McCormick had used such encrypted notes since he was a boy
and all we get are two examples? Lame.
Why doesn't the FBI provide some of the research they've already done? Collaborate instead of simply asking someone to do your work! For example, higher quality scans, unique symbols, symbol frequency, symbol distance matrices, other known writings of the victim. Can we get some more environmental clues? victim's known proper nouns, background, travels, language(s) exposed to, favorite pop culture topics, etc. This all seems like a lot more detective work should be done. Solve the murder, not the puzzle.
And they use a snail mail address for contact? Is this article from the 1950's?
So why not put tiny wheels on a rifle bullet and shoot it onto a track? Seems like it's the faster "car' - with no less exaggeration than this monstrosity.
Agreed. At this point, I'm willing to accept rendering quirks to have the plugins I rely on.
Nothing has helped more than NoScript & AdBlock to skip the HTTP requests for junk at sites I visit often. When I try enabling them, there is a noticeable lag in page completion. Chrome and IE do not block those requests, but can skip the render, last time I checked.
I'm almost happier that IE holds a share of the browser market, it lets web publishers still think their ads are working for them. If everyone used client-side script to tailor their channel, we'd probably see a lot more work to consolidate the domain sources for content (and other tricks), making it harder to exclude them.
Meanwhile, many FF users seem to enjoy a clutter-free web and streamlined pipe. This is way more important to me than ensuring a flash block has a great frame rate.
No, they pit the two browsers currently comprising 75% of the market - because when one publishes a report on performance one doesn't include fanboi rants about trends. Chrome will indeed get included on many comparisons, but TFA made clear that they are just comparing two emerging versions of largest segments.
Until the flavor of the story you hear is heavily slanted like Fox News, and most other diverse news sources have clarifications that your source missed due to mistaking journalists for "commentators". Compare:
Surf landing pages of NPR, BBC, Al-J, Economist, CSM, Reuters, or aggregators like Google, Yahoo, Bing, to... anything he owns. Doesn't seem like much of a deal to me.
I mean, would you really feel like 40$ is well spent if your money paid for the drivel of the Hannity/Beck crowd? Where's the news in that.
Except that one reason the "new model" works so well is that multiple editorial stances are represented. The old model's failure is that they push a single stance, and in the case of NewCorp, it is well-known to be heavily biased and agenda-laden in editorial review. Murdoch himself has stated that this is a responsibility of a unified news source.
If Murdoch provided a platform for content and less of the old model's heavy-hand in choosing articles, then it might have a wider audience. Then again, he'd have news aggregation - but oops, many web sites already do this for free. There are already many "new package" forms that use the browser to format diverse content (Google, Yahoo, etc).
You can, in fact, build your own with available tools. This is slashdot after all.
What's wrong for simply asking for money? Wikipedia is going that route, public media is going that route, charities, bloggers exist like this.
Here's the deal: News used to be performed in bulk by an "organization" but online this doesn't work the same way.
Even the dribble of income from "fund drives" can't sustain such a traditional organization. Selling advertising isn't going to work, since click rates and sales converts just don't cut it (since selling online is itself cut-rate). Ads will still exist, but there's not enough money in it alone.
In this age, where the individual blogger has a chance to shine (with low/no journalistic entry bar), machine-based aggregation can collect the information and consolidate it for presentation of content in a single style. The sheer act of aggregating news has been changed to mostly a pile of scripts.
What's missing is editorial excellence, which, if bloggers don't apply themselves, needs to be applied during aggregation. So, we get something of a organization via meta layers (Wikipedia) or a true body of editors (Huf Post) or somewhere in-between (slashdot).
If editorial bodies asked for money, then gave it unbiased to the content generators that had the best ranking of involvement, readership, positive reviews, and reposts/backlinks, they may be able to make some money. The editorial body cannot take the majority share, which is what most of this is about. Since right now we have a HUGE number of content generators, supply/demand allows non-free sites to die until the free ones thin out or people migrate to better editorial levels (which they do).
Viewers appreciate a variety of editorial stances. A single editorial source, regardless of journalist/commentator. In News Corp's world, journalism and comment are smeared together and heavily biased, as is well-known. So nobody thinks this is "all the news" from the start. Expanding on this, the very reason we enjoy the internet is the diverse sources of differing opinions, watching the sway of fact/proof overcome any information filter from a single source.
