How about running the whole OS in virtualization mode, that gets flushed at each boot.
Wouldn't that suck.
For fuck's sake, just stop using Windows. This is ridiculous. I can't believe things are getting to the point where people start to seriously consider what is essentially a fresh install of the OS at every boot.
It will be interesting to see what happens if the new pirate bay video site becomes as popular as youtube. As more sites pop up that dont have restrictions on hosted content, what is going to happen to the other content providers who are restricted to what content they can host?
My gut feeling is that a completely unregulated video service would fill up with porn before anything else. I doubt the regular providers have anything to fear.
Then again, maybe it wouldn't be anything special at all. Just another video service. Bittorrent is most likely going to remain the preferred method of downloading copyrighted material such as movies and TV shows.
I'd prefer not to be on the list of people they cross-reference for every single crime looking for suspects. Seems like there's a chance that your prints might incorrectly match someone else... or it is close enough... and you get taken in for questioning or worse.
Isn't that, like, a big step backwards from HD TV? I mean, what kind of video coudl a phone possibly put out? Might as well watch YouTube on your TV.:P
And this assumes that once they get through any filters the recipient actually wants to read it. I'd have thought that the bulk of content based filtering happens at the email client.
Company wide (and service wide such as Gmail) spam filtering is getting pretty common and effective. I would guess that most people who have spam protections get it from their ISP, email service, or employer. Then again, I have never bothered with client-side spam filtering. Maybe it is just that easy to setup that average users are implementing it. Who knows?
Anyway, people complain that the spammers are winning and are always a step ahead. And I just don't see it. I see them as getting desperate. Spamming isn't the get rich quick operation it used to be. It really isn't that hard to block 95% or more of a all spam at the server. Just turn on greylisting, a very simple and low resource measure, and you can say goodbye to about 70% right away. You'll just have to put up with a delay in new (first time a given person has sent to you) email.
Are they? Hardly any of it gets through my Spamassassin filter. There was a period back last October 2006 or so when I got a lot, but SA caught up. I did have to add a little weight to "image only" rules, but so far I've been able to filter the vast majority of it out.
What else would they burn? What else would they burn? If you say biodiesel or ethanol, I'll point out all the environmental problems with creating those.
And I won't care, because the issue was fossil fuels;
Exactly, the issue IS fossile fuels and my point is that we most likely will NOT be off them by 2020. You don't care about that?
Again, I won't criticize something that doesn't exist. From the study:
"Thus, though the technology faces many R&D hurdles before it can be practicable, it is clear that resource limitations are not an argument against the technology."
You don't seem to get what "proven the method to be cost effective" means. A study that shows the idea to be *promising* does not mean it is proven. It still faces "many R&D hurdles." Proven means that you can show a real-world example of the technology in action and turning a profit (or at least breaking even.)
If I had a dime for every promising idea that never made it into production, I'd be rich.
Please detail the problems with using raceway ponds to grow algae as a feedstock for biodiesel and ethanol.
You mean other than the fact that it is just an idea and nobody has actually proven the method to be (cost) effective at producing biodiesel, ethanol, OR hydrogen? I won't criticize something that doesn't exist.
My mom use to have one back in the 80's. After a decade she gave it to my grandfather to use on the farm, this thing still runs. If they can get that kind of reliability int a hybrid, more power to them. Looking forward to getting one
Actually, I think tanks are notorious for breaking down a lot. If your mom's Toyota was taking AK47 rounds and still going, THEN you could make the tank comparison. But I doubt this is the case.:-)
What else would they burn? If you say biodiesel or ethanol, I'll point out all the environmental problems with creating those. If you say hydrogen, I'll ask where that hydrogen is going to come from...
Chances are pretty good that in 2020 we'll STILL be burning/using fossil fuels for most everything.
I dunno, given the relatively poor real-world peformance of hybrids, would it still be a great sell? I guess I'm more than a little disappointed that hybrids are not doubling and triplling gas mileage like promised.
In a way, you have to sympathize with psychiatrists.... particularly ones that have to deal with the seriously disturbed in institutions. There's really nothing you can do for a lot of patients. And yet psychiatrists are expected to work with them and try to help them. But you can't. There's no real treatment for schizophrenia, for example. Just drugs that kinda do something but dont' really have any actual therapeutic effect. They merely suppress some symptoms.
I'd like to see how a Scientologist would deal with the seriously mentally ill. What kind of desperate and seemingly barbaric measures (considering their training in verbal abuse) would they resort to? I mean, it is one thing to deal with people who might have a few personal issues but are otherwise functional members of society. It is quite another to work with seriously disturbed.
