I think the solution to this was to move from the inductive loops to cameras which detect motion (or a change of just the asphalt, or *something* -- not sure what). I can't say I've tested this, but I do think they're a lot more reliable than the loops (which I noticed would fail to pick up even a car properly sometimes). Around here (PA/NJ) it seems like they've been aggressively switching to the cameras over the last few years.
TV, being linear, forces the ads to the exclusion of anything else, which is annoying in a different way. At least they're not in your field of vision while the stuff you want to watch is happening.
This is actually becoming less true... while some networks have tact about it, many others -- Food TV and The History Channel come to mind -- throw ads for other shows, books, other various offers right over the program you're watching. While it isn't the end of the world, it's fscking annoying when they cover up [text|important details|subtitles] in the program you're watching just to sell you the host's new book... or even a video for the episode you're watching (so that's the plan)!
At least with the regular tv ads, the dvr takes care of them. I almost never watch "live" tv any more, even preferring to start watching a show after it's been on for at least 15-20 minutes just so I can FF past all the ads. When I do watch live tv, I find myself instinctively hitting that "skip 30 seconds" button, and very disappointed when it doesn't work.
Heh, I was thinking the same thing. I can see them not wanting to erode their hardware sales. Also, there is something to be said about having standardized hardware. It probably makes it much easier to keep the system stable. Not to defend MS, but I do imagine it's hard to keep the OS as stable as it is (which, with XP I'll admit is stable enough), especially with the sheer volume of hardware it has to support, along with some dubious drivers from the various manufacturers. Jobs has either been quoted (or maybe hinted at, I don't recall my source) that OSX could easily be ported to x86 if they wanted (or were forced) to. I just wonder how well it would work with a much broader set of hardware to deal with. Then again, the Linux kernel works well enough, but people would expect more Multimedia support (and I would imagine that's the hardest set of equipment to support -- graphics drivers, sound drivers, and to some extent tv and other multimedia hardware)... not to mention having to port the existing applications over to a new architecture (though with Cocoa, it seems like it should actually be pretty easy as that support's the x-platform frameworks held over from Next).
Look, I'm not dissing Linux; I love it and would have nothing else on my servers. Workstations are a different story; it's too much hassle for me. I don't mind screwing around for an hour to get some service installed on a server. But I don't have that patience for everything else. When I buy a new device, I want to plug it in and use it without the hassles of dependencies, kernel modifications, compiling, reading HOWTOs and man pages, etc. Despite Windows' flaws, most of the time it just works. I suppose that doesn't make me 3l33t enough to hang with certain crowds here; so be it.
Exactly. I'm a sysadmin and Linux is all I'll touch for our servers, however, it got to the point where I just got sick of playing with it at home, especially after I got my first Mac last year and had a chance to use OSX. Now that's the best of both worlds. A really clean, easy to use GUI with all the tools you need, but sitting on top of a BSD backend, complete with command prompt if you want it. Ever since then, I've relegated my Linux desktop box to file server/email duties, for which it works flawlessly. My question is this: if apple can stick a new-from-the-groud-up GUI on top of a BSD kernel, why can't someone else do it? I would imagine that X itself is probably half the problem. Why not just dump X and come out with something new. Maybe do what Apple did and stick a compatibility layer in there, but have it as just another app in the gui, vs. the gui itself. Sorry if I sound like a Mac zealot (and frankly, I hated Macs before I tried OSX last year), but it just frustrates me to no end that we have such a rock solid OS available, but only some horrifically outdated GUI (just about as old as I am). KDE and Gnome help, but I just don't think they can fix the inherent problems with X.
I think that's a good idea. There's only a few problems I can think of. First, is the extra bandwidth load of the extra smtp traffic. However, I think that the amount of bandwidth saved by not receiving the spam makes it worth it. Also involved is the extra system load involved with the check, which might be an issue for some sites. Another problem would be some sites which have "outside" mail servers and internal servers. The outside servers accept everything or just do basic filtering, and then pass the message along to the internal mail servers for the actual delivery of the message. This would basically mean any message that was checked with this method would just be accepted. An example I just tested is Yahoo. When you give their mail server an invalid addres, it doesn't let you know it's invalid until after the DATA is sent, which makes this perfectly useless for test.
I think both needs can be served. I mean, if we have these gas or bio fuel powered cars available, there still needs to be a distribution network available, parts to build and fix these cars, skilled mechanics with the knowhow to fix these things. I think the system can "evolve". Heck, take a look at biodiesel. Basically, a corn-based fuel, it can be used in stock diesel engines with no modifications whatsoever, and it's from a renewable source. Plus it's safe enough that you can drink it! I'm sure other fuels could be developed that don't have crude oil bases, but are compatible with current engines, which will give us the time to slowly move the "system" to alternative power sources for automobiles such as hydrogen and power cells. Regardless, throughout history, jobs have always evolved. From the original farmers, to the factory workers, to the computer technicians of today, to the who knows what of tomorrow, things change, but they don't have to put millions of people out of work when they do.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the solution to this was to move from the inductive loops to cameras which detect motion (or a change of just the asphalt, or *something* -- not sure what). I can't say I've tested this, but I do think they're a lot more reliable than the loops (which I noticed would fail to pick up even a car properly sometimes). Around here (PA/NJ) it seems like they've been aggressively switching to the cameras over the last few years.
