Thanks to warn us that the PDF's size is 2.6 millibits, my computer has issues storing fractional bits. By the way, lots of web pages are 10 million times bigger than that nowadays.
Retrieving optimized images from the server, based on device (desktop, tablet, phone) and the device's internet connection (fiber, broadband, mobile), has always been an open problem.
Nope. It was already solved by the JPEG's hierarchical mode, more than twenty years ago. You're limited to scaled sizes that are the inverse of a power of 2 of the full size, but on the other hand the client wouldn't even need to inform the server and just proceed with a partial download, up to the point where it has enough data for the desired resolution.
People talking about "bit rot" usually have no clue, and this guy is no exception.
It's extremely unlikely that a file would become silently corrupted on disk. Block devices include per-block checksums, and you either have a read error (maybe he has) or the data read is the same as the data previously written. As far as I know, ZFS doesn't help to recover data from read errors. You would need RAID and / or backups.
Main memory is the weakest link. That's why my next computer will have ECC memory. So, when you copy the file (or otherwise defragment or modify the file, etc), you read a good copy, some bit flips in RAM, and you write back corrupted data. Your disk receives the corrupted data, happily computes a checksum, therefore ensuring you can read back your corrupted data faithfully. That's where ZFS helps. Using checksumming scripts is a good idea, and I do it myself. But I don't have auto-defrag on Linux, so I'm safer : when I detect a corrupted copy, I still have the original.
ext2 was introduced in 1993, and so was NTFS. ext4 is just ext2 updated (ext was a different beast). If anything, HFS+ is more modern, not that it makes a difference. All of them are updated. By the way, I noticed recently that Mac OS X resource forks sometimes contain a CRC32. I noticed it in a file coming from Mavericks.
Given enough data, almost all theories are disproven. The only ones that remain are the ones that fit the data.
Given enough data, almost all hypotheses are disproven. The ones which remain and have not yet been disproven by evidence become theories.
Nope, the AC was right.
By your definition, there is ultimately no such thing as a theory. Newtonian physics don't fit as they've been invalidated by Einstein's general relativity, which itself is known to be wrong as it is inconsistent with quantum mechanics (which are also wrong for the same reason).
You can't claim that former theories that were refined / invalidated never were theories in the first place : The "not yet" in your second sentence is problematic as it only allows theories to be defined with hindsight.
Therefore :
When data doesn't fit current theories, you're forming hypotheses, and test them. If your hypothesis fits the data better than former theories on some domain of validity (whose boundaries might not be completely known at the time of formulation, and will be refined with time and experimentations), good for you: you now have a new theory. It will ultimately be replaced by better theories, usually with an extended domain of validity (data that were missing at the time of formulation and testing).
Slashdot Mirror
And did I mention that I don't even *OWN* an TV?
Yes, yes you did !
Cardboard, paper, scissors, felt-tip pens, friends to experiment with. You don't need a computer to develop and experiment game mechanics. ;)
But I have never seen anything but universal hatred for Oracle.
Oracle haters are hyperbolic and hateful.
Oracle users are factual and desperate.
Someone modded that up ?
So who is Henri le chat noir?
An american cat, and its french is atrocious.
(2.6 mb PDF)
Thanks to warn us that the PDF's size is 2.6 millibits, my computer has issues storing fractional bits.
By the way, lots of web pages are 10 million times bigger than that nowadays.
There are vulnerabilities IN Telnet ?
And I thought Telnet WAS a vulnerability...
It's vulnerabilities all the way down, I guess.
Flash IDE ?
Is that a parallel ATA solid-state drive ?
Bitcoin is better than currency in that you don't have to be physically in the same place
Apparently Bill Gates can't distinguish currency from cash...
You mean, like that?
Are Matt's Robot Hexapods Creepy or Cute?
Yes.
FYI, 2fuf was joking.
Will the next version be Firefox64 ?
When will we go back to Firefox ONE ?
AFAIK, PhotoCD uses JPEG. It's just that it's JPEG's hierarchical mode, that nobody else uses. (See my other post)
Retrieving optimized images from the server, based on device (desktop, tablet, phone) and the device's internet connection (fiber, broadband, mobile), has always been an open problem.
Nope. It was already solved by the JPEG's hierarchical mode, more than twenty years ago. You're limited to scaled sizes that are the inverse of a power of 2 of the full size, but on the other hand the client wouldn't even need to inform the server and just proceed with a partial download, up to the point where it has enough data for the desired resolution.
I need a platform that supports reading flash cards.
What are you trying to do? Referring to? It's a completely different technology!
Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!
Tetsuoooo !!!!
(Couldn't he have credited the music ?)
something must be done to address this glaring example of gender bias.
You're joking, but they're doing exactly that
or those that didn't notice.
It's interesting that the Microsoft announcement is MORE support for Mac and LESS support for Windows.
The next generation of interesting software will be done on the Macintosh, not the IBM PC.
-- Bill Gates, BusinessWeek, 26 November 1984
When animals lose a limb, they learn to hobble remarkably quickly.
Right, I'll do you for that!
It's just a flesh wound.
Hmm, let me guess...
News for nutters, stuff that squeaks?
Well, if Lautaro Cline paid them in bitcoins, maybe CoinTerra didn't get what they expected either...
People talking about "bit rot" usually have no clue, and this guy is no exception.
It's extremely unlikely that a file would become silently corrupted on disk. Block devices include per-block checksums, and you either have a read error (maybe he has) or the data read is the same as the data previously written. As far as I know, ZFS doesn't help to recover data from read errors. You would need RAID and / or backups.
Main memory is the weakest link. That's why my next computer will have ECC memory. So, when you copy the file (or otherwise defragment or modify the file, etc), you read a good copy, some bit flips in RAM, and you write back corrupted data. Your disk receives the corrupted data, happily computes a checksum, therefore ensuring you can read back your corrupted data faithfully. That's where ZFS helps. Using checksumming scripts is a good idea, and I do it myself. But I don't have auto-defrag on Linux, so I'm safer : when I detect a corrupted copy, I still have the original.
ext2 was introduced in 1993, and so was NTFS. ext4 is just ext2 updated (ext was a different beast). If anything, HFS+ is more modern, not that it makes a difference. All of them are updated. By the way, I noticed recently that Mac OS X resource forks sometimes contain a CRC32. I noticed it in a file coming from Mavericks.
Given enough data, almost all theories are disproven. The only ones that remain are the ones that fit the data.
Given enough data, almost all hypotheses are disproven. The ones which remain and have not yet been disproven by evidence become theories.
Nope, the AC was right.
By your definition, there is ultimately no such thing as a theory. Newtonian physics don't fit as they've been invalidated by Einstein's general relativity, which itself is known to be wrong as it is inconsistent with quantum mechanics (which are also wrong for the same reason).
You can't claim that former theories that were refined / invalidated never were theories in the first place : The "not yet" in your second sentence is problematic as it only allows theories to be defined with hindsight.
Therefore :
When data doesn't fit current theories, you're forming hypotheses, and test them. If your hypothesis fits the data better than former theories on some domain of validity (whose boundaries might not be completely known at the time of formulation, and will be refined with time and experimentations), good for you: you now have a new theory. It will ultimately be replaced by better theories, usually with an extended domain of validity (data that were missing at the time of formulation and testing).
And that was well summed up by the GP.
Also Traitement de choc (USA: Shock Treatment, UK: Doctor in the Nude).