I have a total of 37 IP addresses inside my lan, every one of those things are a computer. the 4 BLuray players are all computers. the Two big TV's are computers, the Apple TV's are computers, the 6 NAS boxes, the 2 Crestron processors, the 4 chumbys, etc...... I only need 1 to the world because I can use NAT. Some wackjobs think NAT is evil... I think they are wackjobs.
I note you have no video game consoles, and so I assume further that you rarely play games on the internet, and moreover your 4 BluRay players suggets you rarely torrent either.
In short, it's no surprise you don't see the downsides of NAT. Meanwhile the rest of us who do required user level end-to-end net connectivity know that NAT is the devil and needs to die for the sake of the web. When you find yourself unable to use the latest applications and/or protocols, you will come to realize this too.
You can't get it because you are unable or unwilling to pay top dollar for quality software that works. By contrast Botnet owners, Wall St firms, and the Chinese government are willing to pay top dollar for software which functions perfectly and reliably and indeed do so.
It should also be noted that when software companies attempt to cross such buyers by providing less than stellar product, they tend to end up regretting it. The average user by contrast keeps buying Windows, Office, Norton and DVD codec software no matter how much they get burned. The incentive to produce quality software for the general user simply doesn't exist.
I never did understand the united (what with the troubles and such) part either so it's just as well they did away with that.
The United, in United Kingdom, primarily refers to the union of the two once separate kingdoms of England and Scotland. Specifically it refers to the personal union of the crowns of these two kingdoms in one person, or really the replacement of this previous arrangement with something less complicated--Kind of.
Prior to the creation of the UK, a single person (e.g. Charles I) was simply simultaneously the King of Scotland and the King of England. This distinction lead to interesting legal paradoxes and scenarios that only English legal theory could contrive. The best example is in 1640, where Charles I as king of England actually went to war with his other kingdom of Scotland, and when he was eventually forced to make peace (with Scotland) actually traveled to Scotland (while still at war), was formally received as king and arranged a peace treaty and afterwards played a few rounds of golf with the Scottish nobles; and I am not making this up. The creation of the UK was in part an attempt to clean up this kind of dissonance.
The whole theory behind the UK grew in part from Henry VIII's earlier act of establishing himself as the King of Ireland and creating a personal union between the Kingdoms of Ireland and England. (In fact, there are earlier examples of this kind of thing in regard to the Principality of Wales). So the UK always did include the Kingdom of Ireland as well. I don't think that Kingdom exists independently any more though as I'm not sure if there is a Kingdom of Northern Ireland specifically.
Note in all this that though the Kingdom's were united, the actual countries were not (except insofar as a new country was brought into existence using them). Scotland still exists as a separate country from England, even though they still have the same Parliament (kind of) and the same King.
The end result of this long legal and historical process is that the British are very, very, particular about titles, formalities and the legal powers and functions which arise and derive form them. When you hear Anglo-Saxon's discussing who can legally do what and where in these kinds of discussion, it's because of the work of generations of British scholars who gave their lives to try to make sense of the constitutional framework they had inherited. It's also worth noting that for those same reasons, in most other countries these discussions tend to be rather pointless(e.g. In the US, you have Gitmo, and in Ireland you have really no laws at all). The trouble with Anglo-Saxon legal systems is that most Anglo-Saxon societies aren't actually English.
What planet are you living on? The Chinese government understands the web, its power and potential, better than any other entity in the world. They also understand how to control it.
Whatever fubs the PR department engage in, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology is Orwellian in its efficiency, and you can expect this hole to be plugged by the end of the week at the latest.
It's one of those things that's just great for showing people and watching their reaction.
Well, I used to like Orangina, but after seeing a yellow gallon of it poured over a CGI deer in a bikini, I think I've just been put off orange juice altogether. I suspect this production suffered from a lack of grounding among the marketing department.
The pachyderm in the parlor, however, is the fact that if you take an IQ 100 person (or lower) and try to teach them math beyond the basics, you're not often going to get very far. People aren't born equal in capacity, and we can't fix that by applying more pressure to their foreheads, which is about what forced math classes do.
