[laughing] Having grown up in ranching country, where horses as transportation are still a backcountry way of life... Rare is the rancher who doesn't abandon horses for motorbikes or old-style VW Bugs (which are a pretty good cross-country vehicle) at every opportunity, simply because horses are so high maintenance. And you don't just get on and turn the key; there's grooming and tack to be concerned with, not to mention training and conditioning of both horse and rider -- it takes a minimum of two years (three if you count gestation) to grow and train a horse to a minimally-usable point, and it's not fit for daily work for at least another two years after that. And it requires decent-quality fuel twice a day to function, and a variety of anti-parasite treatments year-round. And that's all assuming it never founders or colics or impales itself on a nail that you coulda sworn was 10 feet overhead!!
But as to electric vehicles -- I'm wondering if some combination of -- ah, hell, what's the name of the gyro-propelled scooter contraption? with an electric bicycle and some sort of minimal driver shelter (small bubble or the like, for rain) could be extremely viable in many city environments, and usable even for people who can't physically propel a bicycle, or where hills/wind make it too much work even for folks in reasonably good condition.
OTOH, if we went back to horses, either all today's whale-blubber folks would lose weight, or they'd be afoot, cuz you just can't put that much mass atop the average riding horse.
Sorry, but I've looked into this extensively from the user side, on multiple different systems and browser setups, and you're wrong. This is what happens in userland:
If your connection speed TO GOOGLE drops below about 20k (as can easily happen on slow dialup), Google maps WILL cease sending satellite-view tiles. It doesn't matter how many times you clear your cache, profiles, whatever (been there, done all that)... it simply will not work after your connection speed drops below a certain point. It stops sending tiles, and instead you get the "I'm sorry, zoom not available at this level" messages -- even if it's zoomed out as far as it goes.
When I was on 26k dialup, I quickly learned to not touch ANYTHING else online until the entire map of interest had downloaded, because the slightest other drain on the connection WOULD stall the tile download. It's definitely something on Google's end -- it happens the same in a variety of browsers and on other people's machines entirely, if they're cursed with a slow connection.
Further evidence: forcibly reload the page, but take care not to use any bandwith for ANYTHING else (including moving the map around), and usually the entire tileset would download. Note that nothing changes here except the amount of overhead in the user's connection.
And furthermore -- With the EXACT SAME SETUP (I did not change ANYTHING else), ***once I got broadband*** the problem went away ENTIRELY.
There's no question at all -- connect speed is the issue here. If requests come too slowly, Google Maps simply stops sending satellite tiles, and sends the "I'm sorry, no zoom" tile instead. (And it doesn't happen with the ordinary map tiles, only the much larger sat-view tiles.)
==========
BTW, in Mozilla, the "get rid of the damned lefthand panel" arrow is not visible, AND the javascript hack to manually kill it [namely, "javascript:gPanelResizer.togglePanel();"] stopped working a few months ago. This is VERY annoying.:(
That's why the system needs some way to track exactly what is being shared/downloaded, so that any revenues can be *justly* divided.
I've previously suggested some sort of watermark and ID3 tag system, that in conjunction with a watermark-aware P2P client, could accurately report this, possibly along with microbilling capability, to the tune of a few cents per file, less some credit for hosting/uploading said files (ie. if you offer your bandwidth to the distribution process, you get paid for it.)
Hmmm... one side effect, then, may be that a lot of marginal reception areas will be SOL entirely. (I've lived in places that could get low-channel VHF -- from 100 miles away -- but nothing else.)
In non-CSS mode, which I use (because full mode is too slow and makes my eyes bleed), it's worse than that. The REPLY button is right next to the CHANGE button that applies to your threshold settings for the page at hand, making it seriously non-obvious.
As to the nominal topic, TFA also links to a good site for buying antenna goodies (and all manner of TV-related stuff) at what looked to me to be very reasonable prices -- http://www.summitsource.com/
'My point is that these "late adopters" may be already close to saturation on stimulus, and as much better as the new stuff may be, accepting and adopting that change could be the straw that [at least in their perception] breaks the camel's back.'
