The claim is that it doesn't take any extra data to add forward error correction. That seems doubful, since it would violate Shannon's coding theorem.
Yeah, that would be impossible. But I don't think they meant to claim that there is no extra data. When they say "The combined packet length is no longer than either of the two packets from which it is composed." I took that to mean that each packet is a fixed length. Not that they didn't add extra data to get to that packet length.
This was tested against 3% random packet loss. If you have statistically well behaved packet loss due to noise, FEC works great. If you have bursty packet loss due to congestion, not so great.
Yeah. It might be good for for wireless networks, where even a "5 bar" wireless network connection has a fairly consistent 1% packet loss. The QUIC protocol is another attempt to handle this better by using packet pacing, but QUIC isn't worth it in general even if it addresses this one specific problem.
That's interesting. There is a difference between emailing the code to the maintainer and having them put it into the repository, versus getting check-in privileges and updating the repository yourself. Doing it through a web interface makes it very ambiguous though. I could see arguments both ways.
Ultimately, it just needs to be stated clearly which model the site is using so people know what they are getting into.
There is no contradiction here. The statement in the headline is wrong. In fact, we just recently had this discussion here on Slashdot: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Even though the world is warming, the average area of the sea ice around Antarctica is increasing.
True. But the volume is decreasing.
Climate models haven't explained this seeming contradiction
*shrug* I can't say who is or is not satisfied. But my understanding is that the melting ice is freshwater, and that during cold periods a small amount of surface freshwater can freeze again.
This is to be expected: imagine an ice cube sitting on your countertop. As the ice melts, a small amount of freeze will stick to the countertop. From above, an orthogonal view might actually show the area of ice is increasing. There is still a frozen square, but there is also a small amount of ice spread onto the countertop. But of course, we would not say there is *more* ice because the ice cube is now much shorter.
I constantly see posts on Slashdot claiming this, but also claiming the opposite. Is there a list of relevant cases on the topic? I just checked Wikipedia, and that article could use some help: Wikipedia: Enforceability of EULAs in the U.S.
In Baltimore City it is illegal to sell illegal drugs to a minor. The stated reason for this law: prosecutors have an extra charges to bring against the defendant, so they have more to plea bargain with.
Many times I've thought that if legislators thought about laws the way software engineers thought about programs, the law could be simpler. Ex: Tax tables wouldn't be tables - they would state the formula. Redundant laws would be refactored. I can think of a few cases where there have been propositions on the ballot that I rejected because they shouldn't be new laws, but refactoring of old laws. My friends don't seem to get it. Some quick examples:
The Maryland constitution now lists the particular places that casinos may exist. This is like putting the implementation in the requirements. It should state somehting like "casinos must be geographically separated by at least X miles" or define the spread by population density or something like that.
The "Dream act" states that immigrants who graduated high-school may qualify for in-state college tuition, and some other various benefits, but it does not grant them residency. The law would be simpler if it just granted them residency.
Agreed: but lawyers don't like it. Let me explain:
First, let me restart this another way: What you call "standard EULAs" are really just "laws" and there is lots of stuff like that today. This is why, for example, the Fair Credit and Reporting Act states certain things in it. That way, when you sign a credit card slip, there is some standardization in what the cardholder agreement can and cannot say. It is why when you buy a house, most of the contracts are about the same. Without such laws in place, these contracts would be even longer and they could vary wildly.
So here is what happened: I proposed your idea to a few lawyer friends of mine a while back: codify certain standard things that are common sense and are part of every EULA. At first the response was dead silence. As I kept trying to clarify, the response was basically "but having a 50 page EULA for every thing is more flexible! Why would you want the law to do this for you?" I interpreted this to mean "we are lawyers, we like things to be complicated!" and "That's how we make money!!!" I now avoid discussing law with friends who are lawyers. Else they would not remain friends.
The amendment made it so that only a court order would allow for the banning of content, and not a legislative provision, as originally proposed, according to RT.
