Wow. I think you're on to something. Here's my wild theory: such an OS already exists and helpfully posted a fluff blog piece in the author's name in order to bring visitors to look at advertisements, since the OS found that the author liked getting payments. Unfortunately, it didn't spend enough time on masking the algorithmic nature of its composition, simply putting two unrelated hot topics together (computer does what user wants, and privacy).
Computer, close window. What do you mean, you can't do that? Why is the hard drive making lots of noise all of the sudden?
Nahh, I was just under the illusion that I was improving on the joke. After months of attempts at Slashdot humor, I'm still mostly missing when I try.
Smart OS = unpredictable by user
on
A New Kind of OS
·
· Score: 1
After stopping for a break, your OS pops up with a small alert box asking you if you'd like the PC to roll into adaptive mode. You select yes and the OS begins to learn, as you work, what your needs are.
You go to open your video project again after lunch and almost immediately, you find that the program feels more in tune and responsive to your needs.
This is basically referring to prediction: the OS predicts what you'll be doing and alters its behavior so that the predicted action will occur more efficiently. The problem is that no matter how good this prediction is, it's not going to be perfect, so the user will still need to work around the cases where it's wrong, as the user always must. But adding prediction means that the user will have a much harder time predicting how the computer will respond, which will require that the user work more slowly and verify the response of each action one step at a time. This is a step backwards. The best computer is one that has predictable responses to user input, allowing the user to work ahead of the machine and do much of interaction at an unconscious level.
On the second monitor, you discover a virtual palette of all the editing tools you use the most. No longer are you being forced to locate the editing tools you need from some arcane menu. No, instead your PC has done the work for you with no interaction on your part whatsoever. Sounds interesting? Just wait, it gets weirder...
Either the OS already had been programmed to show this recent actions palette and was just holding out, or the author is suggesting that it actually think up the concept of a recent actions palette and then program it itself!
An important e-mail from your client comes rolling in along with a number of less important messages. Thanks to Brand X OS' new probability engine, the only e-mail you are alerted to is the one the OS knows will be critical. Even though the other less important e-mails are coming from the same person, your OS understands how to handle this just the way you prefer.
The problem with the OS determining that in situation X you want behavior Y is that it probably will under-specify or over-specify what situation X is. For example, it might define situation X as the front window being at coordinates 239, 23.
Next
Man, I'd like an OS that figured out that I want to read the entire article on one page, without any visual distractions.
Systems that try to be smart are a pet-peeve of mine, and it never seems like people have thought the idea through. I remember some like this for the Mac many years ago, though I never tried them.
You're comparing toaster recalls to laptop battery recalls?!? Toasters are made to generate high temperatures, and often made very cheaply (the one I use was $7 US). Most laptop batteries aren't meant to hot enough to toast bread on a regular basis.
[...] the Western District of Texas has shown little mercy on a defendant accused by record companies of illegal file-sharing.
Knowing that a court order was in place requiring her to turn over her hard drive to be copied, the defendant allegedly used "wiping" software [...]
Bah, the judge is just miffed that he didn't get a copy of all her music. She did the right thing by putting an immediate stop to such blatant file-sharing, by the courts even!
</sarcasm>
Given that the record companies' expert opined that the defendant had downloaded over 200 sound recordings during 2005,
Eh? Since when is the recipient of an unauthorized copy guilty of copyright infringement? I though it was just the provider of the unauthorized copy.
My new patent, a simple hierarchical tree interface on an OGG player, is a totally new invention. Who would have thought of it? My next invention... hah, like I'd tell you.
I thought it was already digital, unless you use something other than your fingers to hold the toilet paper.
Re:But what if Microsoft offered it all together?
on
Windows vs Mac Security
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Funny how when it comes to Microsoft, the question is always one of how the anti-malware add-on software is included, always with the assumption that Microsoft couldn't render it unnecessary. Last time I checked my Mac OS X installation I didn't find any anti-malware software, just a system designed so that such a thing is entirely unnecessary. Why can't Microsoft simply render the architecture itself incapable of being penetrated in the first place, by design? Not one that includes extra modules to block attempts, but one in which penetration has no definition?
Yet, the researchers note that even when an ant lands on its back or head, the insect is so light that it can still walk away no worse for wear.
Rather, the insect is so small that strong legs won't contribute much to its overall body mass; making the insect as large as a human would render all of the above impossible, and even if it did get in the air at the scaled height, it'd smash into a puddle of ant guts when it landed. Leg strengh = size squared; body mass = size cubed.
So, somthing like a java applet (stored on a secure webserver), that I can load, and that opens a browser-in-a-browser, encrypting all traffic, with an added on-screen-keyboard to defeat keyboard loggers?
How can you know you're loading said Java applet, and not a decoy that looks just like it? If they control the machine, they can theoretically control everything you see on screen in response to your input.
