It's not the definition I care about, that much is easily discovered. Bufferbloat = too much buffering. OK, I get it. But if the author can't be bothered to spend 5 minutes writing a brief introductory paragraph explaining WHY he thinks this is a problem, I (and 90% of other readers) certainly can't be bothered to spend an hour reading pages and pages of long winded, rambling text to try and figure it out.
Because he doesn't make even the slightest effort to explain WHY he thinks this is a problem. If I don't know WHY he thinks it's a problem, how am I (the reader) supposed to make any sense of his long winded dissertation on possible remedies, or even care?
Hey asshole--odds are I'm much smarter than you, so don't get a big head. I started programming when I was in 2nd grade, and learned C and assembly in the 4th. I'm also a satellite communications technician who often finds himself knee deep (sometimes literally) in modems, routers, cryptographic equipment, etc. I think I'm quite likely to be the type of person who is capable of understanding this subject--IF the author had even the most basic level of writing skills.
Who the hell has ever heard of "bufferbloat"? If you are introducing a topic that 95% of your intended audience may not have heard of, or be familiar with, the proper thing to do is to write a brief introductory paragraph giving a basic overview, and then begin filling in the details. No, linking to a similarly poorly-written previously article is not an acceptable substitute.
It seems many nerds have extremely poor writing skills, which is why I made that statement.
I've lost track of the number of wiki sites and the like, where try as I might, looking through every crack and crevice and clicking every link, I couldn't even figure out what the fuck the site is even supposed to be about. Is this about a game? A device driver? A web browser plugin? Fuck, I can't even tell, because it was written by someone whose writing/organization skills are shockingly bad for someone who is ostensibly college educated.
Sure, the blog author can write whatever the hell he wants--IF he wants nobody to understand or even care.
I read both of the damn articles, or at least half of each before giving up in disgust. They were both poorly written and do very little to explain WHY he thinks "bufferbloat" is a problem. He just basically states it's a problem then launched into a long winded explanation on how to solve it.
Yeah, I see this a lot with nerds. It's pretty fucking annoying when someone launches in a long winded dissertation on some obscure subject, without even bothering to put an introductory paragraph at the top giving even the briefest overview of what the fuck they're even talking about. I shouldn't have to read fifteen paragraphs just to get a basic birds-eye view of what the problem is, a framework which I can then proceed to fill in by reading into the details.
I remember like 10 years ago when somebody converted a big ass A/C unit into a chip cooler and overclocked a Pentium III to 1.0 GHz, and it was a big deal...now here we are discussing PHONES that come OUT OF THE BOX with 1.0 GHz, running Quake 3, like it ain't no thang. Gotta love Moore's Law.
Which is why (here in Oz) you are given a blood test after you blow over the limit,
Except being "over the limit" is not necessarily an indication of impairment. Some people might be drunk as a skunk at.05 BAC, whereas another might be perfectly fine to drive at.10.
I spent six years in the Air Force, and a year in a half in Afghanistan, mingling with all types. The GP is right, and you're wrong. There is a small percentage of soldiers out there who certainly do take pleasure in killing. I helped one target and destroy a truck with a Javelin missile. Permission was requested and granted to fire on this truck based on the flimsiest of evidence. Afterwards it turned out that maybe this truck wasn't carrying insurgents after all, but just innocent farmers. Also a young lady was hit by debris from the explosion which severely maimed her. There was very little regret expressed; just a lot of laughing about how cool the explosion was.
#1 if someone takes a picture of me and puts it on the intarwebz, that's my own fault for fucking in public.
#2 why would I be ashamed for pics of me and some girl fucking on the couch to end up on the internet? How would this hurt me? If it does, somehow, then see #1
PERSONALITY REPONSIBILITY. What a novel concept.....
And where did Biblical writers get these ideas? Slavery, invasion of foreign lands, murder, etc have been going on for tens of thousands of years, since long before any organized religion. The Bible in no way originated any of these behaviors. The Bible and other religious books are a reflection of the cultures that wrote them, not the other way around.
