Bastard bought himself out of this by spending billions and charity and starting a movement among billionairs to get rid of their billions while they are alive.
I came here to say this. I have been downvoted on another site for this, but it's worth repeating:
This is an idiotic analogy just proving that the whole movement justifying not paying for crap instead of not actually spending time on crap is teenage nonsense (whether actual teenager or an adult that never grown).
50% human traffic is too much even for HTTP protocol.
It means semantic web concept if far from penetrating enough web. Human ability to perceive information is constant, does not change with time. Some might have illusion that we do improve this, but we are not.
All those automated HTTP protocol robots are doing their service to us to reduce this overload and facilitate, even the evil ones.
"5% is due to hacking tools looking for an unpatched or new vulnerability within a site, " those are wolves weeding out the weaklings "5% is scrapers, " - that's good, need to be more "2% is from automated comment spammers, " - those are truly bad guys, but 2% is not much "19% is the result of 'spies' collating competitive intelligence, " - this is unexpectedly high, but I guess legit use. "20% is derived from search engines (non-human traffic but benign), " - that's very vital for Web, without this current Web is unimaginable "and only 49% is from people browsing the Internet." - only? scratch this and say: "whopping", because it's too much. We are still doing a lot of menial job weeding out crap out of internet manually.
It should be 1%
Think of all other complex systems surrounding us. A lot of time they spend in automatic mode, doing things without our control: our washing machines, our DVRs, our body.
The Web should be like that too. Web search engine provides us with page ranking sorting out pages that are most suitable for human consumption. A similar sort of ranking should exist for robotic searches that takes into account how easily the information is passed, and how many robots are reading it.
Compare human browsing to a walk in the Central Park. You have your paths intertwined, your walk around the reservoir.
And robotic browsing is like automobile roads crossing Central Park - completely different traffic routes, mostly passing through with intersections with human routes where it makes sense (bus stops, etc).
Four hours after the setting of the agar blocks (AG), the dead ends of the plasmodium shrink and the pseudopodia explore all possible connections.
Figure 1a shows "Structure of the organism before finding the shortest path"
Text: "The plasmodium pseudopodia reaching dead ends in the labyrinth shrank " (engrish)
SO, in short, organism first fills the whole thing, then retracts from the areas with no food. Same way water will solve the problem (first part).
What they demonstrated is that signal from one end of organism about presence of food reached the other end of the organism. It's more about memory than computation.
This phrase has lost all meaning on me. Humans break all things, including systems. They misuse them, abuse them. Every minor exception neglected by creators of the system, becomes a major use, because humans use the systems this way.
Every system has its own purpose different (or narrowing down) from main human instinct - grab stuff lying around.
GNU patent: every patent that is based on that patent (built on top of that patent, would be impossible without that patent) should be also a GNU patent.
Does not matter. One of very important reasons why they are developed within the rest of the package is because they need a functionality of the rest of the package: ergo, the choice of package and language.
There is an important distinction between adding to legacy package and writing new from scratch.
I was asking about the latter.
Legacy code exists and maintained because
1/ functionality in it is still needed 2/ there is not enough manpower/desire/interest to refactor/rewrite/redo it without risk of undermining functionality
Since FORTRAN is uses in science, 1/ some things created would serve forever, like molecular mechanics and 2/ nobody will give you a grant to refactor old package.
>And major important packages are still written in FORTRAN.
Like what. I love FORTRAN as any other scientist that grew up in 70s, and there are a lot of wonderful and honorable computational biology programs in FORTRAN but I haven't heard of anything new being written in FORTRAN.
The package I worked with in 90s was transformed into f95, but this is hardly new.
Give us some examples of new stuff written in FORTRAN
>It becomes obvious after a certain point you cannot eat anymore
1Mbyte/s=2,500,000 Mbytes/month
Your analogy would work only if a visitor to the aforementioned buffet (you must be hungry - I have no other reasonable explanation for your absurd analogy) can consume 1000 goat karahis at a time.
"Most want is rooted in feelings, and the desire to satisfy them"
And feelings cannot be manipulated. Right. That's exactly what I am talking about. That is how want is created by advertisement and marketing, through feelings.
War on Terror is happening for completely different reason. War on Drugs is fictional, there is no way, there is only lame attempts of making impression that the war is happening.
War on drugs would be real if American drones would be regularly whacking nacrobarons.
What is this obsession with "smartness"? With the ability of multiplying two digit numbers in your head? With memorizing ten digits on the fly?
Those skills are just tools, like calculators you mention or abakuses.
