I thought the entire point of that section of Freakonomics was not that kids with lots of books scored well on tests (which was proven wrong when governments stepped in and offered free books) - but that
1) Kids who do well on tests are usually smart kids.
2) Kids are smart usually because their parents are smart.
3) Smart parents generally have more books in their home anyway.
The entire point of the article was that correlation doesn't imply causation. What this means is that even if kids learn to read from the computer, and there are fewer "books" in the home as readers choose to read from the Internet or from Kindle or whatever won't actually have an impact on learning.
It takes me longer to find files in Windows Explorer than it does in Windows XP, mostly because of two things: First, I have to enable "sort by date modified" for every folder. Second, for some reason, Vista is opening up tiny little Explorer windows to show huge icons. Not a whole lot of visual information on the screen at once. I end up going to details view, but Vista doesn't give me two very important details unless I enable them directly: I can't sort by filetype, and I can't sort by date modified - I have to enable these two things in Vista's submenu, and I have to do it for every single folder. I'm the kind of person who doesn't remember what he named his file, but remembers that it's a JPG, not a PNG.
Which brings me to search. Yes, indexing is a good thing, and I like it, but I don't like the rest of the start menu, which is a hierarchy of folders, requiring multiple clicks to look around and see where I need to go. Say what you will about the old start menu, but I clicked once and moved the mouse around to browse the applications. I have to open each folder individually to look inside them. This may not seem that different to you, but when you're talking two clicks versus 10, it is noticable.
But as for search; we had that capability in XP as well with Google Desktop; and I think Google Desktop did it better. (Google Desktop doesn't have a 64-bit version yet, so I'm still using Vista's indexing.)
As for games related features, I'm 30 years old with no kids, so ESRB ratings aren't important to me. Neither is downloading cover art. And I don't have any idea why the hell averaging the capabilities of my CPU, RAM, and Video Card would give me any sort of meaningful number because they're all going to do different things.
Shadow-copy is of limited utility to me, considering that I have about 1.5 TB of data that I can't afford to lose. I do have it backed up, but multiple copies over time isn't really all that big a deal. As for restoring old versions of the OS, for those cases where it does matter, I -have- an install disc, and can just reinstall the OS anyway. At any rate, these services were provided by third parties for Windows XP - and done better.
I haven't used the backup utility, preferring to backup manually because I don't want to save operating system files, only my 1.5 TB of video data. Still, I did take a look at it - how do you tell it which files you don't want backed up?
And finally, Security/UAE. Vista is still vulnerable to malware. When the cracks in windows XP were patched up, the malware authors simply found new cracks.
Another big problem is UAE. Heck, I'm a power user who knows EXACTLY why turning off UAE is a bad idea... and I went and did it anyway. I just couldn't live with those goddamn Cancel/Allow popups. I'm willing to bet most people can't... and turn it off anyway.
The same thing happens in Linux and MacOSX - "enter your password to continue" - but happens far less frequently because apps designed for those two operating systems don't need or ask for administrative control; applications designed for XP, however, did, even when they really didn't need to. Backwards compatibility required that they run; so run they did. They just need to cancel/allow for administrator access.
And finally the sandboxed IE environment has zero impact on security. Everyone I know uses Firefox, Chrome, or Opera.
I actually wrote one of those "early bad impression" reviews for HardOCP.com; the problem was complete instability. Maybe it was caused by NVidia's drivers, maybe not. That was two years ago.
I just, very recently, moved to a Vista system as my primary work machine. The drivers have matured, and I don't have the stability problems. So that's better.
The problem with Vista, however, is that it really adds nothing to Windows XP SP2. With the exception of 64-bit support, so that I can use all 4GB of RAM in the new system, there's absolutely no reason to upgrade. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. The OS isn't more secure, isn't faster, isn't better organized, and indeed, if I was reasonably assured that all my hardware (now and in the future) would work with the 64-bit version of WindowsXP, I would go with 64-bit WindowsXP.
Since I wrote the review, my killer app has been video editing; this makes Linux unsuitable (but I think it is the best overall of the three operating systems.) I do own a Mac back when Final Cut Pro was the best option for my video editing tasks; the problem is that FCP is limited to a single core and 2.5 GB RAM; Sony Vegas can use all 4 cores and uses 3 GB RAM (it's a 32-bit application, though there's a 64-bit version... however, it does not support my 32-bit plugins.) Essentially, it can brute-force rendering much quicker.
But I digress.
Point is, as much as I admit that XP was the better OS, 64-bit support is now essential for today's hardware with 4GB systems becoming more common. If Microsoft threw all their support into making 64-bit XP hardware and software compatable, they'd have a hit.
