Skip to main content

John Muller's Terrible Web Site

Home  About Us  Contact Us  Site Map  Member Login   



If you are looking for a lawyer in the Seattle area, try Phil Weinberg


Champions of Justice:


Nice Shoes Superman!.


  
 

Copies of posts I've written for other sites: (with some edits)


Nowadays, I understand how my dad (A Boeing inspector for many years) felt when watching movies with airplanes... pointing out that they took off in a 737, but the landing scene shows a 757!

I still recall how annoying it was to have such things pointed out all the time... So I try and keep my mouth shut during the show.

Imagine what it must be like for a real medical doctor to watch 'House', or a real serial killer to watch 'Dexter'.




This is my standard 'Vista Sucks' response (thought you touched on many of the points.

Bad: 3.0, 95, ME, Vista,
OK: 3.1, 98, XP, Seven,
Great 3.11, 98 OSR, XP SP2, Seven SP?

The reason is that a name change indicates a change in the API/Driver models, and it takes a while for the Hardware and Applications to catch up.

An OS is basically the layer between Hardware and Applications, everything else is just sugar. In the cases of wfw 3.11, 98, XP, and Seven PC and app makers managed to make mostly compliant products, and the OS itself has matured to fix errors and omissions in the specs.

I knew that Vista was gonna 'flop', and people would hate it, just like the previous versions that wern't yet supported by on-the-market PC's and software, but it's a chicken-and-egg situation, MS had to put it out there with full force and (apperant) confidance, otherwise (more) people would still be using XP, running as adminstrator, without good IPv6 support, without good power-save mode support, 64 bit support, etc. etc.

If whatever 8 is ends up with major API changes, it'll 'fail' as well, but maybe 8 will just be a refined Vista->Seven-> line... Odds are, if it's called 'Eight' it'll do well, but if they come up with a new major name scheme (#.# -> Year -> Double-Letter -> single word -> ????) it'll likely be a strategic failure... I don't see any major new hardware comeing down the pipes (16-32-64 bits, GPU dominance, the Internet...) except for mass cores, and 3D displays.

I saw people on Ars Technica in a massive discussion about 'IA128' referred to in some leaked MS slideshow, and everyone was off on 'lol 128 bit addressing, how dumb' but noone mentioned Intel's prototype 128 core CPU... old techs can get stuck in a mindset, the HZ race and the Bit-width race are nearing their end, (like the philosophers arrow, major 'breakthroughs' will likly produce single digit percentage gains)

The next major revision of Windows, based on my crystal ball will provide better support for massive numbers of cores, perhaps also giving up on the 'S' in SMP, not only treating GPU 'shaders' and CPU 'cores' as different breeds of the same beast, but allowing threads to be sheduled on pools of different core types, say a system 32 cores with floating point optimizations, 32 vector operation optimized cores, 64 general integer operation cores (perhaps with brach-prediction optimization, for 'control' threads), and GPU 'shader' cores on an add-in board, with fast streaming operation, but slow access to main memory... It'll also have native UI for 3D displays (requiring GPU's with a 64 bit memory model, LOL), and better integration with mobile data networks (3/4G whatever, I don't keep up with cellular stuff)

And it'll suck, the thread sheduling will be inefficent, and most PC's will still only have a handful of cores, 3D displays won't be standardized, and will give people headaches, and Mobile data will be too expensive, when downloading patches at a per-kilobyte rate...

But, the version after that, when everyone and their dog has a kilo-core machine, and app developers properly tag/seperate their threads for effective scheduling, 3D actually works well and dosn't make people barf, and people pony up for unlimited mobile data, and the OS (9?10?) is refined, it'll be great.





I'm not for or against global warming, I just don't care. It's just a change, which has happened any number of times in (pre)history. Some land will become less useful to humans, some will become more useful; some species which can't adapt will die off, others will thrive. If burning fossil fuels is a cause, well, we're almost out of those anyway. Methane from cow farts?, beef can't sustain a growing global population anyway.

I hate that some people have turned it into a virtually religious issue, and intentionally refuse to consider that the possibility that it might not be happening, it probably is occuring, but to attach labels like 'deniers' (I have to think this is an attept to emotionally link it to the jewish holocaust, but I might be wrong.) and to attack the speaker of the idea, instead of the idea itself is just wrong. That AG is wrong to use his position to attack the scientist; and it's also wrong to label someone who dosn't think global warming is happening as a troll, idiot, or worse.

Talking about the weather used to be 'safe', but now it's infused with conspiracy nuts, scientific cranks, and irrational believers, ON BOTH SIDES.


And don't forget those who just don't think that a couple degrees/feet of seawater is THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THE WORLD.

I'd double the rate of climate change to end a few wars, cure some major diseases, eliminate some truly toxic pollution, improve education or save other resources (like cash)..

So I buy more power efficent goods, to save on the power bill, and maybe to reduce power plant emissions.
Get a more efficent car and drive a little less, so we don't have to go to war for oil, plus saves on gas money, and maybe reduce emissions.
Eat less beef, to save a little money, be healthier, and maybe reduce (heh) emissions.

