They're more focused on computation than giant racks of storage, but their 2 systems are rated at max 3W/core total power consumption including drives, power supplies, interconnect, etc. I suspect the actual power draw will be much less.
How much storage does a "typical" datacenter have? (I know any answer would have huge variances.) For probably over two million USD or so, you should be able to get their larger system with 8TB of RAM and run their RAM-based Lustre filesystem along with the HD storage. Even with more places getting into petabyte ranges, I suspect 8TB of RAM and 5832 CPU cores would make it fly (16TB on 11,664 cores at $4-5M or so for redundancy). To me, that cost looks like a whole lot less than the facilities construction, cooling, and administration of the typical rows of racks... if it would meet the need.
(not affiliated with them; just a customer looking forward to their products)
About the history of the net, it's all just a matter of scale. I see it as equal systems on different scales, you see it as some quantum leap, whatever.
people should learn if they can not pay for bread, they will be hungry". similar situation is about the internet.
Look, what it boils down to is that you and others have positioned yourselves to be dependent on an unstable, unprotected, noncritical source of income (web ad revenues) on a shaky foundation of hoping that people use the net the same way as they always have. Out comes another Google or Skype or entrenched service bundle or some new well-funded thing in your own niche etc, and BAM, everyone's there and no ad revenue for you. Out comes pervasive ad blocking and legally-backed privacy protections, and BAM, no ad revenue for you. Sorry, but there is no protection for your type of income and if you're dependent on it, you've made a horribly short-sighted decision and have no right to complain about loss of revenue. Nothing will stop the web from changing around you and away from you if you're using something that people don't want (like invasive advertising). If you can make money before it doesn't work anymore, fine, but blogging and other such small-time sites are not some crucial service that will be protected, and it is no big loss to the world when those things fall from their current fad status to the wayside and niches again.
Remember all the "pay to surf" systems that were paying out decently? They're all gone, or pay out only pennies. Imagine if you depended on those for your living. That is exactly a Darwinistic "Oh no, I can't afford bread anymore!" scenario, but that's exactly what happened and people had to go somewhere else for income. A similar thing will happen with web ad revenues, and you'll be stuck complaining that they're gone with no protection from the change. It's already started: There is a real backlash to web advertising, and the funds for many sites _will_ continue to dry up and a lot of them _will_ fold. It's your own fault if you think that you can have long term funding from ads at a small site (even if it pays well now) and end up with nothing at the end of it because you didn't see that it wouldn't last. Everybody else sees it, which is why your complaints about dwindling ad revenues are largely scoffed.
I've pretty much had my say. I think both of us are starting to repeat ourselves.
I never had any complaint about the internet's quality of content. You claim that the internet of 20 years ago was a 'toy', yet I was showing that it had the same content and services as nowadays, complete with profitable international businesses and trade, free and for-pay fun stuff and socializing services, etc. This shows that the added advertising and money grubbing of today is not critical in any way to the internet's health. The addition of such people like you relying on this added garbage did not make it magically attain some different 'non-toy' status; the online content and services (both commercial and personal/social/academic) were already there, and are still progressing and developing regardless.
I never said that the internet should be cost-free. It is you who whine about internet hosting not being free, and want free money in return. People who host stuff are generally stuck with the cost, or endure the terms of service to piggyback on other people who already pay for hosting. If you can't afford to host your own content, or don't want to endure others' terms, or can't get customers or investors to pay for it, then too bad... you can't afford to do that online. You have no right to expect to be paid for simply having content online for free.
You do have the right to pursue profitable business models online, as many online providers of products and services have. But as soon as these models start trying to tell people that they can obtain content only with strings attached, implement covert tracking systems with potential back doors, and other such things that many like myself find offensive, then we will not endure your encumbrances and you will lose revenue. Sucks to be you.
This is exactly like a spider setting up a web hoping to catch flies, and the flies are getting what they want and aren't sticking. That's the spider's problem, not the flies'.
There is an old saying in business: "If you don't please your customers, don't worry. Somebody else will." The more you track, spam, open up to viruses, etc, your customers, the less they are pleased, and they will not play along with your games. Again, that is a fault of the business, not the customer. Don't complain to us if you failed because you chased away all of your customers/site visitors, or because they refused to play along with your invasive and potentially dangerous rules.
