What you fail to understand is that it would not be the hedge fund managers who were involved in insider trading who would be shot in the public stadium, no they have far too much power and influence (read as money).
It would be the drug dealers and other relatively insignificant criminals who would find themselves in a stadium preparing to be shot on national television.
The Simmon's case is an interesting one. The important part is that the private equity companies managed to secure loans worth far more than the company, transfer the money from the loans to themselves, and then let Simmon's go bankrupt
How exactly does the private equity company escape the responsibility of the loans taken out in the name of a company that is wholly owned by them?
Which does not even protect against real phishing sites because they can simply get the correct image from the BofA website in the background themselves. At the very best those verification images just increase the complexity of producing a convincing phishing website. Once more I'm sure that anybody who is going to fall for a phishing website would be fooled by 'the verification images feature have been discontinued'.
Hate to break it to you, but the vast majority of Americans have no interest in the world beyond our shores that extends beyond taking a year off from college and touring Europe.
Hydroelectric energy storage systems are between 70-85% efficient. If this superconducting power line is more efficient than that it would be cheaper to transfer power than to attempt to buffer it locally. As an added bonus if they can transfer at a higher efficiency than it can be stored at there will be energy saved overall.
The problem is simply one of technical capability and cost: technology isn't good enough and the cost is too high (these are correlated). Servers are irrelevant; the problem is the network. The technological networking requirements to handle multiple concurrent players in a game space grows logarithmically with the number of players who can interact in 'real time'.
First of all I'm going to assume that you mean the bandwidth grows exponentially as the number of players interacting with each other increases. Logarithmic growth would be excellent (the n+1th player would cost less than the nth player).
Uh it should be obvious to anybody that if servers map directly to area in the game, and there is no interaction between the servers except to transfer players, then you either have a fundamental density limitation based on the most powerful single server you can get, or you have a direct correlation to player density in an area and the size of the area they can interact with. Obviously with servers mapping to in game area you could end up with a situation in which you cant see the guy standing right next to you because the servers have split right there.
If you simply split the in game area between two servers every time the load gets too great you'd end up with areas where you can neither see nor interact with players right next to you.
I have no idea what the best model to use is, but I'm certain it is not mapping servers to certain regions.
If you map servers to regions there is no way for you to have interaction between the regions, as the load increases on a particular area you inevitably must reduce the size of the area each server covers or restrict the number of players in the area. So either you have an ever reduced radius in which you player can interact with the environment or you have to restrict the number of players in a region. Neither of those options sound good to me.
This is a computational problem that the major game studies are hopelessly under prepared to solve.
Mostly they hire people who get degrees in game design that include very little in the way of computer science. This is actually a fairly difficult problem to solve.
The fundamental design flaw they all have is that servers represent space in the game, it's a flawed assumption about the best model to use.
Well you're right that with bittorrent there are three checksum levels, link-layer, tcp, and application; regardless though the checksums used in most link-layer protocols are as bad or worse than the checksum used by tcp.
So like I said more than likely the bittorrent mis matches are actually transmission errors in which the relatively weak checksums used by the link-layer and tcp managed to match, while the cryptographic strength checksum used by bittorrent catches the mismatch.
Yeah, but let's look at the more common situation - a home. Variable temperatures, most likely QUITE variable power quality, low-quality PSU, and almost certaily no UPS to make up for it. Add that to low-quality commodity components (mobo & RAM).
The vast majority of people have laptop's now which come with a built in UPS.
Unfortunately for them hard work is not a useful way to measure the future value of a person. In many cases the hard work of many inefficient people is worth far less than the work of a few very efficient people.
One person who is skilled in controlling a ditch digger can dig ditches faster than a dozen people with shovels. That one person is worth a dozen of those people minus the accrued cost of the ditch digging machine. To be quite frank about it someone who is at the bottom of the pay scale is almost certainly there because they can be replaced almost instantly by just about anybody else. You're only as valuable as guy next to you (with the same skill set, etc) is charging.
Distribution of goods and services are based on monetary wealth. Advanced techniques take enormous amounts of time, energy, and financial backing. Somebody making 47K a year (the current nominal GDP per capita in the US) simply cannot afford state of the art medical treatment. People incapable of paying for the best services do not receive the best services.
The fundamental problem is that the vast majority of health care expenses are incurred by people who are no longer in the work force. They are no longer generating anything useful for society. From a purely macro economic standpoint using an enormous portion of our resources to keep people who are no longer producing goods/services alive is a decision that would be ridiculously expensive.
With that said I think that there is a moral imperative to find a system that offers the best service for the lowest price. Unfortunately I seriously doubt that a massive federal program is going to do anything to lower prices unless they dictate what doctors can charge for services.
Slashdot Mirror
What you fail to understand is that it would not be the hedge fund managers who were involved in insider trading who would be shot in the public stadium, no they have far too much power and influence (read as money).
It would be the drug dealers and other relatively insignificant criminals who would find themselves in a stadium preparing to be shot on national television.
all their patches on zfs
Did they really have a choice there?
The Simmon's case is an interesting one. The important part is that the private equity companies managed to secure loans worth far more than the company, transfer the money from the loans to themselves, and then let Simmon's go bankrupt
How exactly does the private equity company escape the responsibility of the loans taken out in the name of a company that is wholly owned by them?