Its self-importance, its "knowing" it's right until it can't possibly deny it's wrong anymore, the atrocities committed by it and for it, the way it is used as an excuse to sanction pretty much every horrible action in human history from wars and sacrifies to the Crusades and Inquisitions to justifications of witch hunts and slavery to modern-day gay bashing. All of these things I loathe.
Me too. But these are not religious qualities--they are HUMAN qualities. People did the things above because they were human, and they wanted to, and the religion was just an excuse to do it.
Interesting proof of concept. How long until someone hacks into a major site, cnn.com, nytimes, etc, and sneaks this code in there? With a little obfuscation it could be buried and hidden pretty easily in the mounds of Javascript most sites are running these days, and be set to activate only when and where the hacker chooses. How long would it take before someone finally figured out what's causing the target to get massively DDoS'ed? Especially if the attacks are staggered, not made to run constantly, and multiple sites are involved at different random times? Virus scan each of the computers involved, and you turn up nothing! No worms or trojans found. Very clever!
In Afghanistan? Yeah, they pretty much are. But even if they weren't, what's to stop the US Army from running their own mobile cell networks? You could easily integrate a cell transponder into a Humvee or MRAP, and/or established fixed stations at FOBs, and all of the data could be routed through existing SATCOM equipment to SIPRNET.
This is a really good idea, but I foresee this program is gonna be something that requires custom hardware development. Off the shelf smart phones aren't gonna cut it. For one, how are you gonna see the screen at night, without it lighting up your position to the enemy just as good as if you'd shined a flashlight in your face? It would need to work in very dark (tactical) conditions, be usable by soldiers wearing gloves, be durable enough to withstand combat, etc.
Can you imagine a device like this on every soldier's wrist that instantly shows him the location of allies and fellow soldiers, suspected enemies, etc, plotted out on an overhead map with actual satellite photos of terrain, and real time GPS positioning? Like FalconView (and already existing system used on PCs) it could show the positions of minefields, previously reported encounters with enemy forces, all kinds of details. How about if it could plot a route for a soldier from point A to point B, with the best use of cover, using all the information currently available, say if he is unfamiliar with the terrain and the squad leader just got shot? For those with a security clearance (squad leader, radio man, etc), it could be integrated with the existing IRC networks on SIPRNET to let him view real time text chatter about the tactical situation. I mean there is a billion ways this technology could be used to great benefit on today's and tomorrow's battlefield.
Bro, it's not sports vs. education. If the school has brand new bleachers and gym and the science lab is falling apart, then OK, that's one thing. But don't frame it as sports vs. education because that's nonsense. Sports may not be important to you but it IS important to a lot of people, and not for bullshit reasons. Look at the Greeks--Athenians, etc. They developed democracy and lots of thinking and philosophy, but physical achievement, competition, and improvement of one's body was important to them too. It's for a good reason.
How much space does it take to play football, and run all the supporting programs, cheerleading, band (**), etc vs. how much room does it take to teach physics? How much does it cost to play football vs teach physics, and how much cash flow does each activity bring into the school, respectively, which can be spent on many different needs? Comparing the size of facilities dedicated to each is a non starter and hardly supports your argument that all people care about is sports. Sure, that's true for SOME people, but that's hardly the majority.
Your argument is that people look down on those who are smart. This is patently untrue, easy to prove as false, and if you disagree it's simply because your own personal experience (and the experiences of those you relate to, which are likely to be similar to yours) is highly colored.
A lot of people ENVY those who are smart...just like a lot of people ENVY those who are popular, good at sports, etc. Intelligent people who envy popularity often take the position that popularity is evil and only intelligence is worthwhile. Social people who envy intelligence might take the position that intelligence is bad and only popularity is important. See a pattern here?
When we are talking about what "people" value, understand that people = society. Human society is built on SOCIALIZATION. If you're good at socialization, then of course you'll be popular in society, whether smart or stupid. If you're not social, then you won't be popular, whether smart or stupid. But if you are smart AND social, you're headed straight to the top.
The funny thing is, intelligence can't be learned, but social skills CAN be learned by anyone who is not mentally retarded. So if a nerd thinks he is looked down on for his intelligence, it is due to gross ignorance of how the world works/failure to put forth the effort to improve himself, and nothing more. The only person who has any legitimacy in bitching about his situation is the stereotypical dumb jock who knows that football is all he's got. If he's picking on nerds that's because he's insecure about himself, not because "society" dislikes intelligence.