And before you make any claims about me, yes I do pay for online services. No, they are not some minor pocket-change expenses to me. If you complain that some people can't afford to host content they want to, that's like complaining that some people can't afford Ferraris. Boo frickin' hoo. As for them 'deserving' profit, there's no difference if people can't sustain a business online or offline; it doesn't come for free.
Whenever I see an established company throwing out an advertising/PR campaign around no real particular change, I always wonder how much financial trouble the company is in that warrants putting forth such effort to try to drive up sales right now.
this is elitism. you are talking about and gratifying an era that internet was limited to a bunch of sites, was serving a very small minority, and that mostly academicians. plain old elitism. [stuff about websearching and word of mouth]
The web is still limited to just a bunch of sites, that's pretty much what it is by definition. Obviously, the internet is far more than that, and always was; I presume you were just using 'web' and 'internet' interchangeably as is common.
As far as searching goes, there were automated search engines long before Google, there were manual web directories, there were discussion boards with links all over the place... the same way we have now. As far as word of mouth goes, it is FAST on the internet. Something strikes a chord and it is in email folders and forums all over the world nearly instantly... just like it was 40 years ago. It is true that there is far more social and other non-scientific/governmental/academic content online now than then, but the content isn't the point; the point is people avoiding the invasiveness that now pervades the internet with the unwanted abundance of tracking and advertising. Besides, there was tons of just-for-fun stuff online then, people's own opinionated pages, online games, social areas, etc, dating well back to the 70s and even 60s.
The internet contains exactly the same stuff now as it did then, just on a different scale and with the addition of the petty profiteering of every little chump with a webpage. And name services (yes, DNS is a relatively new one) are as old as the internet, so I don't know what that was supposed to imply.
what you said above is not valid for site discussion. and in regard to internet, to fight back option is always there, and there are many fighting back and winning. open source is an example, wiki is another example, bloggers with their $50-60 budget-hosting sites reaching out to 900 000 unique people a month are another example. everything comes with a price. the thing is to buy the right thing for the right price.
All of the examples are equal; any perceived difference is spin from marketers rationalizing their 'right' to know who is doing what online, and from advertisers trying to justify their own unsustainable business models. People pay for hosting so that the world can see their content, whether it be their own writing, software, or new alien cult. It's a relatively new and completely unsustainable concept that people should somehow magically get paid just for putting stuff online. The only thing that will change the current monetary burden of hosting is pervasive peer-to-peer 'hosting' where no single point of bandwidth concentration needs to be paid for; everyone would just maintain their own link and forward what interests them.
AFAIK, trains usually have their engines solely driving electric generators, which power the electric motors that drive the wheels. This allows for a huge increase in torque and is far simpler mechanically. Decoupling a fuel-burning engine from the mechanics of the drive system really isn't a new concept, but it is a very applicable one for this situation.
that "open, free" internet was just a bunch of sites that were created out of curiosity and created in mostly academic institution infrastructures.without ads internet wouldnt be the trans-national concept it is today.
Yes, "just a bunch of sites" etc is exactly what open and free means. And it was just as trans-national then as it is now. I was interacting and developing with people all over the world back then, whereas today a lot of the 'majority' focus seems to be USA-centric online, so I have no idea what you are implying there. Exactly how long have you been on the internet? It doesn't sound like very long.
Once things get monetized, lockdowns and invasive tracking become imminent, and the freedoms and openness to new concepts and ways of doing things are squelched because it rocks the status quo of shakily established business models (which on the net go obsolete VERY fast anyway) that are trying to make money off of people's free time and voluntary efforts by inserting themselves into the common ways of doing things (which also go obsolete VERY fast on the net). People will always take the path of least resistance, and being an average Joe exploring and contributing to the net means they will continually avoid the funneling and control aspects of internet profit mongering.
so that way websites will be forced to go on pay to see/subscription models. what a fantastic way to go. from open, free internet to newspaper stand format.
"open, free internet" is what we had before the ads, tracking mechanisms, malicious exploits coming through said ads, and other privacy invasions existed.
I am so glad to hear about this stuff. Just yesterday, I was asking my relatives about the adobe construction houses built in Mexico since that worked incredibly well. Basically they are hand-made bricks about 12"x12"x4", made of local dirt, manure, and lye to sanitize it. Mix, bake in the sun for a week or so, and build. This would constitute the entire wall, 1 foot thick, with the interior being a simple whitewash over the adobe, possibly updated later on with drywall. Many of these houses have been torn down and replaced with modern homes, with their modern AC bills, while the old adobe homes retain a pleasant temperature year-round naturally and are now sought after as energy prices rise.
