Rereading my post, I see how it was a bit ambiguous. I don't usually play games that require that kind of work to unlock things. If the game is fun in its own right, then I'll play it, but I generally refuse to put hours into something if I'm not enjoying it.
I think for some people, the work they put into achieving high levels or unlocking things in games does make it more fun. However, I think that's partially because many of them don't get enough of a sense of accomplishment from the rest of their life. That's not universal, of course, but I've gone through a couple of low points in my life in which I fell into a bit of a game addiction. Life sucked; games gave me some small sense of accomplishment and let me be important/powerful somewhere to make up for what was missing elsewhere.
But I'm interested in the value of the the reward itself. I don't care about meaningless value attached to it because I worked for hours. While the sense of accomplishment is sometimes nice, I play for fun. If I want a sense of accomplishment, I'll do something that's actually meaningful.
I, personally, do not think I could look at anything and believe that there is a creator of all existence. My distance from your God is infinite because I do not believe He exists. I have no relationship with your God or any other god because, again, I do not believe that they exist.
I could go into detail exactly what I think about religion and its followers, but I will do my best to avoid insulting you. I respect your right to believe what you wish; please do the same for me.
I tried that when I was young and found nothing. I felt much better after learning the truth. Life is much more pleasant living with my own, appropriate set of values, rather than the arbitrary BS that people tried to cram down my throat (granted, my values aren't much different from theirs, but now I don't have to put up with them). It also adds some comedic value when the odd extra-religious person looks at me funny and tries to avoid telling me that I'm going to hell for not believing.
Exactly. Not to mention that there can be an awfully fine line between 'university resources' and 'personal resources.' What if he's using an open computer lab? Or his own computer within a dorm room? These are clearly not the same as using your employer's equipment and he certainly was not paid for his time spent on the assignment.
Anytime someone is paid for something there is a slanted "opinion"
People who aren't paid have slanted opinions too. What's your point?
They have trouble controlling popular topics as it is (ie. keeping them accurate and unbiased). Imagine if companies could pay people to edit Wikipedia for them. There's no way they could keep up with the sheer volume of edits. Not to mention the people who help to maintain Wikipedia would likely get tired of cleaning up, increasing the risk of those people quitting/giving up. The overall quality of Wikipedia would suffer, I fear to the point of becoming a glorified advertisement that people take as gospel.
I agree with you in principle, but who decides what the truth is and how do they do it? It has to be done the same way you're doing it now, but you're encouraging all people to make more edits. Only a fraction of those people really, truly know what they're talking about. No, it's not a moral issue, but you're upsetting the balance that keeps Wikipedia useful and relevant.
Who determines what the truth is, though? If people are paid to change Wikipedia, whatever they are paid to put on there slowly becomes the truth in the eyes of the public. The type of people who are most knowledgeable about a subject are often the least likely to care if they're paid because they have other things on their mind. They'll be overpowered by people trying to make a buck and the quality of Wikipedia will go way down.
I'll probably get modded down for this, but the latest versions of Norton aren't slow anymore. I used to be dead set against Norton, but 2009 came with my laptop and it is easily the least intrusive AV I've ever come across. It's never picked up a virus, so I can't comment on detection, but I've never gotten viruses in the past anyway.
I suggest you use it before regurgitating the old Norton issues.
Get off your high horse. Quick and dirty programs written to help with calculations or sorting/analyzing data hardly have the same effect as real-world problems.
I'm an engineer and work in the medical device field. There is no way in hell I'd let you or 99% of Slashdot try to do my job without one of a specific set of engineering degrees and at least several years of experience in the company/field.
I can use my primarily self-taught programming skills to write working programs that do useful work. If you screw up a structure or medical device, the consequences are a bit bigger than if I screw up a program that sorts my validation data for me. I have to sort my data by hand. You pay fines, lose your ability to sell things, get fired, or even go to jail. Let's just hope you don't kill anyone. It's not the same.
That's not to say that I don't respect programmers, but the vast majority of programming does not have nearly the effect of the engineering work you're talking about.
Let's just leave it at this: You don't engineer anything more complicated than your basic car maintenance and I won't write programs that are sold for thousands of dollars.
