In "Galapagos", Vonnegut traces all the problems of humanity to our "great brains", and he makes a good case that they are an evolutionary mistake. He wrote it before the Internet bubble, but he would have put that down as another example of a destructive delusion supportable only because our brains are too big.
Who cares? Every other species is already working the issue from the "spawn lots of eggs" angle, meanwhile we're going to do our thing. More to the point, neither of the "undesirable outcomes" you pose is worse than living and dying without ever knowing it.
Very general knowledge such as "the US may attack us within the next couple of years" is useless. Just like when Al-Qaeda spreads rumors that there might be an attack somewhere in the northeast US, "soon."
I think the congressional hearings are great. Support for overthrowing Saddam is already shaky. We either need to not do it, or to do it with the moral backing of the democratic process.
Attacking with surprise can save lives. On the other hand, staying out of Vietnam would have saved a whole lot of lives, too.
My Palm V is over 3 years old, and yes it has been dropped from waist-height onto concrete, and onto that cheap, hard office carpet a few times. Bent the case a bit but thank heavens there's no hard drive.
It'll be interesting to see how much dashboard-riding the iPod can withstand. Every jostle works those bearings a bit looser...
I think surprise could be very important to the outcome in the (probably) upcoming war against Iraq. Support is already weak, and any significant casualties just might tip the scales.
Now *that's* a very "dot-com" strategy... trick people into visiting your site and maybe they'll give you money! The exact opposite of targeted marketing.
The issue of bandwidth to the home is nothing like the issue of hard drive capacity etc. It's not progressing and has no prospects of progressing. Seriously, when do you envision fiber to the home?
The modems didn't change. One day they just turned on the cap, and that was that.
Here is the announcement of AT&T@Home's cap:
Thank you for writing to AT&T@Home.
Upstream rate management was created to ensure that all customers receive a compelling broadband experience and continue to do so as the customer base scales rapidly. AT&T @Home is ensuring that no single customer can use a disproportionate share of bandwidth at the expense of all other subscribers by leveling the playing field on upstream data transmission rates.
The program is being rolled out nationwide to improve service through a combination of network capacity and software enhancements. The rollout schedule is set on a region-by-region basis and is implemented in cooperation with AT&T BIS. The end goal is to provide a consistent, nationwide product platform for all AT&T @Home users.
Upstream Rate Management is part of our continuous effort to provide customers with the fastest, most consistent broadband service at the lowest possible price. Residential users may experience an improvement in their experience with faster Internet access and faster Web browsing. Individuals or families use the residential service mostly to surf the Web or download software, music, or video and will now enjoy a more consistent, faster experience.
Without the 128 kbps upstream rate setting, the service is vulnerable to degradation by a few "enthusiastic" customers who run servers at home and other activities at odds with both the purpose of providing residential AT&T@Home service and the design of the network. Running servers and similar activities is prohibited by the AT&T Subscriber Agreement and the @Home Acceptable Use Policy. These customers engage in activities that are inconsistent with our residential service and require a disproportionate amount of network resources. In essence, they are "hogging" capacity, and, as a result, other customers (who constitute the vast majority of subscribers) may experience sub-optimal performance. In short, by setting the upstream rate to a specific level, we can deliver better service.
Internet service requires that a subscriber's computer be able to talk to the Internet by receiving data through a downstream channel and by sending data back to the Internet through an upstream channel. To deliver Internet service, the downstream speed and the upstream speed do not have to be equal: in fact, very few, if any, residential services offer symmetrical downstream and upstream rates. Instead, residential services focus on providing as much downstream speed as possible.
Providing different (referred to as asymmetrical) downstream and upstream rates meets residential needs. Internet studies show that residential users want to quickly access web pages, and this requires sending a request (a little bit of upstream is required) and receiving web pages (lots of downstream is required). At 128 kbps upstream, a residential user has more than enough upstream to send requests for web pages, send email, play games, and all other residential uses. This allows @Home to offer large downstream capacity in a cost-effective manner so that web pages, video clips, multiple emails, and all residential data that a subscriber requests can be delivered more quickly. In short, requesting information requires sending small amounts of upstream data while receiving information requires receiving much larger amounts of data through the downstream channel.
Finally, it is important to note that upstream and downstream rates are one of many elements that determine the actual speed a subscriber experiences. AT&T@Home goes to great lengths to manage as many of these as possible. However, many variables remain outside of @Home's control including the operating system that runs on the subscriber's computer, the application software being run, congestion on the Internet including specific web site computers, software, and hardware. Hence actual speeds will vary from subscriber to subscriber.
Typical residential users want fast downloads for viewing web pages or accessing things like software, music, and video. They require uploads for email, photos, and sending normal documents to friends or work. A 128 kbps upstream data rate supports all of these uses and customers that require more upstream bandwidth may be better suited for a more commercial application to satisfy their needs. AT&T@Home is in the process of developing products that we hope will satisfy all of our current and potential customers needs.
