The partitioning/labelling is pretty easy (and has reasonable auto-defaults).
FreeBSD's partitioning and labeling system blows chunks. If you accept the defaults and you don't do anything interesting with the box, you'll get by. The default sizes for / and/var are ridiculous, expecially considering mail is stored in/var/mail.
And then there's the whole confusing issue of partitioning, labeling and which means what relative to a lot of other OS environments.
And while I'm on it, there's the crummy sysinstall tool for doing it to new disks added to a system, if you're not brave enough to deal with fdisk and disklabel from the command line (I figured 'em out once, as a forced exercise, and I was happy to be done with it).
I have no grip with sysinstall for getting a base system installed, but it'd be great if someone re-examined the disk partitioning schemes and tools.
Isn't part of the way Bayesian filtering works is that you have to supply it with "what is spam" to teach the filter what it should filter out?
This makes a mail hub Bayesian filter problematic, unless you can kludge up some kind of way to allow users to feed an individualized Bayesian filter spam samples (lots of complexity) or a way to feed a common filter (less complicated, more problematic -- your spam ain't mine necessarily, email from the boss gets fed as a prank, etc), or somebody (the admin?) feeds the filter by themselves or with input from the users.
The latter (single filter, fed by the admin) would work on a tagging-only filter, especially if you human-filtered end user spam suggestions.
SpamAssassin's scoring system works well for a mail hub environment, if only it was rewritten in C and more reliable being called from Sendmail instead of per-user on procmail.
Remember when watches only had an hour and a minute hand? And then all of a sudden, they had a second hand, and now the date, several time zones, "chrono" mode and other stuff.
Mechanical (NO electronics) watches with chronograph function have been around for decades as mass-market watches and continue to be made in the high-end watch market.
Also, the high-end watch world disdains pretty much everything that isn't 100% mechanical -- no quartz movements.
Technology X has shitty service, both customer service and signal/bandwidth/etc. Providers refuse to invest in new facilities, claim they can't afford it.
Are we finding out that the technology house of cards we built we really can't afford? Is it possible that it's really not economically viable to have cell phones, high speed internet, etc?
It's not a matter of technological feasability, but economic viability -- you can't have it because it's too expensive. Like The Concord -- too expensive for everyone, but just barely affordable enough for the very wealthy.
Like the old radio phones you see in movies -- and you only saw them in limousines...
If 1K = 1024, then 1M = 1K * 1024 and 1G = 1M * 1024.
In which case, 4.7GB should actually be 5,046,586,572 bytes.
If you're the G=1,000,000,000 measurement school, then it should be 4,700,000,000 as you say, or 4.3GB in the 1024-base units, as I think a parent poster indicated.
They're all like this. "Researchers at Acme, Inc have discovered a way to put 2 TB on a Post-It with 2GB/s transfer rates, excellent durability and low cost...."
There's seldom a followup story, unless it involves the mythical holographic cube storage, in which case we hear about it all the time; maybe each time Taco watches 2001.
In reality, we have lots of cheap ata disks and 4.7GB DVDs will be everywhere in about a year or so, but no zillion-gig storage devices.
You could merge the measuring portion of the Bayesian filter into imapd.
A special imap folder called "spam" would exist. Messages fed into this folder would be used to compute a filter database. After computing the filter database, the spam messages would be deleted leaving a single message behind representing the Bayesian filter database.
When fetching messages, this filter database would be checked by imapd as it fetched messages; matches would be automatically fed back to the spam folder, where they'd improve the filter, non-matches would show up in your inbox as expected.
No special client software required.
You could even have special virtual folders called "Inbox-Unfiltered" that would give an unfiltered view, a "Spam" folder that gave a spam-only view, as well as options not to delete spam moved to the spam folder autoamatically for review for false-positives.
Re:It's gonna be a corporate giveaway this session
on
HomeSec In the News
·
· Score: 2
How about a flat tax break? Everyone pays %2 less. Or, better yet, everyone pays $1000 less.
