I know this was in jest, but in this case, unlike so many other times this joke is made, it's slightly relevant. A quick Google turned up the following incomplete info http://www.quora.com/Library-of-Congress/How-much-data-does-the-library-of-congress-actually-represent which states tape storage capacity of the Library of Congress circa 2011 at 4.5 petabytes. The answer, then, is the this is approximately ~2 Library of Congresses of data, which is just a tad bit much to fit in the trunk of your car. It's going to take a few trips to the Library and back to move that data around.
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - the most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never go against the Swiss when watches are on the line!" Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
You forget the most important thing in any business regardless of sector: customers.
Give them what they want (regardless of how silly or selfish the demand) or they will go elsewhere.
With digital content there is another factor to consider. If I feel slighted by a company that I give money to, why would I give them any more when any torrent site can give me a better product, faster, and for free?
Seems that you are the one with the entitlement issues. Customers don't owe you a salary, they don't owe you anything. It is up to you to prove that you are worthy of your salary by making the customer feel good about giving it to you.
Wow...You're complaining about entitlement issues? You're the one advocating stealing a company's product because you feel slighted by them trying to cover the ever-increasing costs of making all that content for their customers. And you wonder why companies are resorting to horrible DRM and day-1 DLC? Just look in the mirror for the real reason companies are reacting this way.
Considering a number of other examples are quite similar to these particular events, I find mass hysteria to be not only plausible, but a likely explanation, in my not-so-expert opinion. All it takes is a number of closely-interacting people (especially young girls) under stress (the region certainly provides plenty of fearful catalysts) and a trigger (simple normal sickness will do) and you've got an "outbreak."
You're right, this isn't hacking. A real hacker would make all the traffic lights spell "L-o-n-d-o-n-2-0-1-2" in binary lights along every street for some extra subliminal persuasion of the committee and might leave the traffic control system with a better-tuned congestion-control based on Nagle 's algorithm.
As opposed to an Anonymous "hacker," who would just execute a denial-of-service attack on the traffic lights along the committee's route by re-routing a bunch of extra traffic to cause extra congestion and thereby accomplishing no substantial change from normal.
Yes, I just went to the true heart of any Slashdot article: what a "real" hacker is.
You forgot to warn everyone about the windows clock! It talks to a Microsoft server without ever telling you. Your right to private timekeeping is being grossly violated by this so-called "feature." Microsoft will never admit it, but they're secretly keeping logs of all your time drifts so that they can sell--"personalize"--your data to everyone. To protect your privacy, delete your clock and replace it with the secure Rolex Timekeeper. Rolex's privacy policy explicitly says that they will NEVER give your current local time to anyone, and best of all, you can examine the Rolex internals yourself and verify that it's security and that it NEVER talks to Microsoft. Best of all, Rolex does not need monthly updates like Microsoft's products, so you can be assured that even if Rolex ceases support, your Rolex Timekeeping device will continue to function securely and reliably.
Remember folks, when it comes to privacy, trust Rolex, not Microsoft!
Am I missing something? Because from the little about this I know, if the government wants whatever Wired may or may not have, there's a handy legal device called a subpoena. Wired isn't required by any law to publish any information about anything, and the government can obtain that evidence if it so desires. It just seems like a lot of jumping to conclusions just because some journalist says "No Comment." Sure, not publishing means something may be hidden, but it's not like they're out of line by withholding information from your curious eyes. Condemn them all you want based on your conspiracy theories, but don't condemn them for exercising their rights as free press, citizens, etc. in deciding what they will or will not publish.
As much as I agree with the sentiment, these companies are also publicly traded and have obligations to shareholders in. They're just playing smart by choosing the lowest cost areas to place offices. Yes, it would be nice if they'd all just sit and pay increased taxes, but if there's ever a good place to open shop, you can be sure they'll all jump ship without a second thought. So it then becomes a question: does the economic impact of the company in the area mean more than the taxes? Often times, it does...
I agree, don't embed these things. If they're separate, they can power multiple devices, thus bringing the overall cost down (needs less power gen devices per consumption devices). For example, the merry-go-round power generators that I heard about some people installing a couple years ago is a brilliant idea that can power quite a bit for cheap.
While the engine is running though? Show me someplace that gets 260F for that high end. It's talking engine temperature, which will likely stop working at low enough temperatures regardless of cpu when things actually do freeze...And when the engine is working, will keep warm enough to run properly anyway.
