I thought "sphere of influence" meant that, in your example, the Moon is not influenced by Earth at all (or at least, significantly). As in, even if the Earth were not there, the Moon would still be there and in its present orbit?

The way you wrote it, it sounds like the Earth does have an effect on the Moon, which I thought meant that the Moon was inside the Earth's sphere of influence?

I don't see how it'd take even a month to get that far. By the second attack, memos or something should be going company-wide, saying "People are trying to break into our networks, make sure stuff is secure".
If it takes more than 4 weeks for an IT team to do a basic security audit (SQL injection means not using parameterized queries, so basic to spot and fairly simple to stop), then you simply haven't budgeted enough for IT. Which is a reason for the new problem but still a problem they had control over.

He did bring Hope and Change. He brought the hope that things would change. That's close enough, right?

XBMC (without 4XBOX in the name) has dropped support for xbox. This group is re-integrating xbox support. So XBMC itself has dropped support, and this project without xbox support is irrelevant, I'd say.

I think that's the point. If you do not know your way around a computer, Linux can be just as viable as Windows (possibly more-so according to the arguments made).

Yes, if you know your way around a computer, you can easily use Windows and not get virus. Same goes for Linux.

Personally I think the more appropriate slogan is "If we give up our freedoms, we have lost". Unfortunately, I don't think everyone is capable of understanding how we have "lost" when the terrorists haven't technically won either, because in general people aren't familiar with non-zero-sum games explained in such short phrases.

I never made any assumption about whether the system would collapse, and I'm not sure how it would seem like I did.

Here is my take on things. Assume we have a network, with a bunch of users sharing (so both uploading and downloading to each other) a particular object.
If you are downloading from and uploading back to the system, you are using a peer-to-peer system.
If you are only downloading, you are using the system as a server, and you are a client.

If you want to choose to only upload A, but not upload B but only download it, then for the instance where you are uploading A, you are using a peer-to-peer system, and for the instance where you are only downloading B, you are a client to the network.

I'm not sure what in particular you want with a BitTorrent client. Researchers have created clients that do not upload, and there is (or at least was) one out there by the name of "BitThief" that does not do any uploading at all, and there are enough open source clients that anyone with the ability, or money to hire someone with ability, could create their own. Of course, the issue arises when using these that because they do not upload, they are given low preference when a node decides to share out bandwidth.

Computer networks can be peer-to-peer. Something being peer-to-peer doesn't mean it has to be a computer network. In my eyes, if you are only downloading, and others are uploading to you, then you aren't operating on the same level as the others (as they are uploading, and you are not), which I believe makes them a "server" (or group of servers) and makes you simply a "client" requesting resources.

I wouldn't be surprised if you could. And with DC, you can willingly not share anything, and I'm pretty sure there are BitTorrent clients out there that don't upload, too.

However, in my eyes, as soon as you do this, you are no longer using peer-to-peer services. The idea behind them, to me, has always been a "shared" responsibility for the workload. If you just download from a network, then I would count you as a regular downloader, or user, of a server (or network of servers) and no longer using peer-to-peer services (as you are no longer acting as an equal).

I mean, sure, you can download from a service that "internally" runs as peer-to-peer. And by "internally" here I mean everyone who contributes to the service is contributing some of the workload, but that doesn't mean you are also acting as a peer.

For example, NTP runs as a peer-to-peer service, somewhat, in that many servers around the globe communicate to keep an accurate time. But if I sync my clock to some NTP server once a day, that doesn't mean I'm a peer. That just means I'm a user. Similarly, DNS runs, between servers, as a peer-to-peer service. But just because your browser does some address lookups doesn't make you a peer.

But that's just my take on it, if you're just applying "P2P" as a label, to all users of a given protocol or program that is aimed at P2P services, then the label by your own definition applies.

Well ... technically, those are programs that don't require you to upload.

That also means they aren't P2P. The GP seems to have forgotten that P2P stands for peer-to-peer, and by definition means that there is no central server that everyone downloads from, but rather that each peer does it's own share of uploading and downloading.

Assuming large enough data sets, you could easily carry 10 Blu-Ray discs in that time though. That's now 830MB/second. Although now you'll need to consider time taken to burn said discs. Alternatively, you might have a 2TB drive that you're walking across. 40x bigger, so your transfer is now at 3320MB/s, bug again, you'd need to account for the time taken to read/write the data at either end which will definitely slow things down. In the end, given current network capabilities and hardware limits on reading/writing individual discs or hard drives, I'd still agree with you that networks are faster, but it's generally because of the additional time that it takes to read/write data.

Update system first, then world. And don't forget revdep-rebuild if needed. And to update your config files in /etc. And yes, I run Gentoo too :)

Also, us lowly humans are treated as second-class citizens compared to the corporations. I think that's the latest ideology /. has caught on to, isn't it?

The very article explains that it is hard to define "rogue-like" as anything except "similar to the game Rogue". I'm not sure what better description can be given, and if you want one linked, then TFA does actually go over what a Rogue-like game is.

Seems like you answered your own question. In "adventurer" mode it's rogue-like. In "fortress" mode it isn't. Just like Portal 2 is "multiplayer" when doing co-op, and "single player" when doing the .. solo campaign. I don't see what's wrong with a game being "rogue-like" in one particular mode, especially when, like Dwarf Fortress, different modes of game play are so different.