Except that flat-Earthers are remarkably fewer in number than before. There comes a time when the evidence is even more "staring you in the face" than Evolution currently is.
That's not to say there isn't a ton of evidence for evolution. But we can go a step further to bring education up yet another a gear (one random idea to help is to give all of the fossils we have currently found, and organize them in a tree structure in one place online (in high resolution), and make navigation incredibly quick, painless, and fun. Then make that a part of school curriculum).
You'd have to rely then on the author's existing reputation. Or maybe have other scientists rank the paper who themselves have varying degrees of reputation based on their existing papers (or from votes directly).
I think the conversation has drifted a bit since we started...
You could have an 'Author' rank as well, and that could either be a separate rank, or maybe it could contribute to the paper too. The details could be messy. Otherwise, yeah, the new paper would have to wait until it garnered some citations. Is waiting such a bad thing? (All this can be in addition to peer review of course).
In any case, that's the system Google employs for their ranking technique.
I was talking from a perspective about papers getting looked at in the first place. And how much 'authority' should be given to a particular citation, or even if it's not worth citing at all. That kind of thing.
I've already answered something similar to this question before. A pagerank type mechanism for people (perhaps multidimensional to cater to the specific skill set of the ranker) can be used. Votes can be out of a hundred, and are weighted according to the authority of the person doing the ranking.
The devil's in the details, but that's the basic idea.
I quite like the Aero glass effect, but if you are going to make it simple like this, at least make the window frame bezelled and ensure it's not white. It's horrible to have (say) a notepad open, and the frame looks like it's part of the document. That screenshot in the main link is horrible. It all looks white and washed out (it's a disturbing trend that's become more apparent on the web too).
It was only a couple of days ago when I moaned about this very subject.
Let's standardize on watts (for power), or joules / watthours (for energy). Yes, amps or volts are useful in some situations, but for the average consumer, we only want to hear about raw energy/power something consumes/supplies. Batteries make this mistake too and it only leads to confusion when comparing technologies.
Ah, glad to see some of the spirit and philosophy of DiskDoctor has made it over to Windows. I wonder if that 'repair' utility actually ever worked for anyone ever.
Yes, I didn't say that there wasn't something even perhaps more worthwhile to put the money to (better energy creation/batteries/materials spring to mind).
That'd be weird to have aliens to help humanity unify. Imagine us as the aliens to another planet, and how we could help that planet's 'people' form peace with each other by trying to go to war with them ourselves (temporarily). There's one to add to the list of 'moral dilemmas',
If that's where we're going to be eventually - in space. We'll get there a lot quicker by building 'useless' projects like this. Plus it's exciting. More exciting than say, oh I don't know, spending 1 trillion on blowing up the world or something.
Regardless of Kolivas' claims, I've experienced noticeable latencies in the GUI myself (Ubuntu 10.10 on two PCs, one relatively modern). Were they a fault of a misconfigured kernel? I'm not sure - I just left the defaults after first installation. But as someone who doesn't have the time to dig deep into the settings (along with millions of others who just want it to work straight away), perhaps he was onto something.
Some people will pick it up, but certainly, many people don't mind or even notice the lag; maybe you don't. But on the other hand, many won't notice, and won't realize the potential improvement that could gained be unless they can see what a GUI is like with 100% responsiveness, and zero lag. The difference is almost one of 'feeling' rather than seeing. The debate feels a bit like that 24 vs 48fps story we had recently. It's hard to describe the change to 48fps but you certainly feel *something* different.
I think we're agreed that money will hold more sway about what gets put into Linux.
That doesn't take anything away from the fact that as far as average desktop users are concerned, latency is given (to put it politely) second priority. In any case, a 0.1% increase in bandwidth performance at a cost of 2-4x latency drop in GUI responsiveness is pretty short-sighted in my opinion, no matter which way you look at it, even if he was exaggerating somewhat. Especially if the desktop is a goal for Linux (which it appears to be).
I was hoping for some links from independent parties, even it's from a disgruntled post or two on a random forum (a debate would be nicer though). Not that I won't at least listen to you, but it would be nice to see other people feel the same way. That blockquote you gave could be interpreted slightly differently in that 'barely' is a relative term, making him not so mistaken as you would originally think.
Anyway, let's give some choice quotes from page 3:
Quote1:
The main problem was that there simply was not a convincing way to prove that staircase was better on the desktop. User reports were not enough. There was no benchmark. There was no way to prove it was better, and the user reports if anything just angered the kernel maintainers further for their lack of objectivity.
Quote2:
And there are all the obvious bug reports. They're afraid to mention these. How scary do you think it is to say 'my Firefox tabs open slowly since the last CPU scheduler upgrade'? To top it all off, the enterprise users are the opposite. Just watch each kernel release and see how quickly some $bullshit_benchmark degraded by.1% with patch $Y gets reported. See also how quickly it gets attended to.