I think that rather than being the elephant in the room, this point of view is simply the Calvinist in the classroom. The idea that people are unable to learn mathematics is about as valid as the idea that people are unable to learn how to read. A very small number of people have genuine difficulty in both, but the majority of the population is perfectly capable of both. It is absurd to suggest that the majority of the population is inherently incapable of understanding the difference between a million, a billion and a trillion.
In the context of public competency with mathematics, we're talking about innummeracy, the mathematical equivalent of illiteracy. And just like illiteracy, the problem is not the result of innate failings within the population but rather the result of public policy failures in how people are taught.
My lotto numbers are 1,2,3,4,5 and 6. They're just as likely to come up as any other numbers, yet no-one would pick them or anything like them. Why don't they have as much expectation of utility?
Yet if you want to watch that same video in six months time, because of bandwidth capacity improvements, that efficiency has become moot.
Now, that doesn't mean efficiency isn't important. The real point of efficiency comes when you consider the sheer scale of bandwidth used on video worldwide. Right now, online streaming video is probably the single largest user of bandwidth worldwide (with the possible exception of bittorrent). Gaining 10% efficiency here means a huge amount for the internet as a whole and and this scale, it becomes hugely important to save every last bit.
More people in the US/UK get what those countries reserve for the few and well connected.
South Korea is actually a more advanced country both technologically and economically than either the UK or the US. Given the unemployment rate in the latter countries, I think it's places like London and New York that are the Potemkin Villages. Take a trip to Glasgow or Detroit the next time you're in these places and see the Banksky intro behind the screen.
Minor scuffles in the overall struggle. They evoke emotions, but looked at coldly, they were sideshows. Sometimes useful, sometimes not, but all of the war effort by both sides was of a piece.
Iran, Vietnam, Chile? These are countries of tens of millions of people. And far from being a sideshow, the actions in these major regional players shaped the futures of entire continents. The histories of the Middle East, South East Asia and the entirety of South and Central America have been shaped profoundly by the actions of American intelligence agencies. Even if you couldn't care less about the people who died and suffered, you could at least acknowledge that their ordeals wasn't the result of idle US fancy.
The stakes were far too great... to consider the fate of minor countries.
Yes, profits, influence and public gratification. We all know the reasons for the US going to war and putting other countries into them. Some of us don't necessarily agree with our countries being ruined to make money for CEOs and entertaining footage news programmes.
Bludgeon! Bludgeon he says! Must have been lovely to have a massage service at your university!
We now, we knew what suffering were about. We had no textbooks, the lectures would write things on the board and we'd take it all down on the back of our notepads--with biros! We had no expensive textbooks to bludeon us to sleep, the lecturer's droning would do that all by it'self. We had to walk 15 minutes from our dorm to the lecture theater, over wet grass both ways. 'alf the time, our walkman batteries would run out and our Led Zepplin albums would go all wonky and put us to sleep again. It was all you could do to get down to the university pub for a late breakfast at 2.
They were 'ard times alright. Modern freshers with their cars and ipods just don't know how difficult life was when you only had a bike and cassette tapes. Though granted you, I did sympathise with all the computer rubbish they have to put up with. Still, the campus booze is wicked cheap an' all.
It's not required (in fact, you can just use Qt), but a lot of people tend to judge Symbian by either that or by the crappy UIs that a lot of manufacturers (including Nokia) have built on top of it in the past.
That's because at the end of the day a phone is a consumer device, and the user interface is probably the most important part of the product--aside from the cost of course.
It's not a memory leak problem. This is pretty obvious when, after weeks of continuous use, Firefox's memory usage remains more or less constant.
However, Firefox does have a memory fragmentation problem. After continuous use, the program will become noticeably slower on certain tasks which it previously had no issues with. This is particularly the case if you're visiting more intensive webpages. Often you're better just restarting it after the first 100 or so tabs.
As far as I can tell it is a waste of time. There is no science here, no mathematics, and it seems to be a pretty awful game. This is a huge waste of computer resources all around and I'm frankly surprised the summary managed to be as coherent as it did.