Once viewers of the NewsCorp padzine find that they are "getting more" about a story by going to the web, they may realize that it doesn't require a dollar to read free information, and laden with advertisements.
What people should do is get an offline caching tool for news sites they enjoy, and essentially have a pad device spider them and serve them up locally. By just pointing to the domain (and directing some of the interest, like "all sports, politics" "no cooking, weather") someone could sell this app and make some $, IMO. Just a placeholder server while offline, waiting for the bandwidth to catch up. Add in a few goodies like capture-while-you-sleep and update-with-live in-place, and you've got a nice app.
Wow, a less informed rant is hard to find.
You better get ready to service all your own medical needs, since hospital emergency rooms will be full once your plans starts.
What ages/qualifications are you drawing lines? The devil is in the details, or as I suspect, you're just blowing smoke and have no real plan.
Here's a better idea:
You know how you can help get costs down? Ask an elderly person to rent a room from you and help take care of them.
A religious war surrounds Drupal regarding efficiency, transparency, supportability and eventually scalability. It does not offer methods to consolidate query results and can suffer from chattiness against data stores, only alleviated by elaborate tiered caching schemes.
One should evaluate a large list before picking any CMS; Drupal is not the only successful system in use.
Even worse - it's missing more than half the sound qualities of true guitar playing:
string thickness
string/fret choice for note
string bends
finger slide noises
pluck style (pick, hammer-on, pull-off, etc)
pluck position on string
muting / hf filter
high-order harmonic generation / lf filter
'whammy' bar
string-to-string interaction
pickup choice, switching
pedalboard activity
Synth guitar emulations can guess on a lot of these and inject sound changes, but really, nothing compares to a well-skilled guitarist playing a purposefully created good solo.
"Free speech" isn't a black & white issue - it's constantly under flux throughout all layers of the US legislative branch.
This site may support free speech, but the format they deliver their content doesn't quickly address slanderous posts. For example, if an urban myth of somewhat repulsive content about a single real person were to arise, Snopes.com would carry it. But they'd make it quite easy to discern the truth or falsity of the entire situation (or particular details). ROR takes the position that it doesn't need remove content, which I can agree to, but out of decency it should really point out simple malicious abuse.
If/When ROR were to suffer from a 4chan onslaught, I'm sure they'd change their tune - just out of the controlling the signal-to-noise ratio, not freedom-of-speech. If the majority of ROR's content was simply false or considered obscene, it would cease to be considered any type of authority on it's core subject.
Agreed. Although the judge ruled that the history of the matter may be kept, there are several items that trouble me:
ROR holds an original (false) claim by a poster, defaming citizen. It also holds the follow-up, most of which is useless banter, and then a legalese summary of the matter.
ROR seems to be taking the position of "historical records holder" instead of "discussion facilitator". But by providing a forum for each post, the line seems blurred. Essentially, they seem to represent a mock "court" of their own, whereby a statement is made, then bandied about, settling into some sort of eventual inactivity (proven false, uninteresting, circular, etc)
I can agree that ROR should take the stance that comments of extreme libel or slander shouldn't be removed. But court cases have a summary and they split sections into Ruling and Transcripts. ROR is much less organized. From the perspective of the slandered individual, it seems they might suffer from a any cursory reader thinking the statements are true. ROR should perhaps stamp a Snopes-like summary on the issue and lock comments out.
Forums are funny thing. Keeping all posts in the spirit of "freedom of speech" is one thing, but "common decency" is another.
I wonder if this site would keep singing it's tune if the slanderous materials (true or false) were about the site/company/owners themselves.
So you're saying you're in favor of companies paywalling information in a pretty frame that's freely available (in another pretty frame, actually dozens of them). (Psst: You're renting a browser, the content is still a feed)
You sir, are betting on the wrong side of history. Let me introduce you to this idea again:
- AOL, MSN, CompuServ all delivered news with "Value-add" sections that they fought long and hard to drill into customers minds: "This is special content you cannot get elsewhere". All dead.
- The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, SF Chronicle, Philadelphia's papers, and about 10 others are dying. Even with custom-tailored content for their market, and local brands/names to appease. Dying
- The race is to remove lag, bulk, walled-gardens and increase choice. The delivery mechanism is done, free. Defending the idea of paying for it (every month?) is silly.