Now I really like this idea! Everyone pays $2k less (make it an addition to the refund check, so it feels likemore money than if you just got it $2.50 per paycheck or something).
It's a meaningful amount to most people making under $100k or so per year, yet meaingless to the very rich who might have to order something other than beluga caviar and '57 Dom for their midnight snacks.
The problem is the $210 billion dollar price tag, but think of the value that $210 billion would bring when pumped back into the economy.
Re:It's gonna be a corporate giveaway this session
on
HomeSec In the News
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I'm not blaming the Republicans for the phenomenon, but I will blame them for the large amount of corporate giveaway we'll see in a Republican controlled house, senate and presidency.
Bush Jr. (or any other president) would only use the veto to kill of the other side's pork and goodies, not his own. I'd also expect it to be widely abused by whoever's in power to promote their own political agenda, rather than for the good of the people to eliminate non-germane pork.
Corporate freebies tacked onto bills in the current environment will be allowed to stay, since they paid the current President and party for them.
It's gonna be a corporate giveaway this session
on
HomeSec In the News
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
All of the corporations are salivating at the prospects of the all-Republican, all-the-time federal government. Every corporate giveaway they want, they'll get, not the least of which I predict will be more goodies for Valenti & Co.
I'd expect most of them to be tacked onto Defense or Security bills, since by this time all but the late Paul Wellstone are terrified politically of asking anything but "When do we vote yes on it?"
Re:What about satellite users?
on
Review: EyeTV
·
· Score: 2
The video stream is the easy part, and I knew that was standardized, although I wonder how many vendor-specific tweaks and extensions to MPEG2 have been done by the major cable system vendors.
The standardization I was talking about was the layer 2/3/4 communication that enables authorization, pay-per-view, guide data, and so on.
It'd be kind of cool if the major vendors had decided that the boxes themselves would just be java machines with a standard boot protocol, and everything else that ran on them was downloaded to the box from the headend, instead of hardcoded into the box. Make it easier for TV, PVR, and third parties to make boxes that fit the standard. The major vendors could then still make money to cable co's selling headend systems and software, instead of closed hardware/software systems!
Re:What about satellite users?
on
Review: EyeTV
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I don't know about satellite, but I wish there was a more open standard for digital cable tuners. I'd like to see them included in TVs, VCRs, Tivos, or other devices, even if it only means "closed" non-PC devices (ie, no capture cards, I wouldn't count Tivo as a PC, others may disagree).
I hate the idea of having to pony up $8 per TV for tuners. It'd be great if they could be integrated into the device directly.
I don't know how practical this would be -- I'd imagine that there are multiple digital cable standards out there (Motorola, Scientific Atlanta, etc) and probably little desire for a common standard.
I'm also curious about the economics to the cable company. While I'm sure my SA2100 box wasn't $500 in bulk to the CATV company, I can't see them making a profit off the box @ $8 per month for at least a year, maybe two.
If I could take a few weeks off work and had a few thousand to spend, I could do a decent job of rewiring my house and get a couple of TVs per CATV tuner box, centralized Tivo, etc, but not now.
Offering it to charity is a nice idea, but it will strike most people (who get past the shots of his lifestyle, and who aren't turned off completely by Hollywood artist problems) as an argumentum post hoc -- he's pissed he didn't get paid, but only when he didn't get paid did he decide it was going to charity.
There's ways to make it an issue, but I suspect the best one would be challenging the issue in the business-news context and framing it as a business management and investment issue. Remeber Kevin Nealon's Mr. Subliminal character on SNL?
"I didn't get paid [Enron] because of financial chicanery [WorldCom] in Hollywood -- what's the deal [SEC investigation]?"
Build on the natural suspicion of corporate accounting and finance, which picks one pocket for the benefit of another.