Most of the things the global warming fanatics want done should be done anyway. But with an unhealthy, overemotional focus on one particular aspect of the enviroment, you end up with schemes like 'cap and trade'. People like that in the last century are why we don't have clean and efficent nuclear power plants, but are still burning coal and oil.

With or without 'climate change', fossil fuels are getting harder and harder to aquire, and grazing cattle is not an efficent way to provide protein to billions of people, so change in human behavior is inevitable anyway; even if noone ever noticed 'boy, it does seem warmer this year than it was last year.'

Yet some people appear to have trouble beliving that other people just don't care all that much about global warming; like Bush jr. 'With us, or Against us"; it's impossible for some people to believe that it's not the most important issue to everybody.

So why would I even bother to reply if I don't care? Because Zealotry needs to be called out before it cripples society.


Nope, if temperatures fail to rise, that means they were successful in stopping it, thus saving the world. If temperatures rise, it's because we didn't listen to the warnings...

It's just like this tiger repellant rock.


Some marginally inhabitable places may become uninhabitable, but other uninhabitable places may become habitable.

It's change, not always bad, or always good. Fighting against global warming is acting like the RIAA in the face of online music downloading. You arn't going to be able to stop it, so you best learn how to deal with it. Prepare to deal with people moving from flooded areas, and prepare to plant crops futher north in Canada/Siberia, those melted glaciers will expose rich virgin soil that will need good managment to prevent erosion.

In any case, and reguardless of cause, it's too late to stop global warming (barring an extreme solution like a giant space parasol) since the gasses already in the atmosphere arn't going away overnight.

The blame game is all pointless politics, since we'll be out of fossil fuels soon enough anyway. We need to be able to move past that, and rationally deal with the effects, whatever they may be.


I've been wondering, how much of an impact on Global Warming does paper recycling have?

If, instead of reusing the wood fibers, they got buried ('sequestered') in landfills, and more trees were harvested, and replanted to make paper instead.

My understanding is that young, fast-growing trees suck more carbon out of the atmosphere than lazy old growth trees. I also read that trees grow faster with more CO2 available, and that thanks to the carbon we've released, trees are growing at the fastest rate in centuries.




Diebold even ran a poll to determine which voting method people prefer, out of 100 people 65 preferred electronic voting, 45 preferred paper, and 5 George W. Bush.






Any programming language expands until every available set of brace characters is valid in every context.

() {} []

take C#... say you have an indentifier 'x', x() is for method calls, x[] is for indexing, {} is reserved for code blocks, and x is for generics.

I think unicode would be nice for non-english native developers to use indentifiers in their native language, but would lead to an explodion of operators and braces, neighter of which would help readablility of code.

You could define a language with compd braces, just as C derived languages have += == !=, etc. you could define combo braces, f vs f vs f could each represent different things.

But it'll all boil down to invoking a method with some paramenters, it's all syntax sugar, just like x[n] to access an indexed item could be x.Lookup(n)

XML is interesting as something written with XML basically has an unlimited set of braces, "" allowing virtually infinite ways to expand the definition of objects. however, XML would make a very painful base for a programming language.






I've long thought that an Apple/Nintendo partnership would be... interesting.

They both have great user-centric systems, platform lock in, 'fans', etc, and don't often directly compete.

I think Nintendo using their IP and writing games for iPlatforms could work out well; strict hardware control, family friendly, etc.

However, they are probably both to Not-Invented-Here to work well with -anyone-.






I like to think that 'Sonic Screwdriver' is just a mispelling of 'Psionic Screwdriver'.

It's a do-what-I-mean tool, just like the 'Psychic Paper', and unlike a proper C Compiler or XML parser.

The mechinism by which it does it's thing is unimportant; it could be a heat screwdriver that uses themal expansion/contraction to move parts, or a graviton screwdriver manipulating mass and be used exactly the same way in almost every situation.






I like to say "A model M is the only keyboard you can use to kill a man; then type his obituary."

I really like to say that, at least once a month.






I was disqualified from a competition run by FBLA (Future Business Leaders of America) when I was in high school because I scored so well I must have cheated.

It was multiple choice on 'Computer Concepts' I scored 98/100, second highest was 76/100.

That was pretty bad... but worse was the next year, I tried again... and was disqualified because I 'won' the previous year.

I ended up dropping out of school and getting a GED later because of the stress of it.






Theory: the situation with Iraq was that the US had successfully destabalized Saddam's government, and it was ready to collapse; however the problem was the Taliban/Al Queda members being driven out of Afghanistan (who were no friends of Saddam) would have been the mostly likely people to do so barring US intervention. They may have setup a new, Islamic extremist government, which would be difficult for the US to displace; and they would appeal to the UN/etc. to get the sanctions lifted, as "we are not Saddam!, we are a new government!".

My belief is that the reason the US invaded Iraq at that time was to prevent that scenario. However, they could never publicly announce 'We are doing this to prevent the formation of an Islamic state', as that would probabaly be... frowned upon... by many muslims. So we got the non-sensical 'WMD' excuse. So, while Saddam had zero to do with 9/11, he was taken out and Iraq put under US control to prevent an undiserable coup.