Could it be due to low power draw, caused by Windows 7 being better at sleeping the cpu?
If there's an imbalance between the cells then one could end up supplying the majority of the (low) current, and the other(s) could get marked as "dead", even though under higher current draw they'd still pull their weight.
Random thoughts, not necessarily real or even possible.
In the real world, there is a large chance a "trait Y" would be discovered which also protects against one of those cases, allowing something to survive.
The only way to guarantee killing bacteria is to use something that attacks the physical structure of the bacteria cells, e.g. oxidisers like bleach. Though it is theoretically possible that a bleach-resistant bacteria will be found eventually, which would be fun.
Strangely, Firefox runs perfectly fine on my Windows 7. I think it's much more likely that there's something broken about your pc. Do you overclock? Got decent antivirus? etc etc tech support.
If they were going to use DRM, they should tie the key to your TV license. That way, you have to have a TV license to watch the content. Unfortunately that would involve uniquely encrypting the content for every viewer, which just isn't practical, especially for over-the-air broadcasts.
Instead they'll implement some crap system where the key is hidden in the device somehow. Someone will get it out, and then they'll be free to decrypt anything and post it onto the net.
You said "It's already DRMd". Except "it" isn't. Freeview at the moment isn't DRMd. If you meant to say "The BBC already uses DRM, e.g. FreeSat, which is a similar service to FreeView, so I'm not surprised." then you should have said that. Instead, you talked about the two as if they were the same thing, which is why I said "Freesat != Freeview".
I don't think the DRM matters one way or the other. It will be broken, probably quite easily, and then the issue will go away again.
Both make you keep paying to keep playing, trying to balance the worth of the game against its actual cost, in order to make the mos profit for the creators.
I did say that this method doesn't give comparable values for different people.
For you, pac man and tetris must be worth little, but shallow games with awesome graphics would be worth a lot to you.
Personally tetris would rank quite highly for me, I was practically addicted to it when I was younger. Somewhere, I have a floppy disk of the first UK release of it!
Time spent playing (per dollar) seems like a good measurement. If a game has other advantages beyond being good, such as being a mobile phone game you can play while sitting bored on a train, then that will cause you to play it more. Everything naturally factors in.
Of course, values between different people aren't comparable due to different tastes and amounts of time available to play games, and it's virtually impossible to work out in advance how many hours you will play the game for, but it's a good way to quantify a game's value.
Going halfway around the world at 0.5C would take 133ms, enough to make your earlier statement that latency only depends on bandwidth and packet size a fallacy.
The latency to transmit/receive a packet on of an otherwise empty line is: [Distance] / [Propagation velocity of signal] + [Packet size] / [Bandwidth] * [hops]
[Propagation velocity of signal] for Cat.5e UTP is 0.64c [hops] is the number of lines between computers or routing devices. e.g. if your pc is connected to a network switch and then another pc, that's two hops, one between your pc and the switch, and one between the switch and the other pc. Routers need to receive the entire packet before they can resend it on the next hop, which is why hops need to be multiplied in. Over the internet the number of hops can get quite ludicrous. It's around 18 hops from me to www.google.co.uk and most other uk sites (including my own), let alone sites in America (the transatlantic link typically adds 70ms to round-trip time), or other countries. If the hops have different link speeds, calculate [Packet size] / [Bandwidth] for each one and add them up.
Also, a link doesn't have to be overloaded to add significantly to latency. Packets are produced fairly randomly between hosts (especially during gaming), so the likelihood of collisions at a shared link is quite high. Two systems might only be using 1/10th of their private local link each, but if they're trying to share another link at any point, 1% of the time both systems will try to use the link at once, there will be a packet collision and one of the packets will be delayed by the time it takes to transmit the other on the shared link. If the shared link is the same speed as the link to each pc, then for each packet delayed there is a 19% chance that the link will get another packet from one or both of the two pcs, which will also be delayed, with a 1% chance that both will have and there will be yet another packet delayed.
And that's with two pcs. With a whole street or more sharing a single link (50:1 "contention" is common), assuming only 1% usage each (only 50% total usage of the link), the chance of a packet collision causing delay is approx 10%, with the unlucky packet being delayed by one to (if it's really unlucky) 49 packets. For each packet of delay, there is another 40% chance that another 1-50 packets will get queued and delayed. I don't know how to find the average delay except by simulation, but you should be able to see that the queue of delayed packets can grow quite quickly, and that even in this low-use case adding several ms to the latency of the average packet at a single link isn't infeasible.
They should just use the underlying system's video system and be done with it.
On Windows, this would be DirectShow. You'd have access to all the codecs on the user's pc then, without the browser needing to pay any royalties at all.
More games need co-op multiplayer. I play little else these days (just a touch of team - dm/ctf/... if I need something mindless), and I would love to have enough co-op games to chose between that I actually have choice.
I've played Left4Dead and Borderlands to death, what's the next co-op game due out?
Also their meter may include packet headers and other low-level things, where a just-on-your-pc meter may only count "data" transferred. It depends how they both measure, but the odds of your meter and theirs agreeing is very very low.
Slashdot Mirror
Could it be due to low power draw, caused by Windows 7 being better at sleeping the cpu?
If there's an imbalance between the cells then one could end up supplying the majority of the (low) current, and the other(s) could get marked as "dead", even though under higher current draw they'd still pull their weight.
Random thoughts, not necessarily real or even possible.
In the real world, there is a large chance a "trait Y" would be discovered which also protects against one of those cases, allowing something to survive.
The only way to guarantee killing bacteria is to use something that attacks the physical structure of the bacteria cells, e.g. oxidisers like bleach. Though it is theoretically possible that a bleach-resistant bacteria will be found eventually, which would be fun.