** stands on its own of course, but extra band members are needed to support a football program.
Nah man, I got the analogy...but was taking it further to show it actually supports MY point of view. It's all a matter of perspective, and I know this because I used to see things from your perspective, but now I see that my viewpoint was highly colored by negative experience.
Our "luck" with women depends almost completely on our attitudes. (It's NOT luck.) I know a lot of people on here are nerds who think, feel, and believe to their very core that picking up women is difficult and that sex is hard to come by. (I was the same way.) And when you believe that, it becomes true. If you are coming from that perspective then of course finding women is hard, because they sense neediness and insecurity from a mile away and run in the opposite direction. Of course "shopping around" for new partners might seem risky to someone who believes that once "she" is gone, its gonna be hard to find another.
But the reality is, this viewpoint is false and highly skewed. Sex and love are actually very easy to come by. People who truly believe deep down inside their cores that they are attractive and fun and interesting, not necessarily the best/coolest dude on the planet but a worthwhile member of society, actually have no problem picking up women. What the (subconscious!!) mind believes becomes reality.
These men know that there are six billion people on this planet and that in the grand scheme of things, we are all dust in the wind--but more importantly, there are 3 billion +/- women on this planet and the opinion of one (or ten, or a hundred, or a thousand) doesn't really mean jack shit. Who cares if one particular girl doesn't like you?
These men know that even if one is the most handsomest, studliest, attractive, fun, social, etc person around, some women are simply not going to be interested/attracted to him, for one of a thousand different reasons. They also know that even if they aren't any of that, there are still women out there who are attracted to them. We all have our own hard-wired idea of what we find attractive and interesting and it's different from person to person, from situation to situation and from week to week even...so why is it surprising when one particular girl is not attracted to me, or if I'm not attracted to HER?
The point is, worrying about getting "kicked out of the restaurant" is what actually leads to this happening. Who do you think gets rejected the most--the guy who constantly walks around in fear of it, or the one whose mind it doesn't even cross? The guy who doesn't NEED acceptance, is the one who will be accepted.
Yeah, I can't wait till they find the gene therapy cure for starvation.
Why is Africa starving? Because of lack of arable land to grow food? Hardly...it's because of continent-wide, endemic corruption. Which is a result of....GENETICS.
Just because Genetics has the promise to deliver a lot doesn't mean that everything is genetic.
How our genes are expressed is determined by our environment.
Yes...but our environment is also affected by our genes!
If I grow up in a family full of musicians, constantly exposed to music, and I learn to become a good musician myself, am I a good musician because I grew up in a musical environment, or did I grow up in a musical environment because my genes lend themselves to musical ability, thus leading to a development of musical culture in my family over generations?
Or let's say I'm poor and grew up in a family that has known only poverty. Am I poor because I grew up in that environment, or am I poor because my family's genes for a hundred generations have lead us to subsistence, and reproduction, but not much else?
Not arguing with you or saying you're wrong, cause you're right. Just pointing out that a lot of what we call "environment" isn't actually environment at all, it's a recursive system. Environment 1 + your grandparents' and their peers actions = environment 2 + your parents/peers actions = environment 3 + your/peers actions = future + ???
Once you've found a good restaurant with a fantastic menu and great service, it becomes a gamble to go somewhere else.
Only if good restaurants are really hard to find in your world. If that's all you've ever known, then of course your perception is colored. In my world they are plentiful and abundant. If I take a "risk" on a new restaurant, all I'm risking is one single meal potentially not being too good. But the potential for gain is much greater, cause I just might be surprised to discover that this restaurant is even better than any I've been to before.
In other words your argument is bullshit that only makes sense to the risk-adverse. For those who are trying to life their lives to its maximum potential, your mindset is death.
Slashdot Mirror
It's #1.
An individual student might not be an interchangeable part, but a classroom full of them sure is.
There are two reasons I can think of why people write like that. One is they're poor communicators,
I think this sums it up.