TV is dying due to the 20+ minutes of commercials per hour
TV is dying because Cable is so damned expensive if I want anything more than the bare minimum. It is especially expensive for me because I don't want to use them for internet and phone. They've pushed to far with the bundling. To get your money's worth, you need to go all or nothing. So I chose nothing.
I can take out/skip the commercials. That is no problem anymore. A TiVo or similar woudl actually be more convenient than downloading. It is just so much cheaper to just manually download the 5 or so weekly shows that we watch, Netflix the movies (ondemand had a terrible selection last time I checked), and get the HD PBS over the air.
Of course, when I say "download," I mean bittorrent. So I guess I'm cheating a little bit.
Reminds me of the myths (or were they!?) years ago about how you could use a Tesla Coil to send a jolt to your enemy's computer through the telephone system and fry it remotely.
Seeing as how you use "it is debatable" "I seriously doubt" "perhaps" "maybe" "took that to mean" and I used "they will readily admit" I don't think I am the one making assumptions.
How is it assuming to use the qualifiers such as "perhaps" and "debateable?" Seems to me that such language is quite opposite of assuming. It is leaving it open to debate and NOT assuming. What else can I do? You're referencing private conversations and cannot quote anyone. How do I know that what you interpreted and later paraphrased here is what they actually said?
There is a difference between a simplified version that hides facts and a simplified explanation that just makes all the facts easier to understand.
Certainly there is some optimal balance between ease of understanding and completeness in a given situation, but if Wired magazine is any indication of what this Wired editor considers such a balance, it would seem very much skewed towards "oversimplified." And i get that same impression from you. Though I have not read any of your research papers, so I will refrain from assuming, OK?
You must have never had a bad teacher/professor if you don't believe that subjects can be made more difficult than they really are.
Certainly there are bad teachers, that much is not in question, but you are accusing academics in general of purposefully generating confusing material as a matter of course. And I don't think that is right.
Just making the material more simple is not the answer. For example, in high school there were two different physics courses. You could take the regular physics course that just gave you formulas which you plug in numbers and get answers to problems, and then there was AP physics which actually had you deriving those same formulas. In the latter, we learned how those forumals came to be, the complexities (well as much complexity as we could handle) of the theories behind them, etc. A lot of which would have been difficult for the kids in the regular physics class to understand because it was full of a lot of equations and "big words." Should they have dumbed down the AP course? Of course not, because then it wouldn't be AP. And it would have failed to prepare you for more advanced math/physics later in college.
This is a problem across all academics, not just wikipedia. I write research papers and I get criticized by those above me if they don't "sound" sufficiently intelligent. They won't say it publicly, but privately they will readily admit that the more confusion you add to the paper by using big words and clumping them together in obtuse ways will make the paper seem more professional.
While it is debatable that this is how they think unconsciously, I seriously doubt that they are "readily admitting" what you say... even privately. Perhaps you are paraphrasing wrong? Maybe they suggested that you include "big words" that you didn't really understand yourself so you took that to mean that they think you should make your papers "confusing."
It drives me nuts personally, as I agree with the author of this article that the simpler something is to understand the better it is, especially when you are trying to TEACH someone that thing.
Teach someone a simplified version of something and they'll learn a simplified version or they'll think it is a simple topic. Take quantum theory for example. There's plenty of simplified quantum theories flying around popular culture right now and all of them are so far from the actual theories that they're more or less just myths that fill trashy pop-sci magazines like Wired. The fact it is a Wired editor that is complaining about Wikipedia is particularly amusing, BTW. If I were a wikipedia author, I might take it as a compliment that Wired was criticizing my writing for being too hard to understand.
It is not just a science problem either. Look at literature where some of the literary works are written in such an obtuse way that people just consider them genius works because they can't understand them.
First of all, a lot of famous literature is old. Part of your misunderstanding is due to a difference in the Enlgish language. Words were use differently even 100 years ago. Though people who really know literature can read past that.
But even putting that aside... a multilayered, complex story is just interesting. And ya, you can't always understand it at first pass. And that IS part of its genius because you can talk about it, dig into it to discover the layers... find your own meanings. People forget about simple stories. They don't stand the test of time. But good, multilayered, literature is recognized as genius over time as people discover the layers.
I have often thought of making it a lifelong goal to change this and simplify the way they teach many "difficult" subjects. However, the current way is way too ingrained into every part of academics that it would take a miracle to accomplish it.
Or maybe the subjects really are that difficult (without the stupid quotes). Imagine that. Subjects that require years of dedicated study to understand. Subjects that trashy pop-sci magazines and dumbed down Wikipedia articles will get wrong every time.
