Or do they have something else up their sleeve for next year?"
Yes, they have something else up their sleeve. Did anybody notice Apple's "enterprise services agreement" with Unisys?
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/Apple-Unisys-Agree-to-Enterprise-Services-Deal-Report-788654/
Did anybody notice the 54% drop in Unisys's profits, along with a drop in server sales?
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Unisys-3Q-profit-sinks-54-pct-apf-3818156357.html?x=0&.v=1
So, Unisys is an enterprise computing company looking for a way to save its server business. Apple is consumer electronics company with enterprise ambitions, enterprise software, but no enterprise distribution network. Apple just announced it is dropping its server hardware line, a little over a week after announcing the deal with Unisys.
I know it is fashionable to dismiss Apple's enterprise computing ambitions. I was at an Apple Developer's seminar a couple years ago where they were showing off the new version (then) of MacOS X Server. The entire focus of that seminar was on how Apple was adding features to MacOS X Server (and even licensing things from Microsoft) to make OS X Server more suitable for the enterprise.
I predict Unisys will start offering MacOS X Server on Unisys server hardware soon. Apple may even end up buying Unisys.
The "correlation does not equal causation" argument works only with some degree of ignorance, whether intentional or not.
In the case of global warming, there is a clearly identified causative mechanism: the greenhouse gas effect. The GHG effect clearly explains how the addition of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere results in atmospheric warming. This cause-effect mechanism and it's role in climate change has been described in 1824 by Fourier, in 1859 by Tyndall, in 1896 by Arrhenius, in 1897 by Chamberlin, in 1938 by Callendar, in the 1960s by Keeling, and from the 1970's to present by modern climate scientists.
Some climate denialists who truly are uneducated in science can honestly claim ignorance, but then they shouldn't be doubting the conclusions of those who are not ignorant: the climate scientists. Most climate denialists are not truly uneducated in science. I consider these people on various levels from "intentional ignorance" to "malicious ignorance", to "ignorant with extreme prejudice".
The "whether not it is caused by humans... doesn't seem to matter." is a cop-out. It does matter. Human behavior (releasing massive, steady streams of naturally sequestered carbon) is the driving factor in climate change. We cannot effectively mitigate climate change without modifying this human behavior.
The "clean air, clean water, clean land", argument is a distraction from the role of GHGs. It's easy to design car engines that minimize smog-forming emissions like hydrocarbons and nitrous oxides. It's not so easy to design a combustion engine that reduces GHGs like carbon dioxide. In fact, there is a fundamental proportion of CO2 emitted to energy produced in a combustion engine that cannot be violated by the laws of physics and chemistry.
Historically, the group that has denied anthropogenic climate change is the same group that has opposed efforts for clean air, water, and land.
If we want to start making the world better for you and me, we have to stop being ignorant, acknowledge the role of human GHG emissions, and act to reduce those emissions. Ignorance (intentional or not) of the human role in climate change IS tantamount to being a climate change denier.
>> [Getting a liver transplant is not a long, involved, and lengthy process for Steve Jobs.] Because his net worth exceeds $100 million, he doesn't have to worry about what his insurance company will or will not pay. He simply writes a check.
Steve Job's wealth gives him two advantages: no time wasted securing financial means for a transplant, and freedom to choose where the transplant is done. Once he gets on the transplant waiting list, he has no advantages over anyone else listed in the same region.
Typical transplant patients might have to spend some time securing the 20% of the costs not covered by insurance, or negotiate with the medical facility to waive the 20%. However, some insurance plans do cover 100% (one of Kaiser's better plans, offered through large employers, covers 100%). Jobs obviously didn't have to worry about this. Even if he personally did not have the money, I'm sure Apple would have covered it.
Mere mortals with normal insurance plans are limited in where they can apply for their transplant. If you're in California or New York you can expect to wait months to years for a transplant. Some plans (including Kaiser) allow limited choices outside your local area, but don't necessarily promote this option. Jobs had the luxury of choosing exactly where he would apply for his transplant. His criteria were short wait time and good transplant team. Perhaps privacy might've been an issue, too.