It's not the definition I care about, that much is easily discovered. Bufferbloat = too much buffering. OK, I get it. But if the author can't be bothered to spend 5 minutes writing a brief introductory paragraph explaining WHY he thinks this is a problem, I (and 90% of other readers) certainly can't be bothered to spend an hour reading pages and pages of long winded, rambling text to try and figure it out.
Thank you.
So in other words, he's a shitty and/or lazy writer, just like 98% of bloggers.
Because he doesn't make even the slightest effort to explain WHY he thinks this is a problem. If I don't know WHY he thinks it's a problem, how am I (the reader) supposed to make any sense of his long winded dissertation on possible remedies, or even care?
Hey asshole--odds are I'm much smarter than you, so don't get a big head. I started programming when I was in 2nd grade, and learned C and assembly in the 4th. I'm also a satellite communications technician who often finds himself knee deep (sometimes literally) in modems, routers, cryptographic equipment, etc. I think I'm quite likely to be the type of person who is capable of understanding this subject--IF the author had even the most basic level of writing skills.
Who the hell has ever heard of "bufferbloat"? If you are introducing a topic that 95% of your intended audience may not have heard of, or be familiar with, the proper thing to do is to write a brief introductory paragraph giving a basic overview, and then begin filling in the details. No, linking to a similarly poorly-written previously article is not an acceptable substitute.
It seems many nerds have extremely poor writing skills, which is why I made that statement.
I've lost track of the number of wiki sites and the like, where try as I might, looking through every crack and crevice and clicking every link, I couldn't even figure out what the fuck the site is even supposed to be about. Is this about a game? A device driver? A web browser plugin? Fuck, I can't even tell, because it was written by someone whose writing/organization skills are shockingly bad for someone who is ostensibly college educated.
Sure, the blog author can write whatever the hell he wants--IF he wants nobody to understand or even care.
This is very helpful, thanks.
I read both of the damn articles, or at least half of each before giving up in disgust. They were both poorly written and do very little to explain WHY he thinks "bufferbloat" is a problem. He just basically states it's a problem then launched into a long winded explanation on how to solve it.
Yeah, I see this a lot with nerds. It's pretty fucking annoying when someone launches in a long winded dissertation on some obscure subject, without even bothering to put an introductory paragraph at the top giving even the briefest overview of what the fuck they're even talking about. I shouldn't have to read fifteen paragraphs just to get a basic birds-eye view of what the problem is, a framework which I can then proceed to fill in by reading into the details.
Because at the time, there were no 1GHz processors available.
I remember like 10 years ago when somebody converted a big ass A/C unit into a chip cooler and overclocked a Pentium III to 1.0 GHz, and it was a big deal...now here we are discussing PHONES that come OUT OF THE BOX with 1.0 GHz, running Quake 3, like it ain't no thang. Gotta love Moore's Law.
Which is why (here in Oz) you are given a blood test after you blow over the limit,
Except being "over the limit" is not necessarily an indication of impairment. Some people might be drunk as a skunk at .05 BAC, whereas another might be perfectly fine to drive at .10.
I spent six years in the Air Force, and a year in a half in Afghanistan, mingling with all types. The GP is right, and you're wrong. There is a small percentage of soldiers out there who certainly do take pleasure in killing. I helped one target and destroy a truck with a Javelin missile. Permission was requested and granted to fire on this truck based on the flimsiest of evidence. Afterwards it turned out that maybe this truck wasn't carrying insurgents after all, but just innocent farmers. Also a young lady was hit by debris from the explosion which severely maimed her. There was very little regret expressed; just a lot of laughing about how cool the explosion was.
Welcome to humanity.
#1 if someone takes a picture of me and puts it on the intarwebz, that's my own fault for fucking in public.
#2 why would I be ashamed for pics of me and some girl fucking on the couch to end up on the internet? How would this hurt me? If it does, somehow, then see #1
PERSONALITY REPONSIBILITY. What a novel concept.....
And where did Biblical writers get these ideas? Slavery, invasion of foreign lands, murder, etc have been going on for tens of thousands of years, since long before any organized religion. The Bible in no way originated any of these behaviors. The Bible and other religious books are a reflection of the cultures that wrote them, not the other way around.