- The allure from these failures of "content you cannot get elsewhere" is a ruse. At this moment, we're in the Age Of Information [overload]. There's too much content to consume. If you cannot find what you're looking for elsewhere, you're not really searching.
Here's the scoop:
Readership is moving online, to the largest source pool available. Who wants to limit their surfing options?
Content production is moving online, to the largest market available. Who want to limit their market segment?
The same reporters and readers are now finding each other again online, under a new model.
The new model charges for screen time/real estate in a dynamic way, not through print, and through multiple avenues for contract. Money flows via click referrals. Pay for information as you read it. The micro-payment
This isn't going backwards, and your iPad application may have a niche market, but I will bet it'll raise prices, cut costs or skimp on value-added benefit until it dies via the parent graciously removing a failed loss-leader, or the customer base realizing they are paying for customization they don't care about.
No secret sauce here. You're dancing around an argument, but let me try to add some clarity:
If a machine (of any construction, even bio-ware) was grafted into your existing brain, as to replace/extend it's normal functions, you may or may not notice at all. Nobody really "feels" when a specific set of cells in their brain is different, as they "feel" a cold/hot spot on their hand. It's much more about the perceived functionality. A headache or an itch is as more perception than a true "pain spot" or "itchy spot". Brain surgery requires only local anesthetic.
If we continue adding externally-created parts to your body, be it an arm or leg, a lung or a kidney, or a frontal lobe to your brain - if the body can accept the donation without too much trouble, the functionality should not be affected. This is the only criteria for the replacement part: It has to function identically as it's target. But for brain wiring, it's millions of times customized from the point of it's first growth. Reverse-engineering this wiring seems daunting. But perhaps "you" don't notice if the changes are small enough.
So we replace sections of our brain one step at a time; small portions, throughout time. The first recipients get better hearing, motor control, or other medically-driven needs. Then we hopefully add larger portions in bulk. Once we start replacing the emotional centers, memory centers, or other portions, you may start to no longer "be you" as you don't remember your childhood, or your demeanor is dramatically changed from before, but the frame and power sources are indeed still your biology. Personality adjustments by order.
I imagine any replacements of brain portions will involve a period of "adoption" where the new section needs to be immersed in the dispersed, repetitive memory wiring that gets done throughout REM sleep. Of course, by this point we should be able to induce it, hopefully speeding up the process. This would be the holographic-style process of "maintaining you" while slowly replacing all the hardware.
The elusive sense of "I" that seems to arise from the brain as a whole would have a central locus and that may need to be replaced in very small chunks, or possibly not at all - depending on how universal that wiring is across all our brains and how the replacement adapts after injection.
They really need to accept and publish some anonymous submissions about forgotten people/companies/countries doing something good. This "new world history" may be a little draining, to the effect of nobody really caring any more - everyone is a crook, liar and cheat. Isn't this usually just called "gettin old" ?
Given a quality enough image, bandwidth, and some motion-sensing gear (ahem), any immersion-style display (HUD, dome, etc) could allow for real-time panning of a distant location.
Examples:
- shooting a net of these at an operating table would let remote viewers move around the room and view the procedure without crowding the room or limited to the perspective of the single camera.
- a web site could point this setup at anything interesting (lab experiment, box of puppies, anthill, construction site, political debate) and stream it live for an amazing viewer-decided perspective.
- live news could mount an array of this setup to a vehicle and capture a modeled view of anything they could reach, then pan around without much camera work.
We were discussing this just today in the office. ORMs can suffer from huge impedance issues if not used correctly: Too chatty/lazy/narrow or too wide/wasteful.
Overall, they're trying to pick a middle ground between writing plumbing per-UI need and having a one-size-fits-none model inflator. There's a lot of tricks in there (caching, lazy loading, dynamic objects, etc) but overall it's the same trade-off any system faces.
There shouldn't be mountains of C# to wade through to get data. If so, the implementation is off. The concept, however, I a big fan of. Even when the impedance is high.
Slashdot Mirror
McCormick had used such encrypted notes since he was a boy
and all we get are two examples? Lame.
Why doesn't the FBI provide some of the research they've already done? Collaborate instead of simply asking someone to do your work! For example, higher quality scans, unique symbols, symbol frequency, symbol distance matrices, other known writings of the victim. Can we get some more environmental clues? victim's known proper nouns, background, travels, language(s) exposed to, favorite pop culture topics, etc. This all seems like a lot more detective work should be done. Solve the murder, not the puzzle.