Which does not even protect against real phishing sites because they can simply get the correct image from the BofA website in the background themselves. At the very best those verification images just increase the complexity of producing a convincing phishing website. Once more I'm sure that anybody who is going to fall for a phishing website would be fooled by 'the verification images feature have been discontinued'.
Hate to break it to you, but the vast majority of Americans have no interest in the world beyond our shores that extends beyond taking a year off from college and touring Europe.
WHOOSH!
Hydroelectric energy storage systems are between 70-85% efficient. If this superconducting power line is more efficient than that it would be cheaper to transfer power than to attempt to buffer it locally. As an added bonus if they can transfer at a higher efficiency than it can be stored at there will be energy saved overall.
1 http://www.electricitystorage.org/site/technologies/pumped_hydro/
The problem is simply one of technical capability and cost: technology isn't good enough and the cost is too high (these are correlated). Servers are irrelevant; the problem is the network. The technological networking requirements to handle multiple concurrent players in a game space grows logarithmically with the number of players who can interact in 'real time'.
First of all I'm going to assume that you mean the bandwidth grows exponentially as the number of players interacting with each other increases. Logarithmic growth would be excellent (the n+1th player would cost less than the nth player).
You do have a point other than that.
Uh it should be obvious to anybody that if servers map directly to area in the game, and there is no interaction between the servers except to transfer players, then you either have a fundamental density limitation based on the most powerful single server you can get, or you have a direct correlation to player density in an area and the size of the area they can interact with. Obviously with servers mapping to in game area you could end up with a situation in which you cant see the guy standing right next to you because the servers have split right there.
If you simply split the in game area between two servers every time the load gets too great you'd end up with areas where you can neither see nor interact with players right next to you.
I have no idea what the best model to use is, but I'm certain it is not mapping servers to certain regions.
If you map servers to regions there is no way for you to have interaction between the regions, as the load increases on a particular area you inevitably must reduce the size of the area each server covers or restrict the number of players in the area. So either you have an ever reduced radius in which you player can interact with the environment or you have to restrict the number of players in a region. Neither of those options sound good to me.
This is a computational problem that the major game studies are hopelessly under prepared to solve.
Mostly they hire people who get degrees in game design that include very little in the way of computer science. This is actually a fairly difficult problem to solve.
The fundamental design flaw they all have is that servers represent space in the game, it's a flawed assumption about the best model to use.
Try re-reading my sentence.
If the checksum of a corrupted packet matches the calculated checksum has an error occured?
No problem.
Well you're right that with bittorrent there are three checksum levels, link-layer, tcp, and application; regardless though the checksums used in most link-layer protocols are as bad or worse than the checksum used by tcp.
So like I said more than likely the bittorrent mis matches are actually transmission errors in which the relatively weak checksums used by the link-layer and tcp managed to match, while the cryptographic strength checksum used by bittorrent catches the mismatch.
I just included the session in the url. Posting right now the link does not work.
Been watching too much NCIS Los Angeles have you?
UPS - Uninterruptible Power Supply
Now many UPSs also include a Power Conditioner, but a UPS is not a power conditioner.
The checksum used by TCP is several orders of magnitude more likely to match a corrupted packet than the checksum used by bittorrent. (citation)
More than likely these are transmission errors where the TCP checksum matched but the bittorrent checksum did not.
Yeah, but let's look at the more common situation - a home. Variable temperatures, most likely QUITE variable power quality, low-quality PSU, and almost certaily no UPS to make up for it. Add that to low-quality commodity components (mobo & RAM).
The vast majority of people have laptop's now which come with a built in UPS.
Unfortunately for them hard work is not a useful way to measure the future value of a person. In many cases the hard work of many inefficient people is worth far less than the work of a few very efficient people.
One person who is skilled in controlling a ditch digger can dig ditches faster than a dozen people with shovels. That one person is worth a dozen of those people minus the accrued cost of the ditch digging machine. To be quite frank about it someone who is at the bottom of the pay scale is almost certainly there because they can be replaced almost instantly by just about anybody else. You're only as valuable as guy next to you (with the same skill set, etc) is charging.
Grow up.
Distribution of goods and services are based on monetary wealth. Advanced techniques take enormous amounts of time, energy, and financial backing. Somebody making 47K a year (the current nominal GDP per capita in the US) simply cannot afford state of the art medical treatment. People incapable of paying for the best services do not receive the best services.
The fundamental problem is that the vast majority of health care expenses are incurred by people who are no longer in the work force. They are no longer generating anything useful for society. From a purely macro economic standpoint using an enormous portion of our resources to keep people who are no longer producing goods/services alive is a decision that would be ridiculously expensive.
With that said I think that there is a moral imperative to find a system that offers the best service for the lowest price. Unfortunately I seriously doubt that a massive federal program is going to do anything to lower prices unless they dictate what doctors can charge for services.
http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/home.aspx
way to read the summary moron, the new site is generic not specific.
WOW WHAT A GREAT IDEA!
THAT WONT BE OVERRUN BY COMPLETE MORONS!1!!!
</sarcasm> morons... do they seriously think this is going to be more effective thank yahoo answers?