However, the one thing I am still continually disappointed with is the notion that solar == photovoltaic. I wish that products using solar heat exchangers like Stirling engines for electricity generation were more commonplace, as they can be made from common materials, have a much higher conversion efficiency, and are maintainable instead of just having their exotic materials wear out after N years. But I guess the NIMBYs would rather have a flat plate than a dish concentrator on their property... next to the dish for their satellite systems. *sigh*
Read your parent again. He said 15 PSI, you're talking about 8 atm. If 1 atm == 15 PSI and it scales linearly (disclaimer: idunno), then the scuba incident would mean a sudden drop of 120 PSI.
Some blonde comes around covertly offering mainstream infamy, and neckbeards chase her away while recording her defeat. I'm glad that the hacker priorities are still being observed!:)
SiCortex still seems to be the best bet to me. About $1.5 mil for the 5832-core 18KW system, $200k for the 648-core 2KW system, in base configurations according to internet hearsay. 1GFLOPS per core, and an interconnect that's incredible. They've apparently demoed the 648-core system at SC'07 now and are slated to ship "this summer".
What if you wanted a portable music player that wasn't an iPod? Would you feel restricted then? Currently there's not much out there that puts up much competition to the iPod, or at least not much that's a whole lot better. However, in a few years who knows.
PDAs are a real, current, and actually long-standing use of non-iPod portable music players that need DRM-free media.
Re:Bad arguments and bad reasoning
on
The DRM Scorecard
·
· Score: 1
"When you list every major law implemented to "protect" life and property, they've all been broken. Can anyone think of a law which hasn't been broken, and of course this begs the obvious question: Why doesn't society just give up and go law-free?"
However, this breaks down as well. While others skirt around laws, it's not like 1 burglar can figure out how to break into a house and get away with it, and it becomes simple for any Joe Blow to steal from his neighbor without recourse. In DRM, once something is cracked _once_ the entire protection scheme (in that revision) is absolutely invalidated, and _anybody_ wishing to circumvent it can do so in the privacy of their own home with no peering eyes via some small application they downloaded. There really is no physical protection equivalent.
Re:I want storage, not HD.
on
Blue Blu-ray
·
· Score: 1
500GB drives are $100 nowadays. Why bother with slow, scratchable media? External drives FTW.
Yeah, as I said in another thread, I've seen store displays with HD-DVD and BluRay next to each other, both to 1080p displays running the same movie. HD-DVD is always a bit better looking, though that's just to my pixelophile eyes. I'm not sure if the average consumer would notice, but the types of people buying these things read articles from people who do notice, run tests, and report in magazines. Both formats still appear to be a blocky, compressed mess to me.
The fact there may be unintended consequences and side effects to such laws is not within the remit of the Constitution.
I do agree with this. However, when Congress is aware that these unintended consequences and side effects are becoming the norm (see also the article a few days ago saying patents are no longer profitable across most industries), there should be a call to reform. Yes, there is some reform in the way of whether or not patents that are either obvious or too abstract are slipping through, but reform for the problem of patent trolls AFAIK would be a completely separate movement, refocusing patents toward progress.
Protecting financial interests of patent holders, whether companies or individuals, however is a raison d'etre for patents, since by making an invention public, someone hopes to make money.
I don't think that the constitution says this. The raison d'etre for patents is to progress science and the useful arts. The mechanism of financial incentive of exclusivity for a (supposedly) short time is an artifact of trying to reach that goal.
Personally I feel 1920x1200 is enough, I don't need that huge a workspace and it's highly unlikely above-1080p will become common in the next decade or two.
I've been running 1536p for the last decade (2048x1536 CRTs, 19"-21", $250-$350 each). Why should I have to downgrade for the next?
The Constitution _only_ grants power to congress to establish patents for the promotion of the progress of science and useful arts. As far as I'm concerned, it is outside constitutional allowances for the government to enforce patents for other purposes, like protecting financial interests of companies that do not promote the progress of science and useful arts.