Its self-importance, its "knowing" it's right until it can't possibly deny it's wrong anymore, the atrocities committed by it and for it, the way it is used as an excuse to sanction pretty much every horrible action in human history from wars and sacrifies to the Crusades and Inquisitions to justifications of witch hunts and slavery to modern-day gay bashing. All of these things I loathe.
Me too. But these are not religious qualities--they are HUMAN qualities. People did the things above because they were human, and they wanted to, and the religion was just an excuse to do it.
Interesting proof of concept. How long until someone hacks into a major site, cnn.com, nytimes, etc, and sneaks this code in there? With a little obfuscation it could be buried and hidden pretty easily in the mounds of Javascript most sites are running these days, and be set to activate only when and where the hacker chooses. How long would it take before someone finally figured out what's causing the target to get massively DDoS'ed? Especially if the attacks are staggered, not made to run constantly, and multiple sites are involved at different random times? Virus scan each of the computers involved, and you turn up nothing! No worms or trojans found. Very clever!
In Afghanistan? Yeah, they pretty much are. But even if they weren't, what's to stop the US Army from running their own mobile cell networks? You could easily integrate a cell transponder into a Humvee or MRAP, and/or established fixed stations at FOBs, and all of the data could be routed through existing SATCOM equipment to SIPRNET.
This is a really good idea, but I foresee this program is gonna be something that requires custom hardware development. Off the shelf smart phones aren't gonna cut it. For one, how are you gonna see the screen at night, without it lighting up your position to the enemy just as good as if you'd shined a flashlight in your face? It would need to work in very dark (tactical) conditions, be usable by soldiers wearing gloves, be durable enough to withstand combat, etc.
Can you imagine a device like this on every soldier's wrist that instantly shows him the location of allies and fellow soldiers, suspected enemies, etc, plotted out on an overhead map with actual satellite photos of terrain, and real time GPS positioning? Like FalconView (and already existing system used on PCs) it could show the positions of minefields, previously reported encounters with enemy forces, all kinds of details. How about if it could plot a route for a soldier from point A to point B, with the best use of cover, using all the information currently available, say if he is unfamiliar with the terrain and the squad leader just got shot? For those with a security clearance (squad leader, radio man, etc), it could be integrated with the existing IRC networks on SIPRNET to let him view real time text chatter about the tactical situation. I mean there is a billion ways this technology could be used to great benefit on today's and tomorrow's battlefield.
You're an idiot
Bro, it's not sports vs. education. If the school has brand new bleachers and gym and the science lab is falling apart, then OK, that's one thing. But don't frame it as sports vs. education because that's nonsense. Sports may not be important to you but it IS important to a lot of people, and not for bullshit reasons. Look at the Greeks--Athenians, etc. They developed democracy and lots of thinking and philosophy, but physical achievement, competition, and improvement of one's body was important to them too. It's for a good reason.
How much space does it take to play football, and run all the supporting programs, cheerleading, band (**), etc vs. how much room does it take to teach physics? How much does it cost to play football vs teach physics, and how much cash flow does each activity bring into the school, respectively, which can be spent on many different needs? Comparing the size of facilities dedicated to each is a non starter and hardly supports your argument that all people care about is sports. Sure, that's true for SOME people, but that's hardly the majority.
Your argument is that people look down on those who are smart. This is patently untrue, easy to prove as false, and if you disagree it's simply because your own personal experience (and the experiences of those you relate to, which are likely to be similar to yours) is highly colored.
A lot of people ENVY those who are smart...just like a lot of people ENVY those who are popular, good at sports, etc. Intelligent people who envy popularity often take the position that popularity is evil and only intelligence is worthwhile. Social people who envy intelligence might take the position that intelligence is bad and only popularity is important. See a pattern here?
When we are talking about what "people" value, understand that people = society. Human society is built on SOCIALIZATION. If you're good at socialization, then of course you'll be popular in society, whether smart or stupid. If you're not social, then you won't be popular, whether smart or stupid. But if you are smart AND social, you're headed straight to the top.
