Assuming large enough data sets, you could easily carry 10 Blu-Ray discs in that time though. That's now 830MB/second. Although now you'll need to consider time taken to burn said discs.
Alternatively, you might have a 2TB drive that you're walking across. 40x bigger, so your transfer is now at 3320MB/s, bug again, you'd need to account for the time taken to read/write the data at either end which will definitely slow things down.
In the end, given current network capabilities and hardware limits on reading/writing individual discs or hard drives, I'd still agree with you that networks are faster, but it's generally because of the additional time that it takes to read/write data.
Also, us lowly humans are treated as second-class citizens compared to the corporations.
I think that's the latest ideology/. has caught on to, isn't it?
The very article explains that it is hard to define "rogue-like" as anything except "similar to the game Rogue". I'm not sure what better description can be given, and if you want one linked, then TFA does actually go over what a Rogue-like game is.
Seems like you answered your own question. In "adventurer" mode it's rogue-like. In "fortress" mode it isn't.
Just like Portal 2 is "multiplayer" when doing co-op, and "single player" when doing the.. solo campaign. I don't see what's wrong with a game being "rogue-like" in one particular mode, especially when, like Dwarf Fortress, different modes of game play are so different.
Actually, Cornell run arxiv.org which for my area of research provides brilliant access. It's free to access, no signing up even required, and has made it much easier to keep up to date with recent developments.
It does give an interesting viewpoint, for me though. Most scientists (in academia, not corporate researchers) I know have, for years now, been freely giving access to their research away once they realised what they could do with the internet.
I agree, but I think the reason people do this, is that it makes ethical sense. The uploader is (usually)
Giving credit where credit is due
Not "trying to earn money" off other peoples work
Of course, our copyright laws are more stringent than this, in that technically giving away the work of someone else could deprive them of income, but I imagine that most people believe that the creators have already earned enough incentives, that the creators have already been encouraged to further the arts and sciences.
Technically speaking, it uses up a chunk of your hard drive, yes, but also makes commits way faster. The only two down-sides that I've found so far, working with git/hg/bzr, are the hard drive usage, and initial clones can take some time. I still hate going back to SVN where needed, simply because commits, and checking logs, aren't instantaneous.
Yes, some people did, and yes those people who did do such things deserve to get punished.
But by the very nature that anonymous works, there's no guarantee that the people involved in that issue were also the ones mentioned in this article. Yes, horrible things have been done under the guise of anonymous, but it's not always the same people every time.
I have no idea what they want, or don't want, but do you really expect them to officially come out and say "Yes, we do want to be able to shut off all communications between the citizens"? It sounds to me more like the sort of back room deal, where they just come out one day and say "Yes, we have the ability and we switched it off last night due to XYZ"
Even more accurately, you are a megaphone rental company that tells customers "no hate speech". One day someone walks in, rents a megaphone and starts promoting the burning of the Quran. You tell that person that this comes under hate speech, and stop handing out megaphones to that particular person.
If a contract says "no hate speech", then I definitely see the promotion of Quran burning as a valid excuse to terminate the contract and any services provided.
According to your link, some countries use terms like "the 1900s" to refer to anything between 1900 and 1999. As it says, this is equivalent to English-speakers using the term the "nineteen hundreds". It doesn't mention in any way how someone could refer to the year "1999" as being in the "19th century".
Rendering pages as the user wants I would say is preferable to rendering pages the way the website wants. After all, it's the users choice as to which browser to use.
What the GP mentioned in his, quote, and what you skipped, is the word "it". I feel in a similar manner to the GP, and it's not because they have started using lock-in, but because they (seemingly) used to be against lock-in and have reversed their stance on it.
You're oversimplifying it. It's trivial to add encryption to the protocol, which means you're going to be disassembling and debugging the code. Majority of those unlimited number of programmers drop off.
I'm purposefully not commenting on the second part of your comment, as I agree with you. Once the server is doing more than authentication or authorisation, the difficulty steps up fast.
However, if it's just an authentication/authorisation issue, it's not always that hard to beat. Somewhere in the code (or maybe in multiple places) there will be a bit that says something like "if notAbleToAuthorise() { goToMenu(); }". All it takes is to replace the call to "notAbleToAUthorise" to a function that just returns false. Or true. Or whatever. Usually people next argue that CRC checks will stop you from modifying the code. That means there's code that goes "if checksumFailed()..." and again, change the call.