Oh my god. You know Wikipedia must be bad if an editor from Wired, of all the trashy pop-sci magazines, is complaining. What's next? An editor from People Magazine complaining Wikipedia sucks for objective information about celebrities?
I'm someone who went from Linux to Solaris for home use..... The big thing that converted me was zones.
You use Zones at home? What is the point of that?
Easier sysadmin. I realize this is very subjective, but Linux always felt like they were trying to make the developer experience better, but in the world of SA, things just weren't up to the same level of the other Unixes. Gratuitous changes away from other other vendors did things get old real fast. Case in point, need to audit users and find out who has static passwords, who does not (we use a OTP system). All the other versions of Unix I work with have `logins -x` and `passwd -sa` except Linux. Their closest equivilence, passwd -S, uses a very different format and the results are actually unreliable or misleading.
Solaris is only bearable to admin AFTER you replace all the archaic commandline tools w/ the more modern GNU equivalents . I've heard plenty of long time Solaris/HP-UX/AIX admins admit as much. You can hardly fault GNU/Linux for improving on the old commercial *nix tools that have not changed significantly since the early 90's. Does it sometimes break old shell scripts? Sure. Does it frustrate longtime commercial *nix admins such as yourself? Definitly. But all in all it is an improvement IMO.
Linux feels like it was made for developers and forgot system administrators. My scripts are a lot more complex any time I have to work on a Linux box. Most of my Linux experience is with Red Hat AS, I admit, maybe the more Debian systems remembered the SA, but somehow, I doubt it from what I've seen of Ubuntu. Don't use the GUI? You're back in a maze if twisty tunnels, no two alike.
Debian is definitely built for the sysadmin and Ubuntu is not meant for the server. Right Tool For The Job and all that.
In other words, it was a near complete failure besides some embedded applications and its "better Windows than Windows" marketing fell on deaf ears. The fact that Sun is now trying the same thing (using Linux instead of Windows) to save Solaris is kindof sad.
Either way, you have the exact same experiences, just at different times in your lives.
I don't know about that. I'm only 32 but I'm starting to see how "tame" experiences get later in life. Taking a guided tour of Europe in and air conditioned bus (as older persons either prefer or must do due to health conditions) is a lot different than hitchhiking your way across the same terrain. Sorry, not the exact same experience at all.
I would never take back the month I spent in Germany when I was 18. Sure, it cost $2,000+, but damn was it an experience I'll never forget. I would tell any young adult to do something like that before they get tied down with a a career and/or family because experiences are NOT exactly the same when there's a significant change in age.
Now, if you're talking about draining them completely flat, you're 100% correct. A steady drain down to empty is one of the worst things you can do to a lead-acid battery. But that just means you have to plan your battery capacity such that the expected load doesn't empty them completely.
Right, and my point is that this makes the proposition that much more expensive. I mean, it would be expensive enough just getting enough batteries to run a home for 12 hours. Then double that to make sure you don't have to drain them 100% to do it.
THEN add in the fact that such a system would only be about 80% efficient at best. You'd be lucky to break even over many years.
Of course, it might be nice to have one big UPS for your home if you live in a place were power was unstable. Especially if your internet connection didn't depend on the power (DSL i know still works when there is no power to your home).
Yes I'm still waiting for cheap efficient cells also... we're not quite there yet. When that happens the utilities are pretty much SOL.
I think they'd have to be pretty darn cheap AND efficient to make utilities really that scared. I mean EXTREMELY cheap and efficient... like by an order of magnitude compared to now. It also depends on the area. In many places outside of CA, power is actually pretty cheap and there just isn't that much solar energy to go around.
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't that suck.
For fuck's sake, just stop using Windows. This is ridiculous. I can't believe things are getting to the point where people start to seriously consider what is essentially a fresh install of the OS at every boot.
-matthew
My gut feeling is that a completely unregulated video service would fill up with porn before anything else. I doubt the regular providers have anything to fear.
Then again, maybe it wouldn't be anything special at all. Just another video service. Bittorrent is most likely going to remain the preferred method of downloading copyrighted material such as movies and TV shows.
-matthew
I'd prefer not to be on the list of people they cross-reference for every single crime looking for suspects. Seems like there's a chance that your prints might incorrectly match someone else... or it is close enough... and you get taken in for questioning or worse.
Isn't that, like, a big step backwards from HD TV? I mean, what kind of video coudl a phone possibly put out? Might as well watch YouTube on your TV. :P
-matthew
Company wide (and service wide such as Gmail) spam filtering is getting pretty common and effective. I would guess that most people who have spam protections get it from their ISP, email service, or employer. Then again, I have never bothered with client-side spam filtering. Maybe it is just that easy to setup that average users are implementing it. Who knows?