I think that's a good point, in fact it's pretty much how a lot of stuff now seems to me. I used to be a lot more interested in Latest and Greatest, but anymore it's too much bother and I just don't care enough to make time for it (and it DOES take time and effort to adapt to new anything), and furthermore I have other demands on my time and energy and there's only so much to go around. When I do try something new, I want it to work NOW and without a lot of thrashing around, I don't want to have to RTFM, and if it fails on either count then it's too much trouble; which is to say, an excessive stimulus.
I'm not married to old tech by any means. But more and more often, new tech isn't worth the effort.
I have a similar setup: This here machine is a P3-550 with 1GB RAM. The main innards are going on 10 years old and still reliable as bedrock. It runs Win98-the-first (installed 2001; no updates). It runs 24/7 as my main internet (currently on fulltime fixed wireless) and everyday-work machine. The OS has never been reinstalled, nor has it had any sort of malware infection. (And I still have a Win95 setup that's a few years older, and likewise still 100% clean and stable.)
I run a software firewall (there's also a firewall in the broadband radio); I don't use IE online; I have Windows scripting host and scripting-in-email disabled; I manually scan downloads with FProt. And that is really about all that's required. (I do keep a fairly impressive virus zoo, tho, mostly captured in the wild.:) Unless you use IE/Outlook or do stupid things like execute email attachments, there's not much out there that actively threatens Win9x, even without a firewall. Try 2K/XP without a firewall... it'll be wormy in 30 seconds tops, even without any risky user behaviour.
In fact, I trust this Win98 setup online a lot further than I do my main WinXP box (which as happens is on identical hardware and is equally reliable). I can see pretty much everything that Win9x does; conversely Win2K/XP makes me nervous online, since it's a lot harder to see exactly what the OS and/or network connection are up to, especially if the filesystem is NTFS (which lets the OS hide more stuff). Conversely Win9x doesn't run any hidden services, and I can always drop to DOS and use my handy hex viewer to examine anything I wish to. In short, Win9x offers transparency, which is somewhat lacking in 2K/XP.
As to the notion that Windows of any species is unstable or needs frequent reinstalls, in my experience (and I support a wide variety of systems, some quite old) that is mainly a side effect of shit hardware and/or shit drivers, and sometimes of a long-term lack of any basic maintenance... Occasionally culling of tempfiles and defragging is exactly the same as changing the air filter and oil in the ever-analogous automobile. And if you bought a Yugo, don't expect a trouble-free 300,000 miles.;)
I should add that I have absolutely no patience with cranky hardware or misbehaving software, and it takes very little annoyance for something to find itself shitcanned. I use what I do because it's long-term reliable and free of rude surprises. Reinstalling is against my religion.:)
As it happens, I'm using an 11 year old browser to read/post-to Slashdot. It still works, and better yet, it FAILS to annoy the crap out of me (as/. does when viewed in a newer browser).
That's a good point, which I hadn't thought of -- if a law requires secret police to enforce said law, then maybe it's the LAW that's at fault, and should be eliminated.
I don't think this concept conflicts with *legit* undercover police operations at all (such as mobster investigations that another reply mentions) -- provided those are blessed with a warrant first. Yep, now that you mention it, it occurs to me that these undercover ops should require a warrant, since they effectively trespass into private affairs (not really different from a wiretap).
OTOH, where the department actually cares (or has good oversight, which often functionally amounts to the same thing), the complaint form is your best friend.
Once upon a time I got a cop fired for misbehaviour while in uniform and on duty. He made the mistake of harrassing me while out of his jurisdiction, and I promptly complained not only to his immediate supervisor at the local contract station, but also to the parent sheriff's department, which was just coming out of an era of scandal and was trying to Behave Itself.
A month later, he was gone.
Being out of his jurisdiction while on duty is what really got him in trouble, but it probably helped that I filed my complaint *immediately*, even tho it was 2AM. (Didn't even get dressed, just threw on a coat over my PJs and hied myself to town.)