Then you'd expect them to make mistakes, lose data, break things, forget how to do stuff, try stuff that doesn't work and botch things up, just like untrained humans do when trying to grow their knowledge of an unknown. There are certain processes that we want to be ultimately reliable in following protocol, granting exception for catastrophic hardware failures and such. In these cases where behavior protocol is defined, a learning system is generally inferior.
Also, retraining is an issue. If you do not have high-level conceptual communication with the entity in question, you cannot state changes to the expected protocol. You'd need to go through another indeterminate "growth cycle", hoping your training set and fitness evaluation are meaningful (take courses, degrees, and certs as a timely example for the case of humans) as opposed to systems based on organized business rules, encapsulation, and such. I'm not saying that learning systems are useless, but the examples that the GP listed are very protocol based.
I agree that computing is hard. Well, I find it easy, but I agree that, in general, if you're going to use a computer, you're going to learn some logic, and I will not help you to avoid thinking.
The whole "Well, I find it easy" doesn't sound like somebody who has learned so much that he realizes what difficult problems and limitations are out there, nor knows enough to realize how much he doesn't know. Just sayin'.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you forgot a "per second" in there somewhere...
So a Swiss cheese wheel doesn't have holes inside of it? This is basically what this is.
SiCortex
They're more focused on computation than giant racks of storage, but their 2 systems are rated at max 3W/core total power consumption including drives, power supplies, interconnect, etc. I suspect the actual power draw will be much less.
How much storage does a "typical" datacenter have? (I know any answer would have huge variances.) For probably over two million USD or so, you should be able to get their larger system with 8TB of RAM and run their RAM-based Lustre filesystem along with the HD storage. Even with more places getting into petabyte ranges, I suspect 8TB of RAM and 5832 CPU cores would make it fly (16TB on 11,664 cores at $4-5M or so for redundancy). To me, that cost looks like a whole lot less than the facilities construction, cooling, and administration of the typical rows of racks... if it would meet the need.
(not affiliated with them; just a customer looking forward to their products)
About the history of the net, it's all just a matter of scale. I see it as equal systems on different scales, you see it as some quantum leap, whatever.
Look, what it boils down to is that you and others have positioned yourselves to be dependent on an unstable, unprotected, noncritical source of income (web ad revenues) on a shaky foundation of hoping that people use the net the same way as they always have. Out comes another Google or Skype or entrenched service bundle or some new well-funded thing in your own niche etc, and BAM, everyone's there and no ad revenue for you. Out comes pervasive ad blocking and legally-backed privacy protections, and BAM, no ad revenue for you. Sorry, but there is no protection for your type of income and if you're dependent on it, you've made a horribly short-sighted decision and have no right to complain about loss of revenue. Nothing will stop the web from changing around you and away from you if you're using something that people don't want (like invasive advertising). If you can make money before it doesn't work anymore, fine, but blogging and other such small-time sites are not some crucial service that will be protected, and it is no big loss to the world when those things fall from their current fad status to the wayside and niches again.
Remember all the "pay to surf" systems that were paying out decently? They're all gone, or pay out only pennies. Imagine if you depended on those for your living. That is exactly a Darwinistic "Oh no, I can't afford bread anymore!" scenario, but that's exactly what happened and people had to go somewhere else for income. A similar thing will happen with web ad revenues, and you'll be stuck complaining that they're gone with no protection from the change. It's already started: There is a real backlash to web advertising, and the funds for many sites _will_ continue to dry up and a lot of them _will_ fold. It's your own fault if you think that you can have long term funding from ads at a small site (even if it pays well now) and end up with nothing at the end of it because you didn't see that it wouldn't last. Everybody else sees it, which is why your complaints about dwindling ad revenues are largely scoffed.
I've pretty much had my say. I think both of us are starting to repeat ourselves.
I never had any complaint about the internet's quality of content. You claim that the internet of 20 years ago was a 'toy', yet I was showing that it had the same content and services as nowadays, complete with profitable international businesses and trade, free and for-pay fun stuff and socializing services, etc. This shows that the added advertising and money grubbing of today is not critical in any way to the internet's health. The addition of such people like you relying on this added garbage did not make it magically attain some different 'non-toy' status; the online content and services (both commercial and personal/social/academic) were already there, and are still progressing and developing regardless.
