If it's truly as unmoderated as you purport, then they are simply catering to the biggest and loudest mouths. Taking a system like Google and identifying the sparse intelligence among the endless hot air is no easy task, but I applaud their efforts.
...now if there were only a system that would take the biggest and loudest mouths out of politics and media, then I'd REALLY be sold.
Between the two mail servers I manage, I probably get an average of three meaningful e-mails a day. (I am fortunate to not know/care what my company uses for blocking spam.) On that same average day, my blacklist blocks nearly 50 messages. I use blacklists because they have clearly been extremely effective, and I have received no complaints from friends or family. Granted, the e-mail addresses used on these servers are for non-business use.
I spend maybe 5 minutes/day having anything at all to do with these mailboxes, and I'm not willing to spend the time digging through a spam box to check for legitimate mail or learn how to implement an intelligent filter. The possible gain just isn't worth the investment of time when I've got so many better things to do with my time. (which leads me to wonder what I'm doing posting on/. right now...)
I don't think I would make the same choice if I had the unfortunate burden of being a mail administrator by trade. Except that it would leave me more time for jobhunting.
I wonder how long spammers keep email addresses that don't show any kind of reply.
Unfortunately, I had a mailto: link on a very popular website from roughly 1996 until it was "unpublished" in 2001. Spam to this address is still increasing consistently. As long as e-mail exists, it will continue to receive spam.
I hosted with a company that had a SPEWS-blocked IP block. It was pretty frutrating. However, I got what I paid for with that provider. Call me the crazy one, but I changed providers instead of writing a virus.
While my experience agrees with your statement, I think it's pretty universal that time and knowledge come much easier than money. At least the ridiculous sums of money required to purchase Mac gear.
I'm an end-user at home these days, mostly because by the time I get home from work I have little interest in interacting with technology (perhaps with the exception of the ReplayTV.) The OS on my linux box at home was last built close to three years ago. I haven't had a reason to build a custom kernel or do any significant tuning since well before that. (Read: My computer is for work, my console is for games.)
So the question for people like me is.. Do I want to spend about $500 on a decent Dell (my last one was $498 after rebate, including an LCD monitor) or do I want to drop four times that much on a Mac? The Mac would be much better in the end for things like my digital darkroom, but I can't justify the price difference when I could use that hypothetical money to buy some new lenses and a nicer tripod. If Mac could bring the bang:buck ratio down a bit, I'd be all over it.
I'd like to see some new inventions that actually help solve tasks instead of these creations that do everything possible to reduce the amount of thinking that we do. Are people really so lazy that we can't exert the neurological effort to figure out on our own whether or not there is toilet paper on the roll? Can we not look for ourselves to see what is on sale? Can we not figure out for ourselves what wine we like with salmon?
At least cars are something to look at. What I don't understand about these small form factors is they still fancy them up as if a box filled with electronics is something exciting to look at.
Frankly, I think an LCD monitor, featureless keyboard and mouse are more than enough for my desktop. I'd like to see someone design a computer that can hang next to my suits in the closet so I don't have to look at it anymore.
Maybe it should be. Any implementation of a so-called distributed filesystem needs access control of some type. NFS uses locks. Sun Cluster uses a quorum device. Volume Logix uses an internal access database.
If you have two hosts that "share" a filesystem but can only communicate with each other over the network, what happens when the network switch fails? Both hosts are up, but they can't communicate with their peers. If either host writes data, your data integrity is lost. Enterprise or not, nobody likes corrupt data.
Maybe it would be a fun experiment, but there are too many potential issues for me to consider this a good solution. With a goal of decreasing your susceptibility to failure, you are introducing many more possible failure points. Instead of data relying on disk, bus, and cache, you're looking at the same times as many systems as you have, plus introducing your network as a failure point.
What about data integrity when the network fails? Or when a single host fails? You could create ACLs for hosts that would be responsible for certain data upon certain failures, but then you're adding to an already overwhelming management nightmare.
Why not consider a shared storage system? You're not realistically going to have a failproof plan in your home, so just narrow it down to a few things. External JBOD with software RAID, presented as NAS to the rest of your computers. If a drive fails, just replace it. If the NAS head fails, just hook up the JBOD to another host.
I remember setting up some early voice recognition software in my dorm room when I was in college. It never mattered how cool I thought it was that I could launch programs by voice command...I still always felt like a real idiot talking to my computer when there was already a mature selection of nimbler interfaces.
Why don't we try to extract information from the crude oil so we can recreate the plant life and build an island where... nevermind.
Or, we could let the tons of pre-historic plants sit around and turn into.... hmmm... oil.
Or... we could use this resource that nature has given to us and continue to power civilization with it.
Talk about pollution and alternative fuels is great, but please don't bother me about "wasting" plant life that have been dead for millions of years.
No. Travel distance per gig may be shorter, but spindle speeds are significantly slower, too. I support several mid- to high-end SAN and NAS environments, and particularly the high-end groups are still deciding to go with 15k rpm 73GB drives. We've had 181GB drives out for quite some time and now even 250GB ATA drives in some of our cheaper hardware, but the performance just isn't there (especially in RAID-5 configurations, which are common on cheaper hardware.)
