In most MMORPGs a newbie could attack someone who is high leveled and AFK and still not be able to kill them. This is wrong.
Showing my age: googled AFK mmorpg and got 'Away From Keyboard'. In case that helps anyone else with the above line.
If gaming's marketing wonks are reading this, I've got 2 kids, a six-figure lifestyle and income and used to game a lot before college (a generation ago... I can talk you thru everything from 1977 to the mid 80's). I even did some game coding, but nothing famous. I spend $1000 a month on entertainment, between nights out, weekend trips, and tv/video/internet fun.
That said, I have spent 5-10 hours on Myst, 2 hours on Riven, and have 2 Laura Croft games that are still unopened. I play xbox with my nephews fairly often. I'm quick to die in Quake Arena, but I like it. I bought a copy with the tin box from Loki to support Linux gaming (along with a couple other Loki items). I occasionally kick open netrek for an hour's play. And I play games on my palm IIIc regularly (and will upgrade to a pair of treo 600's or similar hardware this year). Total spent of my grand a month on computer games is near zero. Total I'd spend if MMO*G's (Massively Multiplayer [insert anything] Games) were a fun way to interact and explore without the newbie-punishing that's so prevalent in them: a helluva lot more. I wouldn't think twice of spending five or ten bucks an HOUR if the game was compelling. God knows I used to feed arcade games like that. So far, you're not looking at me, so I'm not buying.
What I'd like echoes a lot of other postings here: Easy too learn, easy to play at 80% optimum, and tough to master. If I'm exploring, I'd like to not be killed just to garner someone else a few points. I'd like decent puzzles, I'd like interaction with people, but I'd like the same level of communication thinning I get with IM: friends know I'm online and strangers can't see or talk to me out of the blue. I'd like to be able to watch accomplished players at their best in competition, both from 'overhead' and eavesdropping on their game screens and messages (just put in a 5-second delay to keep this from damaging a competitive advantage for the player). Make a community out of it, and give me non-game reasons to connect regularly, like news, events, and forums.
Given the several hundred thousand people that descend on anything slashdot publicizes, I'd imagine there's enough of a market here. Given the billion people using IM, you can grow a long way if you focus on simplifying the interface beyond my level to Tetris or Bejewelled or Freecell, or (shudder) minesweeper and Solitaire. But so far, I'm not your demographic. And so far, you're getting zip from me. Or any of the other 5 billion people that didn't pay you anything last year.
Feed the troll? I'd say you're closer to being one.
Documentation: Warren Buffet. Every one of his annual reports lately rails on about how messed up the tax system is. In his latest Berkshire report, he wrote 'if there really is class warfare, ours is definitely winning'. http://www.investorprofit.com/article23.html
Example 2: Bill Gates' father & Warren Buffet & several other wealthy individuals signed a letter opposing the tax cuts a couple years ago. This seems to show that many wealthy individuals of conscience are embarassed by the tax cuts. http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technolog y/2003-01-12-gates_x.htm
Example 3: Bill Clinton's standard stump speech: he (very ironically) goes into nauseating detail on all the perks he's getting courtesy of GWB's tax cuts. They're of the vein: 'I made $10 million last year, and GWB gave me a tax cut. I got $40,000 extra back. How'd you do?' He opposes every one of them, feels the president is turning our country's economy into a giant lawn dart, and gives fairly detailed economic arguments against the disingenuous case for tax cuts made by GWB. He also says he agreed with some of the measures, and that he agreed with the idea of a brief tax cut to 'jog' the economy. But permanent tax breaks are wrong for several reasons. Now, guessing that you're conservative (and likely to demonize Clinton and anything he says) I'd suggest that, if you're interested in hearing arguments against your beliefs, you won't be afraid to read his argument. http://www.townhall.com/news/politics/200306/POL20 030625d.shtml
Now, as to documenting: http://salt.claretianpubs.org/sjnews/2003/03/sjn03 03b.html http://maxspeak.org/gm/archives/00000882.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2735269.stm
I've tossed 3 perspectives, including a blog archive that'll give you extra depth and argument. You'll hopefully find some interesting reading somewhere in all that.
As for your stuff, you failed to prove your countercase. You disagreed with the temporary high argument, but I don't see any 1: evidence, or 2:even a counter argument. Yes, people like to keep money. Duh. No, that isn't an issue. Yes, rich people buy stuff. However, it's almost impossible to spend a billion dollars as a consumer. Investing in a business (we'll assume you meant that) is how money returns to the economy, but a conservative investment is less likely to create the churn and innovation that an aggressive investment makes.
Pop quiz: who's going to innovate more: someone who wants a boring 6% ROI, or someone who's trying to double their money? Now, if you're facing a high, steady tax pressure, does that increase your willingness to invest in riskier stuff, rather than idly watch your net worth decline?
Frankly, the wealthiest people today are often newly-rich. The grandkids of the wealthiest people two generations ago are falling *slowly* behind because they're not as effective with their money. How slowly? Let's just say that they lose more to generational splitting (2+ kids sharing an inheritance) than to taxes or inflation.
Whether it's lack of the extraordinary talent of their ancestors, lack of drive, or whatever... who cares! That stagnation in family wealth is all the evidence I need that a stiff Estate Tax and a ramped investment tax rate are needed to ensure that getting insanely rich isn't enough to guarantee *literally* generations of slackers hoarding money. And to be honest, Bill & Melinda Gates' plans to not pass billions on to their kids is a laudable example of how things *should* work.
See, my motivation to raise Cap Gains taxes and Estate Taxes has nothing to do with taxing the wealthy to pay for the poor. I don't agree with the 90% tax rate of the US's early 19th century (Babe Ruth's famous for paying this). But I do think that 10-20% higher than median rates is fair. As someone whose
looks like my wife's going into labor now; and, I'm gonna miss the premiers for both Stargate Atlantis and I, Robot.
*looks around* What am I doing still posting on/.
*grabs keys*
I've got 2 kids, age 4 and 2. Trust me, you're gonna miss more than just the premiers. In fact, your movie-theater days are about to be significantly altered for several years. Not curtailed (unless something bad like 'Garfield' pushes you to suicide midmovie). But definitely fewer, and with many compromises. Many compromises. In fact, let's all say it together... "I for one welcome my new stinky, screaming, drooling 2-foot overlord."
BTW, 'Netflix' is your friend. And any gaming habits can continue only if you're wearing headphones. If you're ambitious, you'll learn to rock the baby with one foot while fragging aliens at 3am.