I never said that the internet should be cost-free. It is you who whine about internet hosting not being free, and want free money in return. People who host stuff are generally stuck with the cost, or endure the terms of service to piggyback on other people who already pay for hosting. If you can't afford to host your own content, or don't want to endure others' terms, or can't get customers or investors to pay for it, then too bad... you can't afford to do that online. You have no right to expect to be paid for simply having content online for free.
You do have the right to pursue profitable business models online, as many online providers of products and services have. But as soon as these models start trying to tell people that they can obtain content only with strings attached, implement covert tracking systems with potential back doors, and other such things that many like myself find offensive, then we will not endure your encumbrances and you will lose revenue. Sucks to be you.
This is exactly like a spider setting up a web hoping to catch flies, and the flies are getting what they want and aren't sticking. That's the spider's problem, not the flies'.
There is an old saying in business: "If you don't please your customers, don't worry. Somebody else will." The more you track, spam, open up to viruses, etc, your customers, the less they are pleased, and they will not play along with your games. Again, that is a fault of the business, not the customer. Don't complain to us if you failed because you chased away all of your customers/site visitors, or because they refused to play along with your invasive and potentially dangerous rules.
And before you make any claims about me, yes I do pay for online services. No, they are not some minor pocket-change expenses to me. If you complain that some people can't afford to host content they want to, that's like complaining that some people can't afford Ferraris. Boo frickin' hoo. As for them 'deserving' profit, there's no difference if people can't sustain a business online or offline; it doesn't come for free.
Whenever I see an established company throwing out an advertising/PR campaign around no real particular change, I always wonder how much financial trouble the company is in that warrants putting forth such effort to try to drive up sales right now.
The web is still limited to just a bunch of sites, that's pretty much what it is by definition. Obviously, the internet is far more than that, and always was; I presume you were just using 'web' and 'internet' interchangeably as is common.
As far as searching goes, there were automated search engines long before Google, there were manual web directories, there were discussion boards with links all over the place... the same way we have now. As far as word of mouth goes, it is FAST on the internet. Something strikes a chord and it is in email folders and forums all over the world nearly instantly... just like it was 40 years ago. It is true that there is far more social and other non-scientific/governmental/academic content online now than then, but the content isn't the point; the point is people avoiding the invasiveness that now pervades the internet with the unwanted abundance of tracking and advertising. Besides, there was tons of just-for-fun stuff online then, people's own opinionated pages, online games, social areas, etc, dating well back to the 70s and even 60s.
The internet contains exactly the same stuff now as it did then, just on a different scale and with the addition of the petty profiteering of every little chump with a webpage. And name services (yes, DNS is a relatively new one) are as old as the internet, so I don't know what that was supposed to imply.
All of the examples are equal; any perceived difference is spin from marketers rationalizing their 'right' to know who is doing what online, and from advertisers trying to justify their own unsustainable business models. People pay for hosting so that the world can see their content, whether it be their own writing, software, or new alien cult. It's a relatively new and completely unsustainable concept that people should somehow magically get paid just for putting stuff online. The only thing that will change the current monetary burden of hosting is pervasive peer-to-peer 'hosting' where no single point of bandwidth concentration needs to be paid for; everyone would just maintain their own link and forward what interests them.
AFAIK, trains usually have their engines solely driving electric generators, which power the electric motors that drive the wheels. This allows for a huge increase in torque and is far simpler mechanically. Decoupling a fuel-burning engine from the mechanics of the drive system really isn't a new concept, but it is a very applicable one for this situation.
Yes, "just a bunch of sites" etc is exactly what open and free means. And it was just as trans-national then as it is now. I was interacting and developing with people all over the world back then, whereas today a lot of the 'majority' focus seems to be USA-centric online, so I have no idea what you are implying there. Exactly how long have you been on the internet? It doesn't sound like very long.
Once things get monetized, lockdowns and invasive tracking become imminent, and the freedoms and openness to new concepts and ways of doing things are squelched because it rocks the status quo of shakily established business models (which on the net go obsolete VERY fast anyway) that are trying to make money off of people's free time and voluntary efforts by inserting themselves into the common ways of doing things (which also go obsolete VERY fast on the net). People will always take the path of least resistance, and being an average Joe exploring and contributing to the net means they will continually avoid the funneling and control aspects of internet profit mongering.
"open, free internet" is what we had before the ads, tracking mechanisms, malicious exploits coming through said ads, and other privacy invasions existed.