Sure he has the potential, if he can get his message out. Since his enemy is the media, which will be the conduit of his message, how likely do you think it will be for him to be able to present his message with the kind of spin he wants without being sandwiched in "bad" artist news or presented in a negative light?
"Stan Lee filed a complaint against Marvel comics today. Stan wasn't available for comment when we tried to reach him at his Park Avenue condiminum [cue visial of rich guy building] or his studio in rural Connecticut [cue visual of deluxe rural estate]."
Even if the TV newsreader accurately were to paraphrase Stan's complaint, all they have to do is show visuals of Stan's current lifestyle (hint: probably better than 98% of America) and the public, even if they don't see it as another spoiled media artist, will write it off as more rich people fighting each other for money.
The point is that the 'media' can manipulate the public perception of their artists as much as they want. Public perception of artists is always on the bubble anyway -- they're dope-addled scofflaws, harlots or raging bolsheviks, or they're promoted to a larger-than-life hero status (if they have a new, big-budget movie about to be released).
I think Stan probably has a great argument, and its something I've suspected about the "zero profit" media industry all along -- there's either fishy accounting, gluttonous overhead costs (coke, whores, lear jets, mansions, parties, lawyers, hush money), or more likely, both -- using the former to justify the latter as expenses.
But Stan will likely get mixed in with all the "bad" Hollywood news and there will be little outcry for his cause as the mud slopped by the likes of Winona, Downey, et al will stain him, too, even though he doesn't deserve it.
The Pie Chart about Spam sales content
on
The Economics of Spam
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The article showed a pie chart detailing the things spam was selling, and it only indicated "scams" as being 4%.
I'd have to say that only 4% of the spam I get (when I review my spamassassin mailbox for false positives..) to be anything approaching legitimate products and services.
Almost all of it is for penis enhancers (surely fraudulent), fake viagra (ditto), stock schemes (pump 'n' dumps), "financial offers" which are surely either pump-n-dumps or deals so loaded with fees they stretch the definition of legitimate, bogus health products (HGH and the like), and porn, which is far higher than the 12% indicated.
Since this is the WSJ we're talking about, I wonder if this isn't some editorial attempt to de-marginalize spammers and the borderline legal crap they push, with the goal of ultimately softening the opposition so that the big-name direct marketers can start in on this too. Claiming only 4% fraudulent content is stretching the imagination pretty thin.
Whether or not Stan Lee wins, this situation could be massaged into a public outcry for artists' rights.
Yes, there will be a huge outcry for artists rights. Stan's story will be featured on the news, sandwiched between Winona Ryder's sentencing hearings and Robert Downy's Nth drugs-n-guns parole violation.
The public will cry out for artists to be given the same rights as anyone else:
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to be speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.
They'll probably also cry out for them to have the right to a pack of smokes every week from the commissary, a weekly visit from a family member and two collect phone calls per week.
Only 40% of people wash their hands exiting public restrooms[...]
I had read a similar statistic, but with a twist. I believe it said that only 30% of people washed their hands after going to the bathroom if they were alone, but if someone else was in there the number went up to like 85%. I'm making the numbers up, but it was a high-contrast situation.
I had a cow-orker who used to always go take a piss or a shit if he could and not wash his hands before working on the most hated people's computers. He thought it was an indirect way of getting them to kiss his ass...
I have a 6 gig Fujitsu that has the goofiest jumpter settings. In one mode you set one jumper across a pair of pins like any other drive, in another mode you set two jumpers, one in the normal fashion and another *horizontally* across one of the pins used for the other mode, in a manner normally used to park jumpers on drives that have all jumpers open for some modes.
I neglected to do this properly -- I couldn't believe it worked that way -- when adding it as a slave drive and it corrupted the master drive, sinking my system.
It's the only drive I've ever seen that used jumper settings in this manner. I haven't used the drive much, so it hasn't failed...yet.