Yeah, I fully agree with you here. I don't buy DLC's except on the games that I enjoyed the most. In those cases, I want more, and the DLC provides. In other games I don't enjoy or play as much? Never bought a DLC. Just no interest. Been there, done that. DLC gives the gamer the choice of that extra content, and not, as you indicated, being a blocker in the production cycle.
1) Name a AAA title that has released on-disk content as a DLC after release that has negatively impacted the game without purchasing the DLC. If content wasn't missed, how can you say the game "incomplete?"
2) Name an overpriced DLC you were required to purchase in order to enjoy a game. If it's too expensive, don't buy. If it's worth it to you, buy it.
3) Again, name a DLC that is a remake of other content that was required to purchase to enjoy the game. Same thing as above.
Now, if games start having their primary content locked unless you pay for additional DLCs, sure, there's a huge problem. But these other problems? Stop whining. Games are a product with really, really big teams that work long hours to get a game in your hands. Game devs want nothing more than to deliver bigger, better games to you, and DLCs allow them to jumpstart additional content easily, and to respond to market demand efficiently. In addition, game devs can deliver content that was not entirely ready at ship, which would otherwise be cut. Everybody wins with DLCs...unless you demand all that work for free or want less game content overall. You're getting more options in choosing how much you pay for your game content...In any other industry but gaming, consumers would be rejoicing. (And no, it's not some scheme to milk out more money than in the past...There is just literally more work going into making modern games than there was even just a couple years ago, and the trend keeps going up. DLC allows some of the breadth of that content--like, say, additional, optional maps--to be in the game without breaking the bank, period.)
Well, so far we've found a lot of very large gas giants, so I'm not sure on the accuracy of that 1.5% figure...Admittedly, most of the ones we've found are larger than Jupiter, but if there's 25% earth-size, well...seems like a pretty big probability gap between the 2 extremes, no?
But yes, I think the point is valid that just having an earth-size planet doesn't make it habitable. There's MANY factors contributing to it, such as other planets in system, moons, star age&type, debris in system, etc. I don't think we know enough about the odds yet of these other factors to really figure out good odds of finding human-favorable planets.
Luckily, we've only got a 144 more years until Commander Shepard is born. He/she will take care of that pesky Reaper problem, so we all we gotta do now is work on settling Mars so we can find those advanced technological ruins there...
The "proof" leaves a lot to be desired, but there ARE proofs that involve limits that do work much better. In that sense, in both the real and abstract world, yes, 0.999...=1. And no, there's never a 0.000...09 left over because then the number wouldn't be infinite in the first place. There's no "end" or "left over" to an infinite number.:)
Other reply has the right point here. 1/3 is a problem only because of base 10. If you switch bases, it's not so bad. 1/3 is bad, sure, but you're going to get a loss of precision anyway on an infinite sequence, so it's expected. It's the fact that, in base 2 with limited precision, 0.1 (as in the finite, rational 1/10), can NOT be accurately represented. It's gotcha thing that'll nail people all the time
Yes, you CAN multiply 0.3333.... by 3 and get 0.99999.... Your little O(1), which is a sequence of 3s, also gets multiplied by 3, which is also a sequence of 9s...Go to infinite sequence math, it'll become clearer.
And you can multiple 0.3333... by 3 and get 1. (That one's easy to see, 0.333... = 1/3).
An infinite sequence multiplied by a number is still an infinite sequence. If you lost digits (or if you gained digits!) it would, by definition, not be infinite to begin with. Your logic is coincidently taking only a finite number of digits from infinite sequence, whereas the article retains the infinite sequence, as it should.
It's entirely possible to subtract an irrational number (like say, an infinite series of digits after a decimal?). If it weren't so, the number PI wouldn't be so useful...
For instance, 9.99999.... ad infinitum minus 0.9999... ad infinitum does equal 9. There's no lopping going off. Just a subtraction of an irrational number by another irrational number that happens to equal a rational number. For instance, PI - (PI - 3) = 3. Yes, that's 2 irrational numbers (PI-3 being one of them) equaling a rational number.
I don't see any fallacy as its simple and correct algebra, but I do agree that the limit proof is a much better one, since it gets to the heart of WHY rather than a manipulation which leaves people thinking they've been duped.
You're making infinity into finite by saying that you can't "pull an extra 9 off the right side of infinity." By definition, there IS no "right side" of the number. It's infinite. You could multiply an 0.9999... by 10 and INFINITE number of times and it would still have an infinite number of 9s after the decimal and NO zeros whatsoever.
Article is talking of an infinite number of 9s after the decimal, which indeed does equal 1. You're correct that a limited number of 9s after a decimal does NOT equal 1.