This is the number one problem with all Linux installations I have ever used. The problem is most noticeable in Ubuntu where, any time one of the frequent update/tracker programs runs, the entire system will become all but unusable for several minutes.
I don't know if it's all that related, but swap slowdown is an appalling issue as well. If a single program spikes in RAM usage, I often have to reboot the whole system as it hangs indefinitely. As I work with Octave a lot, often a script will gobble up a few hundred megs of memory and push the system into swap. Once that happens, it's often too late to do anything about it as programs simply will not respond.
It'll be fine really. If anyone asks, just tell them Assange was blackmailing you with, say, your browsing history. Homeland Security will not only exonerate you, they'll probably reimburse you for giving them more mud to sling at the site.
- the way that organized gangs play the "kill them one at a time" and "get our pet admin to declare them sockpuppets or meatpuppets" games. Look at the Wikipedia articles on Felafel and Za'atar; a group of deranged, racist muslims got together and decided they wanted to strip any reference to "evil jews" about the food. And, since they had a couple of racist administrators on their side, their will was done. These days, even the two FOOD articles look like slanted attack articles.
It gets worse than this. You see, most people are aware that certain articles will inevitably be biased and most will even be dimly aware that one group or another controls them. Admittedly the food articles are far out there, but once you've heard of which groups are vying for control, you at least tend to understand why.
What's worse is the articles which are controlled by groups or persons for reasons unknown. People must understand that any crackpot, fool, or pedantic can control just about any Wikipedia article they feel like with enough effort. And they do, even for articles you'd least expect. (Terrible) Mathematical articles on things like the exponential function are essentially editorially controlled by people who are manifestly unqualified for the post. I once suggested that the article should start with the Taylor Series definition of exp(x), and I was promptly labelled as holding a point of view (POV), and was lumped in with holocaust deniers and ufo conspiracy theorists as someone unfit to edit the article further. I am not making a word of this up.
Wikipedia is controlled by petty bureaucrats, for petty bureaucrats. It wouldn't matter as much if it weren't the first thing returned by every second Google search. Mercifully however, I suspect that Wikipedia is beginning to collapsing in on itself. The legion of incompetent, self-important, Wikicrats are slowly mulching half good articles into meaningless pulp. For example, someone removed all chemical equations from the smelting article. I dare someone to put them back and see how long they last.
For example, if your matrix has the sparsity pattern of a planar graph, it has been known for 30 years that you can do Gaussian elimination in O(n^1.5).
This algorithm is supposed to run in O(n log(n)^2) time, which is actually better than O(n^1.5). Not a lot better mind you, but if you make n very large and don't have a lot of overheads, you should see improvements.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of people making that mistake includes the vast majority of Roman Catholics.
I note you have no video game consoles, and so I assume further that you rarely play games on the internet, and moreover your 4 BluRay players suggets you rarely torrent either.
In short, it's no surprise you don't see the downsides of NAT. Meanwhile the rest of us who do required user level end-to-end net connectivity know that NAT is the devil and needs to die for the sake of the web. When you find yourself unable to use the latest applications and/or protocols, you will come to realize this too.
You can't get it because you are unable or unwilling to pay top dollar for quality software that works. By contrast Botnet owners, Wall St firms, and the Chinese government are willing to pay top dollar for software which functions perfectly and reliably and indeed do so.
It should also be noted that when software companies attempt to cross such buyers by providing less than stellar product, they tend to end up regretting it. The average user by contrast keeps buying Windows, Office, Norton and DVD codec software no matter how much they get burned. The incentive to produce quality software for the general user simply doesn't exist.
The United, in United Kingdom, primarily refers to the union of the two once separate kingdoms of England and Scotland. Specifically it refers to the personal union of the crowns of these two kingdoms in one person, or really the replacement of this previous arrangement with something less complicated--Kind of.