I used to call overseas directly 7-8 years ago, when VoIP did not pick up yet, and I used my phonebook. I did not have to memorize a single number, I lost the ability to memorize. It was very hard and took enormous amount of time to memorize numbers when I needed.
After that I switched to phone cards: dial local number, punch in a 10-digit code, punch another 10 digit number. It was impractical to store all of those in one number: not all phones supported that, my workphone addressbook was unmanageable, so I had to regain the ability to memorize those numbers, and I did. It takes me to look on the number I get from RussianSeattle for 5-10 sec, I can start dialing it right away.
Those abilities are not here, because they are not needed. If a human needs something he learns something very quickly.
We did not lose anything. We did not lose anything by stopping learning obligatory Greek and Latin post-Victorian England. We did not lose anything by stopping learning how to multiply with a slider.
Stop obsessing with rudimentary skills. Smartphones do not make us dumb. If anything, they make us even smarter. I learn about stuff faster than before, because I am surrounded with people with a data plan (I am still lingering on my old Samsung pre-data plan smartphone), and instead of forgetting about an atom of knowledge that I wanted to learn I am asking nearby brother in the mosque to check it out in Wikipedia.
I can imagine how much more stuff that I need I could learn by actually subscribing to one of those data plans.
I talked to an older brother from the mosque - he just got himself one of those and now is constantly reading Quran from it. "Why don't you go to the shelf pick a nice Mushaf and read from it?" I asked. "He said, it's too far and I will lose my place in the first row".
The revolution of a data plan is simply amazing and you people are talking about getting dumb?
I consider myself a neo-luddite with my aversion to technology, but _you_ are beating me hands down.
Slashdot Mirror
Bastard bought himself out of this by spending billions and charity and starting a movement among billionairs to get rid of their billions while they are alive.
I came here to say this. I have been downvoted on another site for this, but it's worth repeating:
This is an idiotic analogy just proving that the whole movement justifying not paying for crap instead of not actually spending time on crap is teenage nonsense (whether actual teenager or an adult that never grown).
50% human traffic is too much even for HTTP protocol.
It means semantic web concept if far from penetrating enough web. Human ability to perceive information is constant, does not change with time. Some might have illusion that we do improve this, but we are not.
All those automated HTTP protocol robots are doing their service to us to reduce this overload and facilitate, even the evil ones.
"5% is due to hacking tools looking for an unpatched or new vulnerability within a site, " those are wolves weeding out the weaklings
"5% is scrapers, " - that's good, need to be more
"2% is from automated comment spammers, " - those are truly bad guys, but 2% is not much
"19% is the result of 'spies' collating competitive intelligence, " - this is unexpectedly high, but I guess legit use.
"20% is derived from search engines (non-human traffic but benign), " - that's very vital for Web, without this current Web is unimaginable
"and only 49% is from people browsing the Internet." - only? scratch this and say: "whopping", because it's too much. We are still doing a lot of menial job weeding out crap out of internet manually.
It should be 1%
Think of all other complex systems surrounding us. A lot of time they spend in automatic mode, doing things without our control: our washing machines, our DVRs, our body.
The Web should be like that too. Web search engine provides us with page ranking sorting out pages that are most suitable for human consumption. A similar sort of ranking should exist for robotic searches that takes into account how easily the information is passed, and how many robots are reading it.
Compare human browsing to a walk in the Central Park. You have your paths intertwined, your walk around the reservoir.
And robotic browsing is like automobile roads crossing Central Park - completely different traffic routes, mostly passing through with intersections with human routes where it makes sense (bus stops, etc).
> At press time, Google had not responded to Internet Evolution's request for comment on this report.
Wise decision. One should avoid talking to idiots.
... by enumeration.
Nature 2000 paper Figrue 1 legend:
Four hours after the setting of the agar blocks (AG), the dead ends of the plasmodium shrink and the pseudopodia explore all possible connections.
Figure 1a shows "Structure of the organism before finding the shortest path"
Text: "The plasmodium pseudopodia reaching dead ends in the labyrinth shrank " (engrish)
SO, in short, organism first fills the whole thing, then retracts from the areas with no food. Same way water will solve the problem (first part).
What they demonstrated is that signal from one end of organism about presence of food reached the other end of the organism. It's more about memory than computation.
"No" is not necessarily the answer to the question. It could be an answer to a statement. In this case, to the statement "LSD Can Treat Alcoholism".
I do not have to read even /. summary to say:
No.
Tries to stop government from demanding Open Access to scientific publications sponsored by government.
How much Elsevier is paying you, Darrell?
Where are unions on this?
"system is totally broken"
This phrase has lost all meaning on me. Humans break all things, including systems. They misuse them, abuse them. Every minor exception neglected by creators of the system, becomes a major use, because humans use the systems this way.
