I want a way to grade my traffic and clearly stated policies for bandwidth usage that don't directly impose caps. People who use too much bandwidth should be charged by having their packets put last in the queue. If they are kind enough to label a bunch of their traffic as 'bulk' then that traffic can be put last in the queue immediately and not counted against their high-priority bandwidth usage.
Charging people by bit is the wrong model. The infrastructure is there and costs nearly the same if tons of data is going over it or no data is going over it. Charging by byte taxes and charges people for exchanging information, and I think the whole economy would suffer for it.
Somehow I'm reminded of Glen Beck asking people to deny things everybody (including, apparently, Glen Beck) knows are either outright false or huge distortions of the truth.
That's not actually true. It isn't a straw man. The 'just so story' of men going for quantity and women going for quality is oft repeated. It is, in fact, a story I bought until I thought more critically about it and realized there are many aspects of human sexual behavior it completely fails to explain.
Ascribing a whole suite of various motivations to me based on the scanty evidence of a few posts puts you firmly in the troll category, and so I no longer think you are worth paying attention to.
Well, I think you're correct, but I don't think that makes my post wrong. But you are right that the respective firm's PR gaffes might well be enough without any third-party political prodding.
Microsoft has been looking to use the big lobbyist network they acquired when they decided that the antitrust trial happened because they hadn't bought off the government and their competitors had (because, you know, they couldn't have done anything wrong!). They've been angling on Google for a long time.
I think they haven't gotten any action because while congresspeople like lobbyists and money, they can't actually act in a way that shows it obviously is the driving force. They have to sort of look like they're actually carrying out the political will of the people, more or less.
The Facebook debacle and Google's mistakes with Wi-Fi harvesting are garnering enough negative public attention that congresspeople can now actually take action against those companies without looking too obviously like they're in Microsoft's pocket.
I do think Facebook has definitely done something wrong, and I'm really curious as to the whole decision process that led to Google doing what they did with Wi-Fi data. But I don't think, on an ordinary day, that congresspeople would generally care at all. I think the reason they're putting on the appearance caring is money and lobbyists from Microsoft.
I'm sorry to be so cynical, but I think congress is hopelessly and nearly irreparably corrupt.
No, I don't exactly. But I do think that people frequently uncritically accept science that matches their cultural perceptions. And I'm certain that in Brazil, where it's tacitly accepted for men to kill women because of a perceived besmirching of their honor, that there would be evolutionary psychology explanations about why this is a regrettable natural behavior.
Maybe those explanations would have some element of truth to them, and maybe they wouldn't. It would be hard to say. But I'm certain that they would exist if there were enough of that sort of scientist in Brazil.
Separating out learned from instinctual behaviors in human beings is an extremely tricky business, and pat answers of any form make me suspicious.
Yeah, and if you lived in Brazil, you would say "Well, it's just evolutionary fact that men fly into rages over their loss of honor and kill their wives.".
You really have to catch people in contradictions in a public venue with an argument that is simple to understand and you'd look like an idiot for not accepting.
And even then people frequently get really defensive and look for ways to attack rather than listen and/or accept the facts.
Even people who don't describe themselves as being religious, or who are very conspicuously not part of any organized religion are like this. I think this is a general human trait that religion hijacks for its own purposes.
This is one reason I'm so very suspicious of certain kinds of social science. It's so very easy to rationalize predetermined conclusions when it's not easy to run experiments after the theory has been created.
Evolutionary biology, for example, has a just so story for explaining why our society is the way it is as far as relations between men and women. But I think it's all quite suspiciously convenient.
If you read the article, the person who wrote it preemptively replies to the assessment with exactly that observation, except even better since it's backed up by data.
Phase one, release SSD drives that are clearly faster and make a bunch of money from early adopters who think they can use them.
Phase two, listen to developers who are trying to make them work better. Implement things like the 'release' command. Offer an idea or two of your own, like the controller side copying.
Phase three, release the new version of the drive that supports all of that stuff and make even more money.
Your version relies on back-room deals with proprietary software makers and will probably ultimately result in a worse solution for everybody.
Both versions make a whole bunch of money for the hardware manufacturer. Your version treats users as passive idiots who haven't a clue. My version treats them as active participants in the process hardly worthy of the word 'user'.
Oooh, that would be really interesting, and a very nice feature to have when you're writing a filesystem.:-) I was thinking something similar, but didn't have the idea of the control driver, and that's a very nice addition.