Beyond these two advantages, Jobs transplant priority is dictated strictly by rules of the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS). For transplant candidates with cancer, UNOS has a priority score starting at 22 upon acceptance of transplant application, increasing in increments of 3, 2, and 2 points every 3 months. After 9 months, his score would be 29. In low-demand, high-supply areas like Florida, he would likely get his transplant within 3 months of being accepted. In California or New York, he would likely wait 6-9 months. With his listing in Tennessee, it is very possible for Jobs to get his transplant within 3 months.
Transplant priority is determined almost entirely by UNOS rules. There is very little local discretion. Any facility that tries to bend the rules to favor a wealthy candidate would lose their accreditation to do transplants and would stop receiving donor organs. This is a self-policing system, because other facilities in the same organ-sharing region would scrutinize any suspicious transplant ordering by a neighboring facility.
There is still the question of why he would be given a transplant if the cancer was spread from another organ. Most likely, he was monitored for at least a few months before being accepted on the transplant list. During this time, they might have cut out or otherwise treated the liver tumor. They would also be watching very carefully to see if cancer would show up elsewhere. He might have received chemotherapy to help prevent appearance of cancer elsewhere. As long as the cancer is limited to the liver (after successful treatment for pancreatic cancer), and is limited in size, UNOS would not rule out a transplant.
In summary, Jobs freedom to choose where he got his transplant probably helped him get his transplant 3-6 months earlier than a California resident who didn't have that option. Other than that, he was subject to the same UNOS prioritization as everyone else.
The 3-6 month recovery period applies to non-cancer liver transplant recipients in long-wait areas like California and New York. In these areas, the wait list is so long that you have to be extremely sick before getting a transplant. You're probably mentally incoherent because of encepalopathy and your digestive system is probably dysfunctional because you've been tube fed. You're probably hospitalized. When these patients finally get their transplants, it can take days to weeks for the transplanted liver to start functioning, and months to be in a physical state resembling normal.
This was NOT Steve Jobs case.
Jobs had liver cancer and probably caught it at the earliest possible opportunity, since he had reason to expect the possibility. He obviously did his research to figure out which area had the shortest wait time and good care (Tennessee). He probably got the transplant before his bodily functions started failing. Thus, he probably recovered from the transplant very quickly. It's very plausible that he got his transplant only two months ago.
For more details, see my comment elsewhere in this discussion.
Getting a liver transplant is a long, involved, and lengthy process.
First, you need to have good medical care and good insurance. If your doctor has been carefully monitoring your liver with CT scans every six months because he realizes you're at risk (perhaps because you have Hep B), you will have a good chance at early detection of liver cancer. If you have no such proactive care, good luck!
Next, your doctor has to present you the option, you have to recognize its urgency, and you have to ask for the transplant, aggressively. If your doctor says, "This is not yet urgent", or "We can wait and monitor this", or if you say, "Can we just wait and see?", it might be too late by the time you recognize the danger (much like climate change and peak oil). That's because...
It takes 6 months to process a liver transplant application, then months to years to actually receive the transplant.
The application process has two parts: medical evaluation and financial means. The medical evaluation is a comprehensive evaluation to determine that you're a good candidate for transplant, that the cancer has not spread beyond the liver, and that you're psychologically fit for the transplant. The financial means evaluation... well, if you don't have the financial means, you do NOT get listed on the transplant list. Period. The only way to get a liver transplant without financial means is if you're an emergency case with sudden liver failure. Oh, you also need to have a designated caregiver who commits to taking time off work to take care if you, if/when necessary.