What does it for me is that Futurama utilizes some fairly intelligent humor, without going so far as to set itself above or beyond its audience. It also successfully mixes in small amounts of shock and surprise humor (ala Family Guy, but usually more subtle). I think they've also got just the right number/mix of characters. It lets them change things up without constantly introducing new people or wearing out and overextending their main characters. Their use of stereotypes and cliches helps them keep things familiar, but with enough surprises added in to keep it from getting overly stale.
Like a lot of people, I was barely aware of its existence when it was still running, but I picked it up late in the game and kept watching after it was canceled. For a long time, I watched 1-2 reruns a night before bed. They've gotten tedious now, but for me to be able to rewatch them so much says something. There are very few shows that I can do that with. I can almost recite some episodes.
The only complaints I've heard consistently are: 1. That it's based in the future/in space, but some people just have a bias against that kind of thing. Nothing to be done about it. 2. "It's just like the Simpsons/Family Guy/American Dad." That, of course, is a joke, with the exception of them all being [young?] adult-oriented cartoons. I find it especially funny because Futurama was already well into production by the time Family Guy was out and American Dad didn't exist at all.
Sometimes I wish I knew what was going on in execs' heads so that I could understand why they cancel shows like Futurama, Firefly, etc. I tend to assume it's because they're considered by many to be science fiction (true or not, that's often the perception), but I don't know... Anyway, then I come to my senses and realize that I'm insane enough without adding Fox network exec thoughts to my overly-active brain.
Fixed. Though with some of them, I'm not sure if it's enough to shoot them...
If there's one thing I've learned working in an office, it's that many office workers aren't reasonable and don't have common sense. Most of all, if it isn't directly their responsibility (ie. they're the ones that burn if something goes wrong), they don't care and don't want to help or understand. Now, that's not exactly fair, but it's closer to the truth than most people would like to admit.
Not everybody is like that, but enough. All you can do is try to read their actions/expressions and be careful with your words. Tailor your responses to their personality and play to their beliefs when appropriate. It'd be much better if we could all just say what is on our minds, but a lot of people don't take that very well....
Specific results aren't shared, no, but there is a pretty active community. The project leader, Dr. Rick Nebel, shares what information he can and there are some pretty in-depth discussions between him and other people who are very knowledgeable about physics and fusion. The best thing though, is that they are very likely to have a solid yes or no answer on Polywell within a year or two and it's going to cost them a tiny fraction of what ITER and similar are costing.
Sorry.... my HTML was ignored there for some reason... the community is here. They post all kinds of fusion news, do their own research, and are even working on an open source Polywell design. I've been lurking there for a while now. Some of it can be very dry reading, but it's quite interesting nonetheless.
Specific results aren't shared, no, but there is a pretty active community. The project leader, Dr. Rick Nebel, shares what information he can and there are some pretty in-depth discussions between him and other people who are very knowledgeable about physics and fusion. The best thing though, is that they are very likely to have a solid yes or no answer on Polywell within a year or two and it's going to cost them a tiny fraction of what ITER and similar are costing.
I'd have to say this is the most logical solution. If you need ideas of uses for the box if/when she's done with her phase, come back here and I'm sure people will help you with that.
I can't compare with some of the folks here for geekiness, but I turned one old computer (bought in 2001) into a nicely centralized file server. Greatest thing I've done in a long time. It's great for sharing media to the laptop especially... movies and music anywhere in the house without the hassle of transferring stuff around.
My current project is a box that I originally built in 2005. I'm (slowly) turning it into a MythTV box, which will save me the cost of Time Warner's digital cable and DVR fee. I can't wait until I have the time to finish that one up. I swear my bill gets bigger every month and I don't want to know where they're pulling these fees from.
I agree that games certainly are taking over part of the movie audience, but there's still a place for movies. There are times when I want to get lost in story and don't feel a strong desire to be a part of it. I generally prefer games, but just watching a good story with someone is fun too.
The movie industry will probably need to shrink a bit, but I doubt they're going anywhere.
Watching a DVD at home isn't the same as at a cinema, you say? Playing a video game on your own system isn't the same as a night out in an arcade, either.
Yeah, games at my house have better graphics, more versatile input devices, better story, and more in-depth gameplay.
If the screen size and sound mattered that much to me, I could put together a large LCD or projector with a 7.1 sound system and have similar or better quality. Not to mention, there's something to be said for a quiet movie at home with someone I actually LIKE versus sitting in a theater with 50-100+ annoying mouth-breathers that don't know how to shut up.
