Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:High school level programming. (Score 2) 1086

by Monkeedude1212 (#40936587) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: How Many of You Actually Use Math?

At first I thought you were joking.

Most programmers don't even know about sorting algorithms.

They just throw everything into an Array or List or Vector or some random collection class that they first looked up how to use, and just use myList.Sort()

The only thing they bother doing in SQL is a
'select * from table where id =' + strId;

I think you're giving them more credit than is due.

Comment: Re:Evolution is smarter than you. (Score 4, Interesting) 108

by Monkeedude1212 (#35239030) Attached to: Ants Build Cheapest Networks

It's not that evolution doesn't appy to us, we've inherantly used Steiner trees in the same way Ants use them without even thinking about it. The road systems in Ancient and Medeival times were the same for humans, in fact, anywhere you can think of a T instersection is an example where a Steiner tree was favoured over two direct routes. These kinds of "efficient solutions" just simply come about when you get co-operation on a large scale, such as Kings leading peasants or Queens ants leading their colonies.

Comment: Re:Bitter from competition? (Score 4, Insightful) 278

by Monkeedude1212 (#35177464) Attached to: OpenLeaks Founder 'Crippled' WikiLeaks

I don't see what WikiLeaks problem is with it. If they are truly in this to spread information to the masses, then the more sites that do it, the easier it will be for the information to get released.

All the more evidence to suggest that either
A) Wikileaks is right in that Domscheit-Berg sabatoged Wikileaks and they don't want you to trust him
B) Wikileaks is not truly in this to spread information to the masses.

Comment: Re:In other words (Score 1) 517

by Monkeedude1212 (#35177312) Attached to: Online-Only Currency BitCoin Reaches Dollar Parity

Yes, but given how language has adapted beyond that syntax, posing the question as I did gives it a more "I'm leading you on" feel to it. There is no real question in my format, I seem so certain that the US Dollar will soon be worthless that I state it as such, but the question mark is there to imply that this query is expecting a response, even though I leave no room for an anwer. There is no Yes or No, it's not a yes or no question, however, one might still disagree with the statement, and the question mark is an open invitation for them to post their response.

Welcome to trolling 101. Hence, the *ducks*.

Comment: Re:Thank goodness for Canada (Score 1) 385

by Monkeedude1212 (#35166148) Attached to: Leaked Cables Reveal US Thinks Saudi Oil Reserves May Be Overstated

But the idea was that the US would no longer need to purchase it's oil... (assuming the states is invading and taking control or Canadians are just that nice) Hence prices no longer matter to the US. Essentially if the Demand for oil by the US is met by the supply the US has, the prices only really go up for everyone else who loses out.

Comment: Re:My sister stole 13 million worth of my monopoly (Score 2) 99

by Monkeedude1212 (#35090656) Attached to: Hacker Steals $12 Million Worth of <em>Zynga Poker</em> Chips

My friend stole a few hundred trillion dollars from me the other day, as that's what I had valued my favourite pencil at had anyone wanted to purchase it from me.

The only difference between our situations and the ones in the article is that there are actual transactions taking place, right now, for such items. With so many of them going on, they have a bit of a competitive market, which forces them to be roughly equal in price. This means that, in practice, this virtual currency DOES have a value, as much as one could say a chocolate bar is worth anywhere between 1 and 2 dollars.

Stop being so smug with the whole "omg virtual currency has no value" bit because it obviously does - people spend their money on it. They're just 1's and 0's on a database somewhere, but then again, so is your bank account.


by Monkeedude1212 (#35090564) Attached to: Usage Based Billing In Canada To Be Rescinded


I would much, MUCH rather go for the second option.

I would too, if thats what would happen.

What would happen is you pay $40 a month for a 10Mbps connection with a 100GB limit and most of the time you'll get 3-5Mbps because of high network usage. Right now, the caps they set are too low, which would encourage even the medium and light users to watch their bandwidth. 10Mbps all the time for the 20GB limit they set... That's like 4and a half hours a month you can use the speed you were promised! Some activities that would require that speed are playing games, streaming movies. I would not want to kill half my monthly alotted amount just by using netflix once. If they set it to 100GB, That's a little better around 22 hours, but that still means if I want 1 solid hour of gaming a night, I'm STILL going over my cap.

So ISP's that currently preform the Technical ITMP's SHOULD be able to provide that solid 10Mbps connection right now, right? Because they've effectively employed the technical solution over the economic one. How come everyone at Shaw is still bitching they don't get the full speed they paid for? Because they are not equipped to handle a 100GB cap at 10Mbps. How many of the heavy users, who download 1TB a month, are ACTUALLY going to be curbed? Little Johnny Jimmy who downloads movies for all his friends 1 months, gets scolded by mom and dad, then teachs his friends to do it instead... and it just goes around.

Let's face it, the caps in theory would work incredibly well, the problem is that the ISP's aren't equipped to handle the caps. They've been employing the technical solution and they still aren't up to snuff, so I doubt the more flexible and lenient economic plan would be any better whatsoever.