Every system has its own purpose different (or narrowing down) from main human instinct - grab stuff lying around.
GNU patent: every patent that is based on that patent (built on top of that patent, would be impossible without that patent) should be also a GNU patent.
Does not matter. One of very important reasons why they are developed within the rest of the package is because they need a functionality of the rest of the package: ergo, the choice of package and language.
> Version 1.0 : February 29, 1992
I agree, for FORTRAN code, this is relatively new.
There is an important distinction between adding to legacy package and writing new from scratch.
I was asking about the latter.
Legacy code exists and maintained because
1/ functionality in it is still needed
2/ there is not enough manpower/desire/interest to refactor/rewrite/redo it without risk of undermining functionality
Since FORTRAN is uses in science, 1/ some things created would serve forever, like molecular mechanics and 2/ nobody will give you a grant to refactor old package.
That's why FORTRAN code still exists.
>And COBOL being an academic language
and
>Languages designed by academics
are essentially two opposite statements (that both can be true).
First means that language is _used_ mostly by academics
Second means that language is _created_ by academics.
>And major important packages are still written in FORTRAN.
Like what. I love FORTRAN as any other scientist that grew up in 70s, and there are a lot of wonderful and honorable computational biology programs in FORTRAN but I haven't heard of anything new being written in FORTRAN.
The package I worked with in 90s was transformed into f95, but this is hardly new.
Give us some examples of new stuff written in FORTRAN
>New Programming Languages Come From Designers
What does not nowadays?
It's a typical situation: a man, a stash and another man after that stash.
The rule is - never go after the stash, always go after the man.
Why bomb the facilities while you can go after leadership?
>One of the important prerequisites for a free market is informed customers
No. Informed customers is a result of regulation of a free market.
Free market is when somebody sells you a snake oil and you are responsible for figuring out if it is snake oil or not.
>It becomes obvious after a certain point you cannot eat anymore
1Mbyte/s=2,500,000 Mbytes/month
Your analogy would work only if a visitor to the aforementioned buffet (you must be hungry - I have no other reasonable explanation for your absurd analogy) can consume 1000 goat karahis at a time.
For those who does not get it:
1Mbyte/s=2,500,000 Mbytes/month
"Most want is rooted in feelings, and the desire to satisfy them"
And feelings cannot be manipulated. Right. That's exactly what I am talking about. That is how want is created by advertisement and marketing, through feelings.
War on Terror is happening for completely different reason. War on Drugs is fictional, there is no way, there is only lame attempts of making impression that the war is happening.
War on drugs would be real if American drones would be regularly whacking nacrobarons.
"If they want it"
What is this? XiX century? Nothing is needed, all is redundant. All "want" is artificially created by marketing.
That's true, but the comment I was replying to was about tower logs.
What is this obsession with "smartness"? With the ability of multiplying two digit numbers in your head? With memorizing ten digits on the fly?
Those skills are just tools, like calculators you mention or abakuses.
I used to call overseas directly 7-8 years ago, when VoIP did not pick up yet, and I used my phonebook. I did not have to memorize a single number, I lost the ability to memorize. It was very hard and took enormous amount of time to memorize numbers when I needed.
After that I switched to phone cards: dial local number, punch in a 10-digit code, punch another 10 digit number. It was impractical to store all of those in one number: not all phones supported that, my workphone addressbook was unmanageable, so I had to regain the ability to memorize those numbers, and I did. It takes me to look on the number I get from RussianSeattle for 5-10 sec, I can start dialing it right away.
Those abilities are not here, because they are not needed. If a human needs something he learns something very quickly.
We did not lose anything. We did not lose anything by stopping learning obligatory Greek and Latin post-Victorian England. We did not lose anything by stopping learning how to multiply with a slider.
Stop obsessing with rudimentary skills. Smartphones do not make us dumb. If anything, they make us even smarter. I learn about stuff faster than before, because I am surrounded with people with a data plan (I am still lingering on my old Samsung pre-data plan smartphone), and instead of forgetting about an atom of knowledge that I wanted to learn I am asking nearby brother in the mosque to check it out in Wikipedia.
I can imagine how much more stuff that I need I could learn by actually subscribing to one of those data plans.
I talked to an older brother from the mosque - he just got himself one of those and now is constantly reading Quran from it. "Why don't you go to the shelf pick a nice Mushaf and read from it?" I asked. "He said, it's too far and I will lose my place in the first row".
The revolution of a data plan is simply amazing and you people are talking about getting dumb?
I consider myself a neo-luddite with my aversion to technology, but _you_ are beating me hands down.