It is our goal to allow our AT&T@Home customers the ability to download information at up to 100 times faster than a 28.8 Kbps modem. Actual speeds will vary and factors that affect downstream data speed include:
Overall network traffic
The users particular computer's performance and configuration
Accessing non-cached or cached data
Location and configuration of the accessed server
Performance characteristics of each component of the data network
The number of users
All users' compliance with Excite@Home's Acceptable Use Policy, available at http://www.home.net/aup.
Upstream data transfer speed is limited to 128 kbps
Banning servers is a ridiculously crude way of trying to curb bandwidth usage (if that is even the intent). I for one run ssh, http, and email servers but do not consume "excessive" (which is undefined) bandwidth. If they start complaining I guess I'll just keep my $1000/year to myself. Since they haven't bothered to block those ports I presume they'd rather make some money.
In response to a), OpenSSH relies on OpenSSL. If OpenSSL is broken, so is OpenSSH. No fair for Nike to disclaim the quality of their shoes just because they choose to outsource them all to companies in third world countries.
In response to b), OpenSSH, apache, exim, and the kernel's firewall code are all that matter on my Linux box, because nothing else is accessible to the Internet. And of those four, OpenSSH/OpenSSL have been by far the most problematic lately.
In response to c), good point. And thankfully you don't see any rants about holding somebody "liable" for these mistakes, do you? The question is whether OpenSSH is technically sound, and there's nothing wrong with discussing that.
That's what made the story interesting to me. It was about a bunch of young hipsters using their cellphones for barhopping, NOT nerds trading warez on irc. Real, tangible swarming around Prince William has significance and interest that the slashdot effect does not.
I hate to see Linux lending its credibility to such an ill-conceived scheme.
There's just no excuse for cooking your bread twice in completely separate processes. And don't even get me started on bagels; boil, bake, then toast? Wake up, people!
There is a balance in all compressed formats between good enough and accurate.
...in all *lossy* compressed formats, you mean.
What has HCI expertise done for us lately?
on
GUIs for Everyone
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
HCI is just whiny diatribes about how this or that UI violates the author's arbitrary little rules.
The last UI "aha" moment I had was a taskbar for Win 3.1, and then Unix pipes. And I doubt either of these was thanks to an HCI "expert." What's the best way to regard such an nonproductive discipline? Ignore it.
Slashdot Mirror
"Data interoperable everywhere"... if Microsoft is defeated and this becomes a reality, it would be a major boost to our economy.
I think the congressional hearings are great. Support for overthrowing Saddam is already shaky. We either need to not do it, or to do it with the moral backing of the democratic process.
Attacking with surprise can save lives. On the other hand, staying out of Vietnam would have saved a whole lot of lives, too.
It'll be interesting to see how much dashboard-riding the iPod can withstand. Every jostle works those bearings a bit looser...
Somalia "won," did it not?
I think surprise could be very important to the outcome in the (probably) upcoming war against Iraq. Support is already weak, and any significant casualties just might tip the scales.
Good luck cleaning up that installation of Windows. Think "herpes."
You can take on MS if you like, but after watching them kick the US DOJ's butt around the courtroom I think I'll just stick to Linux.
Now *that's* a very "dot-com" strategy... trick people into visiting your site and maybe they'll give you money! The exact opposite of targeted marketing.
The issue of bandwidth to the home is nothing like the issue of hard drive capacity etc. It's not progressing and has no prospects of progressing. Seriously, when do you envision fiber to the home?
The fact that Linux can run on an X86 CPU is what really sets it apart from the MacOS here, and it's a genuine advantage.
Well, that's the great thing about having large quantities of original material. You can use it to study whatever is currently fashionable.
Here is the announcement of AT&T@Home's cap:
Thank you for writing to AT&T@Home.
Upstream rate management was created to ensure that all customers
receive a compelling broadband experience and continue to do so as the
customer base scales rapidly. AT&T @Home is ensuring that no single
customer can use a disproportionate share of bandwidth at the expense of
all other subscribers by leveling the playing field on upstream data
transmission rates.
The program is being rolled out nationwide to improve service through a
combination of network capacity and software enhancements. The rollout
schedule is set on a region-by-region basis and is implemented in
cooperation with AT&T BIS. The end goal is to provide a consistent,
nationwide product platform for all AT&T @Home users.
Upstream Rate Management is part of our continuous effort to provide
customers with the fastest, most consistent broadband service at the
lowest possible price. Residential users may experience an improvement
in their experience with faster Internet access and faster Web browsing.
Individuals or families use the residential service mostly to surf the
Web or download software, music, or video and will now enjoy a more
consistent, faster experience.