Now, with that said...
Forget getting lost in the details, the things that an operating system needs to worry about are:
If you're not improving in one of these six areas, you're not improving your OS. Look at MacOSX going from Tiger to Leopard. Leopard added Time Machine, Spaces, Parental Controls, and BootCamp. It was not a radical change - it was a point release. However, Time Machine added utility (it really is a simple backup system) as did BootCamp (if you need to run Windows...) and Spaces provided additional usability. Parental Controls also provided security - security of a kind we don't normally think of - but security nonetheless.
In Intrepid Ibex, there were very subtle improvements to utility and security (guest accounts). Ubuntu releases very frequently but the improvements are subtle - compare Edgy Eft to Intrepid Ibex and you can see the improvements.
Point is, though Windows Vista may outrank the others on some of these areas (it's cheaper to install Windows on a PC than to buy a new computer with MacOSX) Vista's huge mistake was to allow itself to backslide on any of these areas.
- Stability - Early versions of Vista were unstable. This has since been fixed, but it is now only as stable as Windows XP SP2 once was. (Started negative, then no change.) - Usability - Vista doesn't add any usability, and the new Explorer and Start menus actively detract from usability. (Net negative) - Utility - What can you do in Vista that you can't in Windows XP? (No change) - Efficiency - Vista requires more hardware than XP does; the fancy "in the background" tasks don't really do anything. The one thing that Vista does to use the computer more efficiently is to have support for 64-bit computing; something that Microsoft could have had if they developed WindowsXP 64-bit. (Net negative.) - Security - User Access Control doesn't really help, as we now know. (Started positive, quickly resulted in no change) - Cost (No change.)
What Windows 7 is promising is improvements in usability from both Vista and Windows XP, and more efficiency compared to Vista (and hopefully compared to Windows XP) I don't know if it will succeed. I'd rather it did.
Plus, it's REAL hard to be polite to Dell Tech Support after having to wait on hold 10 minutes after having to go through a very, very confusing submenu that takes another 10 minutes to go through.
So that when things get bad, they can administer themselves morphine to stop the pain, and when things get REALLY bad, they can end their suffering permanently?
I've only played HL:S, myself. With it being so cheap, I'm wondering whether I should bother getting the Goldsource version of the game. (Besides, I didn't really like HL:S, compared to the masterpiece that HL:2 was... it was just... wow.)
I think all considerations of legality are rendered moot when Gabe Newell knows about the project and says: "Dude, you can call it 'Black Mesa' but you can't call it 'Black Mesa: Source' because 'Source' makes it look like an official Valve product."
In other words, would it be illegal to do so without the original author's permission? Probably. But it's quite clear that Valve has said: "Go on, you crazy kids, have fun, go nuts!"
How is this different from Half-Life: Source?
HL:S was redesigned with the HL2 engine but used graphics from the original half-life for DOS. (They did not even use the high-definition pack that Valve released along with Blue Shift.)
99% of BM's improvements are going to be graphical, and if you compare screenshots of BM with HL:S, you'll quickly see the difference.
Of course, updating HL:S to graphical quality is something that is probably far too much of a time sink for Valve itself - they'd rather work on HL2:E3, or HL3, than updating the graphics on a game most people have already bought.
True enough, except that most implementations of TCP are just plain-old TCP. If -everybody- switched to CUBIC, then we could all use CUBIC. But right now, plain old TCP is the standard.
In corporate networks, you can use something like CUBIC or TCP New Reno, because you control both ends of the connection. On the Internet, it's a bit harder.
But in a BT application, most communication is going to take place between two computers using the same application - an application that BT, Inc. does control: uTorrent. By controlling both ends of the application at Layer 7, you can change the implimentation all at once, all over the Internet.
I agree with you Seanadams, but I just finished an interview with Simon Morris and it's not that he's saying that the way TCP handles packet loss is a particular problem, he just thinks he can do better.
BitTorrent essentially already has it's own methods to deal with dropped packets of information - it gets the information from elsewhere. Moving to UDP eliminates the triple handshake, and it eliminates throttling down packet sizes in response to a dropped packet.
The only problem is that it also eliminates the Layer 4 [transport] traffic congestion safeguards, which is why BitTorrent is looking to establish new and better ones at layer 7 [application].
My name is Brian Boyko, and I'm the editor of Networkperformancedaily.com - can you e-mail me at brian.boyko@netqos.com. I'd love to hear your story about how you deployed P2P to spread load.
Is there anything we can do to play hardball with the record companies at this point? I'm tired of simply sitting down and not buying their music and supporting companies and organizations which oppose them with periodic donations.