Once the application process starts, it can take 5 months to actually get on the transplant list. If the winter holidays occur fall in this time period, make that 6 months. If they accidentally list you on the non-cancer waiting list (with lower priority than the cancer waiting list), it might be another month (total 7 months) by the time somebody catches this mistake and it gets corrected. Most likely it will be YOU who catches the mistake, because nobody else is paying attention. If YOU fail to catch this error, the patient may be on the wrong (lower priority) waiting list indefinitely.
Once you're listed, it could take weeks to years to get the transplant. For non-cancer patients, the priority is determined strictly by a function of three blood test results: bilirubin, creatinine, and INR. As these levels go up, you develop ascites (fluid in abdomen), encephalopathy (cloudy mind), and then it gets worse. The problem is, you typically lose weight as you get sicker, and as you lose weight, the creatinine level goes DOWN, so your priority gets lower, initially! If you're lucky enough to be in Oregon or Florida, with no motorcycle helmet laws, you might get your transplant in a few months. If you're in Southern California or New York, you might be waiting a year or longer, progress to extreme illness and hospitalization, and be on the verge of death before getting the transplant. These are the patients who take 6 months to recover from the transplant. Often it takes days to weeks for the transplanted liver to start functioning. These patient have been IV fed for so long that the digestive tract is initially dysfunctional. They have to start with limited plain-cracker diets. Because their gut microbes have been ravaged, their gastric emissions are horrendous foul smelling.
If you're a liver cancer patient (like Jobs) the good thing is, you'll probably get your transplant sooner than the non-cancer patients, because liver cancer transplant priority goes up strictly by time on waiting list. "Sooner" is relative to when you got listed. If you trusted your Kaiser doctor and didn't sense any urgency, you probably didn't apply for the transplant until it was almost too late (there are limits are tumor size for transplant). If you are well-informed and proactively asked for a transplant application, you might get your transplant before you start to feel any symptoms of a dysfunctional liver. This is probably wha
They've done some absolutely amazing things in the last couple of years on a budget that makes all the governments combined look pretty silly.
Sure. It's amazing that such a well-funded "private" company can have a 100% failure rate in a 40 year old industry, using off-the-shelf technology and public funding.
We should keep in mind that there's nothing particularly new or exotic about SpaceX's rocket. Their failures have been caused by poor design of basic parts and lack of basic testing and rigorous analysis. This can't be compared to early NASA launch failures, when the science of rocketry had not been as firmly established as they are today.
Seriously folks, this may be rocket science, but it's rocket science that has been firmly established by the time time most of us were born.
Many fans of SpaceX encourage the company to carry on, pointing out that NASA's current success rose out of numerous early failures.
That's fine and dandy, but if SpaceX truly is a PRIVATE space launch company, let the failures be paid for by PRIVATE INVESTMENT and NOT BY PUBLIC FUNDING.
I just went to the trouble of buying a temperature controlled soldering station so I'd have better luck transitioning to lead-free solder, and now I read about the problems with tin.
So, what exactly is the implication for hobbyists? I'm soldering radio and power circuits.
The solder I just bought from Radio Shack is labeled "Lead-Free Silver Bearing Solder 96/4". Does that mean it's 96% tin and 4% silver? Will my radio and power circuits be affected by the tin whiskering problem?
Should I go back to lead-full solder and return my Weller soldering station?
Bjorn Lomborg demonstrates that you can take skepticism too far. Skepticism calls for the questioning of a hypothesis based on doubts about evidence supporting that hypothesis and on faith in counter-evidence. If the hypothesis is supported by little data, or if the counter-evidence is as great as the supporting data, it is reasonable to doubt the hypothesis.
In the case of climate change, previous finding of anthropogenic global warming are continually reinforced by new findings while alternative explanations are steadily debunked by new findings.
If you listen to Lomborg's interviews, you'll notice him dodging direct questions about whether the environment is getting worse, and redirecting the discussion to hypotheses that the environmental changes can have a positive effect and that humans can adapt to take advantage of these changes. He puts a real positive spin on the possibility of change.
The/. community has a technical term for this: FUD! (or perhaps, reverse-FUD - putting a positive spin on a negative thing).
