You are right that the technology already exists to do what this guy is talking about, but he is talking about using it in a much more flexible way. Basically, take a snapshot of memory after you are fully booted up, then use that every single boot. Currently, hibernate forces you to use an image of memory as it was just before you shut down. Sure, this is a moot point on a stable operating system, but on a Windows XP box, run by someone who doesn't know what they're doing, you need to go back to square one every now and then to clean up the system. Usually this is done by rebooting, but why bother if we could just have an image of the system in a just-booted state already? You would only need to do a real boot-up after installing patches.
That's the nuclear option. There are better ways of taking care of all but the fringe cases while still maintaining the current level of services. If I were running an ISP, I would block port 25 for all customers by default, with an easy and free opt-in.
Those who know what it means to have SMTP open will most likely not have an infected box, and a simple "Check here if you want to open port 25." in their user preferences on their account website would be no skin off of anyone's back. If the major broadband providers in the U.S. implemented something like this, spam would probably slow down significantly.
We didn't evolve to fly, either. Does that spell everyone in a plane "dying", or at best "crashing to the ground".
I'm being facetious, but the point is that having intelligence and consciousness gives mankind far greater ability to survive than we would have with just evolution. In flying, or going to space, or building cities, we are already far outpacing evolution. So, I disagree that climate change, even within the most extreme scenarios that are still realistic, will ever become more than an inconvenience for humanity. A major inconvenience, perhaps, but certainly not extinction or the collapse of civilization.
That comparison makes no sense. Just because something is unlikely to happen doesn't mean you shouldn't be careful of it. Seatbelts only saved 10,000 lives in 2000. Compared to the number of miles driven by all people in the country, that's statistically insignificant. Should I not wear my seatbelt, just because the chances that it will help are small? We may as well take every precaution we can. And remember, this is only carry-on luggage. How often do you feel the need to brush your teeth mid-flight?
Lumping those who believe that a few cells are a living being with those who believe that a few cells are also breathing and sentient is a clever rhetorical move, but is ultimately unfair.
Maybe ten million other people are thinking to themselves, "I could vote Libertarian, but I really doubt the efficacy of that." Grow a pair and do it.
Remember the Simpsons episode where Kang and Kodos ran as Republican and Democrat candidates for president, and someone said he'd vote for Perot? The response was, "What, and throw your vote away? Mwahahaha!" Both major parties count on that sort of response.
What sort of terrible candidates would the Reps and Dems have to put on the ballot before you would vote Libertarian, or for some other third party? For me, that happened last election. When will it happen for you?
No no, the comparison does have a basis. The Nazis gathered information on their citizens, and so does the current administration, so there is a basis for comparison.
Just like there is a basis for comparing the Eisenhower administration with the Nazis. After all, didn't Eisenhower also build "a system that not even the NAZI SS could in their wildest immagination have dreamed of being able to achieve?" I suppose we ought to tear up the entire highway system because it was directly inspired by the road system the Nazis built...
No, that doesn't make any sense. Just because one metric is comparable doesn't mean that any other metric is comparable. But I'm sure that the original poster knew that, and just picked Nazi Germany out of a hat. After all, as he says, he's not "partizan."
Slashdot Mirror
You are right that the technology already exists to do what this guy is talking about, but he is talking about using it in a much more flexible way. Basically, take a snapshot of memory after you are fully booted up, then use that every single boot. Currently, hibernate forces you to use an image of memory as it was just before you shut down. Sure, this is a moot point on a stable operating system, but on a Windows XP box, run by someone who doesn't know what they're doing, you need to go back to square one every now and then to clean up the system. Usually this is done by rebooting, but why bother if we could just have an image of the system in a just-booted state already? You would only need to do a real boot-up after installing patches.
That's the nuclear option. There are better ways of taking care of all but the fringe cases while still maintaining the current level of services. If I were running an ISP, I would block port 25 for all customers by default, with an easy and free opt-in.
Those who know what it means to have SMTP open will most likely not have an infected box, and a simple "Check here if you want to open port 25." in their user preferences on their account website would be no skin off of anyone's back. If the major broadband providers in the U.S. implemented something like this, spam would probably slow down significantly.
We didn't evolve to fly, either. Does that spell everyone in a plane "dying", or at best "crashing to the ground".
I'm being facetious, but the point is that having intelligence and consciousness gives mankind far greater ability to survive than we would have with just evolution. In flying, or going to space, or building cities, we are already far outpacing evolution. So, I disagree that climate change, even within the most extreme scenarios that are still realistic, will ever become more than an inconvenience for humanity. A major inconvenience, perhaps, but certainly not extinction or the collapse of civilization.
That comparison makes no sense. Just because something is unlikely to happen doesn't mean you shouldn't be careful of it. Seatbelts only saved 10,000 lives in 2000. Compared to the number of miles driven by all people in the country, that's statistically insignificant. Should I not wear my seatbelt, just because the chances that it will help are small? We may as well take every precaution we can. And remember, this is only carry-on luggage. How often do you feel the need to brush your teeth mid-flight?
Lumping those who believe that a few cells are a living being with those who believe that a few cells are also breathing and sentient is a clever rhetorical move, but is ultimately unfair.
Maybe ten million other people are thinking to themselves, "I could vote Libertarian, but I really doubt the efficacy of that." Grow a pair and do it.
Remember the Simpsons episode where Kang and Kodos ran as Republican and Democrat candidates for president, and someone said he'd vote for Perot? The response was, "What, and throw your vote away? Mwahahaha!" Both major parties count on that sort of response.
What sort of terrible candidates would the Reps and Dems have to put on the ballot before you would vote Libertarian, or for some other third party? For me, that happened last election. When will it happen for you?
No no, the comparison does have a basis. The Nazis gathered information on their citizens, and so does the current administration, so there is a basis for comparison.
Just like there is a basis for comparing the Eisenhower administration with the Nazis. After all, didn't Eisenhower also build "a system that not even the NAZI SS could in their wildest immagination have dreamed of being able to achieve?" I suppose we ought to tear up the entire highway system because it was directly inspired by the road system the Nazis built...
No, that doesn't make any sense. Just because one metric is comparable doesn't mean that any other metric is comparable. But I'm sure that the original poster knew that, and just picked Nazi Germany out of a hat. After all, as he says, he's not "partizan."