I, too, am curious about this perpindicular writing. Unless they find some new way for a disk to spin??, I can't understand how it would NOT be a huge performance hit.
I regularly e-mail my representatives from the county board up to the Senate and House. I frequently get responses, especially from those who disagree with what I am writing about.
If fewer people agreed with your viewpoint, the political value in messages from constituents would increase.
How much can we all complain about spam and junk mail, but put a negative spin on the government weeding out junk from its own inbox? Considering that this actually allows a staff to continue reading mail, as opposed to wasting more tax dollars on going through spam and mail bombs, I think this is a pretty sane idea.
Slashdot Mirror
I spend maybe 5 minutes/day having anything at all to do with these mailboxes, and I'm not willing to spend the time digging through a spam box to check for legitimate mail or learn how to implement an intelligent filter. The possible gain just isn't worth the investment of time when I've got so many better things to do with my time. (which leads me to wonder what I'm doing posting on /. right now...)
I don't think I would make the same choice if I had the unfortunate burden of being a mail administrator by trade. Except that it would leave me more time for jobhunting.
I wonder how long spammers keep email addresses that don't show any kind of reply.
Unfortunately, I had a mailto: link on a very popular website from roughly 1996 until it was "unpublished" in 2001. Spam to this address is still increasing consistently. As long as e-mail exists, it will continue to receive spam.
I hosted with a company that had a SPEWS-blocked IP block. It was pretty frutrating. However, I got what I paid for with that provider. Call me the crazy one, but I changed providers instead of writing a virus.
I'm an end-user at home these days, mostly because by the time I get home from work I have little interest in interacting with technology (perhaps with the exception of the ReplayTV.) The OS on my linux box at home was last built close to three years ago. I haven't had a reason to build a custom kernel or do any significant tuning since well before that. (Read: My computer is for work, my console is for games.)
So the question for people like me is.. Do I want to spend about $500 on a decent Dell (my last one was $498 after rebate, including an LCD monitor) or do I want to drop four times that much on a Mac? The Mac would be much better in the end for things like my digital darkroom, but I can't justify the price difference when I could use that hypothetical money to buy some new lenses and a nicer tripod. If Mac could bring the bang:buck ratio down a bit, I'd be all over it.
I'd like to see some new inventions that actually help solve tasks instead of these creations that do everything possible to reduce the amount of thinking that we do. Are people really so lazy that we can't exert the neurological effort to figure out on our own whether or not there is toilet paper on the roll? Can we not look for ourselves to see what is on sale? Can we not figure out for ourselves what wine we like with salmon?
I wonder if the Vanderhook brothers could get a judgement against Claria like they did against X10?
Frankly, I think an LCD monitor, featureless keyboard and mouse are more than enough for my desktop. I'd like to see someone design a computer that can hang next to my suits in the closet so I don't have to look at it anymore.
...but now I keep losing computers.
If you have two hosts that "share" a filesystem but can only communicate with each other over the network, what happens when the network switch fails? Both hosts are up, but they can't communicate with their peers. If either host writes data, your data integrity is lost. Enterprise or not, nobody likes corrupt data.
So perhaps it is the point...
What about data integrity when the network fails? Or when a single host fails? You could create ACLs for hosts that would be responsible for certain data upon certain failures, but then you're adding to an already overwhelming management nightmare.
Why not consider a shared storage system? You're not realistically going to have a failproof plan in your home, so just narrow it down to a few things. External JBOD with software RAID, presented as NAS to the rest of your computers. If a drive fails, just replace it. If the NAS head fails, just hook up the JBOD to another host.
I remember setting up some early voice recognition software in my dorm room when I was in college. It never mattered how cool I thought it was that I could launch programs by voice command...I still always felt like a real idiot talking to my computer when there was already a mature selection of nimbler interfaces.
Why don't we try to extract information from the crude oil so we can recreate the plant life and build an island where... nevermind. Or, we could let the tons of pre-historic plants sit around and turn into.... hmmm... oil. Or... we could use this resource that nature has given to us and continue to power civilization with it. Talk about pollution and alternative fuels is great, but please don't bother me about "wasting" plant life that have been dead for millions of years.
No. Travel distance per gig may be shorter, but spindle speeds are significantly slower, too. I support several mid- to high-end SAN and NAS environments, and particularly the high-end groups are still deciding to go with 15k rpm 73GB drives. We've had 181GB drives out for quite some time and now even 250GB ATA drives in some of our cheaper hardware, but the performance just isn't there (especially in RAID-5 configurations, which are common on cheaper hardware.)
I, too, am curious about this perpindicular writing. Unless they find some new way for a disk to spin??, I can't understand how it would NOT be a huge performance hit.
If someone wants to spend $8000 reconstructing my bank account information, then they're more than welcome to the $200 that's in the account.
I regularly e-mail my representatives from the county board up to the Senate and House. I frequently get responses, especially from those who disagree with what I am writing about. If fewer people agreed with your viewpoint, the political value in messages from constituents would increase.
How much can we all complain about spam and junk mail, but put a negative spin on the government weeding out junk from its own inbox? Considering that this actually allows a staff to continue reading mail, as opposed to wasting more tax dollars on going through spam and mail bombs, I think this is a pretty sane idea.