I've been running 2K workstation since it went golden and we got the select CDs. I've been running XP for about the same length of time and I have never had XP blue screen. I've had 2k blue screen on me, but maybe once every 2-3 months, and thats with a time between reboots of 2-3 weeks (service packs, changes, etc).
No, I don't dispute that the Nazis hated the Jews. What I dispute is the uninformed "idea" that the Nazis hated the Jews as some kind of a pathological insanity. That may have been the case for Hitler *personally*, but Nazi ideology goes well beyond Hitler.
Nazi ideology was focused on strengthening Aryan culture and racial hygiene. The Jews were considered a part of a conspiracy to undermine this. Even if the Jews were enemy #1, millions of non-Jews were killed in the concentration camps, too.
The fact that so many non-Jews *were* killed is pretty convincing evidence that the Nazis were indeed interested in a broader goal than just hating Jews. They did hate Jews and probably more so than any other group, but the perception of the threat was higher, too.
So, yes, the Nazis hated the Jews. But it wasn't an end in and of itself in Nazi ideology, and it wasn't all the Nazis were about. Arguing that it is would be like arguing that all the Democrats are about is sexing interns with cigars, because that's what Clinton was obsessed with.
Well, ratings, but that really translates into money.
In order for documentaries to get good ratings on TV, they have to be interesting to the usual neanderthal watching TV, which means they have to have lots of pictures and definitive, easy answers. Thinking and talking heads lose viewers, costs ratings, and somebody isn't making money.
I especially *love* when the show B&W silent movie footage, especially the stuff with the old frame rates, set, say, in ancient Rome. I wonder how many people presume its footage from ancient Rome..
And then there's *making* a documentary. First you have to hire a bunch of really smart people to provide input, a couple of writers to tie it all together both with accuracy and interest, as well as figuring out how to provide visuals for subjects and places that pre-date photos. All of that is *very* expensive and has a limited amount of financial return.
"Modern" documentaries that involve contemporary subjects are usually either propaganda (eg, "The Navy Aircraft Carrier") or politically unpopular, so we don't see them.
Slashdot Mirror
The partitioning/labelling is pretty easy (and has reasonable auto-defaults).
/var are ridiculous, expecially considering mail is stored in /var/mail.
FreeBSD's partitioning and labeling system blows chunks. If you accept the defaults and you don't do anything interesting with the box, you'll get by. The default sizes for / and
And then there's the whole confusing issue of partitioning, labeling and which means what relative to a lot of other OS environments.
And while I'm on it, there's the crummy sysinstall tool for doing it to new disks added to a system, if you're not brave enough to deal with fdisk and disklabel from the command line (I figured 'em out once, as a forced exercise, and I was happy to be done with it).
I have no grip with sysinstall for getting a base system installed, but it'd be great if someone re-examined the disk partitioning schemes and tools.
Isn't part of the way Bayesian filtering works is that you have to supply it with "what is spam" to teach the filter what it should filter out?
This makes a mail hub Bayesian filter problematic, unless you can kludge up some kind of way to allow users to feed an individualized Bayesian filter spam samples (lots of complexity) or a way to feed a common filter (less complicated, more problematic -- your spam ain't mine necessarily, email from the boss gets fed as a prank, etc), or somebody (the admin?) feeds the filter by themselves or with input from the users.
The latter (single filter, fed by the admin) would work on a tagging-only filter, especially if you human-filtered end user spam suggestions.
SpamAssassin's scoring system works well for a mail hub environment, if only it was rewritten in C and more reliable being called from Sendmail instead of per-user on procmail.
Remember when watches only had an hour and a minute hand? And then all of a sudden, they had a second hand, and now the date, several time zones, "chrono" mode and other stuff.
Mechanical (NO electronics) watches with chronograph function have been around for decades as mass-market watches and continue to be made in the high-end watch market.
Also, the high-end watch world disdains pretty much everything that isn't 100% mechanical -- no quartz movements.