The article gives a false impression of climate security based on the premise that higher concentrations of CO2 are leading to increased plant growth. While everything else in the article is wrong and/or misleading, it is true that increased CO2 increases plant growth, up to a certain point. The problem is, this is low-quality plant growth.
This Nature Journal article (2 Aug 2007, subs. required) describes research confirming increased CO2 concentration increases the mass of crop output. However, the nutritional content of the crops dropped and the growth of crop-destroying pests doubled.
This article in New Scientist reports research showing increased CO2 levels increase pollen production in ragweed. The researchers report a strong correlation between increasing CO2 concentration and increasing rates of asthma.
Similar findings, along with additional information, are described in this blog post.
I give Forrester Research credit for finally waking up and smelling the coffee, but they're still in a groggy, early morning stupor.
AFAIK, this is the first article from a mainstream computer industry research report that acknowledges Apple may have a very serious and viable five year product plan, beyond their existing hit products.
But then, Forrester goes on to say Apple's "commitment to closed systems" poses a barrier to wide adoption. In the previous paragraph, Microsoft and HP are cited as tough competitors, without mention of how much more closed Windows is. Nor does the article mention that Apple's proprietary parts are superior interfaces to open protocols.
I would have been much more impressed if the article discussed how Apple's practice of continuously building and improving on past technical and product successes poses a serious challenge to Microsoft and HPs practice of quarterly product planning. I guess this degree of insightfulness is reserved for more independent sources, like Roughly Drafted.
I concede the point regarding Mac issues in the enterprise.
Now that I think about it, I do realize that Apple's support for NIS and related services has been annoyingly inconsistent. I suspect this is why Apple is taking only baby steps into the enterprise. Note that enterprise adoption is being pulled by Mac users, not pushed by Apple.
For now, I'll give Apple the benefit of the doubt for being a relative newcomer to the modern enterprise computing market. I expect Apple to quickly mature in enterprise support. One evidence of this is Apple's recent discontinuation of Xserve RAID, along with partnering with an established enterprise storage provider. This should help Apple focus on what it does best.
I also expect Apple to depend on service providers like IBM to serve the largest enterprises. For the smaller businesses, I expect Apple will expand its retail store training offerings.
Keep in mind that Apple's success with iPod, MacOS X, Intel Macs, etc. are based on ten years of steady improvement starting with early efforts to switch to a UNIX based system. Given time (hopefully not 10 years), I expect Apple's enterprise support to make similarly steady improvements.
Now that the pundits are finally realizing that Macs are being introduced to the enterprise, let's have some fun and look further into the future, at the things pundits will be announcing a few years from now.
As enterprises increasingly replace Windows with Mac, there will be two effects most pundits haven't thought of yet. First, IT staffs will decrease dramatically because of the lower support burden of Mac. Second, the army of Windows support workers will be out of a job.
For any minimally-skilled person (think high school diploma, GED, associates degree, etc.) the easiest way to get a decent paying job has been training in Windows. Think about your local community college course catalog. If it's anything like mine, the computer technology section is full of Microsoft courses and devoid of Mac and Unix courses. That will change.
The effect on the economy could be interesting. On the one hand, the number of corporate IT jobs will drop. On the other hand, the ease (and lower cost) of MacOS X server will create numerous new IT jobs for smaller businesses who could not handle the financial or technical burden of Windows.
I predict those Windows courses will rapidly disappear from community college course catalogs over the next several years.
Happens on a regular basis to us, and then the new machines doesn't support the current release of OS X, so we cant deploy until we fully test...
This assumes you try to shoehorn the Mac into the Windows paradigm, where six months of testing is required, mainly to wait for the SP1 and SP2 releases.
With an enterprise full of Macs, corporations will discover three things that nullify the issues of replacement machines and extended testing. First, five year old Macs are very functional with the latest MacOS X. Second, MacOS X upgrades are so smooth you don't need the extended testing required of Windows. Third, MacOS X is backward compatible enough that a mixed Tiger/Leopard environment is not a serious issue.