Network neutrality has nothing to do with the ability or inability to block sites via court orders or legislation. Neutrality is about companies intentionally slowing traffic or charging 3rd-parties special fees to access their network. Every time a NN law comes out, someone says "oh, but this law prevents X" where X is something totally arbitrary and random. "Oh, network neutrality won't let us block illegal sites" or "network neutrality won't let us upgrade our network" or "network neutrality prevents us from offering streaming services" or some other such nonsense.
Toyota and Honda may be right, but the author of the article fundamentally doesn't understand Hydrogen and Electric:
We agree that battery electric vehicles, like are -- like hybrids -- a messy middle step between combustion engines and fuel cells. Yes, they're cleaner than hybrids, but they still depend on electricity, which is, in many cases, produced by dirty fossil fuels
Hydrogen is also produced by dirty fossil fuels! Hydrogen, like Electric, is only ask clean as where you got it from This is such a fundamental misconception, it invalidates the author's entire point.
Electric cars are the purest, simplest, cleanest, most efficient form. Hydrogen is only even considered because it might have a higher energy density and faster refueling time than electric. But Hydrogen is the messy middle step, not electric.
Thanks for the info. I'm still trying to comprehend it all.
I am surprised that they are syching the displays to the wire rate. I see how that causes the problem. The whole "blanking" thing confuses the heck out of me. I understand how it applied to CRTs, but are we really still using that? I thought resolution and timing were negotiated by DDC? Why would a display rely on analog artifacts to guess timing when it is right there in the digital signal?
With CRTs, you would need a framebuffer. But they are obsolete so that doesn't matter. Plasma uses PWM to modulate pixel color, so they already have a framebuffer. So they just need to keep doing what they are already doing. LCDs are stable: the crystals don't change until a voltage is applied. Although the voltage is latched-in anyway, so they have a built-in framebuffer of sorts.
Please correct me if I am wrong on any of these. Regardless of what tech the display uses, just adding a framebuffer answers the "where" question.
Exactly. That is what I said in the original post, and the entire point of this thread. These passengers possibly won't get their wings since they won't reach 100km. They might be frustrated by that fact.
I see 2 changes involved here: Computer: If I don't have a new frame to send yet, don't re-send the current frame. Monitor: If the sender doesn't send a frame, don't rescan. Just leave the image there.
I see why this is a change to the communications protocol. But why does this require a new cable? And why would the cable require a chip in it?
I wonder if they changed that recently, in response. Up until now, everyone who flew on SpaceShipOne got US government astronaut wings. I bet a lot of people will be miffed if they don't get this.
"On return to Earth these pioneering individuals will receive their Virgin Galactic astronaut wings and plenty of images and videos of their experience."
No. It is called "evidence." You pointed to evidence. I pointed to better evidence. This is why global warming is so complex: new science may create yet more evidence. But people keep getting stuck on some old fact or conclusion that they learned years ago.
In this case, the "ice volume" graphs supercede the "ice extent" graphs.
Just so you know: A straw-man argument is when you setup something that you know is wrong, then point out how it is wrong, then conclude you are right. That's not what is happening here. I didn't refute my own evidence.
You keep citing the "ice extent" as evidence that there is more ice. The ice extent does not show that. You have drawn the wrong conclusion from the data. Even the original article you linked to does not make that claim. That graph does not mean there is more ice!
Slashdot Mirror
The claim is that it doesn't take any extra data to add forward error correction. That seems doubful, since it would violate Shannon's coding theorem.
Yeah, that would be impossible. But I don't think they meant to claim that there is no extra data. When they say "The combined packet length is no longer than either of the two packets from which it is composed." I took that to mean that each packet is a fixed length. Not that they didn't add extra data to get to that packet length.
This was tested against 3% random packet loss. If you have statistically well behaved packet loss due to noise, FEC works great. If you have bursty packet loss due to congestion, not so great.
Yeah. It might be good for for wireless networks, where even a "5 bar" wireless network connection has a fairly consistent 1% packet loss. The QUIC protocol is another attempt to handle this better by using packet pacing, but QUIC isn't worth it in general even if it addresses this one specific problem.