Quote 3:
Then I hit an impasse. One very vocal user found that the unfair behaviour in the mainline scheduler was something he came to expect. A flamewar of sorts erupted at the time, because to fix 100% of the problems with the CPU scheduler we had to sacrifice interactivity on some workloads. It wasn't a dramatic loss of interactivity, but it was definitely there. Rather than use 'nice' to proportion CPU according to where the user told the operating system it should be, the user believed it was the kernel's responsibility to guess. As it turns out, it is the fact that guessing means that no matter how hard and how smart you make the CPU scheduler, it will get it wrong some of the time. The more it tries to guess, the worse will be the corner cases of misbehaving.
The option is to throttle the guessing, or not guess at all. The former option means you have a CPU scheduler which is difficult to model, and the behaviour is right 95% of the time and ebbs and flows in its metering out of CPU and latency. The latter option means there is no guessing and the behaviour is correct 100% of the time... it only gives what you tell it to give. It seemed so absurdly clear to me, given that interactivity mostly was better anyway with the fair approach, yet the maintainers demanded I address this as a problem with the new design. I refused. I insisted that we had to compromise a small amount to gain a heck of a great deal more. A scheduler that was deterministic and predictable and still interactive is a much better option long term than the hack after hack approach we were maintaining.
Disclaimer: I'm not sure how much any of that applies to Linux in its current state, but it wouldn't surprise me if the "bandwidth over latency" principles are similar today.
In the second link, they already said the measurements were rough. Even if they're only approximately right, it shows an indication of how horribly laggy the GUI in Linux is (or at least was). And sure they're not rigorous, but that's obvious anyway, as it's an experiment to show what a new typical user in the real world might experience, not to get numbers down to the last microsecond as what some fake benchmark might produce. Also remember the latest Ubuntu may have improved since then.
If you try say, Haiku yourself, the difference is like night and day. 10 seconds is terrible by the way.
I only skimmed the summary, but I think it's a bit unfair to imprison someone just because they have created bloated software that slows down thousands, or even millions of PCs. Yes, they have caused untold misery for many, but it wasn't forced upon them. Those people CHOSE to buy this crapware - they're at least partly to blame.
He should at least be cautioned and asked for his company to stop trading first.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that flat-Earthers are remarkably fewer in number than before. There comes a time when the evidence is even more "staring you in the face" than Evolution currently is.
That's not to say there isn't a ton of evidence for evolution. But we can go a step further to bring education up yet another a gear (one random idea to help is to give all of the fossils we have currently found, and organize them in a tree structure in one place online (in high resolution), and make navigation incredibly quick, painless, and fun. Then make that a part of school curriculum).
You'd have to rely then on the author's existing reputation. Or maybe have other scientists rank the paper who themselves have varying degrees of reputation based on their existing papers (or from votes directly).
I think the conversation has drifted a bit since we started...
You could have an 'Author' rank as well, and that could either be a separate rank, or maybe it could contribute to the paper too. The details could be messy. Otherwise, yeah, the new paper would have to wait until it garnered some citations. Is waiting such a bad thing? (All this can be in addition to peer review of course).
In any case, that's the system Google employs for their ranking technique.
More like the other way around. A citation would help the citated paper. I think that's similar to what Google does with their Google Scholar search.
Also it would help the person who's writing the paper decide whether a citation is worth using (or whether it might undermine their paper).
And yes, I'm sure there's room for abuse if it's not thought out well enough.
I was talking from a perspective about papers getting looked at in the first place. And how much 'authority' should be given to a particular citation, or even if it's not worth citing at all. That kind of thing.
I've already answered something similar to this question before. A pagerank type mechanism for people (perhaps multidimensional to cater to the specific skill set of the ranker) can be used. Votes can be out of a hundred, and are weighted according to the authority of the person doing the ranking.
The devil's in the details, but that's the basic idea.
I quite like the Aero glass effect, but if you are going to make it simple like this, at least make the window frame bezelled and ensure it's not white. It's horrible to have (say) a notepad open, and the frame looks like it's part of the document. That screenshot in the main link is horrible. It all looks white and washed out (it's a disturbing trend that's become more apparent on the web too).
Some contrast goes a long way.
It was only a couple of days ago when I moaned about this very subject.
Let's standardize on watts (for power), or joules / watthours (for energy). Yes, amps or volts are useful in some situations, but for the average consumer, we only want to hear about raw energy/power something consumes/supplies. Batteries make this mistake too and it only leads to confusion when comparing technologies.
Ah, glad to see some of the spirit and philosophy of DiskDoctor has made it over to Windows. I wonder if that 'repair' utility actually ever worked for anyone ever.
Look up a word called "motive".
Yes, I didn't say that there wasn't something even perhaps more worthwhile to put the money to (better energy creation/batteries/materials spring to mind).
That'd be weird to have aliens to help humanity unify. Imagine us as the aliens to another planet, and how we could help that planet's 'people' form peace with each other by trying to go to war with them ourselves (temporarily). There's one to add to the list of 'moral dilemmas',
Maybe you're right. I'm sure we'd learn a lot on the way though.