The Mac is more than just a hardware/OS switch from Windows PCs. It will change the way we deploy, maintain, and use computers.
I've read a few criticisms that the Mac might be easy for the end-user, but it's harder on the system administrator. I don't think this is generally true, but I can see two situations that generate this opinion.
The more obvious is sysadmins who are familiar with Windows and Unix having trouble adapting to the Mac. I had quite a bit of difficulty during my first few months of using a Mac because I'd become accustomed to the complicated ways of doing things on Windows. Once I lost my Windows habits, I was amazed at how much time I wasted on Windows before switching to Mac.
The less obvious condition is when the Mac is forced to adapt to procedures and paradigms designed for Windows or Unix. There are naturally some issues when a Mac tries to authenticate user logins through a Windows server, and otherwise tries to fit itself into a Windows environment.
I expect the situation will be very different once the IT infrastructure is based on Mac. There are many underutilized Mac features, like Netboot and network install. Once these features are implemented in an infrastructure designed for Mac, it will be the Windows and UNIXes that seem like an awkward fit.
The effect hasn't become dominant yet, but IT budget cuts in the face of economic recession will accelerate enterprise adoption of Macs.
Until recently, IT departments got a blank check so there was no hard necessity to take cost seriously. Windows skated by on familiarity and prior market dominance.
When the recession finally hits corporations, IT departments will understand the significance of per-client pricing of Windows server vs. the unlimited client pricing of MacOS X server. The accountants will start to notice Mac hardware has a longer useful life and a higher resale value. When the blank check for Windows support stops arriving, corporations will take a hard look at Mac.
Yes, there will be some divas who have built a career's worth of critical analysis software in VBA and insist on keeping their Windows computer. They will be considered a necessary additional cost, and not the baseline support configuration.
Not all companies will switch at once, but those who make the switch will have a competitive advantage. The remaining companies will follow suit, or suffer from higher operating costs. The enterprise transition from Windows to Mac will be quick (surprisingly quick to most).
Many companies will adopt Linux in some capacity, especially if they user server farms that need large-scale computing capacity. However, I expect Macs to be in high demand as a front-end server and desktop system.
When the bottom line depends on companies taking IT costs seriously, Windows will fall rapidly to Mac.
I didn't mean to imply Apple invests in basic scientific research, the way Bell Labs once did. What I meant is:
the decision to go to a UNIX kernel in the late 90's pays off again and again, to this day.
the investment in ARM in the 90's is paying off, to this day, in low-power embedded devices.
internal parallel development of x86 binaries, starting several years before the Intel transition, paid off with a smooth one-year transition that still accommodates older PowerPC users.
the decision to start adopting and accommodating open source (including open-sourcing the MacOS X kernel as Darwin) starting several years ago pays off to this day letting Apple offer the best packaging of popular open source tools for people who don't want to become Linux geeks.
(Why isn't the UL tag giving me a bulleted, unnumbered list?)
Apple has the vision to dream of possibilities 5-10 years ahead, and the diligence to start working on those today. (On a side note, Apple also has the practicality to discontinue products that aren't adding significant value: Xserve RAID is a good example.)
Show me a PC company that has a similar track record of visionary planning and impeccable execution.
Apple is driving the market and has been doing so since introducing the iMac. Apple invests in technology years in advance while the Dells and HPs are running their businesses on a quarterly basis.
The punditry will be surprised when they finally notice Apple's growth in the enterprise, at 2-3 times the industry rate. Anyone who's paying attention will realize that the features and capabilities that will make Apple unstoppable in the enterprise in a few years are being designed into Apple products today.
Similar things can be said for Apple TV's prospects for becoming a more ubiquitous consumer appliance - but don't be surprised if even Apple TV shows up in the enterprise, as a device to stream corporate training podcasts hosted on a MacOS X Server.