The good news is that if you're an attentive dad, you're gonna be busy and having enough fun that you won't big-M *MISS* these shows. You just won't see them anytime soon.
(Heh... Call her a cab... I'm still laughing about that reply. While you're at it, call and reserve yourself a bed at the morgue).
Obligatory Lame OT buster: Did I mention Stargate on DVD has some cool supporting material? Lots and LOTS of commentary, featurettes, etc.
I went into shock over Leahy's position here. He's always seemed to 'get it' about tech issues. Then, I decided this was possibly a case of/. collective stupidity and went to his website (http://leahy.senate.gov), did a search on INDUCE, decided that his staff was lax/lazy since the articles came up in random-date order, found his press release on the introduction of S2560, and I just about died:
But there are other problems that require immediate attention, because they threaten the development of the web. We will never be able to make the Internet an entirely trouble-free zone, but we will also never be justified in failing to make efforts to defend and improve it.
The principle at the heart of this bill - secondary copyright liability -- has long been in the common law. In fact, such secondary liability is provided for by statute in the patent law.
This legislation is also carefully crafted to preserve the doctrine of "fair use." Indeed by targeting the illegal conduct of those who have hijacked promising technologies, we can hope that consumers in the future have more outlets to purchase creative works in a convenient, portable digital format.
Right there is where he lost me. Here's the letter I've just sent. Keep in mind, I've considered Leahy one of the few net-friendly congresscritters, so I gave him a last chance to explain his stance. Considering his last paragraph tries to soft-shoe unintentional inducement, I doubt much will change (and I'll be singing Sayronara Leahy from now on!):
Senator;
What is your motivation for cosponsoring the INDUCE act (S2560)? I really don't see how you can support, let alone sponsor, a law that would force programmers like me, manufacturers of A/V gear, and others to second-guess whether they could become FELONS because of their product being misused.
Taking things a step further, the purpose of intellectual property law was to further the spread of ideas, as such was beneficial to individuals. It isn't meant to be a perpetual gift of these ideas. That seems to be lost here: INDUCE is a band-aid sought by media companies that have already subverted the constitutional intent of copyright to a point where it mocks the founding fathers.
I've reviewed your website, and the only mention I can find is a press release on the release of it. Frankly, it completely reversed my opinion of you (negatively) and I'm so stunned that I'm giving you one last chance to explain such a terrible and unamerican stance. The moment that you used 'fair use' and 'purchase' interchangably, you lost my vote. Rather than being on my short list of key lawmakers that seemed eager to grasp the complexities of internet-related issues, you're looking more and more like a $180,000 sellout.
do you expect that wikipedia will be more restricted at one point? For instance... a voting system for entries from unknown contributors.
(falls off chair, laughing)
After all, slashdot and kuroshin show that voting works to weed out incorrect content!
As 'Replies to Common Objections' explains, it's impossible to damage the information stored (short of an unpatched OS/MySQL/CVS vulnerability), easy to clean up the damage done, easy to monitor changes collaboratively (anyone can see the list of recent changes), etc. Defacements tend to be reverted in minutes. There's also a frank admission of wiki*'s flaws. Future possible countermeasures are discussed here, including authentication, peer-review, etc.
The same wikipedia response to common objections talks about bots, automated attacks, marginal quality, etc.
It's even possible to prevent defacing of a link you plan to 'publish': in July 7, 2004's wikipedia story, someone mentioned wikipedia and needing to link to a specific version of a wikipedia entry to prevent slashdot-referenced articles from being doctored. Turned out that this, too, was trivial to implement. In other words, I could create a set of URL's to unalterable articles simply by using the 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=S lashd ot&oldid=2346815' syntax discussed in slashdot comment 9630476.
What color is the sky in your world? Ethically, it's my *duty* to make the best possible product to compete in the world market. Ethically, it is my *duty* to monitor the competition and adapt their improvements and my own. Otherwise, I deprive my customers and harm my investors. And they are who pay me. Refusing to use every available tool, including the insight gleaned from others, is a breach of my contract. Further, an unwillingness to do this gives someone else a chance to monopolize the market, which is not in the customers' best interest, either.
Further, I've always understood that Intellectual Property law is designed to fill the very gap you're trying to plug via ethics: in return for clearing up the fuzzy area above, one can *share* IP in return for license fees for a limited time. AFTER THAT TIME, THE KNOWLEDGE BECOMES PUBLIC DOMAIN. Lacking IP law, all IP is immediately public domain.
There might be shades of gray here, but it is CERTAINLY not black-n-white certain that RE is unethical. And I have no idea what the 'for profit' phrase matters.
I will also look at these work expenses I have been asked to pick up, and be thinking of those when salary negotiations come up the following year.
Exactly. As long as I am making more than the industry standard, and am happy with the projects, the bennies and bonuses, I will *frugally* allow their (ab)use of my personal time and equipment. But I mentally keep budget and push for a corresponding perk or raise regularly. Oh, and I *never never* complain or itemize the list. In their eyes, cheery, hardworking and expensive is a better employee than cheap and bitchy. And I don't blame 'em for feeling that way.
The one I remember: there was this pachinko-like game we got for christmas that had round slugs/tokens. The tokens all had this 4-loop (think 4-leaf clover) hole cut out of them, and when they rattled together, the channel changed.
Christmas afternoon, my cousins and I drove the grown-ups crazy. We'd figured this out already, and we discreetly sat off to the side and played our game while they tried to watch football. Every time the channel changed in the middle of a play, someone would let out a shriek or a cuss.
Once they figured out (we were about ten, and us kids laughing until we were falling over might have clued them in), they banned us and the game from the room. After the game, we were given center court to demonstrate our find. Very cool, they all agreed.
Less than a month later, something bad (I forget what) happened to the remote. Lost or destroyed it. For the next couple years, we changed channels by rattling several tokens in a cup. Thank god there were only 3 channels! I still have a couple of the tokens, even.
Every time I think back to something like this, I kind of chuckle at the thought that *IT* might be the first indicator of my being an avid hacker. But then I remember something earlier...
I think the 'nobody walks in vegas' that Dumbass-n-Blind referenced is a good sign he's not paying attention to us 'unwashed masses'. He's wrongly ignoring anyone but the limo-elite and people willing to pay cabfare rather than walk a block.
I've just spent a huge amount of time working in Vegas, and I am really annoyed to learn that the monorail will soon open now that I'm gone. I'd have *loved* to had an easy/free way to hop a significant distance up the strip and start exploring again there, as I enjoyed just wandering thru the places exploring.