Technology X has shitty service, both customer service and signal/bandwidth/etc. Providers refuse to invest in new facilities, claim they can't afford it.
Are we finding out that the technology house of cards we built we really can't afford? Is it possible that it's really not economically viable to have cell phones, high speed internet, etc?
It's not a matter of technological feasability, but economic viability -- you can't have it because it's too expensive. Like The Concord -- too expensive for everyone, but just barely affordable enough for the very wealthy.
Like the old radio phones you see in movies -- and you only saw them in limousines...
It's the whole gig/meg/kilo number thing.
If 1K = 1024, then 1M = 1K * 1024 and 1G = 1M * 1024.
In which case, 4.7GB should actually be 5,046,586,572 bytes.
If you're the G=1,000,000,000 measurement school, then it should be 4,700,000,000 as you say, or 4.3GB in the 1024-base units, as I think a parent poster indicated.
Probably stolen from IG Farben after WWII, along with a lot of other German IP.
They're all like this. "Researchers at Acme, Inc have discovered a way to put 2 TB on a Post-It with 2GB/s transfer rates, excellent durability and low cost...."
There's seldom a followup story, unless it involves the mythical holographic cube storage, in which case we hear about it all the time; maybe each time Taco watches 2001.
In reality, we have lots of cheap ata disks and 4.7GB DVDs will be everywhere in about a year or so, but no zillion-gig storage devices.
You could merge the measuring portion of the Bayesian filter into imapd.
A special imap folder called "spam" would exist. Messages fed into this folder would be used to compute a filter database. After computing the filter database, the spam messages would be deleted leaving a single message behind representing the Bayesian filter database.
When fetching messages, this filter database would be checked by imapd as it fetched messages; matches would be automatically fed back to the spam folder, where they'd improve the filter, non-matches would show up in your inbox as expected.
No special client software required.
You could even have special virtual folders called "Inbox-Unfiltered" that would give an unfiltered view, a "Spam" folder that gave a spam-only view, as well as options not to delete spam moved to the spam folder autoamatically for review for false-positives.
How about a flat tax break? Everyone pays %2 less. Or, better yet, everyone pays $1000 less.
Now I really like this idea! Everyone pays $2k less (make it an addition to the refund check, so it feels likemore money than if you just got it $2.50 per paycheck or something).
It's a meaningful amount to most people making under $100k or so per year, yet meaingless to the very rich who might have to order something other than beluga caviar and '57 Dom for their midnight snacks.
The problem is the $210 billion dollar price tag, but think of the value that $210 billion would bring when pumped back into the economy.
I'm not blaming the Republicans for the phenomenon, but I will blame them for the large amount of corporate giveaway we'll see in a Republican controlled house, senate and presidency.
Bush Jr. (or any other president) would only use the veto to kill of the other side's pork and goodies, not his own. I'd also expect it to be widely abused by whoever's in power to promote their own political agenda, rather than for the good of the people to eliminate non-germane pork.
Corporate freebies tacked onto bills in the current environment will be allowed to stay, since they paid the current President and party for them.
All of the corporations are salivating at the prospects of the all-Republican, all-the-time federal government. Every corporate giveaway they want, they'll get, not the least of which I predict will be more goodies for Valenti & Co.
I'd expect most of them to be tacked onto Defense or Security bills, since by this time all but the late Paul Wellstone are terrified politically of asking anything but "When do we vote yes on it?"
The video stream is the easy part, and I knew that was standardized, although I wonder how many vendor-specific tweaks and extensions to MPEG2 have been done by the major cable system vendors.
The standardization I was talking about was the layer 2/3/4 communication that enables authorization, pay-per-view, guide data, and so on.
It'd be kind of cool if the major vendors had decided that the boxes themselves would just be java machines with a standard boot protocol, and everything else that ran on them was downloaded to the box from the headend, instead of hardcoded into the box. Make it easier for TV, PVR, and third parties to make boxes that fit the standard. The major vendors could then still make money to cable co's selling headend systems and software, instead of closed hardware/software systems!