Apple introduces useful new capabilities that provide compelling reasons to buy new Apple products. What compelling reason is there to upgrade Windows PCs, other than for the sake of upgrading?
Apple has $18 billion in cash and no debt. The P.A. Semi acquisition costs $0.278 billion and involves a 150 person engineering team. Apple can acquire P.A. Semi just because. Of course, Apple under Jobs is known for successful execution of visionary long-term business plans, not for reckless acquisitions.
So what can Apple do with P.A. Semi?
P.A. Semi doesn't have a significant revenue stream, as far as I can tell, but it does have technology and talent. According to Wikipedia, P.A. Semi's engineering team includes expertise in Itanium, Opteron, and UltraSPARC. Their products boast high performance embedded computing at 1/3 power consumption. This tells me the PWRficient processors are higher-performance than the ARM currently used in iPhone and iPods, but uses much less power than the Core 2 processors used everywhere else in Apple's product line.
Suppose P.A. Semi can scale their CPUs smaller or larger to compete with the fastest ARMs and the slowest Core 2's.
With scaled-down PWRficient processors, Apple can produce iPhones/iPods with dramatically longer battery life than their ARM-equipped competitors (or smaller devices with the same battery life). Similarly, Apple can produce subnotebook computers with dramatically longer battery life than their x86 competition.
If nothing else, Apple can use PWRficient as a bargaining chip with Intel. How much is Intel willing to discount sales to Apple, if Apple agrees not to use PWRficient in Apple TV? Considering the pains Apple went through when it was dependent on Motorola or IBM for PowerPC processors, Apple would be wise to keep several options open.
Of course, P.A. Semi has no fabs, so Apple is dependent on P.A.s current agreements with Texas Instruments for production. But, AMD is struggling to keep up with Intel's technology, and may have excess production capacity. If Intel doesn't give Apple deep enough discounts, AMD surely could do so.
Those not familiar with Apple's unique strengths may object to the complexities of supporting multiple platforms, but Apple has already solved that problem. Apple Universal Binaries can include binary code for up to four platforms: i386, x86_64, ppc, ppc64. What's one more? If Apple's history with Intel support is any indicator, Apple has probably had their software running on PWRficient all along, in their secret internal labs.
Also consider that one of Apple's research projects is LLVM, specifically designed for dynamic compilation and optimization of intermediate-level code for any supported hardware platform. Apple can borrow P.A. Semi's engineering talent to help with LLVM.
Unlike Microsoft's courtship (if you can call it that) of Yahoo!, the P.A. Semi employees would probably have no objection to working for Apple. This is likely to be a smooth acquisition.
Apple could do a lot of useful things with P.A. Semi. With the low cost of the acquisition, the small size of P.A. Semi, and Apple's abundance of cash, this is a low-risk acquisition with lots of possibilities.
I respect AMD and had faith in their ability to make a comeback in the past, but there's a new wrinkle this time: Apple.
Apple computer sales are growing at 2.5 times the industry rate, and they use Intel CPUs. With all the growth in the PC market going to Intel CPU's, is there much room for an AMD comeback?
I can see two ways for AMD to make a comeback. If Apple's agreement to use Intel CPUs expires and AMD can win some business with Apple, AMD can latch on to Apple's growth. But Apple chose Intel for its ability to ramp up production. Will AMD be able to provide the same? Will AMD be willing to give up other customers to meet Apple's demand?
If Apple chooses this route, how big of an architecture change will this be? I've no doubt Apple can provide developer tools to aid the migration, but will Core 2 optimizations easily translate to AMD optimizations?
Will Apple take the risk of supporting both architectures? They are very active in LLVM development, which allows dynamic optimization of code. If LLVM works as well as many hope, Apple could deliver software in a common binary format that automatically adapts to any architecture using LLVM. This would be quite novel. Apple would benefit from ongoing competition between Intel and AMD while giving AMD a fighting chance in a market increasingly dominated by Apple.