And they use a snail mail address for contact? Is this article from the 1950's?
Hey thanks. I read every word of that debate, it was fascinating.
But it'd be a car-rocket. This one is a rocket-car, see.
I think we should restrict all components to wood and see who wins. No nails, screws, or glue. Choose a hill of your liking.
So why not put tiny wheels on a rifle bullet and shoot it onto a track? Seems like it's the faster "car' - with no less exaggeration than this monstrosity.
Agreed. At this point, I'm willing to accept rendering quirks to have the plugins I rely on.
Nothing has helped more than NoScript & AdBlock to skip the HTTP requests for junk at sites I visit often. When I try enabling them, there is a noticeable lag in page completion. Chrome and IE do not block those requests, but can skip the render, last time I checked.
I'm almost happier that IE holds a share of the browser market, it lets web publishers still think their ads are working for them. If everyone used client-side script to tailor their channel, we'd probably see a lot more work to consolidate the domain sources for content (and other tricks), making it harder to exclude them.
Meanwhile, many FF users seem to enjoy a clutter-free web and streamlined pipe. This is way more important to me than ensuring a flash block has a great frame rate.
No, they pit the two browsers currently comprising 75% of the market - because when one publishes a report on performance one doesn't include fanboi rants about trends. Chrome will indeed get included on many comparisons, but TFA made clear that they are just comparing two emerging versions of largest segments.
It'll prove intelligence can create life, but it won't prove intelligence is required to create life.
Until the flavor of the story you hear is heavily slanted like Fox News, and most other diverse news sources have clarifications that your source missed due to mistaking journalists for "commentators". Compare:
Surf landing pages of NPR, BBC, Al-J, Economist, CSM, Reuters, or aggregators like Google, Yahoo, Bing, to ... anything he owns. Doesn't seem like much of a deal to me.
I mean, would you really feel like 40$ is well spent if your money paid for the drivel of the Hannity/Beck crowd? Where's the news in that.
Except that one reason the "new model" works so well is that multiple editorial stances are represented. The old model's failure is that they push a single stance, and in the case of NewCorp, it is well-known to be heavily biased and agenda-laden in editorial review. Murdoch himself has stated that this is a responsibility of a unified news source.
If Murdoch provided a platform for content and less of the old model's heavy-hand in choosing articles, then it might have a wider audience. Then again, he'd have news aggregation - but oops, many web sites already do this for free. There are already many "new package" forms that use the browser to format diverse content (Google, Yahoo, etc).
You can, in fact, build your own with available tools. This is slashdot after all.
What's wrong for simply asking for money? Wikipedia is going that route, public media is going that route, charities, bloggers exist like this.
Here's the deal: News used to be performed in bulk by an "organization" but online this doesn't work the same way.
Even the dribble of income from "fund drives" can't sustain such a traditional organization. Selling advertising isn't going to work, since click rates and sales converts just don't cut it (since selling online is itself cut-rate). Ads will still exist, but there's not enough money in it alone.
In this age, where the individual blogger has a chance to shine (with low/no journalistic entry bar), machine-based aggregation can collect the information and consolidate it for presentation of content in a single style. The sheer act of aggregating news has been changed to mostly a pile of scripts.
What's missing is editorial excellence, which, if bloggers don't apply themselves, needs to be applied during aggregation. So, we get something of a organization via meta layers (Wikipedia) or a true body of editors (Huf Post) or somewhere in-between (slashdot).
If editorial bodies asked for money, then gave it unbiased to the content generators that had the best ranking of involvement, readership, positive reviews, and reposts/backlinks, they may be able to make some money. The editorial body cannot take the majority share, which is what most of this is about. Since right now we have a HUGE number of content generators, supply/demand allows non-free sites to die until the free ones thin out or people migrate to better editorial levels (which they do).
Viewers appreciate a variety of editorial stances. A single editorial source, regardless of journalist/commentator. In News Corp's world, journalism and comment are smeared together and heavily biased, as is well-known. So nobody thinks this is "all the news" from the start. Expanding on this, the very reason we enjoy the internet is the diverse sources of differing opinions, watching the sway of fact/proof overcome any information filter from a single source.
Once viewers of the NewsCorp padzine find that they are "getting more" about a story by going to the web, they may realize that it doesn't require a dollar to read free information, and laden with advertisements.