I don't know about satellite, but I wish there was a more open standard for digital cable tuners. I'd like to see them included in TVs, VCRs, Tivos, or other devices, even if it only means "closed" non-PC devices (ie, no capture cards, I wouldn't count Tivo as a PC, others may disagree).
I hate the idea of having to pony up $8 per TV for tuners. It'd be great if they could be integrated into the device directly.
I don't know how practical this would be -- I'd imagine that there are multiple digital cable standards out there (Motorola, Scientific Atlanta, etc) and probably little desire for a common standard.
I'm also curious about the economics to the cable company. While I'm sure my SA2100 box wasn't $500 in bulk to the CATV company, I can't see them making a profit off the box @ $8 per month for at least a year, maybe two.
If I could take a few weeks off work and had a few thousand to spend, I could do a decent job of rewiring my house and get a couple of TVs per CATV tuner box, centralized Tivo, etc, but not now.
Offering it to charity is a nice idea, but it will strike most people (who get past the shots of his lifestyle, and who aren't turned off completely by Hollywood artist problems) as an argumentum post hoc -- he's pissed he didn't get paid, but only when he didn't get paid did he decide it was going to charity.
There's ways to make it an issue, but I suspect the best one would be challenging the issue in the business-news context and framing it as a business management and investment issue. Remeber Kevin Nealon's Mr. Subliminal character on SNL?
"I didn't get paid [Enron] because of financial chicanery [WorldCom] in Hollywood -- what's the deal [SEC investigation]?"
Build on the natural suspicion of corporate accounting and finance, which picks one pocket for the benefit of another.
Sure he has the potential, if he can get his message out. Since his enemy is the media, which will be the conduit of his message, how likely do you think it will be for him to be able to present his message with the kind of spin he wants without being sandwiched in "bad" artist news or presented in a negative light?
"Stan Lee filed a complaint against Marvel comics today. Stan wasn't available for comment when we tried to reach him at his Park Avenue condiminum [cue visial of rich guy building] or his studio in rural Connecticut [cue visual of deluxe rural estate]."
Even if the TV newsreader accurately were to paraphrase Stan's complaint, all they have to do is show visuals of Stan's current lifestyle (hint: probably better than 98% of America) and the public, even if they don't see it as another spoiled media artist, will write it off as more rich people fighting each other for money.
You can't fight the media on their own turf.
The point is that the 'media' can manipulate the public perception of their artists as much as they want. Public perception of artists is always on the bubble anyway -- they're dope-addled scofflaws, harlots or raging bolsheviks, or they're promoted to a larger-than-life hero status (if they have a new, big-budget movie about to be released).
I think Stan probably has a great argument, and its something I've suspected about the "zero profit" media industry all along -- there's either fishy accounting, gluttonous overhead costs (coke, whores, lear jets, mansions, parties, lawyers, hush money), or more likely, both -- using the former to justify the latter as expenses.
But Stan will likely get mixed in with all the "bad" Hollywood news and there will be little outcry for his cause as the mud slopped by the likes of Winona, Downey, et al will stain him, too, even though he doesn't deserve it.
The article showed a pie chart detailing the things spam was selling, and it only indicated "scams" as being 4%.
I'd have to say that only 4% of the spam I get (when I review my spamassassin mailbox for false positives..) to be anything approaching legitimate products and services.
Almost all of it is for penis enhancers (surely fraudulent), fake viagra (ditto), stock schemes (pump 'n' dumps), "financial offers" which are surely either pump-n-dumps or deals so loaded with fees they stretch the definition of legitimate, bogus health products (HGH and the like), and porn, which is far higher than the 12% indicated.