Filesystems have a much better idea of what data is going to be used frequently. This is an optimization they should be making. Seagate can make some good guesses by looking at block-level IO statistics, but that's like trying to optimize bytecode, all the really useful information is gone by the time you get to block-level IO.
I think hardware vendors should be supporting more interesting experimentation on the filesystem front instead of coming up with proprietary hacks like this that are basically a half solution.
I agree with you about IDEs, but I do not think the solution is not teaching people how to program on actual computers. There is a balance somewhere.
When I was learning to program, there was the joy of creating a new working thing. But I also went and purchased Knuth, I wrote down plans on paper, diagrammed out data structures before I coded them, and otherwise learned the theory as well.
But without all the working code I'd written I'd be a horrible programmer. And worse, I would never even have bothered to become a programmer.
Both are important, and one without the other is worse than useless.
I have watched students 'get an understanding'. That largely consisted of stuffing and cramming for tests. The only people I saw who graduated from the CS program I observed who I'd be willing to hire were the ones who spent a significant amount of time on practice as well as theory.
Software is a craft. It is not strictly math, it isn't solely an engineering discipline, and it isn't purely art. It requires a healthy mix of aesthetic sense, knowledge of theory, and ability to practice.
IMHO, teaching programming without a computer is like trying to teach math without using numbers. I mean the arabic numbering system is basically a shorthand way of writing down polynomials where 'x' is always 10. The numbers have a reality quite apart from their representation and getting that is one of the most fundamental and important ideas in math.
But really, starting there is a bad idea.
People get excited and enthused by results. Nobody is going to be excited and enthused by a set of principles that don't have any connection to anything else they know. Getting people excited about learning is the biggest part of the battle.
Slashdot Mirror
I want a way to grade my traffic and clearly stated policies for bandwidth usage that don't directly impose caps. People who use too much bandwidth should be charged by having their packets put last in the queue. If they are kind enough to label a bunch of their traffic as 'bulk' then that traffic can be put last in the queue immediately and not counted against their high-priority bandwidth usage.
Charging people by bit is the wrong model. The infrastructure is there and costs nearly the same if tons of data is going over it or no data is going over it. Charging by byte taxes and charges people for exchanging information, and I think the whole economy would suffer for it.
I found it pretty amusing as well. Makes me think that's someone I should be trying to sell a perpetual motion machine to. :-)
Somehow I'm reminded of Glen Beck asking people to deny things everybody (including, apparently, Glen Beck) knows are either outright false or huge distortions of the truth.
I'm wondering if a full quantum theory of everything will give us an absolute time. I highly doubt it, but it's interesting thinking about.
That's not actually true. It isn't a straw man. The 'just so story' of men going for quantity and women going for quality is oft repeated. It is, in fact, a story I bought until I thought more critically about it and realized there are many aspects of human sexual behavior it completely fails to explain.
Ascribing a whole suite of various motivations to me based on the scanty evidence of a few posts puts you firmly in the troll category, and so I no longer think you are worth paying attention to.
Well, I think you're correct, but I don't think that makes my post wrong. But you are right that the respective firm's PR gaffes might well be enough without any third-party political prodding.
I have a random suspicion about this...
Microsoft has been looking to use the big lobbyist network they acquired when they decided that the antitrust trial happened because they hadn't bought off the government and their competitors had (because, you know, they couldn't have done anything wrong!). They've been angling on Google for a long time.
I think they haven't gotten any action because while congresspeople like lobbyists and money, they can't actually act in a way that shows it obviously is the driving force. They have to sort of look like they're actually carrying out the political will of the people, more or less.
The Facebook debacle and Google's mistakes with Wi-Fi harvesting are garnering enough negative public attention that congresspeople can now actually take action against those companies without looking too obviously like they're in Microsoft's pocket.
I do think Facebook has definitely done something wrong, and I'm really curious as to the whole decision process that led to Google doing what they did with Wi-Fi data. But I don't think, on an ordinary day, that congresspeople would generally care at all. I think the reason they're putting on the appearance caring is money and lobbyists from Microsoft.
I'm sorry to be so cynical, but I think congress is hopelessly and nearly irreparably corrupt.
No, I don't exactly. But I do think that people frequently uncritically accept science that matches their cultural perceptions. And I'm certain that in Brazil, where it's tacitly accepted for men to kill women because of a perceived besmirching of their honor, that there would be evolutionary psychology explanations about why this is a regrettable natural behavior.