Of course, I tend not to pay much attention to movies when we're sitting on the couch, but I know most Slashdotters wouldn't understand that one...
1) Who needs Microsoft Office? The answer is: unless you're in a corporate environment, almost no one. OpenOffice.org works just fine for Aunt Tillie who needs to write letters and keep her recipes on the computer. And even those in a corporate environment have gotten by with out it.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. I agree that OO okay for people that just need to type something and print it, but EVERYBODY ELSE uses MS Office. It's become the standard whether people like it or not and OO doesn't handle the formatting well enough to be a replacement yet. If you need to share electronic documents of any real complexity with anybody else, it's just not good enough.
2) Photoshop is not needed by nearly as many people as you might think. Unless you're a professional photographer or a serious amateur, Photoshop is simply overkill. Krita and GIMP will meet the needs of 99% of anybody who needs photo editing, including a lot of those professionals and prosumers.
Agreed, but it's hard to convince people of that when Photoshop has become a verb.
3) iTunes is reported to run under Wine.
Really? Most of the contributers on it's WineHQ AppDB page are BRONZE or GARBAGE. Maybe it runs for some people, but that's hardly the same as WORKING. That's not a solution for a typical user.
4) I don't stream Netflix, but have heard that you can do it under Linux.
No recent knowledge of this one, but I tried a few months back and it was a futile exercise. Where'd you hear that?
5) Playing what games? There are plenty of native Linux games. Oh, you mean playing the latest-and-greatest RTS/MMORPG/FPS/etc.? Well, if that's your bag, then you need Windows. BTW--you're still in the minority of computer users.
Native games aren't Windows games. People want to play the game their friends are playing or that they saw on TV.
6) There are ways of playing Blu-Rays on Linux....
I have no direct knowledge of this one, but your typical user is most likely not going to get it working.
It's about the soup, of course, but the label is the way you know what's inside. I tend to buy the same brand of soup every time I go to the store, but that doesn't mean there isn't a better one out there. People stick with what is familiar to them. It's nice to have the best, but sometimes 'good enough' is actually good enough. It's not worth the hassle to try a bunch of different ones because one MIGHT be better.
Good idea, but WINE has to come a long way before they could include that as a feature. I like it and it works well with most basic software I've tried, but it starts to fall apart quickly when things get complex.
Linux isn't strictly for programmers. I'm not a programmer and I still prefer Linux for daily computing. I have no doubt that any basic computer user who approached it with an open mind would be pleasantly surprised, or at least indifferent to Linux. As long as the steps to get to the web/email are similar, a lot of them wouldn't even notice the difference.
This isn't meant to be a 'rah rah Linux' post (I still have Windows on both my computers), but it really has come a long way. I wouldn't call it as polished as Windows from a regular user standpoint, but it's about the same as Windows. About the only reason I'd be iffy giving it to a typical user is installation/configuration, but I wouldn't trust those same people to install/configure Windows either. In fact, I'd probably be more worried about Windows than Linux in that respect. That's exactly why we have so much trouble with malware these days.
I'm not taking a side here, but I want to point out that just because the problems are different doesn't mean they aren't there.
Linux folks generally don't have profit incentive, no, but I've found that a good number of them have an agenda of some kind. I'm sure you've read or heard about some of the bickering that goes on... It's not uncommon for a developer to get stuck in his ways and refuse to change with the users. Usually that just results in a fork or migration to other software, but there must be cases where it's degraded the user experience, same as the profit-driven world.
Regardless, the filtering process is more than adequate to make the water safe. The fact that astronauts tend to be scientists of at least a reasonable caliber, they'll no doubt understand the science behind it and have no trouble drinking it.
I worked with water filtration in the past and, while I might hesitate slightly on my first sip, I'd have no issue drinking it. I'd bet it's significantly cleaner than most water flowing through pipes on earth.
Slashdot Mirror
Rereading my post, I see how it was a bit ambiguous. I don't usually play games that require that kind of work to unlock things. If the game is fun in its own right, then I'll play it, but I generally refuse to put hours into something if I'm not enjoying it.
I think for some people, the work they put into achieving high levels or unlocking things in games does make it more fun. However, I think that's partially because many of them don't get enough of a sense of accomplishment from the rest of their life. That's not universal, of course, but I've gone through a couple of low points in my life in which I fell into a bit of a game addiction. Life sucked; games gave me some small sense of accomplishment and let me be important/powerful somewhere to make up for what was missing elsewhere.