Since this is the WSJ we're talking about, I wonder if this isn't some editorial attempt to de-marginalize spammers and the borderline legal crap they push, with the goal of ultimately softening the opposition so that the big-name direct marketers can start in on this too. Claiming only 4% fraudulent content is stretching the imagination pretty thin.
Yes, there will be a huge outcry for artists rights. Stan's story will be featured on the news, sandwiched between Winona Ryder's sentencing hearings and Robert Downy's Nth drugs-n-guns parole violation.
The public will cry out for artists to be given the same rights as anyone else:
They'll probably also cry out for them to have the right to a pack of smokes every week from the commissary, a weekly visit from a family member and two collect phone calls per week.
Only 40% of people wash their hands exiting public restrooms[...]
I had read a similar statistic, but with a twist. I believe it said that only 30% of people washed their hands after going to the bathroom if they were alone, but if someone else was in there the number went up to like 85%. I'm making the numbers up, but it was a high-contrast situation.
I had a cow-orker who used to always go take a piss or a shit if he could and not wash his hands before working on the most hated people's computers. He thought it was an indirect way of getting them to kiss his ass...
I have a 6 gig Fujitsu that has the goofiest jumpter settings. In one mode you set one jumper across a pair of pins like any other drive, in another mode you set two jumpers, one in the normal fashion and another *horizontally* across one of the pins used for the other mode, in a manner normally used to park jumpers on drives that have all jumpers open for some modes.
I neglected to do this properly -- I couldn't believe it worked that way -- when adding it as a slave drive and it corrupted the master drive, sinking my system.
It's the only drive I've ever seen that used jumper settings in this manner. I haven't used the drive much, so it hasn't failed...yet.
I've been running 2K workstation since it went golden and we got the select CDs. I've been running XP for about the same length of time and I have never had XP blue screen. I've had 2k blue screen on me, but maybe once every 2-3 months, and thats with a time between reboots of 2-3 weeks (service packs, changes, etc).
I'd rent one from the CATV company if I could.
Although there's some question as to whether the provider boxes will have the software features of the DVRs or the flexibility.
I would imagine that standalone PVRs will be still here, just more expensive and with a much richer feature set.
No, I don't dispute that the Nazis hated the Jews. What I dispute is the uninformed "idea" that the Nazis hated the Jews as some kind of a pathological insanity. That may have been the case for Hitler *personally*, but Nazi ideology goes well beyond Hitler.
Nazi ideology was focused on strengthening Aryan culture and racial hygiene. The Jews were considered a part of a conspiracy to undermine this. Even if the Jews were enemy #1, millions of non-Jews were killed in the concentration camps, too.
The fact that so many non-Jews *were* killed is pretty convincing evidence that the Nazis were indeed interested in a broader goal than just hating Jews. They did hate Jews and probably more so than any other group, but the perception of the threat was higher, too.
So, yes, the Nazis hated the Jews. But it wasn't an end in and of itself in Nazi ideology, and it wasn't all the Nazis were about. Arguing that it is would be like arguing that all the Democrats are about is sexing interns with cigars, because that's what Clinton was obsessed with.
Well, ratings, but that really translates into money.
In order for documentaries to get good ratings on TV, they have to be interesting to the usual neanderthal watching TV, which means they have to have lots of pictures and definitive, easy answers. Thinking and talking heads lose viewers, costs ratings, and somebody isn't making money.
I especially *love* when the show B&W silent movie footage, especially the stuff with the old frame rates, set, say, in ancient Rome. I wonder how many people presume its footage from ancient Rome..
And then there's *making* a documentary. First you have to hire a bunch of really smart people to provide input, a couple of writers to tie it all together both with accuracy and interest, as well as figuring out how to provide visuals for subjects and places that pre-date photos. All of that is *very* expensive and has a limited amount of financial return.
"Modern" documentaries that involve contemporary subjects are usually either propaganda (eg, "The Navy Aircraft Carrier") or politically unpopular, so we don't see them.