I was never called in to testify or anything like that, but I heard "through the back window" that the fact that I filed an actual complaint was the last straw, so he went.
Name and badge number are important information when you have a complaint against an officer -- they positively identify him to his department, and thus to the public and the courts, as need be.
A long long time ago, I was taking a shortcut across county land (commonly used by everyone in the neighbourhood, to the point that it had become legally a public right of way) and was stopped by an officer who was investigating something off to one side of the road, and was turned back even tho my passage would not interfere with his investigation. So I drove back around the long way, and he stopped me again as I went past on the main road, where the main road and the shortcut merged.
So he demands (rather rudely) to know why I'm still driving past his investigation, and I said, "I live here" (pointing 3 houses down the main road, where I did indeed live at the time). "What's your name and badge number??"
At that last, his attitude underwent a miraculous transformation -- he was suddenly the soul of courtesy. See, the law there stated that an officer so asked MUST respond accurately and immediately, as the citizen has the right of complaint.
It's a small thing, but it often works, at least when there IS good department oversight. Of course it won't do you any good if the officer in question is part of a department power cabal already.
Or instead of ads on the wiki pages, have a link at the bottom of each page, "Link to advertising of products related to this topic" and put the ads on a separate page entirely.
And then advertisers could pay for better placement etc. on the AD PAGE, if they felt the urge. Thus the Wiki content would remain unsullied, yet Wikipedia could bring in some cash.
Guess we better ban air, then... it's what, 78% nitrogen?? who knows what sort of evil explosives one could create from that, especially considering the high oxygen content of the remaining air!!
I note that out of 19 comments, 13 were posted by "Anonymous Citizens". I find this significant, and not only for the "just to assert my Constitutional rights" reason that a few of the posters cite.
The other problem with the "War on Drugs" is that it has accustomed We The People to a massive breach of our Constitutional rights, most specifically against unwarranted search and *seizure* of private property, even property which has nothing whatever to do with the alleged criminal offense.
Point being, if it's okay to confiscate ALL OF YOUR PROPERTY over one sort of contraband, such as the seizures of cars, planes, houses, etc. that have happened with the "War on Drugs" -- the concept can be expanded indefinitely, to anything that the gov't wishes to ban. Frex, if sodomy is illegal where you live, and you're Caught Being Gay -- maybe now they decide to take your house. And the "War on Drugs" HAS MADE THAT ACCEPTABLE both as gov't procedure, and in the mind of the larger public.
Don't think it's happening already? The concept has indeed been expanded -- in Littleton CO, there's a guy whose dogs were seized without a warrant, and after he fought that in court, the city retaliated by initiation the process to condemn (thus confiscate) his HOUSE.
And as to the airplanes he wanted... just exactly who were the pilots? if the pilots are human, how is this different from shooting depictions of humans sans plane?? Either way, a "human" winds up dead.
"If we had games that simulated warfare like, say, a "holodeck", would there be any debate as to the harmful effects it would have on the psyche of the players? Would we not see traumatic stress issues?"
I think it would be self-limiting -- because the object of playing is to relax and/or entertain yourself, NOT to get stressed out. If the game stresses you out, you'll stop playing it and find some better way to relax. If enough people stop playing a game that proves stressful, it'll fail in the marketplace, taking care of the problem all by itself.
(Except for addictive loons who can't turn loose of something once they start, but that's another problem entirely, and not society's problem as a whole.)
What happens when some genius decides that commodity CPUs and chipsets need the same "protection" -- will every chip in a future PC need to Phone Home before the damn thing will run??
(And people still wonder why I hoard old hardware...)
Slashdot Mirror
Tho in downtown Los Angeles during rush hour, that's plenty fast enough!! :/
[laughing] Having grown up in ranching country, where horses as transportation are still a backcountry way of life... Rare is the rancher who doesn't abandon horses for motorbikes or old-style VW Bugs (which are a pretty good cross-country vehicle) at every opportunity, simply because horses are so high maintenance. And you don't just get on and turn the key; there's grooming and tack to be concerned with, not to mention training and conditioning of both horse and rider -- it takes a minimum of two years (three if you count gestation) to grow and train a horse to a minimally-usable point, and it's not fit for daily work for at least another two years after that. And it requires decent-quality fuel twice a day to function, and a variety of anti-parasite treatments year-round. And that's all assuming it never founders or colics or impales itself on a nail that you coulda sworn was 10 feet overhead!!