Slashdot Mirror
I know this was in jest, but in this case, unlike so many other times this joke is made, it's slightly relevant. A quick Google turned up the following incomplete info http://www.quora.com/Library-of-Congress/How-much-data-does-the-library-of-congress-actually-represent which states tape storage capacity of the Library of Congress circa 2011 at 4.5 petabytes. The answer, then, is the this is approximately ~2 Library of Congresses of data, which is just a tad bit much to fit in the trunk of your car. It's going to take a few trips to the Library and back to move that data around.
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - the most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never go against the Swiss when watches are on the line!" Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
You forget the most important thing in any business regardless of sector: customers.
Give them what they want (regardless of how silly or selfish the demand) or they will go elsewhere.
With digital content there is another factor to consider. If I feel slighted by a company that I give money to, why would I give them any more when any torrent site can give me a better product, faster, and for free?
Seems that you are the one with the entitlement issues. Customers don't owe you a salary, they don't owe you anything. It is up to you to prove that you are worthy of your salary by making the customer feel good about giving it to you.
Wow...You're complaining about entitlement issues? You're the one advocating stealing a company's product because you feel slighted by them trying to cover the ever-increasing costs of making all that content for their customers. And you wonder why companies are resorting to horrible DRM and day-1 DLC? Just look in the mirror for the real reason companies are reacting this way.
Considering a number of other examples are quite similar to these particular events, I find mass hysteria to be not only plausible, but a likely explanation, in my not-so-expert opinion. All it takes is a number of closely-interacting people (especially young girls) under stress (the region certainly provides plenty of fearful catalysts) and a trigger (simple normal sickness will do) and you've got an "outbreak."
Those of you, like me, who use iGoogle and are mad that Google's dropping it with no good alternative, please voice your complaints on their product forums and raise the volume a bit: http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/websearch/3SDRsOMBonA/discussion
You're right, this isn't hacking. A real hacker would make all the traffic lights spell "L-o-n-d-o-n-2-0-1-2" in binary lights along every street for some extra subliminal persuasion of the committee and might leave the traffic control system with a better-tuned congestion-control based on Nagle 's algorithm.
As opposed to an Anonymous "hacker," who would just execute a denial-of-service attack on the traffic lights along the committee's route by re-routing a bunch of extra traffic to cause extra congestion and thereby accomplishing no substantial change from normal.
Yes, I just went to the true heart of any Slashdot article: what a "real" hacker is.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
You forgot to warn everyone about the windows clock! It talks to a Microsoft server without ever telling you. Your right to private timekeeping is being grossly violated by this so-called "feature." Microsoft will never admit it, but they're secretly keeping logs of all your time drifts so that they can sell--"personalize"--your data to everyone. To protect your privacy, delete your clock and replace it with the secure Rolex Timekeeper. Rolex's privacy policy explicitly says that they will NEVER give your current local time to anyone, and best of all, you can examine the Rolex internals yourself and verify that it's security and that it NEVER talks to Microsoft. Best of all, Rolex does not need monthly updates like Microsoft's products, so you can be assured that even if Rolex ceases support, your Rolex Timekeeping device will continue to function securely and reliably. Remember folks, when it comes to privacy, trust Rolex, not Microsoft!
FYI, NWN2 was not made by BioWare, but by Obsidian...
Am I missing something? Because from the little about this I know, if the government wants whatever Wired may or may not have, there's a handy legal device called a subpoena. Wired isn't required by any law to publish any information about anything, and the government can obtain that evidence if it so desires. It just seems like a lot of jumping to conclusions just because some journalist says "No Comment." Sure, not publishing means something may be hidden, but it's not like they're out of line by withholding information from your curious eyes. Condemn them all you want based on your conspiracy theories, but don't condemn them for exercising their rights as free press, citizens, etc. in deciding what they will or will not publish.
As much as I agree with the sentiment, these companies are also publicly traded and have obligations to shareholders in. They're just playing smart by choosing the lowest cost areas to place offices. Yes, it would be nice if they'd all just sit and pay increased taxes, but if there's ever a good place to open shop, you can be sure they'll all jump ship without a second thought. So it then becomes a question: does the economic impact of the company in the area mean more than the taxes? Often times, it does...
I agree, don't embed these things. If they're separate, they can power multiple devices, thus bringing the overall cost down (needs less power gen devices per consumption devices). For example, the merry-go-round power generators that I heard about some people installing a couple years ago is a brilliant idea that can power quite a bit for cheap.