I'd propose a CD burning party, but first of all, it's a little too "third reich" for me to be totally comfortable with, and second, half the people would show up with laptops and blank discs.
Actually, a little political instability might be a good thing. Just a little. And if you do look at those countries, you don't see a whole bunch of political instability. The two exceptions to the rule are Italy (which is mostly because they change their electoral systems on a whim to suit the party currently in power) and Israel (which has zero threshold, which means that almost any wackjob party can get at least one or two representatives in the Likud.
I'm working on a documentary on New Zealand's change from a two-party system to a multi-party system, one of the few places in the world to do so and the ONLY place in the world to do so via referendum. Having a multi-party system not only brought political diversity but also provided extra checks and balances on the executive that they didn't have before.
Mostly because they don't break up the government over every bill that doesn't pass - the party in power has to gather 50%+1 support on every bill. Sometimes bills fail. That's life.
Indeed, that's what worries me about the gag order. If he wants to prevent their names from being "googled" then that's fine. But at this point, ou're talking about prior restraint against a -particular type- of press.
New Zealand has no particular restriction against prior restraint (though they're generally loathe to practice it except in criminal cases like this) but the decision should extend to the papers - it's not like anyone doing a background check on hiring people for the job won't start calling up people in New Zealand...
Indeed, it's actually quite interesting - there was a supression order against the "Uruowea 17" and originally names could NOT have been published. (As far as I can tell, faces still cannot be in those cases.)
What was weird was that I was actually planning to hire Rongomai Bailey as a cameraman - because of the supression order, I made the decision to hire him AFTER he was arrested but before the suppresion order on his name was lifted.
Although I believe him to be absolutely, 100% innocent of all charges, I consider myself lucky (because I'm living in the oh-so-free U.S.,) that he never came on the payroll. You end up with all sorts of problems when the T-word is bandied around.
Slashdot Mirror
sexy, sexy boron.
I thought the entire point of that section of Freakonomics was not that kids with lots of books scored well on tests (which was proven wrong when governments stepped in and offered free books) - but that
1) Kids who do well on tests are usually smart kids.
2) Kids are smart usually because their parents are smart.
3) Smart parents generally have more books in their home anyway.
The entire point of the article was that correlation doesn't imply causation. What this means is that even if kids learn to read from the computer, and there are fewer "books" in the home as readers choose to read from the Internet or from Kindle or whatever won't actually have an impact on learning.
There's commentary on the DVD?
*adds to Netflix Queue*
Padmasree Warrior is a woman.
And a Jedi.
It takes me longer to find files in Windows Explorer than it does in Windows XP, mostly because of two things: First, I have to enable "sort by date modified" for every folder. Second, for some reason, Vista is opening up tiny little Explorer windows to show huge icons. Not a whole lot of visual information on the screen at once. I end up going to details view, but Vista doesn't give me two very important details unless I enable them directly: I can't sort by filetype, and I can't sort by date modified - I have to enable these two things in Vista's submenu, and I have to do it for every single folder. I'm the kind of person who doesn't remember what he named his file, but remembers that it's a JPG, not a PNG.
Which brings me to search. Yes, indexing is a good thing, and I like it, but I don't like the rest of the start menu, which is a hierarchy of folders, requiring multiple clicks to look around and see where I need to go. Say what you will about the old start menu, but I clicked once and moved the mouse around to browse the applications. I have to open each folder individually to look inside them. This may not seem that different to you, but when you're talking two clicks versus 10, it is noticable.
But as for search; we had that capability in XP as well with Google Desktop; and I think Google Desktop did it better. (Google Desktop doesn't have a 64-bit version yet, so I'm still using Vista's indexing.)
As for games related features, I'm 30 years old with no kids, so ESRB ratings aren't important to me. Neither is downloading cover art. And I don't have any idea why the hell averaging the capabilities of my CPU, RAM, and Video Card would give me any sort of meaningful number because they're all going to do different things.
Shadow-copy is of limited utility to me, considering that I have about 1.5 TB of data that I can't afford to lose. I do have it backed up, but multiple copies over time isn't really all that big a deal. As for restoring old versions of the OS, for those cases where it does matter, I -have- an install disc, and can just reinstall the OS anyway. At any rate, these services were provided by third parties for Windows XP - and done better.
I haven't used the backup utility, preferring to backup manually because I don't want to save operating system files, only my 1.5 TB of video data. Still, I did take a look at it - how do you tell it which files you don't want backed up?
And finally, Security/UAE. Vista is still vulnerable to malware. When the cracks in windows XP were patched up, the malware authors simply found new cracks.