Correct. The tab is disabled so there is no results graph, and the hovertext tells me that "Results from your location are not available."
That's not actually a report. It is a marketing page + a tool that tries to tell you your own results.
A report would contain a chart of various ISPs, their results, and other factors such as geographic location. None of that information is available.
That's interesting. There is a difference between emailing the code to the maintainer and having them put it into the repository, versus getting check-in privileges and updating the repository yourself. Doing it through a web interface makes it very ambiguous though. I could see arguments both ways.
Ultimately, it just needs to be stated clearly which model the site is using so people know what they are getting into.
There is no contradiction here. The statement in the headline is wrong. In fact, we just recently had this discussion here on Slashdot:
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Even though the world is warming, the average area of the sea ice around Antarctica is increasing.
True. But the volume is decreasing.
Climate models haven't explained this seeming contradiction
*shrug* I can't say who is or is not satisfied. But my understanding is that the melting ice is freshwater, and that during cold periods a small amount of surface freshwater can freeze again.
This is to be expected: imagine an ice cube sitting on your countertop. As the ice melts, a small amount of freeze will stick to the countertop. From above, an orthogonal view might actually show the area of ice is increasing. There is still a frozen square, but there is also a small amount of ice spread onto the countertop. But of course, we would not say there is *more* ice because the ice cube is now much shorter.
I constantly see posts on Slashdot claiming this, but also claiming the opposite. Is there a list of relevant cases on the topic? I just checked Wikipedia, and that article could use some help:
Wikipedia: Enforceability of EULAs in the U.S.
In Baltimore City it is illegal to sell illegal drugs to a minor. The stated reason for this law: prosecutors have an extra charges to bring against the defendant, so they have more to plea bargain with.
Many times I've thought that if legislators thought about laws the way software engineers thought about programs, the law could be simpler. Ex: Tax tables wouldn't be tables - they would state the formula. Redundant laws would be refactored. I can think of a few cases where there have been propositions on the ballot that I rejected because they shouldn't be new laws, but refactoring of old laws. My friends don't seem to get it. Some quick examples:
This is why the law is called "legal code."
By "these licenses" I meant EULAs in general, not just ones with this particular provision.
Agreed: but lawyers don't like it. Let me explain:
First, let me restart this another way:
What you call "standard EULAs" are really just "laws" and there is lots of stuff like that today. This is why, for example, the Fair Credit and Reporting Act states certain things in it. That way, when you sign a credit card slip, there is some standardization in what the cardholder agreement can and cannot say. It is why when you buy a house, most of the contracts are about the same. Without such laws in place, these contracts would be even longer and they could vary wildly.
So here is what happened:
I proposed your idea to a few lawyer friends of mine a while back: codify certain standard things that are common sense and are part of every EULA. At first the response was dead silence. As I kept trying to clarify, the response was basically "but having a 50 page EULA for every thing is more flexible! Why would you want the law to do this for you?" I interpreted this to mean "we are lawyers, we like things to be complicated!" and "That's how we make money!!!" I now avoid discussing law with friends who are lawyers. Else they would not remain friends.
A better idea is to legislate that these licenses are non-binding.
*sigh* Yet more FUD on network neutrality.
The amendment made it so that only a court order would allow for the banning of content, and not a legislative provision, as originally proposed, according to RT.
Network neutrality has nothing to do with the ability or inability to block sites via court orders or legislation. Neutrality is about companies intentionally slowing traffic or charging 3rd-parties special fees to access their network. Every time a NN law comes out, someone says "oh, but this law prevents X" where X is something totally arbitrary and random. "Oh, network neutrality won't let us block illegal sites" or "network neutrality won't let us upgrade our network" or "network neutrality prevents us from offering streaming services" or some other such nonsense.
enough to keep people from buying Cisco
Do we think that it is just Cisco routers that are affected?