Anyway, people complain that the spammers are winning and are always a step ahead. And I just don't see it. I see them as getting desperate. Spamming isn't the get rich quick operation it used to be. It really isn't that hard to block 95% or more of a all spam at the server. Just turn on greylisting, a very simple and low resource measure, and you can say goodbye to about 70% right away. You'll just have to put up with a delay in new (first time a given person has sent to you) email.
-matthew
Are they? Hardly any of it gets through my Spamassassin filter. There was a period back last October 2006 or so when I got a lot, but SA caught up. I did have to add a little weight to "image only" rules, but so far I've been able to filter the vast majority of it out.
-matthew
Exactly, the issue IS fossile fuels and my point is that we most likely will NOT be off them by 2020. You don't care about that?
-matthew
Again, I won't criticize something that doesn't exist. From the study:
"Thus, though the technology faces many R&D hurdles before it can be practicable, it is clear that resource limitations are not an argument against the technology."
You don't seem to get what "proven the method to be cost effective" means. A study that shows the idea to be *promising* does not mean it is proven. It still faces "many R&D hurdles." Proven means that you can show a real-world example of the technology in action and turning a profit (or at least breaking even.)
If I had a dime for every promising idea that never made it into production, I'd be rich.
-matthew
You mean other than the fact that it is just an idea and nobody has actually proven the method to be (cost) effective at producing biodiesel, ethanol, OR hydrogen? I won't criticize something that doesn't exist.
-matthew
Actually, I think tanks are notorious for breaking down a lot. If your mom's Toyota was taking AK47 rounds and still going, THEN you could make the tank comparison. But I doubt this is the case.
-matthew
What else would they burn? If you say biodiesel or ethanol, I'll point out all the environmental problems with creating those. If you say hydrogen, I'll ask where that hydrogen is going to come from...
Chances are pretty good that in 2020 we'll STILL be burning/using fossil fuels for most everything.
-matthew
I dunno, given the relatively poor real-world peformance of hybrids, would it still be a great sell? I guess I'm more than a little disappointed that hybrids are not doubling and triplling gas mileage like promised.
In a way, you have to sympathize with psychiatrists.... particularly ones that have to deal with the seriously disturbed in institutions. There's really nothing you can do for a lot of patients. And yet psychiatrists are expected to work with them and try to help them. But you can't. There's no real treatment for schizophrenia, for example. Just drugs that kinda do something but dont' really have any actual therapeutic effect. They merely suppress some symptoms.
I'd like to see how a Scientologist would deal with the seriously mentally ill. What kind of desperate and seemingly barbaric measures (considering their training in verbal abuse) would they resort to? I mean, it is one thing to deal with people who might have a few personal issues but are otherwise functional members of society. It is quite another to work with seriously disturbed.
-matthew
TV is dying because Cable is so damned expensive if I want anything more than the bare minimum. It is especially expensive for me because I don't want to use them for internet and phone. They've pushed to far with the bundling. To get your money's worth, you need to go all or nothing. So I chose nothing.
I can take out/skip the commercials. That is no problem anymore. A TiVo or similar woudl actually be more convenient than downloading. It is just so much cheaper to just manually download the 5 or so weekly shows that we watch, Netflix the movies (ondemand had a terrible selection last time I checked), and get the HD PBS over the air.
Of course, when I say "download," I mean bittorrent. So I guess I'm cheating a little bit.
-matthew
Reminds me of the myths (or were they!?) years ago about how you could use a Tesla Coil to send a jolt to your enemy's computer through the telephone system and fry it remotely.
-matthew
How is it assuming to use the qualifiers such as "perhaps" and "debateable?" Seems to me that such language is quite opposite of assuming. It is leaving it open to debate and NOT assuming. What else can I do? You're referencing private conversations and cannot quote anyone. How do I know that what you interpreted and later paraphrased here is what they actually said?
Certainly there is some optimal balance between ease of understanding and completeness in a given situation, but if Wired magazine is any indication of what this Wired editor considers such a balance, it would seem very much skewed towards "oversimplified." And i get that same impression from you. Though I have not read any of your research papers, so I will refrain from assuming, OK?
Certainly there are bad teachers, that much is not in question, but you are accusing academics in general of purposefully generating confusing material as a matter of course. And I don't think that is right.