But I'm interested in the value of the the reward itself. I don't care about meaningless value attached to it because I worked for hours. While the sense of accomplishment is sometimes nice, I play for fun. If I want a sense of accomplishment, I'll do something that's actually meaningful.
I, personally, do not think I could look at anything and believe that there is a creator of all existence. My distance from your God is infinite because I do not believe He exists. I have no relationship with your God or any other god because, again, I do not believe that they exist.
I could go into detail exactly what I think about religion and its followers, but I will do my best to avoid insulting you. I respect your right to believe what you wish; please do the same for me.
I tried that when I was young and found nothing. I felt much better after learning the truth. Life is much more pleasant living with my own, appropriate set of values, rather than the arbitrary BS that people tried to cram down my throat (granted, my values aren't much different from theirs, but now I don't have to put up with them). It also adds some comedic value when the odd extra-religious person looks at me funny and tries to avoid telling me that I'm going to hell for not believing.
Exactly. Not to mention that there can be an awfully fine line between 'university resources' and 'personal resources.' What if he's using an open computer lab? Or his own computer within a dorm room? These are clearly not the same as using your employer's equipment and he certainly was not paid for his time spent on the assignment.
People who aren't paid have slanted opinions too. What's your point?
They have trouble controlling popular topics as it is (ie. keeping them accurate and unbiased). Imagine if companies could pay people to edit Wikipedia for them. There's no way they could keep up with the sheer volume of edits. Not to mention the people who help to maintain Wikipedia would likely get tired of cleaning up, increasing the risk of those people quitting/giving up. The overall quality of Wikipedia would suffer, I fear to the point of becoming a glorified advertisement that people take as gospel.
I agree with you in principle, but who decides what the truth is and how do they do it? It has to be done the same way you're doing it now, but you're encouraging all people to make more edits. Only a fraction of those people really, truly know what they're talking about. No, it's not a moral issue, but you're upsetting the balance that keeps Wikipedia useful and relevant.
Who determines what the truth is, though? If people are paid to change Wikipedia, whatever they are paid to put on there slowly becomes the truth in the eyes of the public. The type of people who are most knowledgeable about a subject are often the least likely to care if they're paid because they have other things on their mind. They'll be overpowered by people trying to make a buck and the quality of Wikipedia will go way down.
Exactly. If I come across a GOOD antivirus program that I don't have to pay for, I'll be sticking with that for a good while.
$70+ for an antivirus program on my $2xx+ Windows partition just so I can play games? It's a tad ridiculous...
I'll probably get modded down for this, but the latest versions of Norton aren't slow anymore. I used to be dead set against Norton, but 2009 came with my laptop and it is easily the least intrusive AV I've ever come across. It's never picked up a virus, so I can't comment on detection, but I've never gotten viruses in the past anyway.
I suggest you use it before regurgitating the old Norton issues.
http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/review-norton-internet-security-2009-not-ready-2008101/
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2330018,00.asp
http://reviews.cnet.com/internet-security-and-firewall/norton-internet-security-2009/4505-3667_7-33246586.html?tag=api&subj=re
Even Newegg customer reviews are overwhelmingly fives. Yes, I know there aren't a ton of reviews, but it's interesting nonetheless.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductReview.aspx?Item=N82E16832108387
I can't comment on Microsoft's offering, but I am a bit skeptical. If it's free, I'll probably try it at some point.
Get off your high horse. Quick and dirty programs written to help with calculations or sorting/analyzing data hardly have the same effect as real-world problems.
I'm an engineer and work in the medical device field. There is no way in hell I'd let you or 99% of Slashdot try to do my job without one of a specific set of engineering degrees and at least several years of experience in the company/field.
I can use my primarily self-taught programming skills to write working programs that do useful work. If you screw up a structure or medical device, the consequences are a bit bigger than if I screw up a program that sorts my validation data for me. I have to sort my data by hand. You pay fines, lose your ability to sell things, get fired, or even go to jail. Let's just hope you don't kill anyone. It's not the same.
That's not to say that I don't respect programmers, but the vast majority of programming does not have nearly the effect of the engineering work you're talking about.