I also guess material science (to name but one) will advance so much in the next 100 years that we should wait anyway like you say.
If that's where we're going to be eventually - in space. We'll get there a lot quicker by building 'useless' projects like this. Plus it's exciting. More exciting than say, oh I don't know, spending 1 trillion on blowing up the world or something.
Isn't it wonderful that a a capital I looks like a small L? It adds a little 'puzzle element' whilst reading therefore adding more spice to life.
How does RED fare against AQM or CoDel?
Regardless of Kolivas' claims, I've experienced noticeable latencies in the GUI myself (Ubuntu 10.10 on two PCs, one relatively modern). Were they a fault of a misconfigured kernel? I'm not sure - I just left the defaults after first installation. But as someone who doesn't have the time to dig deep into the settings (along with millions of others who just want it to work straight away), perhaps he was onto something.
Some people will pick it up, but certainly, many people don't mind or even notice the lag; maybe you don't. But on the other hand, many won't notice, and won't realize the potential improvement that could gained be unless they can see what a GUI is like with 100% responsiveness, and zero lag. The difference is almost one of 'feeling' rather than seeing. The debate feels a bit like that 24 vs 48fps story we had recently. It's hard to describe the change to 48fps but you certainly feel *something* different.
I think we're agreed that money will hold more sway about what gets put into Linux.
That doesn't take anything away from the fact that as far as average desktop users are concerned, latency is given (to put it politely) second priority. In any case, a 0.1% increase in bandwidth performance at a cost of 2-4x latency drop in GUI responsiveness is pretty short-sighted in my opinion, no matter which way you look at it, even if he was exaggerating somewhat. Especially if the desktop is a goal for Linux (which it appears to be).
Let me rephrase for you: I was hoping for other sources BESIDES yourself. At least refute quote 2 if you can.
Quote1:
The main problem was that there simply was not a convincing way to prove that staircase was better on the desktop. User reports were not enough. There was no benchmark. There was no way to prove it was better, and the user reports if anything just angered the kernel maintainers further for their lack of objectivity.
Quote2:
And there are all the obvious bug reports. They're afraid to mention these. How scary do you think it is to say 'my Firefox tabs open slowly since the last CPU scheduler upgrade'? To top it all off, the enterprise users are the opposite. Just watch each kernel release and see how quickly some $bullshit_benchmark degraded by .1% with patch $Y gets reported. See also how quickly it gets attended to.
Quote 3:
Then I hit an impasse. One very vocal user found that the unfair behaviour in the mainline scheduler was something he came to expect. A flamewar of sorts erupted at the time, because to fix 100% of the problems with the CPU scheduler we had to sacrifice interactivity on some workloads. It wasn't a dramatic loss of interactivity, but it was definitely there. Rather than use 'nice' to proportion CPU according to where the user told the operating system it should be, the user believed it was the kernel's responsibility to guess. As it turns out, it is the fact that guessing means that no matter how hard and how smart you make the CPU scheduler, it will get it wrong some of the time. The more it tries to guess, the worse will be the corner cases of misbehaving. The option is to throttle the guessing, or not guess at all. The former option means you have a CPU scheduler which is difficult to model, and the behaviour is right 95% of the time and ebbs and flows in its metering out of CPU and latency. The latter option means there is no guessing and the behaviour is correct 100% of the time... it only gives what you tell it to give. It seemed so absurdly clear to me, given that interactivity mostly was better anyway with the fair approach, yet the maintainers demanded I address this as a problem with the new design. I refused. I insisted that we had to compromise a small amount to gain a heck of a great deal more. A scheduler that was deterministic and predictable and still interactive is a much better option long term than the hack after hack approach we were maintaining.
Disclaimer: I'm not sure how much any of that applies to Linux in its current state, but it wouldn't surprise me if the "bandwidth over latency" principles are similar today.
Do you have any reliable or semi-reliable sources which discredit what Con Kolivas has said, particularly in the 3rd page of the article I gave?
In the second link, they already said the measurements were rough. Even if they're only approximately right, it shows an indication of how horribly laggy the GUI in Linux is (or at least was). And sure they're not rigorous, but that's obvious anyway, as it's an experiment to show what a new typical user in the real world might experience, not to get numbers down to the last microsecond as what some fake benchmark might produce. Also remember the latest Ubuntu may have improved since then.
If you try say, Haiku yourself, the difference is like night and day. 10 seconds is terrible by the way.
has favored pure throughput to latency
Hey, sounds like the Linux OS.
How does it compare technically to this one?
I only skimmed the summary, but I think it's a bit unfair to imprison someone just because they have created bloated software that slows down thousands, or even millions of PCs. Yes, they have caused untold misery for many, but it wasn't forced upon them. Those people CHOSE to buy this crapware - they're at least partly to blame.
He should at least be cautioned and asked for his company to stop trading first.