Prior to the creation of the UK, a single person (e.g. Charles I) was simply simultaneously the King of Scotland and the King of England. This distinction lead to interesting legal paradoxes and scenarios that only English legal theory could contrive. The best example is in 1640, where Charles I as king of England actually went to war with his other kingdom of Scotland, and when he was eventually forced to make peace (with Scotland) actually traveled to Scotland (while still at war), was formally received as king and arranged a peace treaty and afterwards played a few rounds of golf with the Scottish nobles; and I am not making this up. The creation of the UK was in part an attempt to clean up this kind of dissonance.
The whole theory behind the UK grew in part from Henry VIII's earlier act of establishing himself as the King of Ireland and creating a personal union between the Kingdoms of Ireland and England. (In fact, there are earlier examples of this kind of thing in regard to the Principality of Wales). So the UK always did include the Kingdom of Ireland as well. I don't think that Kingdom exists independently any more though as I'm not sure if there is a Kingdom of Northern Ireland specifically.
Note in all this that though the Kingdom's were united, the actual countries were not (except insofar as a new country was brought into existence using them). Scotland still exists as a separate country from England, even though they still have the same Parliament (kind of) and the same King.
The end result of this long legal and historical process is that the British are very, very, particular about titles, formalities and the legal powers and functions which arise and derive form them. When you hear Anglo-Saxon's discussing who can legally do what and where in these kinds of discussion, it's because of the work of generations of British scholars who gave their lives to try to make sense of the constitutional framework they had inherited. It's also worth noting that for those same reasons, in most other countries these discussions tend to be rather pointless(e.g. In the US, you have Gitmo, and in Ireland you have really no laws at all). The trouble with Anglo-Saxon legal systems is that most Anglo-Saxon societies aren't actually English.
What planet are you living on? The Chinese government understands the web, its power and potential, better than any other entity in the world. They also understand how to control it.
Whatever fubs the PR department engage in, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology is Orwellian in its efficiency, and you can expect this hole to be plugged by the end of the week at the latest.
Well, I used to like Orangina, but after seeing a yellow gallon of it poured over a CGI deer in a bikini, I think I've just been put off orange juice altogether. I suspect this production suffered from a lack of grounding among the marketing department.
Wow. The people on it must have gotten nothing done.
I take it you're a Python man!
I think that rather than being the elephant in the room, this point of view is simply the Calvinist in the classroom. The idea that people are unable to learn mathematics is about as valid as the idea that people are unable to learn how to read. A very small number of people have genuine difficulty in both, but the majority of the population is perfectly capable of both. It is absurd to suggest that the majority of the population is inherently incapable of understanding the difference between a million, a billion and a trillion.
In the context of public competency with mathematics, we're talking about innummeracy, the mathematical equivalent of illiteracy. And just like illiteracy, the problem is not the result of innate failings within the population but rather the result of public policy failures in how people are taught.
My lotto numbers are 1,2,3,4,5 and 6. They're just as likely to come up as any other numbers, yet no-one would pick them or anything like them. Why don't they have as much expectation of utility?
That's not true. Historians have to back up their claims with primary sources.
Yet if you want to watch that same video in six months time, because of bandwidth capacity improvements, that efficiency has become moot.
Now, that doesn't mean efficiency isn't important. The real point of efficiency comes when you consider the sheer scale of bandwidth used on video worldwide. Right now, online streaming video is probably the single largest user of bandwidth worldwide (with the possible exception of bittorrent). Gaining 10% efficiency here means a huge amount for the internet as a whole and and this scale, it becomes hugely important to save every last bit.
It makes people fear and respect the power of authorities, and that makes a lot of other people feel secure.
South Korea is actually a more advanced country both technologically and economically than either the UK or the US. Given the unemployment rate in the latter countries, I think it's places like London and New York that are the Potemkin Villages. Take a trip to Glasgow or Detroit the next time you're in these places and see the Banksky intro behind the screen.
Iran, Vietnam, Chile? These are countries of tens of millions of people. And far from being a sideshow, the actions in these major regional players shaped the futures of entire continents. The histories of the Middle East, South East Asia and the entirety of South and Central America have been shaped profoundly by the actions of American intelligence agencies. Even if you couldn't care less about the people who died and suffered, you could at least acknowledge that their ordeals wasn't the result of idle US fancy.