Let's just leave it at this: You don't engineer anything more complicated than your basic car maintenance and I won't write programs that are sold for thousands of dollars.
What does it for me is that Futurama utilizes some fairly intelligent humor, without going so far as to set itself above or beyond its audience. It also successfully mixes in small amounts of shock and surprise humor (ala Family Guy, but usually more subtle). I think they've also got just the right number/mix of characters. It lets them change things up without constantly introducing new people or wearing out and overextending their main characters. Their use of stereotypes and cliches helps them keep things familiar, but with enough surprises added in to keep it from getting overly stale.
Like a lot of people, I was barely aware of its existence when it was still running, but I picked it up late in the game and kept watching after it was canceled. For a long time, I watched 1-2 reruns a night before bed. They've gotten tedious now, but for me to be able to rewatch them so much says something. There are very few shows that I can do that with. I can almost recite some episodes.
The only complaints I've heard consistently are:
1. That it's based in the future/in space, but some people just have a bias against that kind of thing. Nothing to be done about it.
2. "It's just like the Simpsons/Family Guy/American Dad." That, of course, is a joke, with the exception of them all being [young?] adult-oriented cartoons. I find it especially funny because Futurama was already well into production by the time Family Guy was out and American Dad didn't exist at all.
Sometimes I wish I knew what was going on in execs' heads so that I could understand why they cancel shows like Futurama, Firefly, etc. I tend to assume it's because they're considered by many to be science fiction (true or not, that's often the perception), but I don't know... Anyway, then I come to my senses and realize that I'm insane enough without adding Fox network exec thoughts to my overly-active brain.
Be reasonable, and honest - justify and explain.
And then, when they still bother you, shoot them.
Fixed. Though with some of them, I'm not sure if it's enough to shoot them...
If there's one thing I've learned working in an office, it's that many office workers aren't reasonable and don't have common sense. Most of all, if it isn't directly their responsibility (ie. they're the ones that burn if something goes wrong), they don't care and don't want to help or understand. Now, that's not exactly fair, but it's closer to the truth than most people would like to admit.
Not everybody is like that, but enough. All you can do is try to read their actions/expressions and be careful with your words. Tailor your responses to their personality and play to their beliefs when appropriate. It'd be much better if we could all just say what is on our minds, but a lot of people don't take that very well....
Specific results aren't shared, no, but there is a pretty active community. The project leader, Dr. Rick Nebel, shares what information he can and there are some pretty in-depth discussions between him and other people who are very knowledgeable about physics and fusion. The best thing though, is that they are very likely to have a solid yes or no answer on Polywell within a year or two and it's going to cost them a tiny fraction of what ITER and similar are costing.
Sorry.... my HTML was ignored there for some reason... the community is here. They post all kinds of fusion news, do their own research, and are even working on an open source Polywell design. I've been lurking there for a while now. Some of it can be very dry reading, but it's quite interesting nonetheless.
Specific results aren't shared, no, but there is a pretty active community. The project leader, Dr. Rick Nebel, shares what information he can and there are some pretty in-depth discussions between him and other people who are very knowledgeable about physics and fusion. The best thing though, is that they are very likely to have a solid yes or no answer on Polywell within a year or two and it's going to cost them a tiny fraction of what ITER and similar are costing.
I'd have to say this is the most logical solution. If you need ideas of uses for the box if/when she's done with her phase, come back here and I'm sure people will help you with that.
I can't compare with some of the folks here for geekiness, but I turned one old computer (bought in 2001) into a nicely centralized file server. Greatest thing I've done in a long time. It's great for sharing media to the laptop especially... movies and music anywhere in the house without the hassle of transferring stuff around.
My current project is a box that I originally built in 2005. I'm (slowly) turning it into a MythTV box, which will save me the cost of Time Warner's digital cable and DVR fee. I can't wait until I have the time to finish that one up. I swear my bill gets bigger every month and I don't want to know where they're pulling these fees from.
Just give the ghost a walker and put the ghostbusters on Rascals. Bonus points if they can work in some new Q-like modifications for them.
I agree that games certainly are taking over part of the movie audience, but there's still a place for movies. There are times when I want to get lost in story and don't feel a strong desire to be a part of it. I generally prefer games, but just watching a good story with someone is fun too.
The movie industry will probably need to shrink a bit, but I doubt they're going anywhere.