Similarly, when someone would visit, I'd tell them something like: See Sirens of TI, go inside of the pyramid at Luxor (the balconies and grand lobby are architecturally striking), the 4d Trekkie thing, the 'piazza at twilight' in the Venetian, the new LED dome on Fremont (I didn't get there... that's even worse than missing the Monorail opening, in my book!) and ride the 'Speed' roller-coaster ride. Problem is, unless you've got a chauffeur, that'll take 3 cab rides or more to do and can't be done in a day, since walking those distances isn't reasonable. So, to most folks I would end up saying 'pick just one thing', or downgrading my suggestions until they were riding a 2nd-rate ride, settling on show quality, or otherwise making deep compromises to fit the plans into their brief schedule.
Monorail good. Good for tourists. Good for tourism. Good for the environment. Anyone that works in Las Vegas should understand that their daily commute doesn't lend itself to railways. And it just doesn't compare to the consolidated need of half a million people or more on a peak weekend being squeezed into properties bordering 3 miles of one road. Even then, the rail's not a bad thing, since a strong rail system decreases parking/driving pressure and that's indirectly good for the workers.
Last of all: everyone in america needs a few good public-transit experiences. Otherwise, we'll never learn from our wiser european counterparts on the value of a public transit system. What better place to expose zillions of people to it than a tourist destination like Vegas?! Again, Monorail Good. Detractors idiots.
Flaw with your logic: As the price of phone calls goes down, I worry less about phone charges. Yeah, I spend a few hundred bucks a year on phone calls. And I can point to 5 or 10 that either generated that sort of income or saved me hours of my own time, which I could then use for whatever I wanted.
That's a micropayment structure that isn't broken. And I'm all for more such markets popping up if it gets me away from vendors thinking $5 is a fair price for an online article reprint. THAT is the idea that remains dead, in my book.
I really respect where you're coming from, but you might still want to consider knocking out 'any old' degree just to have the piece of paper. Every good techie I know that lacks a degree has eventually been demoted or passed over by an employer that overvalues degrees.
One was the VP over IT until they realized he lacked a BS degree. Suddenly, pay cut and a new boss. Six months later, he was doing the same work as before, with less pay, and his boss was getting a fat check for.. well, for doing nothing much.
Another took night classes for 12 years (add in kids and work and his was a seriously cramped lifestyle) because of getting burned that way.
Another brilliant one has hit his head on a promotion ceiling twice. Both times, it's made him bitter enough to leave the company and move on. Both times, his new job started at 90% of the old job's paycheck, let him climb a while, and then stagnated. I hope this time he'll have better luck...
At the same time, I know programmers with english and teaching and political science degrees. Techies don't diss 'em, if they're competent. And employers don't discriminate that finely, usually. They just notice the degree.
Don't just take my examples. Ask around in the 45-and-older crowd, and see how many war stories you hear.
It's unfair. It's foolish. And it's real. You can make a good living without a degree. But you'll often make a better living with a degree.
All AOL has to do is give the list to a spammer and ask him to mass-mail the required information.
Even cheaper: Since they're gonna send those damn CD's anyway, AOL could just stick a warning there.
Come to think of it, they could even use a few too-common EULA tricks:
Per California Uniform Code ###-###, this CD constitutes AOL's notification of a 3rd party's breach of your confidentiality. While admitting no wrongdoing, AOL takes your privacy seriously. So, we're offering you this free one-month membership to AOL. Acceptance (or non-return) of this CD shall constitute settlement of any and all damages. If you do not accept the terms of this settlement, please call 1-888-AOL-SCAM for a Return Authorization code, then return this CD, double-packaged and with the seal unbroken via insured certified overnight carrier. Any returns that fail to follow the above instructions will be disqualified.
Hmm... why isn't AOL marketing this as a service? They could make a mint just giving the gun and tobacco industries a potiential shield/loophole against class-action lawsuits.
Heh, for the first dozen words, I thought you were going to merge firefly and trek. Come to think of it, what we liked about trek sorta applied to firefly: different week / different 'whatif' world.
50 years: I move off the mudball to Mars for retirement.
Ew... ick...
The odds of me *retiring* to Mars are slightly lower than those of me retiring to a shanty inside a [mine | oil refinery | chemical plant | dump ].
I might visit the moon or Mars out of novelty, but the only odds of me *living* on Mars is for work. Whether one's fancy lies in golf, hiking, scenic drives, visiting, meeting people, history, shopping, etc., there isn't enough 'retirement' stuff to make me eager to move there. Given the lack of basic liveable resources on Mars, in 25-50 years outposts are still going to be outposts. An outpost lacking breathable atmosphere beyond its confines is about as enticing a retirement zone as the places I've mentioned.
That said, good metrics and good predictions. I just think you overreached, or you'd need to have fairly singular/unique preferences to enjoy Mars enough to retire there.
Note: I DO NOT COUNT 'BUILDING A NEW WORLD' as a retirement activity. If you move there to open the first bodega/brothel/bookstore/bank, you're not retiring, really. And don't even get me started on network lagtimes...
Good reply, good points. Now, not to change the subject, but my biggest question is: Where the hell did the subject line change?! I don't recall even *using* that phrase or concept recently. Even my browser history/cache shows an un-revised subject line.
I've railed against/. editorial laxness in the past, but have never seen firsthand an outright bug like the above morphin' Subject field. Wierd...
Speed: Someone recently compared many file systems. Thought it was anandtech, but I can't find a URL currently. No disadvantage or advantage found between RFS and ext3. Besides, this is a file share, so the apparent speed limitations are at the ethernet bandwidth level, well below what would limit a raided file system.
Kernels: debian and mandrake support RFS fresh out of the box, and have done so for at least 2 yrs (first time I used RFS).
As for the other tools, I've never encountered the need to reroll a tool or patch it to get RFS working. Again, the hardest I hammered on it was after unrelated hardware failure, and it *just worked*, recovering all data repeatedly and transparently from unexpected shutdowns, so I didn't have to learn anything.
Were you serious, or were you trolling? I honestly don't know a lot about ReiserFS beyond using it at the suggestion/behest of a more-savvy user, and from mention of a Reiser-v-world controversy last year due to something quirky in his license. But http://www.linuxworld.com/story/32868.htm has Nick Petreley's in-depth comparison. Petreley gives props to ext3 in a few spots, but likes the designed extensibility and other aspects of ReiserFS.
Great post. One quibble: I use ReiserFS extensively, and would trust it with my data just as quickly as ext3. I can even verify that it recovers from external failures transparently (I had a bad UPS that intermittently caused trouble for a while). Like ext3, reiserFS works fine. I do agree that ext3 is fine, though. I've got a few systems using it. Both the reiserFS and ext3 are Debian systems, including a half-rack of n-terabyte raid 5 (3ware!) SATA arrays using dual nics and a gigabit backchannel for data sharing that's a screamin' data machine. But I've also used reiserFS on a brief laptop-meets-mandrake period in my early linux years. It was great. I'd call ReiserFS a tried and true *viable* choice unless someone out there knows something I don't.
Standard disclaimers: no vested interest, no relationship with developers, etc. Just a satisfied user.
The argument is invalid. It's an ad homenim attack, like saying that a politician's views on fiscal issues are some how flawed due to his quirky habit to [insert unrelated item]. A more proper form of counter-argument here is 'but why should we CARE what [insert actor/celebrity/scientist] thinks about political issues. They're not experts in this field.'
Or, in this case, why should we care that Bill Joy has ethical concerns with respect to micromachines. He's neither an ethicist nor a computer expert (off-mike: Oh... he is? Java?... founded Sun?... oh...) Never Mind!
(I miss Gilda Radner)
Bill Joy, a computer expert, is worried about nanobots. I am also a computer expert. I worry less, since murphy's law is on my side here: if we tried to make a device of any size capable of self replication and an ability to eat anything and self-propel, the world economy would go bankrupt without success. Instead, we'll start simple. We'll devise nanobots that live in a soup of ethylene glycol, dissolved hydrocarbon chains, and trace elements. Or something like that. The engineers will say "The problem is insurmountable written as you have it, but if we can shift to a controlled medium that eliminates a few areas that are toughest to design around (source of energy, method of floating in 3-d while working, communication capability), we can do it. We suggest [X]." And X will be coincidentally restrictive enough to make any unintentional outbreak a manageable one. And the devices will likely have a thousand mechanisms of failure, from UV to heat to cold to solvents to filtration.
I refuse to discredit Mr. Joy, but I really do sleep easily. We have yet to make a nanobot capable of even making a tenth of her own composition. The last I checked, we're making spinners/motors, mirror-oriented optical switches, limited logic circuits, macerating gears, and other absurdly-simple devices. And replication at any scale is so uncharted a realm of systems design that we've got a while before we start panicking about them being so efficient at replicating that enough will exist to end up turning us all into grey goo. I figure I'll get a hovercar, a wrist videophone and the ability to grow my own replacement kidney before this happens.
I liked surveying for the US Government. Great summer job I had between college terms for years. It was a giant game of treasure hunt: here's 70-year-old set of coordinates; go retrace them. We carried heavy packs, wandered the desert in brutal weather, dug holes to search for markers or plant new ones (you gotta dig a deep hole to plant a 4-foot post deep enough to prevent it from being caught by a farmer's plow!), and we had to think a lot.
One of the guys I worked with was part of a roving maintenance crew. Blew my mind the day he cracked an obscure pun about greek mythology. A few days later, he quoted Nietsche. Then he misquoted another great mind (gave the wrong source) and just as I opened my mouth to correct him, I realized he was baiting me.
To this day, I don't know what his educational background is. I've never asked. He's only a passing friend, but I admire him immensely. His job isn't difficult, but pays well enough to raise a family well. Point is, he doesn't live to work, as I said a few minutes ago in a long-winded posting. He does what he loves when he's off work, and his job is stress-free. Combined, they've made him the happiest man I know. He's got a balance to his life I can only hope to someday get.
Screwed?!! Whoa, talk about bitter and overgeneralizing... Is that you, Dr. Laura?!
My take:
Most importantly, recognize that you Work to Live, not Live to Work. Do whatever job seems damn lucrative and vaguely interesting at the time. Ideally, pick a field that lets you adjust course every couple years to change the flavor of work you're doing. Adjust your resume and start looking when the stuff you're doing gets stale. And try to get 2 years per job minimum. Meanwhile, GET ENOUGH OF A LIFE TO WHERE WORK IS NOT THE FOCUS OF IT.
Acquire some people skills. Lacking the dedication to be a guru with 25 years experience, you'll want to at least play nice with others and avoid friction. Learn to diplomatically accept unpleasant tasks, support others, and be an asset for work that way. If possible, learn that 'they call it work because it's unpleasant, otherwise they'd call it *fun*'.
It sometimes is a huge PITA, but there are non-work dividends to having enough social skills to maintain relationships (unlike many proverbial nerds): if works sucks and you've got a wife and kids, at least there's someone to take your mind off stuff 16 hours a day.
50% of people are above average? Heh, it's more like 70% of the people, thanks to grade inflation.
That said, I deeply identify with your self-description. I am regularly called the 'smartest' person they know by lots of folks. If you imagine a bell curve, 'above average' can also be construed to be the 10-20% of people that are NOT in the middle of the curve. I'd use that definition, rather than the parent poster's.
So, I'm almost 40. I took over a decade for college, including grad school. I changed majors slightly, flunked lots of courses, retook them and others until I got the 3.0 GPA I felt was a critical minimum. I made the dean's list once in college, and from junior-high on, my GPA would embarass most folks. That said, I've rarely met anyone who could outdo me on standard tests, from SAT, ACT, etc. to the GRE's. I'm well-adjusted, happily married with kids, have been tweaking computers since I was 12, and have migrated from computer programmer to admin, to tech lead to programmer to information security consultant. I've also done chip design, electrical engineering, civil engineering, environmental engineering, field Civil/Arch/Struc engineering, surveying, carpentry, in small doses. Meanwhile, my hobbies have migrated thru games, small businesses I've started, writing, music, homebrewing, botany, cooking, bartending, booking performers and bands, old-home restoration, and so much more. My job now is for a small consultancy, so I tend to go from start to finish with a client in 2 to 14 months, which is plenty of time to get deep exposure and even bored, but never more than I can endure. Oh, and I do a handful of charitable websites. Variety is the spice of life, pal. If you're the same cog in the same massive bureaucracy for too long, find a different job until things bounce around enough to be interesting.
If I had it all to do over again, I'd either fast-track thru an engineering degree and focus on a field that would let me get a PE, become a partner, and retire relatively early. Or I'd be a plumber or a chef. The jobs are both somewhat redundant but the pay is decent, the work is universally needed, and people are glad to see you. Third choice is to pick a career that'd give me enough long-term job security to let me comfortably fade to half-time status early on, like investment advisor, insurance broker, real estate salesman, or attorney. Some job where a fair share of people tend to marry themselves to a damn good agent and stick with them forever, guaranteeing your job. Some careers do have a shield against ageism.
Avoid working for yourself, if you get bored easily and tend to not follow thru. People in business for themselves generally get there through doggedness. Being too smart is almost a bad thing for this sort of work. Just as you get efficient,
A couple weeks ago, I spent the evening with another hacker in a casino. He pulled out a color-coded chart for beating blackjack on the elevator down, and I had him put it away before we entered the casino. Before he sat down to play, I wandered off for a few minutes. When I returned, he was sitting at a table, with his color chart in hand, playing strictly off his color chart. I went from mortified to shocked: they didn't seem to care that he was playing a 'system'.
(Obviously, they don't care because his system still leaves them the 1% or whatever percent advantage on every bet, so they'll be fine)
When he tried to talk me into playing the system, I explained that I don't gamble for the odds and winning. I can't, since I know the odds are against me. There's no joy in it that way. However, if I sit, visit with people, make sure I get the maximum number of free drinks and other comps, and keep my burn rate down below a bearable level, I can have fun. Trying to gamble based on a system would take enough concentration that it'd lose me every one of those advantages, so I don't hack gambling. In fact, what I really appear to myself to be hacking is the chance to practice my social skills. Some of us nerds do need practice there, after all.
A few days later, he brought the subject up again. Two additional sources had taught him about system that depended on a limited level of multiple-deck card counting. Now, this is a system that works. It gets you past the 1% house advantage, and if you're good at it you'll probably get banned from casinos that catch you at it.
At that point, I realized this guy was hacking blackjack. He was simply applying hacker principles to gain maximum advantage in a situation. It wasn't about any deeper obsession or nutjob personality quirk... it's just something every hacker does. In fact, every hacker I've ever met does this. One saves a few cents a day by bringing his own soda to work rather than use the vending machine. He'd make a year's worth of those savings up by working another 10 minutes. Go figure. Another spends untold hours cracking DirectTV smartcards, but then scrupulously guards the info so DirecTV isn't harmed beyond his own single larceny. Again, his hourly rate makes this time worth about 10x the cost of just buying the services. It's the challenge, not the money. Another optimizes driving routes until he's got the fastest routes home at any time of day... oh, wait... that's me.
So what that Bill Joy optimized his video buying. It isn't necessarily obsessive. He probably JUST GOT THE IDEA and followed thru out of curiosity.
Saying Bill's a nutcase for this and that it somehow invalidates his opinion on the risks of nanotech is as wrong as somehow coming to a conclusion about Richard Stallman's politics based on the fact that he has some ragged personal hygiene issues. They're so unrelated that you're a nutcase for even thinking they're proof of anything.
Corollary: we're culturally biased against bad things long before the why's are understood. Marrying cousins or siblings: somehow that was known to be a bad thing long before genetics. Vermin, bugs and carcasses: scary stuff (hmmm... perhaps because they're vectors for vermin and disease). Politicians and lawyers: Well, shakespeare understood how unpleasant they were.
And more than a few folk remedies have a scientific basis. Granted, some are completely whack, and these 'superstitions' get ridiculed now.
Dun Malg's on point here: for me, it'd be more shocking to learn that nobody ever stumbled onto biological warfare before the 1800's than to learn of earlier uses. Admittedly, our history is also probably littered with a half-zillion absurd ways folks tried to improve their odds in battle, ranging from nerd^h^h^h^hvirgin sacrifices to cannibalism.
Milk, leftovers, vegetables, bread. Ten bucks a month for all of these, including the amortized cost of the machine. I use the freezer for ice, bulk-purchases of meat, more leftovers, pre-packaged meals, kid-friendly snacks (pizzas, chicken nuggets, etc), my annual wild-game (ahem) harvests so they can be stretched out over a year (hunting season comes but once a year!). And did I mention milk? As far as I'm concerned, the 4 essential food groups are milk, potatoes, oreos, and more milk. At anything close to room temperature in my house, milk spoils in a half-day at best. If I had to restock every half-day, I'd spend my whole life going to and from the dairy a few miles away. And that irradiated milk I tried in Europe is neither tasty nor readily available in the US.
Neat idea, though. Gives me something to shoot for. I could do with a teensy fridge with 5x the insulation. And that bit on eggs is every bit as startling as Granny's mayo stunts.
Slashdot Mirror
If gaming's marketing wonks are reading this, I've got 2 kids, a six-figure lifestyle and income and used to game a lot before college (a generation ago... I can talk you thru everything from 1977 to the mid 80's). I even did some game coding, but nothing famous. I spend $1000 a month on entertainment, between nights out, weekend trips, and tv/video/internet fun.
That said, I have spent 5-10 hours on Myst, 2 hours on Riven, and have 2 Laura Croft games that are still unopened. I play xbox with my nephews fairly often. I'm quick to die in Quake Arena, but I like it. I bought a copy with the tin box from Loki to support Linux gaming (along with a couple other Loki items). I occasionally kick open netrek for an hour's play. And I play games on my palm IIIc regularly (and will upgrade to a pair of treo 600's or similar hardware this year). Total spent of my grand a month on computer games is near zero. Total I'd spend if MMO*G's (Massively Multiplayer [insert anything] Games) were a fun way to interact and explore without the newbie-punishing that's so prevalent in them: a helluva lot more. I wouldn't think twice of spending five or ten bucks an HOUR if the game was compelling. God knows I used to feed arcade games like that. So far, you're not looking at me, so I'm not buying.
What I'd like echoes a lot of other postings here: Easy too learn, easy to play at 80% optimum, and tough to master. If I'm exploring, I'd like to not be killed just to garner someone else a few points. I'd like decent puzzles, I'd like interaction with people, but I'd like the same level of communication thinning I get with IM: friends know I'm online and strangers can't see or talk to me out of the blue. I'd like to be able to watch accomplished players at their best in competition, both from 'overhead' and eavesdropping on their game screens and messages (just put in a 5-second delay to keep this from damaging a competitive advantage for the player). Make a community out of it, and give me non-game reasons to connect regularly, like news, events, and forums.
