping sectors. Once it starts remapping blocks on the drive, you've got no way of knowing that you've overwritten everything, since the naughty bits might end up mapped out of the visible part of the drive by the drive's firmware.
Umm, with your system 5 IP's got to 25 = 5IP's * 5Nodes/IP out of 10,000 nodes or one in 400 nodes. My point was 50ip's is at the low end but could still mount a reasonable attack on a 10,000 node system if they varified vs 5 nodes. That 5 was my N i said moving it to 10 would provide a lot more safty vs that type of attack. (You could get 50 ip's from a tiny guild with ease.) I then pointed out what was bad about this tradeoff.
With a voting system every time data went from each N (5) node branch to each N(5) node brach each sending node needs to send data to each receving node as you can't trust one sender to send the correct data or one recever to recive the correct data. It's just one of many problems with adding to the size of each node.
I can see how you could get 4 out of 5 people on the other side of a NAT to talk with somone who is not not but I don't see how you can get 2 people behind difrent NAT's to talk to eachother without somone to send messages between them unless you can point out some funky part of TCP/IP that I have never heard of that is still suported as part of the standard. You can send "fake" packets from some systems but that does not work from all systems and most ISP's should block that type of traffic.
If you can point out how to do this with say some java code cool. But you need something other than an odd UNIX hack to build a system off of.
B) When any node gets the login request, it saves its IP and port, and hashes the IP. It determines in which direction (or, if close enough, precisely where) the newcomer belongs. It sends this information back, along with the IP and port.
The loing on off trashing has nothing to do with finding the right node. It's finding nodes which cause a split. Voting sytems are great but they operate at N^2 network trafic so going from say 10 nodes to 11 nodes might force a split. As the new guy is in the middle you could add a lot off trafic at the end of a login and the average user might only be on for 1 hour so that's a lot of people loging on off each second. It's not an isue when your sending a few packets around but MMO's do need to send a 'lot" of data so this is going to start to be a good chunk of overall network trafic.
Anyway, the reason why I think most nodes need to know about other nodes is Say node A sent data to node B how can node B tell if node A is a real node? You might say the hashes need to be within 0.1% but that's a much larger target than trying to take over a node. You could have a central netork or node that can tell you who is where but that's going to get hit with a lot of trafic and add even more loading time.
Again with the NAT keepalive I can see how sending a UDP packet to say 11.11.11.11 let's you keep a port open and talk with one person but a good firewall should not let trafic connect back to you from that port unless it's from 11.11.11.11 From what I can tell about 50% of online users are behind a NAT so you can't just hope that nodes don't fill up with people behind a NAT and never have to talk with somone on the other side of a NAT.
D) I like how this is done and have no problems with it.
E) This needs to be fast 5 nodes needs to be kept as a hard minimum if nodes drop down to 3 it's going to be easy to crack them. So it becomes a speed isue if it takes 10 seconds to update a node then you need to keep node sizes to around 7 or lot's of nodes will drop into the range of 3.
F) No problem with this but once again it's a traffic isue. The more base data and computation per player that needs to take plase the worse things get FAST.
I hope you don't feel I was nit picking I am trying to say the network is going to get a LOT of traffic even of overhead. I have a public IP and 60KBps of upload bandwith but I don't see most users being able to say that. Another probelm is lag MMO's have problems with anything over 200ms. You can deal with it but it's a thin line between slightly anoying and unplayable.
You don't need landing gear in orbit hell you don't need them above 50 feet so you could easly have 2 sets the "fuel tank empty we are back from orbit type" and the "we need to get off the runway type" which could fall off. Using a system like this much of the weight at takeoff need not go above 50 feet in the air which means the fuel costs are vary minimal.
No the first one's free. Let's say there are 10,000 nodes and you have 50 IP's. :B .06c a PC.
...+ (20/2000)
First IP Lands on node A
2
3: C
4: D
5: E
Now you need 2 out of 45 to land on the same 1 in (2,000 / 5) = 400 nodes which much better. If your using a hash function where you put each new IP is random so any new IP can go anywhere even if they are realy close together. Anyway a 50 user bot net is TINY. Bot Net's are worth around
I don't recall the formula for more than 2 out of a set off hand but with ~20 people you have a 50/50 chance for two of them to have the same birthday so bot net's a lot smaller than you might think could take over a network like this. And it's a 10% chance that at least two in 21 random numbers out of 2000 will land on the same number. (1/2000) + (2/2000) +
As I said Kademlia would work well for say chess but People in a MMO network are a lot more mobile. The point of people loging on and off all the time is you need to know who (which servers) is part of what node which means you need to update lists for every node. You don't need to update the list more than once every few seconds but the longer the "login" the worse the system can preform.
If somone walks into a bar they need a lot of new state information sent to (N) severs from (N) servers the user then needs to connect to (N) servers and download state and map information about the world from them. The "point" of second life is each server can have a vary complex map which the user could cash but they need to get an update for a "lot" of world data if they are going to try and simulate that from the home pc. A "car" in second life is not a simple ID with location and speed information it's a complex data construct that has enough data to build the car from world components and script information to deside what it's going to look like and do. Walking into somones house could easly be a 30mb download if you where trying to simulate it.