Toyota and Honda may be right, but the author of the article fundamentally doesn't understand Hydrogen and Electric:
We agree that battery electric vehicles, like are -- like hybrids -- a messy middle step between combustion engines and fuel cells. Yes, they're cleaner than hybrids, but they still depend on electricity, which is, in many cases, produced by dirty fossil fuels
Hydrogen is also produced by dirty fossil fuels! Hydrogen, like Electric, is only ask clean as where you got it from This is such a fundamental misconception, it invalidates the author's entire point.
Electric cars are the purest, simplest, cleanest, most efficient form. Hydrogen is only even considered because it might have a higher energy density and faster refueling time than electric. But Hydrogen is the messy middle step, not electric.
Thanks for the info. I'm still trying to comprehend it all.
I am surprised that they are syching the displays to the wire rate. I see how that causes the problem. The whole "blanking" thing confuses the heck out of me. I understand how it applied to CRTs, but are we really still using that? I thought resolution and timing were negotiated by DDC? Why would a display rely on analog artifacts to guess timing when it is right there in the digital signal?
It depends on the display.
With CRTs, you would need a framebuffer. But they are obsolete so that doesn't matter.
Plasma uses PWM to modulate pixel color, so they already have a framebuffer. So they just need to keep doing what they are already doing.
LCDs are stable: the crystals don't change until a voltage is applied. Although the voltage is latched-in anyway, so they have a built-in framebuffer of sorts.
Please correct me if I am wrong on any of these. Regardless of what tech the display uses, just adding a framebuffer answers the "where" question.
First, they are pilots
Being a pilot is not a requirement.
Second, they all reached 100km.
Exactly. That is what I said in the original post, and the entire point of this thread. These passengers possibly won't get their wings since they won't reach 100km. They might be frustrated by that fact.
I see 2 changes involved here:
Computer: If I don't have a new frame to send yet, don't re-send the current frame.
Monitor: If the sender doesn't send a frame, don't rescan. Just leave the image there.
I see why this is a change to the communications protocol. But why does this require a new cable? And why would the cable require a chip in it?
I wonder if they changed that recently, in response. Up until now, everyone who flew on SpaceShipOne got US government astronaut wings. I bet a lot of people will be miffed if they don't get this.
The Virgin Galactic pilots did. Actually, I just noticed that Virgin Galactic's own site claims that you will get them! lol! whoooops!
"Later that evening, sitting with your astronaut wings, you know that life will never quite be the same again."
http://www.virgingalactic.com/...
"On return to Earth these pioneering individuals will receive their Virgin Galactic astronaut wings and plenty of images and videos of their experience."
http://www.ulixtravel.com/virg...
Although, according to Space Law: A Treatise it says:
In the US, any person going higher than 50 miles is awarded 'astronaut wings'
So maybe there is still a chance?
Marine based ice sheets do not affect sea level.
Whhoooah there. Let's not jump to conclusions here...
The melting of these three glaciers alone is contributing an estimated 0.24 millimetres per year to the rise in the worldwide sea level.
Okay, close enough for all practical purposes. :-)
At 50 miles, passengers will not qualify for a NASA astronaut badge.
Memories decay upon recall. Your brain basically alters the memory slightly each time. This can be used to erase or alter memories.
The error is in step 5. It should be:
5. Therefore, that mathematical model is incorrect.
They found a contradiction, so the model must be revised.
No. It is called "evidence." You pointed to evidence. I pointed to better evidence. This is why global warming is so complex: new science may create yet more evidence. But people keep getting stuck on some old fact or conclusion that they learned years ago.
In this case, the "ice volume" graphs supercede the "ice extent" graphs.
Just so you know:
A straw-man argument is when you setup something that you know is wrong, then point out how it is wrong, then conclude you are right. That's not what is happening here. I didn't refute my own evidence.
You keep citing the "ice extent" as evidence that there is more ice. The ice extent does not show that. You have drawn the wrong conclusion from the data. Even the original article you linked to does not make that claim. That graph does not mean there is more ice!