The other potential AMD savior is Linux. Can the open source community deliver software that can take advantage of AMD's CPU-GPU architecture spectacularly enough to give AMD the sales it needs?
If Apple weren't in Intel's camp, I would invest in AMD with confidence in a turnaround, but I think the fate of AMD lies largely with adoption by Apple or Linux.
The mainframe and the radio survive and perform their current functions because they were the "fittest" to do so. Simply natural selection applied to industrial tech.
When I got my amateur radio license, I was surprised to find that the use of Morse code is alive and well in the amateur community. While it doesn't have the high data rates of voice or digital modes, Morse code has greater range, uses the minimum bandwidth, and is intelligible through a much higher noise threshold than the other modes. Of course, many amateurs have never tried Morse code, but the few that do exploit its unique advantages.
For the same reasons, mainframes may never have as large a market as PCs, but they will remain alive and well in the market that appreciates the unique advantages of the mainframe.
After reading this article, I thank the heavens for my engineering student experience. I experienced none of the bad conditions stated in the article on anything but an occasional basis. Perhaps that's because I went to a well-endowed small private institution.
When I read the headline, I was expecting something about lack of interested (and interesting) women. I didn't experience that either, although my brief stint with a second major in poli sci helped with that quite a bit.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, they have something else up their sleeve. Did anybody notice Apple's "enterprise services agreement" with Unisys? http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/Apple-Unisys-Agree-to-Enterprise-Services-Deal-Report-788654/ Did anybody notice the 54% drop in Unisys's profits, along with a drop in server sales? http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Unisys-3Q-profit-sinks-54-pct-apf-3818156357.html?x=0&.v=1 So, Unisys is an enterprise computing company looking for a way to save its server business. Apple is consumer electronics company with enterprise ambitions, enterprise software, but no enterprise distribution network. Apple just announced it is dropping its server hardware line, a little over a week after announcing the deal with Unisys. I know it is fashionable to dismiss Apple's enterprise computing ambitions. I was at an Apple Developer's seminar a couple years ago where they were showing off the new version (then) of MacOS X Server. The entire focus of that seminar was on how Apple was adding features to MacOS X Server (and even licensing things from Microsoft) to make OS X Server more suitable for the enterprise. I predict Unisys will start offering MacOS X Server on Unisys server hardware soon. Apple may even end up buying Unisys.
"Extinction" is a very high bar to clear
I agree. I'm not going to worry about human extinction occurring in my lifetime.
The "correlation does not equal causation" argument works only with some degree of ignorance, whether intentional or not.
In the case of global warming, there is a clearly identified causative mechanism: the greenhouse gas effect. The GHG effect clearly explains how the addition of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere results in atmospheric warming. This cause-effect mechanism and it's role in climate change has been described in 1824 by Fourier, in 1859 by Tyndall, in 1896 by Arrhenius, in 1897 by Chamberlin, in 1938 by Callendar, in the 1960s by Keeling, and from the 1970's to present by modern climate scientists.
Some climate denialists who truly are uneducated in science can honestly claim ignorance, but then they shouldn't be doubting the conclusions of those who are not ignorant: the climate scientists. Most climate denialists are not truly uneducated in science. I consider these people on various levels from "intentional ignorance" to "malicious ignorance", to "ignorant with extreme prejudice".
The "whether not it is caused by humans... doesn't seem to matter." is a cop-out. It does matter. Human behavior (releasing massive, steady streams of naturally sequestered carbon) is the driving factor in climate change. We cannot effectively mitigate climate change without modifying this human behavior.
The "clean air, clean water, clean land", argument is a distraction from the role of GHGs. It's easy to design car engines that minimize smog-forming emissions like hydrocarbons and nitrous oxides. It's not so easy to design a combustion engine that reduces GHGs like carbon dioxide. In fact, there is a fundamental proportion of CO2 emitted to energy produced in a combustion engine that cannot be violated by the laws of physics and chemistry.