Without the 128 kbps upstream rate setting, the service is vulnerable to
degradation by a few "enthusiastic" customers who run servers at home
and other activities at odds with both the purpose of providing
residential AT&T@Home service and the design of the network. Running
servers and similar activities is prohibited by the AT&T Subscriber
Agreement and the @Home Acceptable Use Policy. These customers engage in
activities that are inconsistent with our residential service and
require a disproportionate amount of network resources. In essence, they
are "hogging" capacity, and, as a result, other customers (who
constitute the vast majority of subscribers) may experience sub-optimal
performance. In short, by setting the upstream rate to a specific level,
we can deliver better service.
Internet service requires that a subscriber's computer be able to talk
to the Internet by receiving data through a downstream channel and by
sending data back to the Internet through an upstream channel. To
deliver Internet service, the downstream speed and the upstream speed do
not have to be equal: in fact, very few, if any, residential services
offer symmetrical downstream and upstream rates. Instead, residential
services focus on providing as much downstream speed as possible.
Providing different (referred to as asymmetrical) downstream and
upstream rates meets residential needs. Internet studies show that
residential users want to quickly access web pages, and this requires
sending a request (a little bit of upstream is required) and receiving
web pages (lots of downstream is required). At 128 kbps upstream, a
residential user has more than enough upstream to send requests for web
pages, send email, play games, and all other residential uses. This
allows @Home to offer large downstream capacity in a cost-effective
manner so that web pages, video clips, multiple emails, and all
residential data that a subscriber requests can be delivered more
quickly. In short, requesting information requires sending small amounts
of upstream data while receiving information requires receiving much
larger amounts of data through the downstream channel.
Finally, it is important to note that upstream and downstream rates are
one of many elements that determine the actual speed a subscriber
experiences. AT&T@Home goes to great lengths to manage as many of these
as possible. However, many variables remain outside of @Home's control
including the operating system that runs on the subscriber's computer,
the application software being run, congestion on the Internet including
specific web site computers, software, and hardware. Hence actual speeds
will vary from subscriber to subscriber.
Typical residential users want fast downloads for viewing web pages or
accessing things like software, music, and video. They require uploads
for email, photos, and sending normal documents to friends or work. A
128 kbps upstream data rate supports all of these uses and customers
that require more upstream bandwidth may be better suited for a more
commercial application to satisfy their needs. AT&T@Home is in the
process of developing products that we hope will satisfy all of our
current and potential customers needs.
It is our goal to allow our AT&T@Home customers the ability to download
information at up to 100 times faster than a 28.8 Kbps modem. Actual
speeds will vary and factors that affect downstream data speed include:
Overall network traffic
The users particular computer's performance and configuration
Accessing non-cached or cached data
Location and configuration of the accessed server
Performance characteristics of each component of the data network
The number of users
All users' compliance with Excite@Home's Acceptable Use Policy,
available at http://www.home.net/aup.
Upstream data transfer speed is limited to 128 kbps
Plausible, except that most of the cable services USED to have at least 1mb/s upstream in the good old days.
What if I want to videoconference, like they show on the commercials?
My wife is certainly irritated at how long it takes to upload photos to Wal-Mart, and you can't get more mainstream than that.
Banning servers is a ridiculously crude way of trying to curb bandwidth usage (if that is even the intent). I for one run ssh, http, and email servers but do not consume "excessive" (which is undefined) bandwidth. If they start complaining I guess I'll just keep my $1000/year to myself. Since they haven't bothered to block those ports I presume they'd rather make some money.
Check out the 5th word in the article: "cheap" and later in that first sentance: "disposable".
"Now with 25% more nanometers!"
In response to b), OpenSSH, apache, exim, and the kernel's firewall code are all that matter on my Linux box, because nothing else is accessible to the Internet. And of those four, OpenSSH/OpenSSL have been by far the most problematic lately.
In response to c), good point. And thankfully you don't see any rants about holding somebody "liable" for these mistakes, do you? The question is whether OpenSSH is technically sound, and there's nothing wrong with discussing that.
That's what made the story interesting to me. It was about a bunch of young hipsters using their cellphones for barhopping, NOT nerds trading warez on irc. Real, tangible swarming around Prince William has significance and interest that the slashdot effect does not.
Repeat after me, "not everything round is a frisbee. Not everything round is a frisbee..."
There's just no excuse for cooking your bread twice in completely separate processes. And don't even get me started on bagels; boil, bake, then toast? Wake up, people!
You can check out FLAC:
http://flac.sourceforge.net/
The last UI "aha" moment I had was a taskbar for Win 3.1, and then Unix pipes. And I doubt either of these was thanks to an HCI "expert." What's the best way to regard such an nonproductive discipline? Ignore it.