I am not saying you can't build a MMO like this but you can't build something as complex as second life with a bunch of random PC's and expect it to work well. Hell you can't even use random IP because you can't build a node using modem users or people behind a nat which you can't tell from an IP address alone so you need some "test" nodes to work though the login process with each new user thus taking even longer.
I can define consciousness as "awareness of the environment", "having subjective experience", or whatever,
No you can't you can only define things by their properties. The point of my HS algibra was if you can't difrentiate between things then they are the same. Consciousness was defined long before we had any idea how the brain worked so anything else meets that definitiion IS a Consciousness. but that isn't sufficient to establish that the subjective elements of that awareness can themselves be defined.
They don't need to be. If you can't define somehting then it has no meaning. If you say "love" is subjective well aka you can't define it then it has no meaning. The same with any definition that is totaly subjective. Things only have meaning when they can be comunicated.
Wittgenstein was full of shit. If their was something in a box that can't be opened it can still be defined. "It's the part of the box that makes a sound when I shake it." If their was a box with something in it that had no effect on the outside world then it has no meaning. Saying 2 gold bars are difrent because one of them has a FNK in it has no meaning if the FNK does nothing and can't be detected. I can define things that you have not seen though language. A proton is...
A Philosoper can say something but chances are his words have no meaning. That's my point as soon as you stop being able to define something then talking about it has no meaning.
Most of the work done on GPL software is done by people paid to do so. So saying the value of programming time is 0 is silly somone is playing for most of this development work. Anyway, I have done work on systems like this and the problem is the system needs to be real time and be able to send messages between system.
... it get's bad fast. But what if 300 people show up to one node well how are you going to scale that? SPlit the node? that's going to be MASAVE lag for a several seconds for everybody on that network and it's going to have an arbritray zone line so people will not be able to gather in large groups if you split nodes off like that.
... it's just get's bad fast.
But let's say your right each node has 5 controwlers well you only need 3 to crack it which is way to low but now let's go to 10. Well if each of those nodes needs to be part of 5 nodes then they need to connect to 50 pc's and send real time data around which is a TUN of overhead and then your modeling 5 worlds with 10+ actors each
Add to that your checksums need to have all the data from all nodes (they are not going to agree on who did what when because of lost packets so you need to compare actions for 100's of players from 50 nodes...)
For non real time system like say poker I can see this but you need to send around 20 packets a second from each player and
If there are 100,000 nodes each of which needs to get updates for the 1000 servers / players loging on or off the network each second your going to have major problems seting up a kademlia netowrk to do this type of varification. As far as your centrial server once you need to build say 10 of these things you need to have somone paying for them which means the network is under the controwl of 1 person or group who needs to be paid ect ect.
I can see a system like this working for poker or chess but not a game like 2nd life where players need to interact at a high level with a lot of data and are vary mobile.
PS: The point of the loging on off isue is even with the same IP you can start thrashing the network if somone logs onto a node then they change which node somone else is on which means they have to get a full game state update from every player...
PPS: Lot's of people don't have a public IP so only 1/2 of the players can act as servers which is going to make this even worse on the servers.
PPPS: You allso need some sort of global messaging system so any player can message any other player anywhere on the system.
I am not saying you can't build a system for a MMO like this but it's not going to be anywhere as nice as 2nd life.
There was an interesting AC post to my last comment that you might want to read but I think you do know what your talking about. The only real disagreements we seem to be having is your saying that a plane that takes 3x the pasangers will have less than 3x the drag and that there are people willing to pay for such services.
w ealth.htm
h tml
Looking at your above post you seem to say that 3.2 Lift-induced wave drag is going to overtake the others. However these components are not so easly modeled. I can't find good numbers for the Concorde so it's hard to say but once again these are all in terms of drag per person. The has been a "lot" of research into super sonic flight and the other point your missing is you can make aircraft that produce a less turbulance which also reduces drag. I don't have the numbers on hand but this does not change my argument at all 16% savings from the engines seems reasonable and 2% drop in weight per person is seems vary low (they might get that just from skiping the mobile nose section). I still think they can get 2% reduction in drag by building a modern airframe and increasing the size of the plane but it's not all that important and we don't have good numbers for this.
As to who is willing to pay for such things the top 1% of the US population has had had gotten much richer over time. The middle class has stayed about the same the lower class has fallen behind but the rich have been doing vary well for them selves. Now fuel costs vary a lot but over the last 20 years fuel costs have not gone up anywhere near as much as the net weath owned by the rich.
If don't want to dig though the US gov's numbers check out.
http://www.inplainsight.info/Topics/Tax%20Reform/
PS: Yes the math is complex. After reading much of this think I know less than when I started...
http://www.desktopaero.com/appliedaero/indexpage.