I am so glad to hear about this stuff. Just yesterday, I was asking my relatives about the adobe construction houses built in Mexico since that worked incredibly well. Basically they are hand-made bricks about 12"x12"x4", made of local dirt, manure, and lye to sanitize it. Mix, bake in the sun for a week or so, and build. This would constitute the entire wall, 1 foot thick, with the interior being a simple whitewash over the adobe, possibly updated later on with drywall. Many of these houses have been torn down and replaced with modern homes, with their modern AC bills, while the old adobe homes retain a pleasant temperature year-round naturally and are now sought after as energy prices rise.
However, the one thing I am still continually disappointed with is the notion that solar == photovoltaic. I wish that products using solar heat exchangers like Stirling engines for electricity generation were more commonplace, as they can be made from common materials, have a much higher conversion efficiency, and are maintainable instead of just having their exotic materials wear out after N years. But I guess the NIMBYs would rather have a flat plate than a dish concentrator on their property... next to the dish for their satellite systems. *sigh*
Read your parent again. He said 15 PSI, you're talking about 8 atm. If 1 atm == 15 PSI and it scales linearly (disclaimer: idunno), then the scuba incident would mean a sudden drop of 120 PSI.
Some blonde comes around covertly offering mainstream infamy, and neckbeards chase her away while recording her defeat. I'm glad that the hacker priorities are still being observed! :)
SiCortex still seems to be the best bet to me. About $1.5 mil for the 5832-core 18KW system, $200k for the 648-core 2KW system, in base configurations according to internet hearsay. 1GFLOPS per core, and an interconnect that's incredible. They've apparently demoed the 648-core system at SC'07 now and are slated to ship "this summer".
PDAs are a real, current, and actually long-standing use of non-iPod portable music players that need DRM-free media.
However, this breaks down as well. While others skirt around laws, it's not like 1 burglar can figure out how to break into a house and get away with it, and it becomes simple for any Joe Blow to steal from his neighbor without recourse. In DRM, once something is cracked _once_ the entire protection scheme (in that revision) is absolutely invalidated, and _anybody_ wishing to circumvent it can do so in the privacy of their own home with no peering eyes via some small application they downloaded. There really is no physical protection equivalent.
500GB drives are $100 nowadays. Why bother with slow, scratchable media? External drives FTW.
Yeah, as I said in another thread, I've seen store displays with HD-DVD and BluRay next to each other, both to 1080p displays running the same movie. HD-DVD is always a bit better looking, though that's just to my pixelophile eyes. I'm not sure if the average consumer would notice, but the types of people buying these things read articles from people who do notice, run tests, and report in magazines. Both formats still appear to be a blocky, compressed mess to me.
I've been running 1536p for the last decade (2048x1536 CRTs, 19"-21", $250-$350 each). Why should I have to downgrade for the next?
The Constitution of the United States gives Congress the power to enact laws relating to patents, in Article I, section 8, which reads "Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
The Constitution _only_ grants power to congress to establish patents for the promotion of the progress of science and useful arts. As far as I'm concerned, it is outside constitutional allowances for the government to enforce patents for other purposes, like protecting financial interests of companies that do not promote the progress of science and useful arts.
You forgot a Car Analogy(tm) in there somewhere.
Then you'd expect them to make mistakes, lose data, break things, forget how to do stuff, try stuff that doesn't work and botch things up, just like untrained humans do when trying to grow their knowledge of an unknown. There are certain processes that we want to be ultimately reliable in following protocol, granting exception for catastrophic hardware failures and such. In these cases where behavior protocol is defined, a learning system is generally inferior.
Also, retraining is an issue. If you do not have high-level conceptual communication with the entity in question, you cannot state changes to the expected protocol. You'd need to go through another indeterminate "growth cycle", hoping your training set and fitness evaluation are meaningful (take courses, degrees, and certs as a timely example for the case of humans) as opposed to systems based on organized business rules, encapsulation, and such. I'm not saying that learning systems are useless, but the examples that the GP listed are very protocol based.
The whole "Well, I find it easy" doesn't sound like somebody who has learned so much that he realizes what difficult problems and limitations are out there, nor knows enough to realize how much he doesn't know. Just sayin'.
Yeah, that worked really well the last time around, Sony. :rolleyes: