Remember it was originally designed to handle the CIA's email back in the 1980s. It had strong encryption, distributed directory management, digital signatures, distributed certificate management, and a host of other capabilities that were decades ahead of its time.
Every time you received a Notes email (or indeed any kind of document) from another Notes user, it was automatically authenticated; no imposture was possible, and this was at a time when it was normal for SMTP to accept any input from any source that knew the IP address. At the time I was training people on this new email thing, and I'd open up a telnet session to the server and show them how I could forge an email from "The Lord God Almighty" with the subject line "Don't believe anything you read here."
Notes was never a bad email system. It had a very awkard client UI and a server that requried a more than room temperature IQ to administer, but you got things in return that people in the 90s didn't understand to be important yet. Things like two factor authentication and local encryption. If you lost your laptop. the data in Notes would result in a data breach. People still haven't figured out how to prevent that in a way that is affordable and simple to use and administrate. So while it was inexcusable that they never hired some HCI experts to clean up the archaic user interface, you still got a very modern set of capabilities all the way back in 1990s. People were frustrated with the complexity, but to be fair while Notes was asking you to handle things like generating and signing crypto certificates, you didn't even have the option with anything else back when it was introduced.
But it was a really interesting platform for building cryptographically secure document management systems.
Email was just one possible application that could be built on that platform; you could also build things like blogging and content and distributed, cooperative workflow management systems on it, complete with strong encryption and cryptographic authentication, including robust features like trust revocation and certificate signing delegation. And this was back in 1990, when people were using Windows 3.0. Active Directory was still ten years in the future, but it was feasible to deploy a system with tens or even hundreds of thousands of users using Notes even then.
This was also a time of exponential growth in computer adoption, and there were chronic shortages of people with even basic administration skills. It took green administrators weeks of training to learn the basic concepts in crypto and distributed directory management before they could operate even a basic Notes installation,yet Lotus and later IBM tried to position it against Outlook and Exchange.
It didn't help that Lotus never got its head of its ass when it came to UX, nor did it ever really do a good job of explaining to people the vast scope of collaboration management applications that could be built on Notes.
It cost 66 million dollars. That's a 20 month break-even, presuming the performance doesn't drop too quickly or the system doesn't require too much maintenance. Naturally the performance will drop after two years, so while its first year of operation was financially impressive, it'll be interesting to revisit this project after, say, five years, by which time all the cells will have had to be replaced at least once.
What "full communism" means is a society without any government at all -- or classes or money for that matter. If you look at "communist states", they actually have all of these things: social classes, currency, and some degree of private ownership.
In fact, in a certain sense "communist state" is a contradiction in terms. Communist regimes knew this, and justified their existence as a vanguard revolution that would bring about communism in the long term. This really wasn't any better, since communist ideology see communism as a natural and historically inevitable outcome of capitalism.
If you look at how "communist states" actually arose, they didn't arise out of a popular adoption of communist ideology. That comes later. Indigenous communist revolutions never happened in functioning democracies; they came in societies dominated by wealthy oligarchs, dictators or warlords. I see a lot of parallels with the anti-elitism of Trumpists. They're not ideologues; they're just fed up with the elite and want the swamp drained.
They're going to die because of drought, crop failures, flooding, and economic collapse in the more vulnerable places. The US being rich and relatively stable will do better than most places, although it will hurt us in the pocketbook. Places with a weak economy and an unpopular government will break down (e.g., Syria).
By the way, the Milankovitch cycles physically work by varying the amount of solar radiation that reaches the Earth's surface. If the increases in temperature since 1980 were due to insolation, we'd be able to measure a dramatic increase in solar radiation at the Earth's surface. In fact when we look at such datasets, insolation has actually decreased very slightly in that time -- about 400mW/m^2.
A slowdown of the North Atlantic Conveyor would result in reduced frequency hurricanes for the Southeast US. That's the good news. The bad news is that the ones that made it here will carry a lot more rain.
The question is, how much ice should those models assume will melt in response to a given degree of global warming?
When you read a popular press account that says "Sea level may rise 2m by 2100", what the scientific papers actually say is more like "sea level may rise between 1m and 3m under the RCP8.5 scenario." Nearly all of that uncertainty is driven by uncertainty in how rapidly Greenland and Antarctic ice will respond to rising temperatures. So you have to go have a look to see what's already been happening.
Scientists tend to avoid talking much about worst case scenarios, because as far as we know the worst case scenarios are, as far as we know, unlikely to happen. The worst case sea level rise is catastrophic to the global economy, and if you actually thought it was going to happen you'd move to high ground and be stockpiling food and weapons.
It couldn't be "full communism" because almost nobody knows what that means now. We live in the Golden Age of Bullshit, where words are used for how they make you feel, not what they mean.
At the tidal basin, yes; Washington DC was built on a swamp. However it does have some topography, and the 2m sea level rise predicted under the (relatively pessimistic) RCP8.5 scenario would leave nearly all the city well above sea level. The tidal basin would stretch north onto the Mall, returning the reclaimed land around the Washington Monument back its natural state as a peninsula.
You'd need ten meters of rise for the Capitol Building to be flooded; 20m to drown the White House and Executive Office Building. But even at 25m of sea level rise the lobbyist firms on K street would remain high and dry.
Online news sucks specifically because it is excessively tailored for you.
One of the lost pleasures of 50 years ago is reading the paper; modern papers are ghosts of their former selves. A newspaper was a carefully curated collection of informative articles designed to appeal to a broad variety of people in a geographic area. Yes, they had ideological focuses, but narrow that focus too far and circulation would drop. Because newspapers desired the largest possible audience within a restricted geographic area, items in them had to stand up to critical scrutiny from a number of points of view.
Since there were no smartphones, when you had a little down time you'd read a bit further into the paper until you were scraping the bottom of the barrel. I'd start with the front page, go to the science section and work my way down until I was reading the sports page. And when you finished reading you'd be just a tiny bit different than when you started, because you'd been exposed to unfamiliar issues and viewpoints.
That feeling of having your mind expanded is what I miss. You can spend a few hours reading online news but when you're done you won't be any different than when you started. While you're reading you may be entertained, provoked, and pandered to, but in the end the algorithm isn't there to inform you. It's there to pigeonhole you so you can be bundled for sale.
I've never had a Google account, and I haven't accepted Google cookies in about 5 years. I wonder if I get the default results.
I would be astonished if you did. The whole point of this is that you're still being tracked even if you log out or use browser modes which don't send prior-established cookies.
Seriously, Zuckerberg is your idea of a leftist? His business philosophy is move so fast you outpace any problems you create. That's practically the left's stereotype of what's wrong with laissez-faire capitalism.
In a world where despite the importance most people can barely manage to deal with http certificates, attempts to adopt a much more complicated technology for much more dubious use cases fell short.
Well, it's a different approach than what we've mostly heard about. The usual approach in the news is to culture meat cells on some kind of collagen matrix. The result actually *is* meat, but without the animal cruelty issues some people object to.
But if you think about it, some kind of process where the artificial tissues is constructed out of some readily available vegetable feed stock would have quite a few practical advantages.
And while we're at it, what about those people who play Grand Theft Auto? It's almost as if they're saying they don't believe in violent robbery but they're happy to pretend to do it.
"Cake Mate" is icing for cake decoration. If the way you are using it can be characterized as "3D printing" I'd say you're using rather more of it than most people would.
That 32 billion figure is an outlier, and it covers both UofT and Texas A&M, which is over 100,000 students. While that means those institutions surely could reduce their tuitions, accumulating massive endowments doesn't explain the sector wide problem of tuition increases.
As for the discrepancy between in and out of state tuition, this is just a way to subsidize taxpayers' kids. Given the size of their enrollment, the Texas system probably could survive if government loan guarantees, but a median sized endowment at a median sized university generates less than $100 in revenue per student.
"Cheaper" isn't the same as "more affordable". Not for everyone. Eliminating Pell Grants would certainly make college more affordable for families in the top quintile of households by income, just as they would certainly make it less affordable for the bottom quintile.
Now as for my not "knowing how it works", I won't claim to. I've only looked at the data, I don't have the kind of a priori knowledge you seem to have. My problem with your kind of "stands to reason" knowledge is that it generally represents special cases as typical. Harvard University has a 38 billion dollar endowment, which supports your characterization. But Harvard not typical. The median college endowment is 7.9 million. At the median rate of return, this generates an annual income of about $650,000.
This pretty much mirrors the situation in US society as a whole: a small number of the very richest are extremely rich indeed; the median isn't doing nearly as well as the average.
Well, of course if you cut out the money flowing into any market, prices will collapse, but that works by pricing consumers out of the market. You can't get more people educated for less money that way.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree the system had its limitations, particularly in style. It was still extremely powerful for its time.
Remember it was originally designed to handle the CIA's email back in the 1980s. It had strong encryption, distributed directory management, digital signatures, distributed certificate management, and a host of other capabilities that were decades ahead of its time.
Every time you received a Notes email (or indeed any kind of document) from another Notes user, it was automatically authenticated; no imposture was possible, and this was at a time when it was normal for SMTP to accept any input from any source that knew the IP address. At the time I was training people on this new email thing, and I'd open up a telnet session to the server and show them how I could forge an email from "The Lord God Almighty" with the subject line "Don't believe anything you read here."
Notes was never a bad email system. It had a very awkard client UI and a server that requried a more than room temperature IQ to administer, but you got things in return that people in the 90s didn't understand to be important yet. Things like two factor authentication and local encryption. If you lost your laptop. the data in Notes would result in a data breach. People still haven't figured out how to prevent that in a way that is affordable and simple to use and administrate. So while it was inexcusable that they never hired some HCI experts to clean up the archaic user interface, you still got a very modern set of capabilities all the way back in 1990s. People were frustrated with the complexity, but to be fair while Notes was asking you to handle things like generating and signing crypto certificates, you didn't even have the option with anything else back when it was introduced.
But it was a really interesting platform for building cryptographically secure document management systems.
Email was just one possible application that could be built on that platform; you could also build things like blogging and content and distributed, cooperative workflow management systems on it, complete with strong encryption and cryptographic authentication, including robust features like trust revocation and certificate signing delegation. And this was back in 1990, when people were using Windows 3.0. Active Directory was still ten years in the future, but it was feasible to deploy a system with tens or even hundreds of thousands of users using Notes even then.
This was also a time of exponential growth in computer adoption, and there were chronic shortages of people with even basic administration skills. It took green administrators weeks of training to learn the basic concepts in crypto and distributed directory management before they could operate even a basic Notes installation,yet Lotus and later IBM tried to position it against Outlook and Exchange.
It didn't help that Lotus never got its head of its ass when it came to UX, nor did it ever really do a good job of explaining to people the vast scope of collaboration management applications that could be built on Notes.
It cost 66 million dollars. That's a 20 month break-even, presuming the performance doesn't drop too quickly or the system doesn't require too much maintenance. Naturally the performance will drop after two years, so while its first year of operation was financially impressive, it'll be interesting to revisit this project after, say, five years, by which time all the cells will have had to be replaced at least once.
What "full communism" means is a society without any government at all -- or classes or money for that matter. If you look at "communist states", they actually have all of these things: social classes, currency, and some degree of private ownership.
In fact, in a certain sense "communist state" is a contradiction in terms. Communist regimes knew this, and justified their existence as a vanguard revolution that would bring about communism in the long term. This really wasn't any better, since communist ideology see communism as a natural and historically inevitable outcome of capitalism.
If you look at how "communist states" actually arose, they didn't arise out of a popular adoption of communist ideology. That comes later. Indigenous communist revolutions never happened in functioning democracies; they came in societies dominated by wealthy oligarchs, dictators or warlords. I see a lot of parallels with the anti-elitism of Trumpists. They're not ideologues; they're just fed up with the elite and want the swamp drained.
They're going to die because of drought, crop failures, flooding, and economic collapse in the more vulnerable places. The US being rich and relatively stable will do better than most places, although it will hurt us in the pocketbook. Places with a weak economy and an unpopular government will break down (e.g., Syria).
By the way, the Milankovitch cycles physically work by varying the amount of solar radiation that reaches the Earth's surface. If the increases in temperature since 1980 were due to insolation, we'd be able to measure a dramatic increase in solar radiation at the Earth's surface. In fact when we look at such datasets, insolation has actually decreased very slightly in that time -- about 400mW/m^2.
A slowdown of the North Atlantic Conveyor would result in reduced frequency hurricanes for the Southeast US. That's the good news. The bad news is that the ones that made it here will carry a lot more rain.
OK, here you go: between 1993 and 2014, global sea level rose 2.4 inches according to NOAA.
This amounts to a background increase of 1/8 inch per year and is mostly due to the ocean's thermal expansion.
The question is, how much ice should those models assume will melt in response to a given degree of global warming?
When you read a popular press account that says "Sea level may rise 2m by 2100", what the scientific papers actually say is more like "sea level may rise between 1m and 3m under the RCP8.5 scenario." Nearly all of that uncertainty is driven by uncertainty in how rapidly Greenland and Antarctic ice will respond to rising temperatures. So you have to go have a look to see what's already been happening.
Scientists tend to avoid talking much about worst case scenarios, because as far as we know the worst case scenarios are, as far as we know, unlikely to happen. The worst case sea level rise is catastrophic to the global economy, and if you actually thought it was going to happen you'd move to high ground and be stockpiling food and weapons.
It couldn't be "full communism" because almost nobody knows what that means now. We live in the Golden Age of Bullshit, where words are used for how they make you feel, not what they mean.
At the tidal basin, yes; Washington DC was built on a swamp. However it does have some topography, and the 2m sea level rise predicted under the (relatively pessimistic) RCP8.5 scenario would leave nearly all the city well above sea level. The tidal basin would stretch north onto the Mall, returning the reclaimed land around the Washington Monument back its natural state as a peninsula.
You'd need ten meters of rise for the Capitol Building to be flooded; 20m to drown the White House and Executive Office Building. But even at 25m of sea level rise the lobbyist firms on K street would remain high and dry.
That's a bold statement to come from the world's largest car maker.
Sure, but what reason could we have to possibly doubt Volkswagen's word?
The RNC was hacked in 2016 too. The Russians just didn't pass what they got to Assange. We don't know if they did anything else with it.
Online news sucks specifically because it is excessively tailored for you.
One of the lost pleasures of 50 years ago is reading the paper; modern papers are ghosts of their former selves. A newspaper was a carefully curated collection of informative articles designed to appeal to a broad variety of people in a geographic area. Yes, they had ideological focuses, but narrow that focus too far and circulation would drop. Because newspapers desired the largest possible audience within a restricted geographic area, items in them had to stand up to critical scrutiny from a number of points of view.
Since there were no smartphones, when you had a little down time you'd read a bit further into the paper until you were scraping the bottom of the barrel. I'd start with the front page, go to the science section and work my way down until I was reading the sports page. And when you finished reading you'd be just a tiny bit different than when you started, because you'd been exposed to unfamiliar issues and viewpoints.
That feeling of having your mind expanded is what I miss. You can spend a few hours reading online news but when you're done you won't be any different than when you started. While you're reading you may be entertained, provoked, and pandered to, but in the end the algorithm isn't there to inform you. It's there to pigeonhole you so you can be bundled for sale.
I've never had a Google account, and I haven't accepted Google cookies in about 5 years. I wonder if I get the default results.
I would be astonished if you did. The whole point of this is that you're still being tracked even if you log out or use browser modes which don't send prior-established cookies.
Seriously, Zuckerberg is your idea of a leftist? His business philosophy is move so fast you outpace any problems you create. That's practically the left's stereotype of what's wrong with laissez-faire capitalism.
In a world where despite the importance most people can barely manage to deal with http certificates, attempts to adopt a much more complicated technology for much more dubious use cases fell short.
Well, it's a different approach than what we've mostly heard about. The usual approach in the news is to culture meat cells on some kind of collagen matrix. The result actually *is* meat, but without the animal cruelty issues some people object to.
But if you think about it, some kind of process where the artificial tissues is constructed out of some readily available vegetable feed stock would have quite a few practical advantages.
And while we're at it, what about those people who play Grand Theft Auto? It's almost as if they're saying they don't believe in violent robbery but they're happy to pretend to do it.
"Cake Mate" is icing for cake decoration. If the way you are using it can be characterized as "3D printing" I'd say you're using rather more of it than most people would.
I prefer my food to come from smaller, woke, artisan factories.
Reminds me of a sign I saw at a truck stop: "Artisan egg sandwiches".
My immediate thought was that I'd rather take the egg home and put it in an incubator. What will hatch? A stonemason? Glassblower?
Great; that means I can feed my vegetarian friends pulled pork.
That 32 billion figure is an outlier, and it covers both UofT and Texas A&M, which is over 100,000 students. While that means those institutions surely could reduce their tuitions, accumulating massive endowments doesn't explain the sector wide problem of tuition increases.
As for the discrepancy between in and out of state tuition, this is just a way to subsidize taxpayers' kids. Given the size of their enrollment, the Texas system probably could survive if government loan guarantees, but a median sized endowment at a median sized university generates less than $100 in revenue per student.
"Cheaper" isn't the same as "more affordable". Not for everyone. Eliminating Pell Grants would certainly make college more affordable for families in the top quintile of households by income, just as they would certainly make it less affordable for the bottom quintile.
Now as for my not "knowing how it works", I won't claim to. I've only looked at the data, I don't have the kind of a priori knowledge you seem to have. My problem with your kind of "stands to reason" knowledge is that it generally represents special cases as typical. Harvard University has a 38 billion dollar endowment, which supports your characterization. But Harvard not typical. The median college endowment is 7.9 million. At the median rate of return, this generates an annual income of about $650,000.
This pretty much mirrors the situation in US society as a whole: a small number of the very richest are extremely rich indeed; the median isn't doing nearly as well as the average.
Well, of course if you cut out the money flowing into any market, prices will collapse, but that works by pricing consumers out of the market. You can't get more people educated for less money that way.