Another big problem is UAE. Heck, I'm a power user who knows EXACTLY why turning off UAE is a bad idea... and I went and did it anyway. I just couldn't live with those goddamn Cancel/Allow popups. I'm willing to bet most people can't... and turn it off anyway.
The same thing happens in Linux and MacOSX - "enter your password to continue" - but happens far less frequently because apps designed for those two operating systems don't need or ask for administrative control; applications designed for XP, however, did, even when they really didn't need to. Backwards compatibility required that they run; so run they did. They just need to cancel/allow for administrator access.
And finally the sandboxed IE environment has zero impact on security. Everyone I know uses Firefox, Chrome, or Opera.
I actually wrote one of those "early bad impression" reviews for HardOCP.com; the problem was complete instability. Maybe it was caused by NVidia's drivers, maybe not. That was two years ago.
I just, very recently, moved to a Vista system as my primary work machine. The drivers have matured, and I don't have the stability problems. So that's better.
The problem with Vista, however, is that it really adds nothing to Windows XP SP2. With the exception of 64-bit support, so that I can use all 4GB of RAM in the new system, there's absolutely no reason to upgrade. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. The OS isn't more secure, isn't faster, isn't better organized, and indeed, if I was reasonably assured that all my hardware (now and in the future) would work with the 64-bit version of WindowsXP, I would go with 64-bit WindowsXP.
Since I wrote the review, my killer app has been video editing; this makes Linux unsuitable (but I think it is the best overall of the three operating systems.) I do own a Mac back when Final Cut Pro was the best option for my video editing tasks; the problem is that FCP is limited to a single core and 2.5 GB RAM; Sony Vegas can use all 4 cores and uses 3 GB RAM (it's a 32-bit application, though there's a 64-bit version... however, it does not support my 32-bit plugins.) Essentially, it can brute-force rendering much quicker.
But I digress.
Point is, as much as I admit that XP was the better OS, 64-bit support is now essential for today's hardware with 4GB systems becoming more common. If Microsoft threw all their support into making 64-bit XP hardware and software compatable, they'd have a hit.
Now, with that said...
Forget getting lost in the details, the things that an operating system needs to worry about are:
- Stability
- Usability
- Utility
- Efficiency
- Security
- Cost
If you're not improving in one of these six areas, you're not improving your OS. Look at MacOSX going from Tiger to Leopard. Leopard added Time Machine, Spaces, Parental Controls, and BootCamp. It was not a radical change - it was a point release. However, Time Machine added utility (it really is a simple backup system) as did BootCamp (if you need to run Windows...) and Spaces provided additional usability. Parental Controls also provided security - security of a kind we don't normally think of - but security nonetheless.
In Intrepid Ibex, there were very subtle improvements to utility and security (guest accounts). Ubuntu releases very frequently but the improvements are subtle - compare Edgy Eft to Intrepid Ibex and you can see the improvements.
Point is, though Windows Vista may outrank the others on some of these areas (it's cheaper to install Windows on a PC than to buy a new computer with MacOSX) Vista's huge mistake was to allow itself to backslide on any of these areas.
- Stability - Early versions of Vista were unstable. This has since been fixed, but it is now only as stable as Windows XP SP2 once was. (Started negative, then no change.)
- Usability - Vista doesn't add any usability, and the new Explorer and Start menus actively detract from usability. (Net negative)
- Utility - What can you do in Vista that you can't in Windows XP? (No change)
- Efficiency - Vista requires more hardware than XP does; the fancy "in the background" tasks don't really do anything. The one thing that Vista does to use the computer more efficiently is to have support for 64-bit computing; something that Microsoft could have had if they developed WindowsXP 64-bit. (Net negative.)
- Security - User Access Control doesn't really help, as we now know. (Started positive, quickly resulted in no change)
- Cost (No change.)
What Windows 7 is promising is improvements in usability from both Vista and Windows XP, and more efficiency compared to Vista (and hopefully compared to Windows XP) I don't know if it will succeed. I'd rather it did.
True enough, but some of us made a conscious choice NOT to have kids (or pets!) because of that.
If I felt it was safe enough to have kids and stick to my morals, I probably would have.
Plus, it's REAL hard to be polite to Dell Tech Support after having to wait on hold 10 minutes after having to go through a very, very confusing submenu that takes another 10 minutes to go through.
So that when things get bad, they can administer themselves morphine to stop the pain, and when things get REALLY bad, they can end their suffering permanently?
I've only played HL:S, myself. With it being so cheap, I'm wondering whether I should bother getting the Goldsource version of the game. (Besides, I didn't really like HL:S, compared to the masterpiece that HL:2 was... it was just... wow.)