Maybe those explanations would have some element of truth to them, and maybe they wouldn't. It would be hard to say. But I'm certain that they would exist if there were enough of that sort of scientist in Brazil.
Separating out learned from instinctual behaviors in human beings is an extremely tricky business, and pat answers of any form make me suspicious.
Yeah, and if you lived in Brazil, you would say "Well, it's just evolutionary fact that men fly into rages over their loss of honor and kill their wives.".
Oops. *grin* Yes, evolutionary psychology.
I wish I had said that instead of what I did say. *laugh*
You really have to catch people in contradictions in a public venue with an argument that is simple to understand and you'd look like an idiot for not accepting.
And even then people frequently get really defensive and look for ways to attack rather than listen and/or accept the facts.
Even people who don't describe themselves as being religious, or who are very conspicuously not part of any organized religion are like this. I think this is a general human trait that religion hijacks for its own purposes.
This is one reason I'm so very suspicious of certain kinds of social science. It's so very easy to rationalize predetermined conclusions when it's not easy to run experiments after the theory has been created.
Evolutionary biology, for example, has a just so story for explaining why our society is the way it is as far as relations between men and women. But I think it's all quite suspiciously convenient.
If you read the article, the person who wrote it preemptively replies to the assessment with exactly that observation, except even better since it's backed up by data.
Or, how about this instead?
Phase one, release SSD drives that are clearly faster and make a bunch of money from early adopters who think they can use them.
Phase two, listen to developers who are trying to make them work better. Implement things like the 'release' command. Offer an idea or two of your own, like the controller side copying.
Phase three, release the new version of the drive that supports all of that stuff and make even more money.
Your version relies on back-room deals with proprietary software makers and will probably ultimately result in a worse solution for everybody.
Both versions make a whole bunch of money for the hardware manufacturer. Your version treats users as passive idiots who haven't a clue. My version treats them as active participants in the process hardly worthy of the word 'user'.
Oooh, that would be really interesting, and a very nice feature to have when you're writing a filesystem. :-) I was thinking something similar, but didn't have the idea of the control driver, and that's a very nice addition.
Filesystems have a much better idea of what data is going to be used frequently. This is an optimization they should be making. Seagate can make some good guesses by looking at block-level IO statistics, but that's like trying to optimize bytecode, all the really useful information is gone by the time you get to block-level IO.
I think hardware vendors should be supporting more interesting experimentation on the filesystem front instead of coming up with proprietary hacks like this that are basically a half solution.
I agree with you about IDEs, but I do not think the solution is not teaching people how to program on actual computers. There is a balance somewhere.
When I was learning to program, there was the joy of creating a new working thing. But I also went and purchased Knuth, I wrote down plans on paper, diagrammed out data structures before I coded them, and otherwise learned the theory as well.
But without all the working code I'd written I'd be a horrible programmer. And worse, I would never even have bothered to become a programmer.
Both are important, and one without the other is worse than useless.
I have watched students 'get an understanding'. That largely consisted of stuffing and cramming for tests. The only people I saw who graduated from the CS program I observed who I'd be willing to hire were the ones who spent a significant amount of time on practice as well as theory.
Software is a craft. It is not strictly math, it isn't solely an engineering discipline, and it isn't purely art. It requires a healthy mix of aesthetic sense, knowledge of theory, and ability to practice.
IMHO, teaching programming without a computer is like trying to teach math without using numbers. I mean the arabic numbering system is basically a shorthand way of writing down polynomials where 'x' is always 10. The numbers have a reality quite apart from their representation and getting that is one of the most fundamental and important ideas in math.
But really, starting there is a bad idea.
People get excited and enthused by results. Nobody is going to be excited and enthused by a set of principles that don't have any connection to anything else they know. Getting people excited about learning is the biggest part of the battle.
In the folk faith of Hinduism, it's fine to hate on Muslims and do whatever you like to them, but not Buddhists. I'm not sure about Christians.
The 'folk faith' of Buddhists and the intellectual teachings seem to actually match up pretty well though.
But I don't hold it sacred. How is it blasphemy if it's not sacred to me?
So, basically, everybody is Muslim already whether they like it or not?
How anybody who isn't a member of a religion could be committing blasphemy within the framework of that religion is beyond me.