Yes, profits, influence and public gratification. We all know the reasons for the US going to war and putting other countries into them. Some of us don't necessarily agree with our countries being ruined to make money for CEOs and entertaining footage news programmes.
Economics is not a scientific discipline. Those studies are not very credible.
Bludgeon! Bludgeon he says! Must have been lovely to have a massage service at your university!
We now, we knew what suffering were about. We had no textbooks, the lectures would write things on the board and we'd take it all down on the back of our notepads--with biros! We had no expensive textbooks to bludeon us to sleep, the lecturer's droning would do that all by it'self. We had to walk 15 minutes from our dorm to the lecture theater, over wet grass both ways. 'alf the time, our walkman batteries would run out and our Led Zepplin albums would go all wonky and put us to sleep again. It was all you could do to get down to the university pub for a late breakfast at 2.
They were 'ard times alright. Modern freshers with their cars and ipods just don't know how difficult life was when you only had a bike and cassette tapes. Though granted you, I did sympathise with all the computer rubbish they have to put up with. Still, the campus booze is wicked cheap an' all.
Simple models of memory don't work well when applied to real computers.
That's because at the end of the day a phone is a consumer device, and the user interface is probably the most important part of the product--aside from the cost of course.
It's not a memory leak problem. This is pretty obvious when, after weeks of continuous use, Firefox's memory usage remains more or less constant.
However, Firefox does have a memory fragmentation problem. After continuous use, the program will become noticeably slower on certain tasks which it previously had no issues with. This is particularly the case if you're visiting more intensive webpages. Often you're better just restarting it after the first 100 or so tabs.
As far as I can tell it is a waste of time. There is no science here, no mathematics, and it seems to be a pretty awful game. This is a huge waste of computer resources all around and I'm frankly surprised the summary managed to be as coherent as it did.
This is the number one problem with all Linux installations I have ever used. The problem is most noticeable in Ubuntu where, any time one of the frequent update/tracker programs runs, the entire system will become all but unusable for several minutes.
I don't know if it's all that related, but swap slowdown is an appalling issue as well. If a single program spikes in RAM usage, I often have to reboot the whole system as it hangs indefinitely. As I work with Octave a lot, often a script will gobble up a few hundred megs of memory and push the system into swap. Once that happens, it's often too late to do anything about it as programs simply will not respond.
It'll be fine really. If anyone asks, just tell them Assange was blackmailing you with, say, your browsing history. Homeland Security will not only exonerate you, they'll probably reimburse you for giving them more mud to sling at the site.
It gets worse than this. You see, most people are aware that certain articles will inevitably be biased and most will even be dimly aware that one group or another controls them. Admittedly the food articles are far out there, but once you've heard of which groups are vying for control, you at least tend to understand why.
What's worse is the articles which are controlled by groups or persons for reasons unknown. People must understand that any crackpot, fool, or pedantic can control just about any Wikipedia article they feel like with enough effort. And they do, even for articles you'd least expect. (Terrible) Mathematical articles on things like the exponential function are essentially editorially controlled by people who are manifestly unqualified for the post. I once suggested that the article should start with the Taylor Series definition of exp(x), and I was promptly labelled as holding a point of view (POV), and was lumped in with holocaust deniers and ufo conspiracy theorists as someone unfit to edit the article further. I am not making a word of this up.
Wikipedia is controlled by petty bureaucrats, for petty bureaucrats. It wouldn't matter as much if it weren't the first thing returned by every second Google search. Mercifully however, I suspect that Wikipedia is beginning to collapsing in on itself. The legion of incompetent, self-important, Wikicrats are slowly mulching half good articles into meaningless pulp. For example, someone removed all chemical equations from the smelting article. I dare someone to put them back and see how long they last.
This algorithm is supposed to run in O(n log(n)^2) time, which is actually better than O(n^1.5). Not a lot better mind you, but if you make n very large and don't have a lot of overheads, you should see improvements.