But as to electric vehicles -- I'm wondering if some combination of -- ah, hell, what's the name of the gyro-propelled scooter contraption? with an electric bicycle and some sort of minimal driver shelter (small bubble or the like, for rain) could be extremely viable in many city environments, and usable even for people who can't physically propel a bicycle, or where hills/wind make it too much work even for folks in reasonably good condition.
OTOH, if we went back to horses, either all today's whale-blubber folks would lose weight, or they'd be afoot, cuz you just can't put that much mass atop the average riding horse.
Sorry, but I've looked into this extensively from the user side, on multiple different systems and browser setups, and you're wrong. This is what happens in userland:
... it simply will not work after your connection speed drops below a certain point. It stops sending tiles, and instead you get the "I'm sorry, zoom not available at this level" messages -- even if it's zoomed out as far as it goes.
:(
If your connection speed TO GOOGLE drops below about 20k (as can easily happen on slow dialup), Google maps WILL cease sending satellite-view tiles. It doesn't matter how many times you clear your cache, profiles, whatever (been there, done all that)
When I was on 26k dialup, I quickly learned to not touch ANYTHING else online until the entire map of interest had downloaded, because the slightest other drain on the connection WOULD stall the tile download. It's definitely something on Google's end -- it happens the same in a variety of browsers and on other people's machines entirely, if they're cursed with a slow connection.
Further evidence: forcibly reload the page, but take care not to use any bandwith for ANYTHING else (including moving the map around), and usually the entire tileset would download. Note that nothing changes here except the amount of overhead in the user's connection.
And furthermore -- With the EXACT SAME SETUP (I did not change ANYTHING else), ***once I got broadband*** the problem went away ENTIRELY.
There's no question at all -- connect speed is the issue here. If requests come too slowly, Google Maps simply stops sending satellite tiles, and sends the "I'm sorry, no zoom" tile instead. (And it doesn't happen with the ordinary map tiles, only the much larger sat-view tiles.)
==========
BTW, in Mozilla, the "get rid of the damned lefthand panel" arrow is not visible, AND the javascript hack to manually kill it [namely, "javascript:gPanelResizer.togglePanel();"] stopped working a few months ago. This is VERY annoying.
That's why the system needs some way to track exactly what is being shared/downloaded, so that any revenues can be *justly* divided.
I've previously suggested some sort of watermark and ID3 tag system, that in conjunction with a watermark-aware P2P client, could accurately report this, possibly along with microbilling capability, to the tune of a few cents per file, less some credit for hosting/uploading said files (ie. if you offer your bandwidth to the distribution process, you get paid for it.)
Hmmm... one side effect, then, may be that a lot of marginal reception areas will be SOL entirely. (I've lived in places that could get low-channel VHF -- from 100 miles away -- but nothing else.)
In non-CSS mode, which I use (because full mode is too slow and makes my eyes bleed), it's worse than that. The REPLY button is right next to the CHANGE button that applies to your threshold settings for the page at hand, making it seriously non-obvious.
As to the nominal topic, TFA also links to a good site for buying antenna goodies (and all manner of TV-related stuff) at what looked to me to be very reasonable prices -- http://www.summitsource.com/
From what I've seen of Chinese steel, even in "high end" tools, I wouldn't let a Chinese containment bottle anywhere NEAR a working reactor.
'My point is that these "late adopters" may be already close to saturation on stimulus, and as much better as the new stuff may be, accepting and adopting that change could be the straw that [at least in their perception] breaks the camel's back.'