What people should do is get an offline caching tool for news sites they enjoy, and essentially have a pad device spider them and serve them up locally. By just pointing to the domain (and directing some of the interest, like "all sports, politics" "no cooking, weather") someone could sell this app and make some $, IMO. Just a placeholder server while offline, waiting for the bandwidth to catch up. Add in a few goodies like capture-while-you-sleep and update-with-live in-place, and you've got a nice app.
Wow, a less informed rant is hard to find.
You better get ready to service all your own medical needs, since hospital emergency rooms will be full once your plans starts.
What ages/qualifications are you drawing lines? The devil is in the details, or as I suspect, you're just blowing smoke and have no real plan.
Here's a better idea:
You know how you can help get costs down? Ask an elderly person to rent a room from you and help take care of them.
A religious war surrounds Drupal regarding efficiency, transparency, supportability and eventually scalability. It does not offer methods to consolidate query results and can suffer from chattiness against data stores, only alleviated by elaborate tiered caching schemes.
One should evaluate a large list before picking any CMS; Drupal is not the only successful system in use.
Even worse - it's missing more than half the sound qualities of true guitar playing:
string thickness
string/fret choice for note
string bends
finger slide noises
pluck style (pick, hammer-on, pull-off, etc)
pluck position on string
muting / hf filter
high-order harmonic generation / lf filter
'whammy' bar
string-to-string interaction
pickup choice, switching
pedalboard activity
Synth guitar emulations can guess on a lot of these and inject sound changes, but really, nothing compares to a well-skilled guitarist playing a purposefully created good solo.
"Free speech" isn't a black & white issue - it's constantly under flux throughout all layers of the US legislative branch.
This site may support free speech, but the format they deliver their content doesn't quickly address slanderous posts. For example, if an urban myth of somewhat repulsive content about a single real person were to arise, Snopes.com would carry it. But they'd make it quite easy to discern the truth or falsity of the entire situation (or particular details). ROR takes the position that it doesn't need remove content, which I can agree to, but out of decency it should really point out simple malicious abuse.
If/When ROR were to suffer from a 4chan onslaught, I'm sure they'd change their tune - just out of the controlling the signal-to-noise ratio, not freedom-of-speech. If the majority of ROR's content was simply false or considered obscene, it would cease to be considered any type of authority on it's core subject.
Agreed. Although the judge ruled that the history of the matter may be kept, there are several items that trouble me:
ROR holds an original (false) claim by a poster, defaming citizen. It also holds the follow-up, most of which is useless banter, and then a legalese summary of the matter.
ROR seems to be taking the position of "historical records holder" instead of "discussion facilitator". But by providing a forum for each post, the line seems blurred. Essentially, they seem to represent a mock "court" of their own, whereby a statement is made, then bandied about, settling into some sort of eventual inactivity (proven false, uninteresting, circular, etc)
I can agree that ROR should take the stance that comments of extreme libel or slander shouldn't be removed. But court cases have a summary and they split sections into Ruling and Transcripts. ROR is much less organized. From the perspective of the slandered individual, it seems they might suffer from a any cursory reader thinking the statements are true. ROR should perhaps stamp a Snopes-like summary on the issue and lock comments out.
Forums are funny thing. Keeping all posts in the spirit of "freedom of speech" is one thing, but "common decency" is another.
I wonder if this site would keep singing it's tune if the slanderous materials (true or false) were about the site/company/owners themselves.
Given. I stand corrected. I'm happy to read that you aren't paying for a subscription.
Paywalls filter a readership so narrowly they usually fail to pay the bills. So advertising becomes the method anyway, even with a paywall.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/dec/03/memories-paywall-pioneer
So you're saying you're in favor of companies paywalling information in a pretty frame that's freely available (in another pretty frame, actually dozens of them). (Psst: You're renting a browser, the content is still a feed)
You sir, are betting on the wrong side of history. Let me introduce you to this idea again:
- AOL, MSN, CompuServ all delivered news with "Value-add" sections that they fought long and hard to drill into customers minds: "This is special content you cannot get elsewhere". All dead.
- The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, SF Chronicle, Philadelphia's papers, and about 10 others are dying. Even with custom-tailored content for their market, and local brands/names to appease. Dying
- The race is to remove lag, bulk, walled-gardens and increase choice. The delivery mechanism is done, free. Defending the idea of paying for it (every month?) is silly.