To say that a Dolphin isn't much smarter than a Goldfish is an insult to both Dolphins and any human with half a brain to realise this article is a crock.
So, the Goldfish has one advantage: no fragile ego
Should all products which use yeast include the label "Contains fungus"?
Only if that can't be determined by reading the ingredients list. I'm assuming that the mention of "yeast" would allow an informed person to determine that it contains an organism classified as fungus.
You know, people will read your post and write you off as paranoid and misinformed. My reply, so what? The point of labeling is to allow people like you to make a personal decision about what you consume, even if it's misinformed (but who is to determine what is "properly" informed?). The only reason for not labeling seems to be to have control, to take this choice away from someone (or at least make it harder to make an informed decision). So what if someone doesn't trust FDA testing? Why not give them the option of "needlessly" restricting what foods they eat?
Who cares if most people don't read the labels? The point of listing the contents is to allow those people that do read the labels to be informed, not to protect those who don't care. I read the labels of all foods I buy, and regularly pass over items that contain ingredients I don't want.
I don't carefully read the warnings on simple electronic devices because I know that there can't be any that I don't already know. There's nothing new under the sun when it comes to simple electronic devices (beyond cellphones perhaps). Food is a different matter.
To me, it is far more effective to insist that adequate testing is conducted to ensure that something is safe. Beyond that, adding another warning, to the long lists of warnings I see everyday, will accomplish nothing.
Labeling and warning always allows a careful person to make more informed decisions. Who determines what is adequate testing? What about bypassing of said testing by paying people off?
Haha, I just opened the 7.6.1 system's data fork (nothing interesting in 9.2.2) and found this (names comma-delimited to avoid Slashdot's restrictions):
1983-96 Apple Computer Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Mercenaries hit the factory and freed the prisoners.
On contract: Wendy Chiou, Doug Clark, Mike Crawford, Michael Dautermann, Dave Evans, Nitin Ganatra, Darren Litzinger, Jim Luther, Dave Lyons, Jim Mensch, Alex Rangel, Steve Stephenson, John Yen
Freed, armed, and dangerous: Eric3 Anderson, Clinton Bauder, Derrick Carty, Jeff Crawford, Cameron Esfahani, Ian Hendry, Eric Hewitt, Deric Horn, Jim Murphy, Craig Prouse, Mike Puckett, Jim Reekes, Steve Swenson, Harry Yee
Released before the raid: Giovanni Agnoli, William Berry, Dave Falkenburg, Brian McGhie, Rob lunatic Moore, Anumele Raja, Alex Rosenberg, Eric Slosser, Randy theLen, Roshi Yousefi
Fugitives: Sam Barone, Lars Borresen, Scott Boyd, Jaime Cummins, Hoon Im, Brad Post, Paul Wolf
Yay, let's trade off a few hundred known deaths with the unknown health effects of this new virus. I suppose food labeling won't be required to show that this is added, because "we're sure there are no negative health effects and wouldn't want you, the idiot consumer (literally) deciding for yourself".
Slashdot Mirror
Wow. I think you're on to something. Here's my wild theory: such an OS already exists and helpfully posted a fluff blog piece in the author's name in order to bring visitors to look at advertisements, since the OS found that the author liked getting payments. Unfortunately, it didn't spend enough time on masking the algorithmic nature of its composition, simply putting two unrelated hot topics together (computer does what user wants, and privacy).
Computer, close window. What do you mean, you can't do that? Why is the hard drive making lots of noise all of the sudden?
Nahh, I was just under the illusion that I was improving on the joke. After months of attempts at Slashdot humor, I'm still mostly missing when I try.
This is basically referring to prediction: the OS predicts what you'll be doing and alters its behavior so that the predicted action will occur more efficiently. The problem is that no matter how good this prediction is, it's not going to be perfect, so the user will still need to work around the cases where it's wrong, as the user always must. But adding prediction means that the user will have a much harder time predicting how the computer will respond, which will require that the user work more slowly and verify the response of each action one step at a time. This is a step backwards. The best computer is one that has predictable responses to user input, allowing the user to work ahead of the machine and do much of interaction at an unconscious level.
Either the OS already had been programmed to show this recent actions palette and was just holding out, or the author is suggesting that it actually think up the concept of a recent actions palette and then program it itself!
The problem with the OS determining that in situation X you want behavior Y is that it probably will under-specify or over-specify what situation X is. For example, it might define situation X as the front window being at coordinates 239, 23.
Man, I'd like an OS that figured out that I want to read the entire article on one page, without any visual distractions.
Systems that try to be smart are a pet-peeve of mine, and it never seems like people have thought the idea through. I remember some like this for the Mac many years ago, though I never tried them.
If nobody gives a crap, then the stuck toilet isn't a problem.
You're comparing toaster recalls to laptop battery recalls?!? Toasters are made to generate high temperatures, and often made very cheaply (the one I use was $7 US). Most laptop batteries aren't meant to hot enough to toast bread on a regular basis.