I think that's a good point, in fact it's pretty much how a lot of stuff now seems to me. I used to be a lot more interested in Latest and Greatest, but anymore it's too much bother and I just don't care enough to make time for it (and it DOES take time and effort to adapt to new anything), and furthermore I have other demands on my time and energy and there's only so much to go around. When I do try something new, I want it to work NOW and without a lot of thrashing around, I don't want to have to RTFM, and if it fails on either count then it's too much trouble; which is to say, an excessive stimulus.
I'm not married to old tech by any means. But more and more often, new tech isn't worth the effort.
Which is why when I want to get REAL writing done -- I still use it. It still runs just bloody fine, 14 years after the final update.
I have a similar setup: This here machine is a P3-550 with 1GB RAM. The main innards are going on 10 years old and still reliable as bedrock. It runs Win98-the-first (installed 2001; no updates). It runs 24/7 as my main internet (currently on fulltime fixed wireless) and everyday-work machine. The OS has never been reinstalled, nor has it had any sort of malware infection. (And I still have a Win95 setup that's a few years older, and likewise still 100% clean and stable.)
:) Unless you use IE/Outlook or do stupid things like execute email attachments, there's not much out there that actively threatens Win9x, even without a firewall. Try 2K/XP without a firewall... it'll be wormy in 30 seconds tops, even without any risky user behaviour.
;)
:)
I run a software firewall (there's also a firewall in the broadband radio); I don't use IE online; I have Windows scripting host and scripting-in-email disabled; I manually scan downloads with FProt. And that is really about all that's required. (I do keep a fairly impressive virus zoo, tho, mostly captured in the wild.
In fact, I trust this Win98 setup online a lot further than I do my main WinXP box (which as happens is on identical hardware and is equally reliable). I can see pretty much everything that Win9x does; conversely Win2K/XP makes me nervous online, since it's a lot harder to see exactly what the OS and/or network connection are up to, especially if the filesystem is NTFS (which lets the OS hide more stuff). Conversely Win9x doesn't run any hidden services, and I can always drop to DOS and use my handy hex viewer to examine anything I wish to. In short, Win9x offers transparency, which is somewhat lacking in 2K/XP.
As to the notion that Windows of any species is unstable or needs frequent reinstalls, in my experience (and I support a wide variety of systems, some quite old) that is mainly a side effect of shit hardware and/or shit drivers, and sometimes of a long-term lack of any basic maintenance... Occasionally culling of tempfiles and defragging is exactly the same as changing the air filter and oil in the ever-analogous automobile. And if you bought a Yugo, don't expect a trouble-free 300,000 miles.
I should add that I have absolutely no patience with cranky hardware or misbehaving software, and it takes very little annoyance for something to find itself shitcanned. I use what I do because it's long-term reliable and free of rude surprises. Reinstalling is against my religion.
As it happens, I'm using an 11 year old browser to read/post-to Slashdot. It still works, and better yet, it FAILS to annoy the crap out of me (as /. does when viewed in a newer browser).
That's a good point, which I hadn't thought of -- if a law requires secret police to enforce said law, then maybe it's the LAW that's at fault, and should be eliminated.
I don't think this concept conflicts with *legit* undercover police operations at all (such as mobster investigations that another reply mentions) -- provided those are blessed with a warrant first. Yep, now that you mention it, it occurs to me that these undercover ops should require a warrant, since they effectively trespass into private affairs (not really different from a wiretap).
OTOH, where the department actually cares (or has good oversight, which often functionally amounts to the same thing), the complaint form is your best friend.
Once upon a time I got a cop fired for misbehaviour while in uniform and on duty. He made the mistake of harrassing me while out of his jurisdiction, and I promptly complained not only to his immediate supervisor at the local contract station, but also to the parent sheriff's department, which was just coming out of an era of scandal and was trying to Behave Itself.
A month later, he was gone.
Being out of his jurisdiction while on duty is what really got him in trouble, but it probably helped that I filed my complaint *immediately*, even tho it was 2AM. (Didn't even get dressed, just threw on a coat over my PJs and hied myself to town.)
I was never called in to testify or anything like that, but I heard "through the back window" that the fact that I filed an actual complaint was the last straw, so he went.