Given the several hundred thousand people that descend on anything slashdot publicizes, I'd imagine there's enough of a market here. Given the billion people using IM, you can grow a long way if you focus on simplifying the interface beyond my level to Tetris or Bejewelled or Freecell, or (shudder) minesweeper and Solitaire. But so far, I'm not your demographic. And so far, you're getting zip from me. Or any of the other 5 billion people that didn't pay you anything last year.
Feed the troll? I'd say you're closer to being one.
/2003/03/sjn03 03b.html .html .stm
Documentation: Warren Buffet. Every one of his annual reports lately rails on about how messed up the tax system is. In his latest Berkshire report, he wrote 'if there really is class warfare, ours is definitely winning'. http://www.investorprofit.com/article23.html
Example 2: Bill Gates' father & Warren Buffet & several other wealthy individuals signed a letter opposing the tax cuts a couple years ago. This seems to show that many wealthy individuals of conscience are embarassed by the tax cuts. http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technolog y/2003-01-12-gates_x.htm
Example 3: Bill Clinton's standard stump speech: he (very ironically) goes into nauseating detail on all the perks he's getting courtesy of GWB's tax cuts. They're of the vein: 'I made $10 million last year, and GWB gave me a tax cut. I got $40,000 extra back. How'd you do?' He opposes every one of them, feels the president is turning our country's economy into a giant lawn dart, and gives fairly detailed economic arguments against the disingenuous case for tax cuts made by GWB. He also says he agreed with some of the measures, and that he agreed with the idea of a brief tax cut to 'jog' the economy. But permanent tax breaks are wrong for several reasons. Now, guessing that you're conservative (and likely to demonize Clinton and anything he says) I'd suggest that, if you're interested in hearing arguments against your beliefs, you won't be afraid to read his argument. http://www.townhall.com/news/politics/200306/POL20 030625d.shtml
Now, as to documenting:
http://salt.claretianpubs.org/sjnews
http://maxspeak.org/gm/archives/00000882
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2735269
I've tossed 3 perspectives, including a blog archive that'll give you
extra depth and argument. You'll hopefully find some interesting reading somewhere in all that.
As for your stuff, you failed to prove your countercase. You disagreed with the temporary high argument, but I don't see any 1: evidence, or 2:even a counter argument. Yes, people like to keep money. Duh. No, that isn't an issue. Yes, rich people buy stuff. However, it's almost impossible to spend a billion dollars as a consumer. Investing in a business (we'll assume you meant that) is how money returns to the economy, but a conservative investment is less likely to create the churn and innovation that an aggressive investment makes.
Pop quiz: who's going to innovate more: someone who wants a boring 6% ROI, or someone who's trying to double their money? Now, if you're facing a high, steady tax pressure, does that increase your willingness to invest in riskier stuff, rather than idly watch your net worth decline?
Frankly, the wealthiest people today are often newly-rich. The grandkids of the wealthiest people two generations ago are falling *slowly* behind because they're not as effective with their money. How slowly? Let's just say that they lose more to generational splitting (2+ kids sharing an inheritance) than to taxes or inflation.
Whether it's lack of the extraordinary talent of their ancestors, lack of drive, or whatever... who cares! That stagnation in family wealth is all the evidence I need that a stiff Estate Tax and a ramped investment tax rate are needed to ensure that getting insanely rich isn't enough to guarantee *literally* generations of slackers hoarding money. And to be honest, Bill & Melinda Gates' plans to not pass billions on to their kids is a laudable example of how things *should* work.
See, my motivation to raise Cap Gains taxes and Estate Taxes has nothing to do with taxing the wealthy to pay for the poor. I don't agree with the 90% tax rate of the US's early 19th century (Babe Ruth's famous for paying this). But I do think that 10-20% higher than median rates is fair. As someone whose
BTW, 'Netflix' is your friend. And any gaming habits can continue only if you're wearing headphones. If you're ambitious, you'll learn to rock the baby with one foot while fragging aliens at 3am.
The good news is that if you're an attentive dad, you're gonna be busy and having enough fun that you won't big-M *MISS* these shows. You just won't see them anytime soon.
(Heh... Call her a cab... I'm still laughing about that reply. While you're at it, call and reserve yourself a bed at the morgue).
Obligatory Lame OT buster: Did I mention Stargate on DVD has some cool supporting material? Lots and LOTS of commentary, featurettes, etc.
I went into shock over Leahy's position here. He's always seemed to 'get it' about tech issues. Then, I decided this was possibly a case of /. collective stupidity and went to his website (http://leahy.senate.gov), did a search on INDUCE, decided that his staff was lax/lazy since the articles came up in random-date order, found his press release on the introduction of S2560, and I just about died:
Right there is where he lost me. Here's the letter I've just sent. Keep in mind, I've considered Leahy one of the few net-friendly congresscritters, so I gave him a last chance to explain his stance. Considering his last paragraph tries to soft-shoe unintentional inducement, I doubt much will change (and I'll be singing Sayronara Leahy from now on!):After all, slashdot and kuroshin show that voting works to weed out incorrect content!
As 'Replies to Common Objections' explains, it's impossible to damage the information stored (short of an unpatched OS/MySQL/CVS vulnerability), easy to clean up the damage done, easy to monitor changes collaboratively (anyone can see the list of recent changes), etc. Defacements tend to be reverted in minutes. There's also a frank admission of wiki*'s flaws. Future possible countermeasures are discussed here, including authentication, peer-review, etc.
The same wikipedia response to common objections talks about bots, automated attacks, marginal quality, etc.
It's even possible to prevent defacing of a link you plan to 'publish': in July 7, 2004's wikipedia story, someone mentioned wikipedia and needing to link to a specific version of a wikipedia entry to prevent slashdot-referenced articles from being doctored. Turned out that this, too, was trivial to implement. In other words, I could create a set of URL's to unalterable articles simply by using the
'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=
Pretty cool, huh?
Huh?! Reverse engineering is unethical?
What color is the sky in your world? Ethically, it's my *duty* to make the best possible product to compete in the world market. Ethically, it is my *duty* to monitor the competition and adapt their improvements and my own. Otherwise, I deprive my customers and harm my investors. And they are who pay me. Refusing to use every available tool, including the insight gleaned from others, is a breach of my contract. Further, an unwillingness to do this gives someone else a chance to monopolize the market, which is not in the customers' best interest, either.
Further, I've always understood that Intellectual Property law is designed to fill the very gap you're trying to plug via ethics: in return for clearing up the fuzzy area above, one can *share* IP in return for license fees for a limited time. AFTER THAT TIME, THE KNOWLEDGE BECOMES PUBLIC DOMAIN. Lacking IP law, all IP is immediately public domain.