I believe that as long as the game is "technically" playable without any DRM enabled, then the DRM will be able to be patched without too many hardships. I just can't fathom a situation where DRM will be unstoppable (even computationally-unstoppable via encryption), because the owner of the game has all the information they want.
I agree writing password to the disk is bad, but have you ever used CVS/SVN/etc. without stored passwords? You end up typing your password a thousand times a day, which is simply unusable.
I don't get why CVS/SVN/etc even should deal with security. They're source control/management systems. For public pull/fetch/get-only servers, no password is required. For situations where security, is required, set up SSH access, or some other secure access (and use an ssh keyagent if you don't like typing your password in heaps).
From your link "Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christians’ presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts." I don't have anything against creationism itself, but that site seems to be another site that tries to use the Bible, as justification for the Bible being "accurate". I don't believe that teaching anyone to "accept this bunch of pages as fact" without being able to test any of it yourself, is not a good way to teach. At least tell people "here is a way to independently verify these facts, and here is a list of people who have independently verified it"
I dunno, maybe I'm misreading TFA, but it seems to say that the "entire thing" is not open, that Google is not disclosing full source which is "part" of the reason for not including android code in the linux kernel. Another part seems to relate to no one being willing to "clean up" the code which has been released, and there are possibly other parts to it.
Running folding@home just grinds the same algorithms over and over. From TFA
The algorithm I used (Chudnovsky series evaluated using the binary splitting algorithm) is asymptotically slower than the Arithmetic-Geometric Mean algorithm used by Daisuke Takahashi, but it makes a more efficient use of the various CPU caches, so in practice it can be faster. Moreover, some mathematical tricks were used to speed up the binary splitting.
So he's found a difference in algorithm efficiency based on computer architecture, and also improved the algorithm.
You might think his results may be lesser than what folding@home gets, but I think his methods are more valuable, when compared against what would've been learnt by letting the computer run folding@home.
Slashdot Mirror
Assuming large enough data sets, you could easily carry 10 Blu-Ray discs in that time though. That's now 830MB/second. Although now you'll need to consider time taken to burn said discs. Alternatively, you might have a 2TB drive that you're walking across. 40x bigger, so your transfer is now at 3320MB/s, bug again, you'd need to account for the time taken to read/write the data at either end which will definitely slow things down. In the end, given current network capabilities and hardware limits on reading/writing individual discs or hard drives, I'd still agree with you that networks are faster, but it's generally because of the additional time that it takes to read/write data.
Update system first, then world. And don't forget revdep-rebuild if needed. And to update your config files in /etc. And yes, I run Gentoo too :)
Also, us lowly humans are treated as second-class citizens compared to the corporations. I think that's the latest ideology /. has caught on to, isn't it?
The very article explains that it is hard to define "rogue-like" as anything except "similar to the game Rogue". I'm not sure what better description can be given, and if you want one linked, then TFA does actually go over what a Rogue-like game is.
Seems like you answered your own question. In "adventurer" mode it's rogue-like. In "fortress" mode it isn't. Just like Portal 2 is "multiplayer" when doing co-op, and "single player" when doing the .. solo campaign. I don't see what's wrong with a game being "rogue-like" in one particular mode, especially when, like Dwarf Fortress, different modes of game play are so different.
Actually, Cornell run arxiv.org which for my area of research provides brilliant access. It's free to access, no signing up even required, and has made it much easier to keep up to date with recent developments. It does give an interesting viewpoint, for me though. Most scientists (in academia, not corporate researchers) I know have, for years now, been freely giving access to their research away once they realised what they could do with the internet.
Of course, our copyright laws are more stringent than this, in that technically giving away the work of someone else could deprive them of income, but I imagine that most people believe that the creators have already earned enough incentives, that the creators have already been encouraged to further the arts and sciences.
Technically speaking, it uses up a chunk of your hard drive, yes, but also makes commits way faster. The only two down-sides that I've found so far, working with git/hg/bzr, are the hard drive usage, and initial clones can take some time. I still hate going back to SVN where needed, simply because commits, and checking logs, aren't instantaneous.
Where's my upvote ... I mean mod points when I need them.
Yes, some people did, and yes those people who did do such things deserve to get punished. But by the very nature that anonymous works, there's no guarantee that the people involved in that issue were also the ones mentioned in this article. Yes, horrible things have been done under the guise of anonymous, but it's not always the same people every time.