Bah, the judge is just miffed that he didn't get a copy of all her music. She did the right thing by putting an immediate stop to such blatant file-sharing, by the courts even!
</sarcasm>
Eh? Since when is the recipient of an unauthorized copy guilty of copyright infringement? I though it was just the provider of the unauthorized copy.
Remember, I don't have to outrun the bear, I just have to avoid being the easiest target.
The girl had no prior experience and didn't even understand the theory she was applying.
Reminds me of high school fantasies.
(you had left a word out)
At the risk of giving them ammo... how will they get proper legal clearance on stealing some animal's precious DNA codes? Copying is wrong, m'kay?
My new patent, a simple hierarchical tree interface on an OGG player, is a totally new invention. Who would have thought of it? My next invention... hah, like I'd tell you.
I thought it was already digital, unless you use something other than your fingers to hold the toilet paper.
Funny how when it comes to Microsoft, the question is always one of how the anti-malware add-on software is included, always with the assumption that Microsoft couldn't render it unnecessary. Last time I checked my Mac OS X installation I didn't find any anti-malware software, just a system designed so that such a thing is entirely unnecessary. Why can't Microsoft simply render the architecture itself incapable of being penetrated in the first place, by design? Not one that includes extra modules to block attempts, but one in which penetration has no definition?
Wait a minute, I thought that Tiger was an online seller? Man, it's all so confusing!
Rather, the insect is so small that strong legs won't contribute much to its overall body mass; making the insect as large as a human would render all of the above impossible, and even if it did get in the air at the scaled height, it'd smash into a puddle of ant guts when it landed. Leg strengh = size squared; body mass = size cubed.
How can you know you're loading said Java applet, and not a decoy that looks just like it? If they control the machine, they can theoretically control everything you see on screen in response to your input.
I'd like to see some innovation in naming of these things. My suggestion: cell-everthing-but-the-kitchen-sink-"phone"
Errr, don't you mean less power to them?
So, the Goldfish has one advantage: no fragile ego
Now instead of handing the a mugger my debit card or whatever, they'll be demanding a finger. Thanks a lot ye pushers of unnecessary technology.
Only if that can't be determined by reading the ingredients list. I'm assuming that the mention of "yeast" would allow an informed person to determine that it contains an organism classified as fungus.
You know, people will read your post and write you off as paranoid and misinformed. My reply, so what? The point of labeling is to allow people like you to make a personal decision about what you consume, even if it's misinformed (but who is to determine what is "properly" informed?). The only reason for not labeling seems to be to have control, to take this choice away from someone (or at least make it harder to make an informed decision). So what if someone doesn't trust FDA testing? Why not give them the option of "needlessly" restricting what foods they eat?
Who cares if most people don't read the labels? The point of listing the contents is to allow those people that do read the labels to be informed, not to protect those who don't care. I read the labels of all foods I buy, and regularly pass over items that contain ingredients I don't want.
I don't carefully read the warnings on simple electronic devices because I know that there can't be any that I don't already know. There's nothing new under the sun when it comes to simple electronic devices (beyond cellphones perhaps). Food is a different matter.
Labeling and warning always allows a careful person to make more informed decisions. Who determines what is adequate testing? What about bypassing of said testing by paying people off?
Obligatory funny reference to getting NES cartridges to work:
m e-nes-tshirt-002634.php
http://www.uncrate.com/men/style/tees-polos/blow-
Haha, I just opened the 7.6.1 system's data fork (nothing interesting in 9.2.2) and found this (names comma-delimited to avoid Slashdot's restrictions):
1983-96 Apple Computer Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Mercenaries hit the factory and freed the prisoners.
On contract:
Wendy Chiou, Doug Clark, Mike Crawford, Michael Dautermann, Dave Evans, Nitin Ganatra, Darren Litzinger, Jim Luther, Dave Lyons, Jim Mensch, Alex Rangel, Steve Stephenson, John Yen
Freed, armed, and dangerous:
Eric3 Anderson, Clinton Bauder, Derrick Carty, Jeff Crawford, Cameron Esfahani, Ian Hendry, Eric Hewitt, Deric Horn, Jim Murphy, Craig Prouse, Mike Puckett, Jim Reekes, Steve Swenson, Harry Yee
Released before the raid:
Giovanni Agnoli, William Berry, Dave Falkenburg, Brian McGhie, Rob lunatic Moore, Anumele Raja, Alex Rosenberg, Eric Slosser, Randy theLen, Roshi Yousefi
Fugitives:
Sam Barone, Lars Borresen, Scott Boyd, Jaime Cummins, Hoon Im, Brad Post, Paul Wolf
Who dares wins.
Yay, let's trade off a few hundred known deaths with the unknown health effects of this new virus. I suppose food labeling won't be required to show that this is added, because "we're sure there are no negative health effects and wouldn't want you, the idiot consumer (literally) deciding for yourself".