I am talking about 20-30% fuel savings per mile vs the Concorde. Yes, it will use ~4x what a sub sonic plane does but fuel is also cheeper now than it was in 1970. Yes, it's going up but the rich are geting richer a lot faster than fuel prices are goign up.
When you look at fuel costs per person mile large planes work better. There are many reasons for this. Even stuff as simple as having 1/3 of the cockpit weight per person is a large savings. Also they can skip the droped nose from the Concorde which will save them a lot of weight add in a few composits and I expect it's going to easly have 5% less drag.
I expect they can reuse a lot of the R&D from the Concorde. Add to that computer aided design and the R&D costs might not be as bad as most people think. You also devide the R&D costs by the number of planes so if they are going to build 50 of them the R&D per plane is going to be ~1/5 what the Concorde was facing. I expect with a longer range it will be a lot more usefull so 50 seems like a reasonable target to me.
PS: Wing drag is based on weight (heavyer objects need more wing) but the body needs to move the same amount of air out of it's path if it's 100' long or 300' long. The wings on a 747 are huge and produce a lot of drag but the "body" provides drag independent of the weight.
Let's say their are 200 regions in the game each of which have 10 controwl nodes. Well if you don't have a central system for who get's what nodes then you can have 6 IP's log on and off till they become part of the same node. AKA IP 1 and 2 get node C, IP's 3-6 keep loging on and off till each of them become part of node C. Clearly this is faster with more IP's but with a good block of say 30 IP's there is no way to stop this. And it's not hard to get 30 IP's from say a collage network late at night.
Your also going to get into span of controwl isues as each node is going to be limited in size as each of it's PC's need to do all of the same math or the voting system does not work. So node sizes over 4 or 5 is going to start pushing what you can do. Also with a truly distributed system you are going to have probelms with when to create a new node. It's going to be hard to keep 10IP's from faking being a node.
Can this be done well shure but when each programer buys you 20 servers so it stops being worth it to optomise and it's just time to buy some bandwith. In bulk it's down to like 30c a gig.
There is no point in sending people to space without a fusion reactor. It just costs way to much to go to to other planets right now so it's not worth it. We don't know who to build a self sustaning habitat on earth now let alone one that can build replacement part's for everything it needs from moon dust.
Want to servive the next 10million years? Why not build 200 self contained habitats all over the globe (under the ocean ect). It would he a LOT more effecent than going to the moon and they (most of them) would be easly capable of serviving a 20km comet droped from the sky. Now I don't know the teck we will have in 100 years but 10,000,000! no clue.
Fire Fox is free and not tied with MS so if the felt the "need" they could bundel that at 0 cost to them and thus 0 cost to me vs including a copy of IE which they and thus I am paying for.
Ditto for the ADSL modem/Router they can bundel a copy of Fire Fox at 0 cost to them or me or skip over the port 80 based setup system.
Not all R&D is specific to a project. The is a lot of value in being the company that makes the "latest and greatest teck" even though most video cards are not the top of the line NVIDIA is willing to spend a tun of money to be able to say "we build the fastest cards."
Second, if the Concorde was only operating at a profit decades after starting service, then that's hopeless.
It started making a profit because somone else started running the program. They simply doubled the price and people kept using the thing which is all about the users not a built in need to wait x years to turn a profet.
The drag on a plane is a function of how much lift it produces.
Drag is a function of altitude, speed, shape, and weight. Geting a 16% savings from the engine and 2% from a better shape and 2% from a reduced weight would let them reach ~20% overall savings. Then again they are trying to go faster so their is going to be some loss but they are also going to be flying higher which helps some. 30% fuel savings seems a little extream but a 'LOT' of the drag has to do with pushing to body of the craft though the air (not the wings) which is going to be helped a lot by building a longer craft that holds more people. Hell they are geting some savings just from having 2 or 3 pilots for 300 people vs 2 or 3 pilots for 100 people.
They are also going to be able to keep a much more stable pasanger list. It will cost them about as much to send 150 people as it would to send 300 but they can be less conservitve with their pricing to try and fill 150 seats vs 50. AKA you can be more accurate when hiting a larger target.
The largest probelms with the Concorde where it's range, the limited number of airports it could use, and the mis management of initial pricing some or all of which could be fixed with this project.
There is an old idea in manufacturing "some people will pay 10x as much for a part if they can keep using it." If somone stops making some a 10c part for your tractor it's easly worth 10$ to you for somone else to make one. Ditto for the rich people who would use the Concorde most of them had no idea what it cost they had somone else taking care of those details.
Most users don't have 300k upload bandwith. Now let's say you have a "local" system that has 4 people on it well each of them needs 300k download now if the seeder had 256k upload bandwith it's not going to work. Now let's say they have 512k upload bandwith well all 4 users need that so they each need 512k upload and then they are going to get lag as each person would need to download from the others as well. Then again if you walk to some other property then you need to provide your "share" of that bandwith so basicly to use a 300k download system they need to have 600+Kbps of upload bandwith.
Now if they drop the bandwith down to say 30Kbps then they could have a P2P system but the whole point is they can have a secure system where people can't cheet. So they need to have central servers.