TV, being linear, forces the ads to the exclusion of anything else, which is annoying in a different way. At least they're not in your field of vision while the stuff you want to watch is happening.
This is actually becoming less true... while some networks have tact about it, many others -- Food TV and The History Channel come to mind -- throw ads for other shows, books, other various offers right over the program you're watching. While it isn't the end of the world, it's fscking annoying when they cover up [text|important details|subtitles] in the program you're watching just to sell you the host's new book... or even a video for the episode you're watching (so that's the plan)!
At least with the regular tv ads, the dvr takes care of them. I almost never watch "live" tv any more, even preferring to start watching a show after it's been on for at least 15-20 minutes just so I can FF past all the ads. When I do watch live tv, I find myself instinctively hitting that "skip 30 seconds" button, and very disappointed when it doesn't work.
Heh, I was thinking the same thing. I can see them not wanting to erode their hardware sales. Also, there is something to be said about having standardized hardware. It probably makes it much easier to keep the system stable. Not to defend MS, but I do imagine it's hard to keep the OS as stable as it is (which, with XP I'll admit is stable enough), especially with the sheer volume of hardware it has to support, along with some dubious drivers from the various manufacturers.
Jobs has either been quoted (or maybe hinted at, I don't recall my source) that OSX could easily be ported to x86 if they wanted (or were forced) to. I just wonder how well it would work with a much broader set of hardware to deal with. Then again, the Linux kernel works well enough, but people would expect more Multimedia support (and I would imagine that's the hardest set of equipment to support -- graphics drivers, sound drivers, and to some extent tv and other multimedia hardware)... not to mention having to port the existing applications over to a new architecture (though with Cocoa, it seems like it should actually be pretty easy as that support's the x-platform frameworks held over from Next).
Look, I'm not dissing Linux; I love it and would have nothing else on my servers. Workstations are a different story; it's too much hassle for me. I don't mind screwing around for an hour to get some service installed on a server. But I don't have that patience for everything else. When I buy a new device, I want to plug it in and use it without the hassles of dependencies, kernel modifications, compiling, reading HOWTOs and man pages, etc. Despite Windows' flaws, most of the time it just works. I suppose that doesn't make me 3l33t enough to hang with certain crowds here; so be it.
Exactly. I'm a sysadmin and Linux is all I'll touch for our servers, however, it got to the point where I just got sick of playing with it at home, especially after I got my first Mac last year and had a chance to use OSX. Now that's the best of both worlds. A really clean, easy to use GUI with all the tools you need, but sitting on top of a BSD backend, complete with command prompt if you want it. Ever since then, I've relegated my Linux desktop box to file server/email duties, for which it works flawlessly.
My question is this: if apple can stick a new-from-the-groud-up GUI on top of a BSD kernel, why can't someone else do it? I would imagine that X itself is probably half the problem. Why not just dump X and come out with something new. Maybe do what Apple did and stick a compatibility layer in there, but have it as just another app in the gui, vs. the gui itself.
Sorry if I sound like a Mac zealot (and frankly, I hated Macs before I tried OSX last year), but it just frustrates me to no end that we have such a rock solid OS available, but only some horrifically outdated GUI (just about as old as I am). KDE and Gnome help, but I just don't think they can fix the inherent problems with X.
-Leigh
Hahaha... SimCourt(tm), probably be on shelves in a few months.
I think that's a good idea. There's only a few problems I can think of. First, is the extra bandwidth load of the extra smtp traffic. However, I think that the amount of bandwidth saved by not receiving the spam makes it worth it. Also involved is the extra system load involved with the check, which might be an issue for some sites. Another problem would be some sites which have "outside" mail servers and internal servers. The outside servers accept everything or just do basic filtering, and then pass the message along to the internal mail servers for the actual delivery of the message. This would basically mean any message that was checked with this method would just be accepted. An example I just tested is Yahoo. When you give their mail server an invalid addres, it doesn't let you know it's invalid until after the DATA is sent, which makes this perfectly useless for test.
Just my $0.02.
-Leigh
I think both needs can be served. I mean, if we have these gas or bio fuel powered cars available, there still needs to be a distribution network available, parts to build and fix these cars, skilled mechanics with the knowhow to fix these things. I think the system can "evolve". Heck, take a look at biodiesel. Basically, a corn-based fuel, it can be used in stock diesel engines with no modifications whatsoever, and it's from a renewable source. Plus it's safe enough that you can drink it! I'm sure other fuels could be developed that don't have crude oil bases, but are compatible with current engines, which will give us the time to slowly move the "system" to alternative power sources for automobiles such as hydrogen and power cells. Regardless, throughout history, jobs have always evolved. From the original farmers, to the factory workers, to the computer technicians of today, to the who knows what of tomorrow, things change, but they don't have to put millions of people out of work when they do.