The guy is confused. Art != looks good.
Just look at paintings, in comparison van Gogh was a pixel artist while Rembrandt made proper high-definition 3D, yet both have made works that are considered great art.
When people complain about pixelation it's because nearly everyone cares about what looks good and not about good art.
The real mystery though is how the universe could be very nearly flat (without being exactly flat). Such "fine tuning" is clear evidence we're missing something quite fundamental.
The observable universe has to be sufficiently big for a planet like us to form, so that puts a lower bound on it.
But if the size of the whole universe really is random, then it seems likely that it's far larger than the observable, no?
Or are there any theoretical upper bounds I'm not familiar with?
What I remember is that it featured a rather eye-watering construction of two overlapping switch statements (?) which was syntactically legal, but perhaps shouldn't have been
Are you think of Duff's Device? It overlaps a switch with a do-while loop: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duff's_device
Because it's not big enough to number all our hosts?
I can reach the hosts that have v4 over v4, but not the ones that don't.
You said it wasn't a big issue that you cannot contact v4 from a v6 address, because one can simply use v4 to connect to v4. Yet you also say we need v6 because we don't have enough v4 left.
See the issue now?
Why? Because I also run v4 everywhere and use that to reach v4 hosts.
So why are we even bothering with v6 again when all we need is just to keep our v4?
Oh, did you mean "NAT as it existed before we ran out of IP addresses"? Well, that's why we need IPv6, now when we are talking about NAT, it includes carrier-grade NAT.
If you're behind a carrier grade NAT then fiddling with your own router config won't help much will it. That's the part I quoted and objected to.
NAT mostly works, but it turns a lot of things that should 'just work' into a need to fiddle around with the router config.
I don't see how. Either you keep essentially all ports open to your public IP at all times (bad idea), or you need to open ports on demand.
The latter requires the same fiddling around with the router config as with NAT, assuming UPnP isn't used. If UPnP is enabled it's not an issue with NAT either and the whole point is moot.
Without good results, it doesn't really matter about the bells and whistles. I use a search engine to find information, so it better do that extremely well. For example, I just couldn't stand using DuckDuckGo (aka Bing) because of this, and went back to Google. Bing consistently failed to find information the information I wanted, while Google had it on the first page.
So, after your engine returns as good or, ideally, better results than Google, you can start thinking about other features.
One feature I'd really like is to be able to tweak my result set. Something like if I search for "AC DC", I get a bunch of results about the band "AC/DC". That's not really a bad result given the input, but in this case I was after an explanation for the electrical terms.
So I'm thinking some ability to mark one or more of the results I don't want and say "not pages like this", and it would cull those talking about the band, in a weighted manner. Or some other way to help me find the information I want when I search for some ambiguous terms.
It's called false advertising and Pearson may be left holding the bag if the allegations are true and hold up in court.
That might well be. But it's also very poor project management of the school district not to do a pilot test before running off buying a billion iPads. The pilot test would identify the current problem and leave them with say 1200 iPads and not 120000.
Fair enough, never played the Pre-sequel and just assumed. And that's always a bad idea
2K Games is the publisher of Borderlands while the developer is Gearbox Software, which is based in Texas, US.
2K has several studios all over, the one from the article was 2K Australia.
There's talk that they influenced the decision of some recommended constants for Elliptic Curve Cryptography.
You'll want to use constants that ensures the cryptographic strength of the algorithm, so picking them are non-trivial and hence a recommended set was published. This is the same for most algorithms. AES has constants and they are part of what makes the algorithm AES and not some other variant.
Anyway, here's what Bruce Schneier said about ECC:
I no longer trust the constants. I believe the NSA has manipulated them through their relationships with industry.
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/09/the_nsa_is_brea.html#c1675929
And here's a nice background on ECC:
https://blog.cloudflare.com/a-relatively-easy-to-understand-primer-on-elliptic-curve-cryptography/
The link is between nutrition and brain development
Could it also be related to poorer parents working more hours, thus having less time to be with the kids during their early years playing with them, reading for them and otherwise stimulating their brain development? Or has that been corrected for?
Meanwhile, all the other platforms for which LLVM would be the dominant platform and for which there aren't extant major backers are basically on the hook for whatever way LLVM wants to play it, including extinguishing support for their platform.
No, really, I mean it. Explain in detail how FreeBSD will become utterly unusable if LLVM went closed-source today and deleted any FreeBSD related code from their now-internal repository. Or AMD's OpenCL implementation. Or any other project using LLVM.
Sure, it's technically possible to start up a fork tomorrow. But, realistically, it's also just as possible to recreate MS Windows from scratch.
That comparison is utterly silly. You already have the entire source code for LLVM, and forking it is simply pushing it to another repository. That's the complete opposite of Windows, where you'd have to recreate it from scratch.
Well, either way, you're setting yourself up for the risk of the source going closed and you having to support development yourself.
Well yes, but all that does is put you in the same spot as if you had picked a closed-source component to begin with.
And don't think you're safe with GPL. Any GPL code can be re-licensed (and thus made closed-source) if the copyright holders agree. Of course, exactly as with BSD, the code already distributed under GPL/BSD will stay GPL/BSD.
Company A extends out project X until a lot of people depend on your variant. Company A close sources future development of project X or incorporate some patented technology without provisions for use in the open source community
But they can't retroactively close the source, so I don't see how the "extinguish" part comes in. If the LLVM guys closes the source tomorrow it does not affect AMD, who's using LLVM for their OpenCL implementation. If it does, please elaborate, because I'm not seeing how.
I'm ignoring patents because software patents are broken and doesn't apply where I live anyway (and hopefully it stays that way).
"Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love." -- Albert Einstein