I think all considerations of legality are rendered moot when Gabe Newell knows about the project and says: "Dude, you can call it 'Black Mesa' but you can't call it 'Black Mesa: Source' because 'Source' makes it look like an official Valve product."
In other words, would it be illegal to do so without the original author's permission? Probably. But it's quite clear that Valve has said: "Go on, you crazy kids, have fun, go nuts!"
How is this different from Half-Life: Source?
HL:S was redesigned with the HL2 engine but used graphics from the original half-life for DOS. (They did not even use the high-definition pack that Valve released along with Blue Shift.)
99% of BM's improvements are going to be graphical, and if you compare screenshots of BM with HL:S, you'll quickly see the difference.
Of course, updating HL:S to graphical quality is something that is probably far too much of a time sink for Valve itself - they'd rather work on HL2:E3, or HL3, than updating the graphics on a game most people have already bought.
True enough, except that most implementations of TCP are just plain-old TCP. If -everybody- switched to CUBIC, then we could all use CUBIC. But right now, plain old TCP is the standard.
In corporate networks, you can use something like CUBIC or TCP New Reno, because you control both ends of the connection. On the Internet, it's a bit harder.
But in a BT application, most communication is going to take place between two computers using the same application - an application that BT, Inc. does control: uTorrent. By controlling both ends of the application at Layer 7, you can change the implimentation all at once, all over the Internet.
I agree with you Seanadams, but I just finished an interview with Simon Morris and it's not that he's saying that the way TCP handles packet loss is a particular problem, he just thinks he can do better.
BitTorrent essentially already has it's own methods to deal with dropped packets of information - it gets the information from elsewhere. Moving to UDP eliminates the triple handshake, and it eliminates throttling down packet sizes in response to a dropped packet.
The only problem is that it also eliminates the Layer 4 [transport] traffic congestion safeguards, which is why BitTorrent is looking to establish new and better ones at layer 7 [application].
My name is Brian Boyko, and I'm the editor of Networkperformancedaily.com - can you e-mail me at brian.boyko@netqos.com. I'd love to hear your story about how you deployed P2P to spread load.
-- Brian Boyko
Is there anything we can do to play hardball with the record companies at this point? I'm tired of simply sitting down and not buying their music and supporting companies and organizations which oppose them with periodic donations.
I'd propose a CD burning party, but first of all, it's a little too "third reich" for me to be totally comfortable with, and second, half the people would show up with laptops and blank discs.
There's a reason the purchase of Alaska is called "Seward's Folly."
Who do we vote for if we want Nader to be president?
Which, for some strange reason, comes -after- Logical Fallacies 201.
If you assumed otherwise, you need to repeat Logical Fallacies 201.
Actually, a little political instability might be a good thing. Just a little. And if you do look at those countries, you don't see a whole bunch of political instability. The two exceptions to the rule are Italy (which is mostly because they change their electoral systems on a whim to suit the party currently in power) and Israel (which has zero threshold, which means that almost any wackjob party can get at least one or two representatives in the Likud.
I'm working on a documentary on New Zealand's change from a two-party system to a multi-party system, one of the few places in the world to do so and the ONLY place in the world to do so via referendum. Having a multi-party system not only brought political diversity but also provided extra checks and balances on the executive that they didn't have before.
Mostly because they don't break up the government over every bill that doesn't pass - the party in power has to gather 50%+1 support on every bill. Sometimes bills fail. That's life.
That's not the lesson that I took away from "The Brave Little Toaster."
Great. Now I can't think of D&D without thinking of transvestites.
Aargh! Even worse! Now I can't think of transvestites without thinking of D&D!
Indeed, that's what worries me about the gag order. If he wants to prevent their names from being "googled" then that's fine. But at this point, ou're talking about prior restraint against a -particular type- of press.
New Zealand has no particular restriction against prior restraint (though they're generally loathe to practice it except in criminal cases like this) but the decision should extend to the papers - it's not like anyone doing a background check on hiring people for the job won't start calling up people in New Zealand...
Indeed, it's actually quite interesting - there was a supression order against the "Uruowea 17" and originally names could NOT have been published. (As far as I can tell, faces still cannot be in those cases.)
What was weird was that I was actually planning to hire Rongomai Bailey as a cameraman - because of the supression order, I made the decision to hire him AFTER he was arrested but before the suppresion order on his name was lifted.
Although I believe him to be absolutely, 100% innocent of all charges, I consider myself lucky (because I'm living in the oh-so-free U.S.,) that he never came on the payroll. You end up with all sorts of problems when the T-word is bandied around.
[blockquote]You mean affluent, employed, or happy?[/blockquote]
I think he means "Canadian."
Why do you think I wear the fedora?