If you've ever worked on a large project for a billion $$$ company your opinion of their competence wouldn't be so high. Things may be meticulously handled because the boss said so and allocated appropriate resources, they may appear to be meticulously handled because the boss said so but the employee thinks they can get away with slacking and it's not important anyway, or they may be done they way they are because the boss is in a pique and decreed it, and even though everybody involved thinks it's fucking crazy, nobody wants to argue with Jeff Bezos when he's in that kind of a mood, and according to CEO-think changing your mind is showing weakness.
Note: Jeff Bezos is just an example, I don't actually know if he's one of those CEOs (most are though).
Much like there are Mac zealots, there are anti-Mac zealots. With Apple on an upswing, the Mac zealots are sated, while the anti-Mac zealots are enraged.
It seems weird to give a shit either way, in my mind it's little different than following a sports team, but to each their own I suppose, which often includes needing others to share their arbitrary preferences.
You answered these pretty well, but here's a few you missed:
"timed progress of situation as players complete their tasks"
- I've no idea about this one, but being a single server game surely some "endgame" quests are one-offs?
Incursions, they came with the last expansion. If you don't kill them fast enough, they come back.
"important positions relatively easy to take over but difficult to hold, so they continuously change ownership"
- Ok, can't find a single example of this.( haven't looked very thoroughly though)
Syndicate. Curse. Pure Blind. Pretty much, name any NPC 0.0.
"VERY difficult missions which would be attempted and failed over and over until someone succeeds and the result is permanent"
Again I take the position of one server = one-off quests.(again no idea if this is the case or not)
EVE really isn't about PvE content, it's all PvP. But no, there are no one-off quests--not that you'll miss them. There are some very difficult missions, where if you're a solo player it will take you a year or more to build up the skills to be able to do them, but the only thing that's permanent about them is that you permanently have a ton of money (until someone blows up your shiny new ship and takes all your stuff).
"construction of massive structures progressing by tiny phases, so your contribution is permanent ("I built THIS door of the castle")"
-Space stations, Strategic cruisers. 'Nuff said, well almost. Though massive structures taking ages to build, I suppose it's not really a "tiny phase" process.
Join a corp, get into their logistics organization. You might need to change a jump bridge link, or anchor a couple extra modules, etc. Or you might need to sit for 8 hours and set up a dickstar (a space station with minimal/no guns, but a ridiculous amount of ECM or shield hardening, so it takes forever to kill) for a CSAA (Capital Ship Assembly Array).
"Instantiated personal space (a room in a hotel or a house) so that every player has a fully customizable personal area without cutting into the massive bulk"
- As far as I know this is not yet the case. but weren't they going to implement this? a room in your ship you could enter in a first person view.
Yeah, next expansion should be the start of it.
"expensive, prestigeous public locations for rent/sale and personalized use."
It's a college town, with both a state and private university, but both are pretty small. It's also got (at least did 15 years ago) a decent comp-something program, although nothing near the scale of RIT. Its biggest claim to fame is the fact that it's a college out in the middle of nowhere.
Somehow I doubt they've downloaded more copies in Alfred than all of California and Texas combined.
I would prefer to negate the need for second-guessing the USPTO at all, as would, apparently, everybody who actually makes things for a living.
It's got to be getting harder and harder to claim that the patent system exists to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", when regardless of why it was created it clearly now exists to line otherwise uninvolved parties' pockets off of the capital friction.
WHAT! How dare you! Thing never change! Once you form an opinion, it is your moral duty to stick to that opinion, regardless of any new information or circumstances. You are an indecisive coward, drifting on the winds of reality.
Well that's news to me. I'd be surprised if any other than IE worked that way, as far as I know there's no mandatory system implementation of HTTP--I know you don't have full access to the IP stack, but that's as far as it goes (I think). Anyway, I'll have to test that out sometime when I have time (unless some enterprising slashdotter tests it out for us), but thanks for the info.
Additionally, you need one IP address per https website you want to host. This isn't an issue with IPv6 (Yay IPv6) or when using a webserver/client that can use Host headers before the SSL transaction (which all older browsers do NOT support). The main problem is that not everyone has a metric 'shitton' of IPv4 addresses and the software isn't wide spread enough to reliably host multiple SSL websites on a single IP with vhosts.