Just making the material more simple is not the answer. For example, in high school there were two different physics courses. You could take the regular physics course that just gave you formulas which you plug in numbers and get answers to problems, and then there was AP physics which actually had you deriving those same formulas. In the latter, we learned how those forumals came to be, the complexities (well as much complexity as we could handle) of the theories behind them, etc. A lot of which would have been difficult for the kids in the regular physics class to understand because it was full of a lot of equations and "big words." Should they have dumbed down the AP course? Of course not, because then it wouldn't be AP. And it would have failed to prepare you for more advanced math/physics later in college.
-matthew
While it is debatable that this is how they think unconsciously, I seriously doubt that they are "readily admitting" what you say... even privately. Perhaps you are paraphrasing wrong? Maybe they suggested that you include "big words" that you didn't really understand yourself so you took that to mean that they think you should make your papers "confusing."
Teach someone a simplified version of something and they'll learn a simplified version or they'll think it is a simple topic. Take quantum theory for example. There's plenty of simplified quantum theories flying around popular culture right now and all of them are so far from the actual theories that they're more or less just myths that fill trashy pop-sci magazines like Wired. The fact it is a Wired editor that is complaining about Wikipedia is particularly amusing, BTW. If I were a wikipedia author, I might take it as a compliment that Wired was criticizing my writing for being too hard to understand.
First of all, a lot of famous literature is old. Part of your misunderstanding is due to a difference in the Enlgish language. Words were use differently even 100 years ago. Though people who really know literature can read past that.
But even putting that aside... a multilayered, complex story is just interesting. And ya, you can't always understand it at first pass. And that IS part of its genius because you can talk about it, dig into it to discover the layers... find your own meanings. People forget about simple stories. They don't stand the test of time. But good, multilayered, literature is recognized as genius over time as people discover the layers.
I have often thought of making it a lifelong goal to change this and simplify the way they teach many "difficult" subjects. However, the current way is way too ingrained into every part of academics that it would take a miracle to accomplish it.
Or maybe the subjects really are that difficult (without the stupid quotes). Imagine that. Subjects that require years of dedicated study to understand. Subjects that trashy pop-sci magazines and dumbed down Wikipedia articles will get wrong every time.
-matthew
Oh my god. You know Wikipedia must be bad if an editor from Wired, of all the trashy pop-sci magazines, is complaining. What's next? An editor from People Magazine complaining Wikipedia sucks for objective information about celebrities?
-matthew
You use Zones at home? What is the point of that?
Solaris is only bearable to admin AFTER you replace all the archaic commandline tools w/ the more modern GNU equivalents . I've heard plenty of long time Solaris/HP-UX/AIX admins admit as much. You can hardly fault GNU/Linux for improving on the old commercial *nix tools that have not changed significantly since the early 90's. Does it sometimes break old shell scripts? Sure. Does it frustrate longtime commercial *nix admins such as yourself? Definitly. But all in all it is an improvement IMO.
Debian is definitely built for the sysadmin and Ubuntu is not meant for the server. Right Tool For The Job and all that.
-matthew
In other words, it was a near complete failure besides some embedded applications and its "better Windows than Windows" marketing fell on deaf ears. The fact that Sun is now trying the same thing (using Linux instead of Windows) to save Solaris is kindof sad.
-matthew
Lets just say that IBM had higher hopes for OS/2.
-matthew
I don't know about that. I'm only 32 but I'm starting to see how "tame" experiences get later in life. Taking a guided tour of Europe in and air conditioned bus (as older persons either prefer or must do due to health conditions) is a lot different than hitchhiking your way across the same terrain. Sorry, not the exact same experience at all.
I would never take back the month I spent in Germany when I was 18. Sure, it cost $2,000+, but damn was it an experience I'll never forget. I would tell any young adult to do something like that before they get tied down with a a career and/or family because experiences are NOT exactly the same when there's a significant change in age.
-matthew
Yeah, and OS/2 was a better Windows than Windows. Anyone remember how that worked out?
-matthew
Right, and my point is that this makes the proposition that much more expensive. I mean, it would be expensive enough just getting enough batteries to run a home for 12 hours. Then double that to make sure you don't have to drain them 100% to do it.
THEN add in the fact that such a system would only be about 80% efficient at best. You'd be lucky to break even over many years.
Of course, it might be nice to have one big UPS for your home if you live in a place were power was unstable. Especially if your internet connection didn't depend on the power (DSL i know still works when there is no power to your home).
-matthew
I think they'd have to be pretty darn cheap AND efficient to make utilities really that scared. I mean EXTREMELY cheap and efficient... like by an order of magnitude compared to now. It also depends on the area. In many places outside of CA, power is actually pretty cheap and there just isn't that much solar energy to go around.
-matthew