Watching a DVD at home isn't the same as at a cinema, you say? Playing a video game on your own system isn't the same as a night out in an arcade, either.
Yeah, games at my house have better graphics, more versatile input devices, better story, and more in-depth gameplay.
If the screen size and sound mattered that much to me, I could put together a large LCD or projector with a 7.1 sound system and have similar or better quality. Not to mention, there's something to be said for a quiet movie at home with someone I actually LIKE versus sitting in a theater with 50-100+ annoying mouth-breathers that don't know how to shut up.
Of course, I tend not to pay much attention to movies when we're sitting on the couch, but I know most Slashdotters wouldn't understand that one...
1) Who needs Microsoft Office? The answer is: unless you're in a corporate environment, almost no one. OpenOffice.org works just fine for Aunt Tillie who needs to write letters and keep her recipes on the computer. And even those in a corporate environment have gotten by with out it.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. I agree that OO okay for people that just need to type something and print it, but EVERYBODY ELSE uses MS Office. It's become the standard whether people like it or not and OO doesn't handle the formatting well enough to be a replacement yet. If you need to share electronic documents of any real complexity with anybody else, it's just not good enough.
2) Photoshop is not needed by nearly as many people as you might think. Unless you're a professional photographer or a serious amateur, Photoshop is simply overkill. Krita and GIMP will meet the needs of 99% of anybody who needs photo editing, including a lot of those professionals and prosumers.
Agreed, but it's hard to convince people of that when Photoshop has become a verb.
3) iTunes is reported to run under Wine.
Really? Most of the contributers on it's WineHQ AppDB page are BRONZE or GARBAGE. Maybe it runs for some people, but that's hardly the same as WORKING. That's not a solution for a typical user.
4) I don't stream Netflix, but have heard that you can do it under Linux.
No recent knowledge of this one, but I tried a few months back and it was a futile exercise. Where'd you hear that?
5) Playing what games? There are plenty of native Linux games. Oh, you mean playing the latest-and-greatest RTS/MMORPG/FPS/etc.? Well, if that's your bag, then you need Windows. BTW--you're still in the minority of computer users.
Native games aren't Windows games. People want to play the game their friends are playing or that they saw on TV.
6) There are ways of playing Blu-Rays on Linux....
I have no direct knowledge of this one, but your typical user is most likely not going to get it working.
It's about the soup, of course, but the label is the way you know what's inside. I tend to buy the same brand of soup every time I go to the store, but that doesn't mean there isn't a better one out there. People stick with what is familiar to them. It's nice to have the best, but sometimes 'good enough' is actually good enough. It's not worth the hassle to try a bunch of different ones because one MIGHT be better.
Good idea, but WINE has to come a long way before they could include that as a feature. I like it and it works well with most basic software I've tried, but it starts to fall apart quickly when things get complex.
Part of me agrees with you, but...
Linux isn't strictly for programmers. I'm not a programmer and I still prefer Linux for daily computing. I have no doubt that any basic computer user who approached it with an open mind would be pleasantly surprised, or at least indifferent to Linux. As long as the steps to get to the web/email are similar, a lot of them wouldn't even notice the difference.
This isn't meant to be a 'rah rah Linux' post (I still have Windows on both my computers), but it really has come a long way. I wouldn't call it as polished as Windows from a regular user standpoint, but it's about the same as Windows. About the only reason I'd be iffy giving it to a typical user is installation/configuration, but I wouldn't trust those same people to install/configure Windows either. In fact, I'd probably be more worried about Windows than Linux in that respect. That's exactly why we have so much trouble with malware these days.
I'm not taking a side here, but I want to point out that just because the problems are different doesn't mean they aren't there.
Linux folks generally don't have profit incentive, no, but I've found that a good number of them have an agenda of some kind. I'm sure you've read or heard about some of the bickering that goes on... It's not uncommon for a developer to get stuck in his ways and refuse to change with the users. Usually that just results in a fork or migration to other software, but there must be cases where it's degraded the user experience, same as the profit-driven world.
Regardless, the filtering process is more than adequate to make the water safe. The fact that astronauts tend to be scientists of at least a reasonable caliber, they'll no doubt understand the science behind it and have no trouble drinking it.
I worked with water filtration in the past and, while I might hesitate slightly on my first sip, I'd have no issue drinking it. I'd bet it's significantly cleaner than most water flowing through pipes on earth.