While the engine is running though? Show me someplace that gets 260F for that high end. It's talking engine temperature, which will likely stop working at low enough temperatures regardless of cpu when things actually do freeze...And when the engine is working, will keep warm enough to run properly anyway.
Yeah, I fully agree with you here. I don't buy DLC's except on the games that I enjoyed the most. In those cases, I want more, and the DLC provides. In other games I don't enjoy or play as much? Never bought a DLC. Just no interest. Been there, done that. DLC gives the gamer the choice of that extra content, and not, as you indicated, being a blocker in the production cycle.
Now, if games start having their primary content locked unless you pay for additional DLCs, sure, there's a huge problem. But these other problems? Stop whining. Games are a product with really, really big teams that work long hours to get a game in your hands. Game devs want nothing more than to deliver bigger, better games to you, and DLCs allow them to jumpstart additional content easily, and to respond to market demand efficiently. In addition, game devs can deliver content that was not entirely ready at ship, which would otherwise be cut. Everybody wins with DLCs...unless you demand all that work for free or want less game content overall. You're getting more options in choosing how much you pay for your game content...In any other industry but gaming, consumers would be rejoicing. (And no, it's not some scheme to milk out more money than in the past...There is just literally more work going into making modern games than there was even just a couple years ago, and the trend keeps going up. DLC allows some of the breadth of that content--like, say, additional, optional maps--to be in the game without breaking the bank, period.)
Well, so far we've found a lot of very large gas giants, so I'm not sure on the accuracy of that 1.5% figure...Admittedly, most of the ones we've found are larger than Jupiter, but if there's 25% earth-size, well...seems like a pretty big probability gap between the 2 extremes, no? But yes, I think the point is valid that just having an earth-size planet doesn't make it habitable. There's MANY factors contributing to it, such as other planets in system, moons, star age&type, debris in system, etc. I don't think we know enough about the odds yet of these other factors to really figure out good odds of finding human-favorable planets.
Luckily, we've only got a 144 more years until Commander Shepard is born. He/she will take care of that pesky Reaper problem, so we all we gotta do now is work on settling Mars so we can find those advanced technological ruins there...
The "proof" leaves a lot to be desired, but there ARE proofs that involve limits that do work much better. In that sense, in both the real and abstract world, yes, 0.999...=1. And no, there's never a 0.000...09 left over because then the number wouldn't be infinite in the first place. There's no "end" or "left over" to an infinite number. :)
Other reply has the right point here. 1/3 is a problem only because of base 10. If you switch bases, it's not so bad. 1/3 is bad, sure, but you're going to get a loss of precision anyway on an infinite sequence, so it's expected. It's the fact that, in base 2 with limited precision, 0.1 (as in the finite, rational 1/10), can NOT be accurately represented. It's gotcha thing that'll nail people all the time
Yes, you CAN multiply 0.3333.... by 3 and get 0.99999.... Your little O(1), which is a sequence of 3s, also gets multiplied by 3, which is also a sequence of 9s...Go to infinite sequence math, it'll become clearer. And you can multiple 0.3333... by 3 and get 1. (That one's easy to see, 0.333... = 1/3).
An infinite sequence multiplied by a number is still an infinite sequence. If you lost digits (or if you gained digits!) it would, by definition, not be infinite to begin with. Your logic is coincidently taking only a finite number of digits from infinite sequence, whereas the article retains the infinite sequence, as it should.
It's entirely possible to subtract an irrational number (like say, an infinite series of digits after a decimal?). If it weren't so, the number PI wouldn't be so useful... For instance, 9.99999.... ad infinitum minus 0.9999... ad infinitum does equal 9. There's no lopping going off. Just a subtraction of an irrational number by another irrational number that happens to equal a rational number. For instance, PI - (PI - 3) = 3. Yes, that's 2 irrational numbers (PI-3 being one of them) equaling a rational number.
I don't see any fallacy as its simple and correct algebra, but I do agree that the limit proof is a much better one, since it gets to the heart of WHY rather than a manipulation which leaves people thinking they've been duped.
You're making infinity into finite by saying that you can't "pull an extra 9 off the right side of infinity." By definition, there IS no "right side" of the number. It's infinite. You could multiply an 0.9999... by 10 and INFINITE number of times and it would still have an infinite number of 9s after the decimal and NO zeros whatsoever.
Article is talking of an infinite number of 9s after the decimal, which indeed does equal 1. You're correct that a limited number of 9s after a decimal does NOT equal 1.