I have no idea what they want, or don't want, but do you really expect them to officially come out and say "Yes, we do want to be able to shut off all communications between the citizens"? It sounds to me more like the sort of back room deal, where they just come out one day and say "Yes, we have the ability and we switched it off last night due to XYZ"
And, by the way, this invention cannot be patented now :-)
Would you be willing to put money on this never being patented? The USPTO have granted many patents with obvious prior art.
Even more accurately, you are a megaphone rental company that tells customers "no hate speech". One day someone walks in, rents a megaphone and starts promoting the burning of the Quran. You tell that person that this comes under hate speech, and stop handing out megaphones to that particular person. If a contract says "no hate speech", then I definitely see the promotion of Quran burning as a valid excuse to terminate the contract and any services provided.
According to your link, some countries use terms like "the 1900s" to refer to anything between 1900 and 1999. As it says, this is equivalent to English-speakers using the term the "nineteen hundreds". It doesn't mention in any way how someone could refer to the year "1999" as being in the "19th century".
Rendering pages as the user wants I would say is preferable to rendering pages the way the website wants. After all, it's the users choice as to which browser to use.
What the GP mentioned in his, quote, and what you skipped, is the word "it". I feel in a similar manner to the GP, and it's not because they have started using lock-in, but because they (seemingly) used to be against lock-in and have reversed their stance on it.
And gosh my formatting sucked there. Apparently I've switched to HTML mode in my profile, oops.
You're oversimplifying it. It's trivial to add encryption to the protocol, which means you're going to be disassembling and debugging the code. Majority of those unlimited number of programmers drop off.
I'm purposefully not commenting on the second part of your comment, as I agree with you. Once the server is doing more than authentication or authorisation, the difficulty steps up fast. However, if it's just an authentication/authorisation issue, it's not always that hard to beat. Somewhere in the code (or maybe in multiple places) there will be a bit that says something like "if notAbleToAuthorise() { goToMenu(); }". All it takes is to replace the call to "notAbleToAUthorise" to a function that just returns false. Or true. Or whatever. Usually people next argue that CRC checks will stop you from modifying the code. That means there's code that goes "if checksumFailed() ..." and again, change the call.
I believe that as long as the game is "technically" playable without any DRM enabled, then the DRM will be able to be patched without too many hardships. I just can't fathom a situation where DRM will be unstoppable (even computationally-unstoppable via encryption), because the owner of the game has all the information they want.
I agree writing password to the disk is bad, but have you ever used CVS/SVN/etc. without stored passwords? You end up typing your password a thousand times a day, which is simply unusable.
I don't get why CVS/SVN/etc even should deal with security. They're source control/management systems. For public pull/fetch/get-only servers, no password is required. For situations where security, is required, set up SSH access, or some other secure access (and use an ssh keyagent if you don't like typing your password in heaps).
From your link "Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christians’ presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts."
I don't have anything against creationism itself, but that site seems to be another site that tries to use the Bible, as justification for the Bible being "accurate". I don't believe that teaching anyone to "accept this bunch of pages as fact" without being able to test any of it yourself, is not a good way to teach. At least tell people "here is a way to independently verify these facts, and here is a list of people who have independently verified it"
I dunno, maybe I'm misreading TFA, but it seems to say that the "entire thing" is not open, that Google is not disclosing full source which is "part" of the reason for not including android code in the linux kernel. Another part seems to relate to no one being willing to "clean up" the code which has been released, and there are possibly other parts to it.
Running folding@home just grinds the same algorithms over and over. From TFA
The algorithm I used (Chudnovsky series evaluated using the binary splitting algorithm) is asymptotically slower than the Arithmetic-Geometric Mean algorithm used by Daisuke Takahashi, but it makes a more efficient use of the various CPU caches, so in practice it can be faster. Moreover, some mathematical tricks were used to speed up the binary splitting.
So he's found a difference in algorithm efficiency based on computer architecture, and also improved the algorithm.
You might think his results may be lesser than what folding@home gets, but I think his methods are more valuable, when compared against what would've been learnt by letting the computer run folding@home.
Or when we colonize space, and have thousands of planets all with people and devices needing IP addresses.
Its a joke with a morale.
Odd, my joke's never have morale.
Food for all ten humans at 1/2 ton each = 2 1/2 tons.
I'm guessing that's a typo, and was meant to read "Food for all five humans at 1/2 ton each = 2 1/2 tons."