There might be shades of gray here, but it is CERTAINLY not black-n-white certain that RE is unethical. And I have no idea what the 'for profit' phrase matters.
Like the old ad said: It's not nice to fsck with brother hacker.
Christmas afternoon, my cousins and I drove the grown-ups crazy. We'd figured this out already, and we discreetly sat off to the side and played our game while they tried to watch football. Every time the channel changed in the middle of a play, someone would let out a shriek or a cuss.
Once they figured out (we were about ten, and us kids laughing until we were falling over might have clued them in), they banned us and the game from the room. After the game, we were given center court to demonstrate our find. Very cool, they all agreed.
Less than a month later, something bad (I forget what) happened to the remote. Lost or destroyed it. For the next couple years, we changed channels by rattling several tokens in a cup. Thank god there were only 3 channels! I still have a couple of the tokens, even.
Every time I think back to something like this, I kind of chuckle at the thought that *IT* might be the first indicator of my being an avid hacker. But then I remember something earlier...
I've just spent a huge amount of time working in Vegas, and I am really annoyed to learn that the monorail will soon open now that I'm gone. I'd have *loved* to had an easy/free way to hop a significant distance up the strip and start exploring again there, as I enjoyed just wandering thru the places exploring.
Similarly, when someone would visit, I'd tell them something like: See Sirens of TI, go inside of the pyramid at Luxor (the balconies and grand lobby are architecturally striking), the 4d Trekkie thing, the 'piazza at twilight' in the Venetian, the new LED dome on Fremont (I didn't get there... that's even worse than missing the Monorail opening, in my book!) and ride the 'Speed' roller-coaster ride. Problem is, unless you've got a chauffeur, that'll take 3 cab rides or more to do and can't be done in a day, since walking those distances isn't reasonable. So, to most folks I would end up saying 'pick just one thing', or downgrading my suggestions until they were riding a 2nd-rate ride, settling on show quality, or otherwise making deep compromises to fit the plans into their brief schedule.
Monorail good. Good for tourists. Good for tourism. Good for the environment. Anyone that works in Las Vegas should understand that their daily commute doesn't lend itself to railways. And it just doesn't compare to the consolidated need of half a million people or more on a peak weekend being squeezed into properties bordering 3 miles of one road. Even then, the rail's not a bad thing, since a strong rail system decreases parking/driving pressure and that's indirectly good for the workers.
Last of all: everyone in america needs a few good public-transit experiences. Otherwise, we'll never learn from our wiser european counterparts on the value of a public transit system. What better place to expose zillions of people to it than a tourist destination like Vegas?! Again, Monorail Good. Detractors idiots.
Flaw with your logic: As the price of phone calls goes down, I worry less about phone charges. Yeah, I spend a few hundred bucks a year on phone calls. And I can point to 5 or 10 that either generated that sort of income or saved me hours of my own time, which I could then use for whatever I wanted.
That's a micropayment structure that isn't broken. And I'm all for more such markets popping up if it gets me away from vendors thinking $5 is a fair price for an online article reprint. THAT is the idea that remains dead, in my book.
- One was the VP over IT until they realized he lacked a BS degree. Suddenly, pay cut and a new boss. Six months later, he was doing the same work as before, with less pay, and his boss was getting a fat check for
.. well, for doing nothing much. - Another took night classes for 12 years (add in kids and work and his was a seriously cramped lifestyle) because of getting burned that way.
- Another brilliant one has hit his head on a promotion ceiling twice. Both times, it's made him bitter enough to leave the company and move on. Both times, his new job started at 90% of the old job's paycheck, let him climb a while, and then stagnated. I hope this time he'll have better luck...
- At the same time, I know programmers with english and teaching and political science degrees. Techies don't diss 'em, if they're competent. And employers don't discriminate that finely, usually. They just notice the degree.
- Don't just take my examples. Ask around in the 45-and-older crowd, and see how many war stories you hear.
It's unfair. It's foolish. And it's real. You can make a good living without a degree. But you'll often make a better living with a degree.Come to think of it, they could even use a few too-common EULA tricks:
Per California Uniform Code ###-###, this CD constitutes AOL's notification of a 3rd party's breach of your confidentiality. While admitting no wrongdoing, AOL takes your privacy seriously. So, we're offering you this free one-month membership to AOL. Acceptance (or non-return) of this CD shall constitute settlement of any and all damages. If you do not accept the terms of this settlement, please call 1-888-AOL-SCAM for a Return Authorization code, then return this CD, double-packaged and with the seal unbroken via insured certified overnight carrier. Any returns that fail to follow the above instructions will be disqualified.
Hmm... why isn't AOL marketing this as a service? They could make a mint just giving the gun and tobacco industries a potiential shield/loophole against class-action lawsuits.
Heh, for the first dozen words, I thought you were going to merge firefly and trek. Come to think of it, what we liked about trek sorta applied to firefly: different week / different 'whatif' world.
The odds of me *retiring* to Mars are slightly lower than those of me retiring to a shanty inside a [mine | oil refinery | chemical plant | dump ].
I might visit the moon or Mars out of novelty, but the only odds of me *living* on Mars is for work. Whether one's fancy lies in golf, hiking, scenic drives, visiting, meeting people, history, shopping, etc., there isn't enough 'retirement' stuff to make me eager to move there. Given the lack of basic liveable resources on Mars, in 25-50 years outposts are still going to be outposts. An outpost lacking breathable atmosphere beyond its confines is about as enticing a retirement zone as the places I've mentioned.
That said, good metrics and good predictions. I just think you overreached, or you'd need to have fairly singular/unique preferences to enjoy Mars enough to retire there.
Note: I DO NOT COUNT 'BUILDING A NEW WORLD' as a retirement activity. If you move there to open the first bodega/brothel/bookstore/bank, you're not retiring, really. And don't even get me started on network lagtimes...
Good reply, good points. Now, not to change the subject, but my biggest question is: Where the hell did the subject line change?! I don't recall even *using* that phrase or concept recently. Even my browser history/cache shows an un-revised subject line.
/. editorial laxness in the past, but have never seen firsthand an outright bug like the above morphin' Subject field. Wierd...
I've railed against
Kernels: debian and mandrake support RFS fresh out of the box, and have done so for at least 2 yrs (first time I used RFS).