So... what happens if you yell FIRE, and everyone in the theatre ignores you??
Seriously, would that lead to an arrest for intent-to-incite, or whatever they'd call it??
"But what if you were the Police office who unfairly got poor reviews because you arested someone who deserved it..."
So what? Let the cop log into the site and post a rebuttal. The cop is as entitled to free speech as the next person!!
Name and badge number are important information when you have a complaint against an officer -- they positively identify him to his department, and thus to the public and the courts, as need be.
A long long time ago, I was taking a shortcut across county land (commonly used by everyone in the neighbourhood, to the point that it had become legally a public right of way) and was stopped by an officer who was investigating something off to one side of the road, and was turned back even tho my passage would not interfere with his investigation. So I drove back around the long way, and he stopped me again as I went past on the main road, where the main road and the shortcut merged.
So he demands (rather rudely) to know why I'm still driving past his investigation, and I said, "I live here" (pointing 3 houses down the main road, where I did indeed live at the time). "What's your name and badge number??"
At that last, his attitude underwent a miraculous transformation -- he was suddenly the soul of courtesy. See, the law there stated that an officer so asked MUST respond accurately and immediately, as the citizen has the right of complaint.
It's a small thing, but it often works, at least when there IS good department oversight. Of course it won't do you any good if the officer in question is part of a department power cabal already.
Or instead of ads on the wiki pages, have a link at the bottom of each page, "Link to advertising of products related to this topic" and put the ads on a separate page entirely.
And then advertisers could pay for better placement etc. on the AD PAGE, if they felt the urge. Thus the Wiki content would remain unsullied, yet Wikipedia could bring in some cash.
From the wiki article, I find this statement particularly telling:
"the greater the locale's respectability, the greater the obedience rate"
Guess we better ban air, then... it's what, 78% nitrogen?? who knows what sort of evil explosives one could create from that, especially considering the high oxygen content of the remaining air!!
I note that out of 19 comments, 13 were posted by "Anonymous Citizens". I find this significant, and not only for the "just to assert my Constitutional rights" reason that a few of the posters cite.
The other problem with the "War on Drugs" is that it has accustomed We The People to a massive breach of our Constitutional rights, most specifically against unwarranted search and *seizure* of private property, even property which has nothing whatever to do with the alleged criminal offense.
Point being, if it's okay to confiscate ALL OF YOUR PROPERTY over one sort of contraband, such as the seizures of cars, planes, houses, etc. that have happened with the "War on Drugs" -- the concept can be expanded indefinitely, to anything that the gov't wishes to ban. Frex, if sodomy is illegal where you live, and you're Caught Being Gay -- maybe now they decide to take your house. And the "War on Drugs" HAS MADE THAT ACCEPTABLE both as gov't procedure, and in the mind of the larger public.
Don't think it's happening already? The concept has indeed been expanded -- in Littleton CO, there's a guy whose dogs were seized without a warrant, and after he fought that in court, the city retaliated by initiation the process to condemn (thus confiscate) his HOUSE.
And as to the airplanes he wanted... just exactly who were the pilots? if the pilots are human, how is this different from shooting depictions of humans sans plane?? Either way, a "human" winds up dead.
And what about Civ, where you sometimes get to annihilate whole countries??
"If we had games that simulated warfare like, say, a "holodeck", would there be any debate as to the harmful effects it would have on the psyche of the players? Would we not see traumatic stress issues?"
I think it would be self-limiting -- because the object of playing is to relax and/or entertain yourself, NOT to get stressed out. If the game stresses you out, you'll stop playing it and find some better way to relax. If enough people stop playing a game that proves stressful, it'll fail in the marketplace, taking care of the problem all by itself.
(Except for addictive loons who can't turn loose of something once they start, but that's another problem entirely, and not society's problem as a whole.)
What happens when some genius decides that commodity CPUs and chipsets need the same "protection" -- will every chip in a future PC need to Phone Home before the damn thing will run??
(And people still wonder why I hoard old hardware...)