The funny thing is, intelligence can't be learned, but social skills CAN be learned by anyone who is not mentally retarded. So if a nerd thinks he is looked down on for his intelligence, it is due to gross ignorance of how the world works/failure to put forth the effort to improve himself, and nothing more. The only person who has any legitimacy in bitching about his situation is the stereotypical dumb jock who knows that football is all he's got. If he's picking on nerds that's because he's insecure about himself, not because "society" dislikes intelligence.
** stands on its own of course, but extra band members are needed to support a football program.
Nah man, I got the analogy...but was taking it further to show it actually supports MY point of view. It's all a matter of perspective, and I know this because I used to see things from your perspective, but now I see that my viewpoint was highly colored by negative experience.
Our "luck" with women depends almost completely on our attitudes. (It's NOT luck.) I know a lot of people on here are nerds who think, feel, and believe to their very core that picking up women is difficult and that sex is hard to come by. (I was the same way.) And when you believe that, it becomes true. If you are coming from that perspective then of course finding women is hard, because they sense neediness and insecurity from a mile away and run in the opposite direction. Of course "shopping around" for new partners might seem risky to someone who believes that once "she" is gone, its gonna be hard to find another.
But the reality is, this viewpoint is false and highly skewed. Sex and love are actually very easy to come by. People who truly believe deep down inside their cores that they are attractive and fun and interesting, not necessarily the best/coolest dude on the planet but a worthwhile member of society, actually have no problem picking up women. What the (subconscious!!) mind believes becomes reality.
These men know that there are six billion people on this planet and that in the grand scheme of things, we are all dust in the wind--but more importantly, there are 3 billion +/- women on this planet and the opinion of one (or ten, or a hundred, or a thousand) doesn't really mean jack shit. Who cares if one particular girl doesn't like you?
These men know that even if one is the most handsomest, studliest, attractive, fun, social, etc person around, some women are simply not going to be interested/attracted to him, for one of a thousand different reasons. They also know that even if they aren't any of that, there are still women out there who are attracted to them. We all have our own hard-wired idea of what we find attractive and interesting and it's different from person to person, from situation to situation and from week to week even...so why is it surprising when one particular girl is not attracted to me, or if I'm not attracted to HER?
The point is, worrying about getting "kicked out of the restaurant" is what actually leads to this happening. Who do you think gets rejected the most--the guy who constantly walks around in fear of it, or the one whose mind it doesn't even cross? The guy who doesn't NEED acceptance, is the one who will be accepted.
Yeah, I can't wait till they find the gene therapy cure for starvation.
Why is Africa starving? Because of lack of arable land to grow food? Hardly...it's because of continent-wide, endemic corruption. Which is a result of....GENETICS.
Just because Genetics has the promise to deliver a lot doesn't mean that everything is genetic.
Genetics is EVERYTHING.
How our genes are expressed is determined by our environment.
Yes...but our environment is also affected by our genes!
If I grow up in a family full of musicians, constantly exposed to music, and I learn to become a good musician myself, am I a good musician because I grew up in a musical environment, or did I grow up in a musical environment because my genes lend themselves to musical ability, thus leading to a development of musical culture in my family over generations?
Or let's say I'm poor and grew up in a family that has known only poverty. Am I poor because I grew up in that environment, or am I poor because my family's genes for a hundred generations have lead us to subsistence, and reproduction, but not much else?
Not arguing with you or saying you're wrong, cause you're right. Just pointing out that a lot of what we call "environment" isn't actually environment at all, it's a recursive system. Environment 1 + your grandparents' and their peers actions = environment 2 + your parents/peers actions = environment 3 + your/peers actions = future + ???
Once you've found a good restaurant with a fantastic menu and great service, it becomes a gamble to go somewhere else.
Only if good restaurants are really hard to find in your world. If that's all you've ever known, then of course your perception is colored. In my world they are plentiful and abundant. If I take a "risk" on a new restaurant, all I'm risking is one single meal potentially not being too good. But the potential for gain is much greater, cause I just might be surprised to discover that this restaurant is even better than any I've been to before.
In other words your argument is bullshit that only makes sense to the risk-adverse. For those who are trying to life their lives to its maximum potential, your mindset is death.