Browsers that don't support SNI:
IE
Firefox
Opera
Safari
Chrome try to run an old version of Chrome.
In short, you're safe to use it these days unless you're hosting a legacy app on an internal business server or massive shopping site trying to catch every last Christmas shopper--in either case, IPs are probably the least of your worries.
Wait a minute, 10k requests per second per server? Highly unlikely. Ever look at those "0.09 seconds" things you get on Google? They used to be all over the place, and I don't think I've ever seen one below 10ms, certainly never below 1ms. You're asking for 100 microseconds to process a page in. On a 3GHz processor, that's 30,000 cycles. If the page is 300kb, you have roughly 1/10th of a cycle to process each byte, which is flat impossible.
But, we know they process more than a byte at a time. A 64-bit machine could do 8 at once using regular instructions, so now we're up to 4/5ths of a cycle per qword. Now we'll assume that there's 8 cores in a server, which should be a reasonable average, if high, and we have a whole 6.4 cycles to work with for every qword.
Let's assume that the SSL is done on another piece of hardware. Can you point out any implementation, on any general-purpose computer in the world, of an HTTP server that can serve even static pages at 6.4 cycles per qword?
This seems like the place for people who know their Guinness, so has anyone noticed that the bottles being sold in the last 6 months or so are missing the widgets? I can't say for sure if there's a difference between with and without, but I've wondered what the heck happened to them.
You seem to have missed the comment between mine and yours... while somehow picking up parts of it. I know $something was meant to be a variable, that's why I made a snarky correction when the comment I replied to called it a string literal.
The thing I'm confused about, is how you could have any idea what I'm talking about without reading the comment I was replying to, or how you couldn't know what I was talking about if you did read the comment. It's like you've managed to occupy some strange Schrodinger's library, where you neither understand nor don't understand what's written, without being inbetween at all.
Slashdot Mirror
If you've ever worked on a large project for a billion $$$ company your opinion of their competence wouldn't be so high. Things may be meticulously handled because the boss said so and allocated appropriate resources, they may appear to be meticulously handled because the boss said so but the employee thinks they can get away with slacking and it's not important anyway, or they may be done they way they are because the boss is in a pique and decreed it, and even though everybody involved thinks it's fucking crazy, nobody wants to argue with Jeff Bezos when he's in that kind of a mood, and according to CEO-think changing your mind is showing weakness.
Note: Jeff Bezos is just an example, I don't actually know if he's one of those CEOs (most are though).
Is that English?
Much like there are Mac zealots, there are anti-Mac zealots. With Apple on an upswing, the Mac zealots are sated, while the anti-Mac zealots are enraged.
It seems weird to give a shit either way, in my mind it's little different than following a sports team, but to each their own I suppose, which often includes needing others to share their arbitrary preferences.
You answered these pretty well, but here's a few you missed:
"timed progress of situation as players complete their tasks"
- I've no idea about this one, but being a single server game surely some "endgame" quests are one-offs?
Incursions, they came with the last expansion. If you don't kill them fast enough, they come back.
"important positions relatively easy to take over but difficult to hold, so they continuously change ownership"
- Ok, can't find a single example of this.( haven't looked very thoroughly though)
Syndicate. Curse. Pure Blind. Pretty much, name any NPC 0.0.
"VERY difficult missions which would be attempted and failed over and over until someone succeeds and the result is permanent"
Again I take the position of one server = one-off quests.(again no idea if this is the case or not)
EVE really isn't about PvE content, it's all PvP. But no, there are no one-off quests--not that you'll miss them. There are some very difficult missions, where if you're a solo player it will take you a year or more to build up the skills to be able to do them, but the only thing that's permanent about them is that you permanently have a ton of money (until someone blows up your shiny new ship and takes all your stuff).
"construction of massive structures progressing by tiny phases, so your contribution is permanent ("I built THIS door of the castle")"
-Space stations, Strategic cruisers. 'Nuff said, well almost. Though massive structures taking ages to build, I suppose it's not really a "tiny phase" process.
Join a corp, get into their logistics organization. You might need to change a jump bridge link, or anchor a couple extra modules, etc. Or you might need to sit for 8 hours and set up a dickstar (a space station with minimal/no guns, but a ridiculous amount of ECM or shield hardening, so it takes forever to kill) for a CSAA (Capital Ship Assembly Array).