Maybe the error dialogs give some hint?
What with other users on Win7 not getting any, they're probably important.
Heheh, I wonder if that would really work?
But in real seriousness, what's the point in this scanner vs actually getting someone to strip? The latter is a lot cheaper than this thing.
Strangely, Firefox runs perfectly fine on my Windows 7. I think it's much more likely that there's something broken about your pc. Do you overclock? Got decent antivirus? etc etc tech support.
It would be good for download games, especially if they bundled the transfer fee into the cost of buying the game, with no monthly contract.
If they were going to use DRM, they should tie the key to your TV license. That way, you have to have a TV license to watch the content. Unfortunately that would involve uniquely encrypting the content for every viewer, which just isn't practical, especially for over-the-air broadcasts.
Instead they'll implement some crap system where the key is hidden in the device somehow. Someone will get it out, and then they'll be free to decrypt anything and post it onto the net.
You said "It's already DRMd". Except "it" isn't. Freeview at the moment isn't DRMd. If you meant to say "The BBC already uses DRM, e.g. FreeSat, which is a similar service to FreeView, so I'm not surprised." then you should have said that. Instead, you talked about the two as if they were the same thing, which is why I said "Freesat != Freeview".
I don't think the DRM matters one way or the other. It will be broken, probably quite easily, and then the issue will go away again.
Freesat != Freeview
I've just realise, the same goes for MMOs...
Both make you keep paying to keep playing, trying to balance the worth of the game against its actual cost, in order to make the mos profit for the creators.
Surely if it was the best game ever you'd play it more than once...
Dear god that's evil. Evil!
You wouldn't believe the number of hours I racked up on Final Fantasy VII when I was younger...
Though these days I prefer playing multiplayer games.
And if you did, then it would have been worth playing for that long...
It's far more likely that you'd play the good game for longer, and the mediocre game for very little time.
I did say that this method doesn't give comparable values for different people.
For you, pac man and tetris must be worth little, but shallow games with awesome graphics would be worth a lot to you.
Personally tetris would rank quite highly for me, I was practically addicted to it when I was younger. Somewhere, I have a floppy disk of the first UK release of it!
Time spent playing (per dollar) seems like a good measurement. If a game has other advantages beyond being good, such as being a mobile phone game you can play while sitting bored on a train, then that will cause you to play it more. Everything naturally factors in.
Of course, values between different people aren't comparable due to different tastes and amounts of time available to play games, and it's virtually impossible to work out in advance how many hours you will play the game for, but it's a good way to quantify a game's value.
Going halfway around the world at 0.5C would take 133ms, enough to make your earlier statement that latency only depends on bandwidth and packet size a fallacy.
The latency to transmit/receive a packet on of an otherwise empty line is:
[Distance] / [Propagation velocity of signal] + [Packet size] / [Bandwidth] * [hops]
[Propagation velocity of signal] for Cat.5e UTP is 0.64c
[hops] is the number of lines between computers or routing devices. e.g. if your pc is connected to a network switch and then another pc, that's two hops, one between your pc and the switch, and one between the switch and the other pc. Routers need to receive the entire packet before they can resend it on the next hop, which is why hops need to be multiplied in. Over the internet the number of hops can get quite ludicrous. It's around 18 hops from me to www.google.co.uk and most other uk sites (including my own), let alone sites in America (the transatlantic link typically adds 70ms to round-trip time), or other countries.
If the hops have different link speeds, calculate [Packet size] / [Bandwidth] for each one and add them up.
Also, a link doesn't have to be overloaded to add significantly to latency. Packets are produced fairly randomly between hosts (especially during gaming), so the likelihood of collisions at a shared link is quite high. Two systems might only be using 1/10th of their private local link each, but if they're trying to share another link at any point, 1% of the time both systems will try to use the link at once, there will be a packet collision and one of the packets will be delayed by the time it takes to transmit the other on the shared link. If the shared link is the same speed as the link to each pc, then for each packet delayed there is a 19% chance that the link will get another packet from one or both of the two pcs, which will also be delayed, with a 1% chance that both will have and there will be yet another packet delayed.
And that's with two pcs. With a whole street or more sharing a single link (50:1 "contention" is common), assuming only 1% usage each (only 50% total usage of the link), the chance of a packet collision causing delay is approx 10%, with the unlucky packet being delayed by one to (if it's really unlucky) 49 packets. For each packet of delay, there is another 40% chance that another 1-50 packets will get queued and delayed. I don't know how to find the average delay except by simulation, but you should be able to see that the queue of delayed packets can grow quite quickly, and that even in this low-use case adding several ms to the latency of the average packet at a single link isn't infeasible.
They should just use the underlying system's video system and be done with it.
On Windows, this would be DirectShow. You'd have access to all the codecs on the user's pc then, without the browser needing to pay any royalties at all.
Clever.
No-one's posted that before.
Well, I presume you're on about the Army of Two sequel, as the original is nearly two years old.
I hadn't even heard there was a sequel due, and I avoided the original due to:
The sequel has had better reviews, but the other points are all still there...
I think you'll find that WoW's been out for a long time.
More games need co-op multiplayer. I play little else these days (just a touch of team - dm/ctf/... if I need something mindless), and I would love to have enough co-op games to chose between that I actually have choice.
I've played Left4Dead and Borderlands to death, what's the next co-op game due out?
Also their meter may include packet headers and other low-level things, where a just-on-your-pc meter may only count "data" transferred. It depends how they both measure, but the odds of your meter and theirs agreeing is very very low.
Keyloggers? Backdoors?
Both are malware, both will do nothing most of the time, and avoid detection as much as possible. Good luck finding out you have one.