- The allure from these failures of "content you cannot get elsewhere" is a ruse. At this moment, we're in the Age Of Information [overload]. There's too much content to consume. If you cannot find what you're looking for elsewhere, you're not really searching.
Here's the scoop:
Readership is moving online, to the largest source pool available. Who wants to limit their surfing options?
Content production is moving online, to the largest market available. Who want to limit their market segment?
The same reporters and readers are now finding each other again online, under a new model.
The new model charges for screen time/real estate in a dynamic way, not through print, and through multiple avenues for contract. Money flows via click referrals. Pay for information as you read it. The micro-payment
This isn't going backwards, and your iPad application may have a niche market, but I will bet it'll raise prices, cut costs or skimp on value-added benefit until it dies via the parent graciously removing a failed loss-leader, or the customer base realizing they are paying for customization they don't care about.
No secret sauce here. You're dancing around an argument, but let me try to add some clarity:
If a machine (of any construction, even bio-ware) was grafted into your existing brain, as to replace/extend it's normal functions, you may or may not notice at all. Nobody really "feels" when a specific set of cells in their brain is different, as they "feel" a cold/hot spot on their hand. It's much more about the perceived functionality. A headache or an itch is as more perception than a true "pain spot" or "itchy spot". Brain surgery requires only local anesthetic.
If we continue adding externally-created parts to your body, be it an arm or leg, a lung or a kidney, or a frontal lobe to your brain - if the body can accept the donation without too much trouble, the functionality should not be affected. This is the only criteria for the replacement part: It has to function identically as it's target. But for brain wiring, it's millions of times customized from the point of it's first growth. Reverse-engineering this wiring seems daunting. But perhaps "you" don't notice if the changes are small enough.
So we replace sections of our brain one step at a time; small portions, throughout time. The first recipients get better hearing, motor control, or other medically-driven needs. Then we hopefully add larger portions in bulk. Once we start replacing the emotional centers, memory centers, or other portions, you may start to no longer "be you" as you don't remember your childhood, or your demeanor is dramatically changed from before, but the frame and power sources are indeed still your biology. Personality adjustments by order.
I imagine any replacements of brain portions will involve a period of "adoption" where the new section needs to be immersed in the dispersed, repetitive memory wiring that gets done throughout REM sleep. Of course, by this point we should be able to induce it, hopefully speeding up the process. This would be the holographic-style process of "maintaining you" while slowly replacing all the hardware.
The elusive sense of "I" that seems to arise from the brain as a whole would have a central locus and that may need to be replaced in very small chunks, or possibly not at all - depending on how universal that wiring is across all our brains and how the replacement adapts after injection.
Who publishes the dirt on the publisher?
They really need to accept and publish some anonymous submissions about forgotten people/companies/countries doing something good. This "new world history" may be a little draining, to the effect of nobody really caring any more - everyone is a crook, liar and cheat. Isn't this usually just called "gettin old" ?
Get off my lawn. Here...take this bank with you.
Given a quality enough image, bandwidth, and some motion-sensing gear (ahem), any immersion-style display (HUD, dome, etc) could allow for real-time panning of a distant location.
Examples:
- shooting a net of these at an operating table would let remote viewers move around the room and view the procedure without crowding the room or limited to the perspective of the single camera.
- a web site could point this setup at anything interesting (lab experiment, box of puppies, anthill, construction site, political debate) and stream it live for an amazing viewer-decided perspective.
- live news could mount an array of this setup to a vehicle and capture a modeled view of anything they could reach, then pan around without much camera work.
When the simulation becomes indistinguishable from the real thing for any given medium, there is no higher bar left to test with.
for example, here at slashdot, a simple phrase generator might accumulate excellent karma.
We were discussing this just today in the office. ORMs can suffer from huge impedance issues if not used correctly: Too chatty/lazy/narrow or too wide/wasteful.
Overall, they're trying to pick a middle ground between writing plumbing per-UI need and having a one-size-fits-none model inflator. There's a lot of tricks in there (caching, lazy loading, dynamic objects, etc) but overall it's the same trade-off any system faces.
There shouldn't be mountains of C# to wade through to get data. If so, the implementation is off. The concept, however, I a big fan of. Even when the impedance is high.