As for the other tools, I've never encountered the need to reroll a tool or patch it to get RFS working. Again, the hardest I hammered on it was after unrelated hardware failure, and it *just worked*, recovering all data repeatedly and transparently from unexpected shutdowns, so I didn't have to learn anything.
Were you serious, or were you trolling? I honestly don't know a lot about ReiserFS beyond using it at the suggestion/behest of a more-savvy user, and from mention of a Reiser-v-world controversy last year due to something quirky in his license. But http://www.linuxworld.com/story/32868.htm has Nick Petreley's in-depth comparison. Petreley gives props to ext3 in a few spots, but likes the designed extensibility and other aspects of ReiserFS.
Standard disclaimers: no vested interest, no relationship with developers, etc. Just a satisfied user.
Or, in this case, why should we care that Bill Joy has ethical concerns with respect to micromachines. He's neither an ethicist nor a computer expert (off-mike: Oh... he is? Java?... founded Sun?... oh...) Never Mind!
(I miss Gilda Radner)
Bill Joy, a computer expert, is worried about nanobots. I am also a computer expert. I worry less, since murphy's law is on my side here: if we tried to make a device of any size capable of self replication and an ability to eat anything and self-propel, the world economy would go bankrupt without success. Instead, we'll start simple. We'll devise nanobots that live in a soup of ethylene glycol, dissolved hydrocarbon chains, and trace elements. Or something like that. The engineers will say "The problem is insurmountable written as you have it, but if we can shift to a controlled medium that eliminates a few areas that are toughest to design around (source of energy, method of floating in 3-d while working, communication capability), we can do it. We suggest [X]." And X will be coincidentally restrictive enough to make any unintentional outbreak a manageable one. And the devices will likely have a thousand mechanisms of failure, from UV to heat to cold to solvents to filtration.
I refuse to discredit Mr. Joy, but I really do sleep easily. We have yet to make a nanobot capable of even making a tenth of her own composition. The last I checked, we're making spinners/motors, mirror-oriented optical switches, limited logic circuits, macerating gears, and other absurdly-simple devices. And replication at any scale is so uncharted a realm of systems design that we've got a while before we start panicking about them being so efficient at replicating that enough will exist to end up turning us all into grey goo. I figure I'll get a hovercar, a wrist videophone and the ability to grow my own replacement kidney before this happens.
I liked surveying for the US Government. Great summer job I had between college terms for years. It was a giant game of treasure hunt: here's 70-year-old set of coordinates; go retrace them. We carried heavy packs, wandered the desert in brutal weather, dug holes to search for markers or plant new ones (you gotta dig a deep hole to plant a 4-foot post deep enough to prevent it from being caught by a farmer's plow!), and we had to think a lot.
One of the guys I worked with was part of a roving maintenance crew. Blew my mind the day he cracked an obscure pun about greek mythology. A few days later, he quoted Nietsche. Then he misquoted another great mind (gave the wrong source) and just as I opened my mouth to correct him, I realized he was baiting me.
To this day, I don't know what his educational background is. I've never asked. He's only a passing friend, but I admire him immensely. His job isn't difficult, but pays well enough to raise a family well. Point is, he doesn't live to work, as I said a few minutes ago in a long-winded posting. He does what he loves when he's off work, and his job is stress-free. Combined, they've made him the happiest man I know. He's got a balance to his life I can only hope to someday get.
My take:
(Obviously, they don't care because his system still leaves them the 1% or whatever percent advantage on every bet, so they'll be fine)
When he tried to talk me into playing the system, I explained that I don't gamble for the odds and winning. I can't, since I know the odds are against me. There's no joy in it that way. However, if I sit, visit with people, make sure I get the maximum number of free drinks and other comps, and keep my burn rate down below a bearable level, I can have fun. Trying to gamble based on a system would take enough concentration that it'd lose me every one of those advantages, so I don't hack gambling. In fact, what I really appear to myself to be hacking is the chance to practice my social skills. Some of us nerds do need practice there, after all.
A few days later, he brought the subject up again. Two additional sources had taught him about system that depended on a limited level of multiple-deck card counting. Now, this is a system that works. It gets you past the 1% house advantage, and if you're good at it you'll probably get banned from casinos that catch you at it.
At that point, I realized this guy was hacking blackjack. He was simply applying hacker principles to gain maximum advantage in a situation. It wasn't about any deeper obsession or nutjob personality quirk... it's just something every hacker does. In fact, every hacker I've ever met does this. One saves a few cents a day by bringing his own soda to work rather than use the vending machine. He'd make a year's worth of those savings up by working another 10 minutes. Go figure. Another spends untold hours cracking DirectTV smartcards, but then scrupulously guards the info so DirecTV isn't harmed beyond his own single larceny. Again, his hourly rate makes this time worth about 10x the cost of just buying the services. It's the challenge, not the money. Another optimizes driving routes until he's got the fastest routes home at any time of day... oh, wait... that's me.
So what that Bill Joy optimized his video buying. It isn't necessarily obsessive. He probably JUST GOT THE IDEA and followed thru out of curiosity.
Saying Bill's a nutcase for this and that it somehow invalidates his opinion on the risks of nanotech is as wrong as somehow coming to a conclusion about Richard Stallman's politics based on the fact that he has some ragged personal hygiene issues. They're so unrelated that you're a nutcase for even thinking they're proof of anything.
Dun Malg's on point here: for me, it'd be more shocking to learn that nobody ever stumbled onto biological warfare before the 1800's than to learn of earlier uses. Admittedly, our history is also probably littered with a half-zillion absurd ways folks tried to improve their odds in battle, ranging from nerd^h^h^h^hvirgin sacrifices to cannibalism.
Milk, leftovers, vegetables, bread. Ten bucks a month for all of these, including the amortized cost of the machine. I use the freezer for ice, bulk-purchases of meat, more leftovers, pre-packaged meals, kid-friendly snacks (pizzas, chicken nuggets, etc), my annual wild-game (ahem) harvests so they can be stretched out over a year (hunting season comes but once a year!). And did I mention milk? As far as I'm concerned, the 4 essential food groups are milk, potatoes, oreos, and more milk. At anything close to room temperature in my house, milk spoils in a half-day at best. If I had to restock every half-day, I'd spend my whole life going to and from the dairy a few miles away. And that irradiated milk I tried in Europe is neither tasty nor readily available in the US.
Neat idea, though. Gives me something to shoot for. I could do with a teensy fridge with 5x the insulation. And that bit on eggs is every bit as startling as Granny's mayo stunts.