"Instantiated personal space (a room in a hotel or a house) so that every player has a fully customizable personal area without cutting into the massive bulk"
- As far as I know this is not yet the case. but weren't they going to implement this? a room in your ship you could enter in a first person view.
Yeah, next expansion should be the start of it.
"expensive, prestigeous public locations for rent/sale and personalized use."
- Ok, got me again.
Delve.
Yeah! Why can't everybody have the same opinion? Get it together, people!
It's a college town, with both a state and private university, but both are pretty small. It's also got (at least did 15 years ago) a decent comp-something program, although nothing near the scale of RIT. Its biggest claim to fame is the fact that it's a college out in the middle of nowhere.
Somehow I doubt they've downloaded more copies in Alfred than all of California and Texas combined.
I would prefer to negate the need for second-guessing the USPTO at all, as would, apparently, everybody who actually makes things for a living.
It's got to be getting harder and harder to claim that the patent system exists to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", when regardless of why it was created it clearly now exists to line otherwise uninvolved parties' pockets off of the capital friction.
heh. Whoops.
No, a Siever is a misspelled family unit.
0.012 < 0.011?
WHAT! How dare you! Thing never change! Once you form an opinion, it is your moral duty to stick to that opinion, regardless of any new information or circumstances. You are an indecisive coward, drifting on the winds of reality.
If that's the case, why would going back in time and killing your father cause a paradox?
Well that's news to me. I'd be surprised if any other than IE worked that way, as far as I know there's no mandatory system implementation of HTTP--I know you don't have full access to the IP stack, but that's as far as it goes (I think). Anyway, I'll have to test that out sometime when I have time (unless some enterprising slashdotter tests it out for us), but thanks for the info.
argh, less-than signs. That should be:
There was other commentary on there, but it wasn't important.
Additionally, you need one IP address per https website you want to host. This isn't an issue with IPv6 (Yay IPv6) or when using a webserver/client that can use Host headers before the SSL transaction (which all older browsers do NOT support). The main problem is that not everyone has a metric 'shitton' of IPv4 addresses and the software isn't wide spread enough to reliably host multiple SSL websites on a single IP with vhosts.
Browsers that don't support SNI:
In short, you're safe to use it these days unless you're hosting a legacy app on an internal business server or massive shopping site trying to catch every last Christmas shopper--in either case, IPs are probably the least of your worries.
Wait a minute, 10k requests per second per server? Highly unlikely. Ever look at those "0.09 seconds" things you get on Google? They used to be all over the place, and I don't think I've ever seen one below 10ms, certainly never below 1ms. You're asking for 100 microseconds to process a page in. On a 3GHz processor, that's 30,000 cycles. If the page is 300kb, you have roughly 1/10th of a cycle to process each byte, which is flat impossible.
But, we know they process more than a byte at a time. A 64-bit machine could do 8 at once using regular instructions, so now we're up to 4/5ths of a cycle per qword. Now we'll assume that there's 8 cores in a server, which should be a reasonable average, if high, and we have a whole 6.4 cycles to work with for every qword.
Let's assume that the SSL is done on another piece of hardware. Can you point out any implementation, on any general-purpose computer in the world, of an HTTP server that can serve even static pages at 6.4 cycles per qword?
I am hereby ruining all "field testing" jokes.
This will go great with bandwidth caps!
Oh wait, that'd be a PR nightmare. I'm sure this will be exempt. Want to compete? Tough luck!
What's sad about that?
This seems like the place for people who know their Guinness, so has anyone noticed that the bottles being sold in the last 6 months or so are missing the widgets? I can't say for sure if there's a difference between with and without, but I've wondered what the heck happened to them.
Geeks always use hyperbole about everything.
I think you just gave me aspergers.
Things have gotten so bad I'm wearing security breeches and suspenders!
You seem to have missed the comment between mine and yours ... while somehow picking up parts of it. I know $something was meant to be a variable, that's why I made a snarky correction when the comment I replied to called it a string literal.
The thing I'm confused about, is how you could have any idea what I'm talking about without reading the comment I was replying to, or how you couldn't know what I was talking about if you did read the comment. It's like you've managed to occupy some strange Schrodinger's library, where you neither understand nor don't understand what's written, without being inbetween at all.
what