Historically, the group that has denied anthropogenic climate change is the same group that has opposed efforts for clean air, water, and land.
If we want to start making the world better for you and me, we have to stop being ignorant, acknowledge the role of human GHG emissions, and act to reduce those emissions. Ignorance (intentional or not) of the human role in climate change IS tantamount to being a climate change denier.
>> [Getting a liver transplant is not a long, involved, and lengthy process for Steve Jobs.] Because his net worth exceeds $100 million, he doesn't have to worry about what his insurance company will or will not pay. He simply writes a check.
Steve Job's wealth gives him two advantages: no time wasted securing financial means for a transplant, and freedom to choose where the transplant is done. Once he gets on the transplant waiting list, he has no advantages over anyone else listed in the same region.
Typical transplant patients might have to spend some time securing the 20% of the costs not covered by insurance, or negotiate with the medical facility to waive the 20%. However, some insurance plans do cover 100% (one of Kaiser's better plans, offered through large employers, covers 100%). Jobs obviously didn't have to worry about this. Even if he personally did not have the money, I'm sure Apple would have covered it.
Mere mortals with normal insurance plans are limited in where they can apply for their transplant. If you're in California or New York you can expect to wait months to years for a transplant. Some plans (including Kaiser) allow limited choices outside your local area, but don't necessarily promote this option. Jobs had the luxury of choosing exactly where he would apply for his transplant. His criteria were short wait time and good transplant team. Perhaps privacy might've been an issue, too.
Beyond these two advantages, Jobs transplant priority is dictated strictly by rules of the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS). For transplant candidates with cancer, UNOS has a priority score starting at 22 upon acceptance of transplant application, increasing in increments of 3, 2, and 2 points every 3 months. After 9 months, his score would be 29. In low-demand, high-supply areas like Florida, he would likely get his transplant within 3 months of being accepted. In California or New York, he would likely wait 6-9 months. With his listing in Tennessee, it is very possible for Jobs to get his transplant within 3 months.
Transplant priority is determined almost entirely by UNOS rules. There is very little local discretion. Any facility that tries to bend the rules to favor a wealthy candidate would lose their accreditation to do transplants and would stop receiving donor organs. This is a self-policing system, because other facilities in the same organ-sharing region would scrutinize any suspicious transplant ordering by a neighboring facility.
There is still the question of why he would be given a transplant if the cancer was spread from another organ. Most likely, he was monitored for at least a few months before being accepted on the transplant list. During this time, they might have cut out or otherwise treated the liver tumor. They would also be watching very carefully to see if cancer would show up elsewhere. He might have received chemotherapy to help prevent appearance of cancer elsewhere. As long as the cancer is limited to the liver (after successful treatment for pancreatic cancer), and is limited in size, UNOS would not rule out a transplant.
In summary, Jobs freedom to choose where he got his transplant probably helped him get his transplant 3-6 months earlier than a California resident who didn't have that option. Other than that, he was subject to the same UNOS prioritization as everyone else.
The 3-6 month recovery period applies to non-cancer liver transplant recipients in long-wait areas like California and New York. In these areas, the wait list is so long that you have to be extremely sick before getting a transplant. You're probably mentally incoherent because of encepalopathy and your digestive system is probably dysfunctional because you've been tube fed. You're probably hospitalized. When these patients finally get their transplants, it can take days to weeks for the transplanted liver to start functioning, and months to be in a physical state resembling normal.
This was NOT Steve Jobs case.
Jobs had liver cancer and probably caught it at the earliest possible opportunity, since he had reason to expect the possibility. He obviously did his research to figure out which area had the shortest wait time and good care (Tennessee). He probably got the transplant before his bodily functions started failing. Thus, he probably recovered from the transplant very quickly. It's very plausible that he got his transplant only two months ago.
For more details, see my comment elsewhere in this discussion.
First, you need to have good medical care and good insurance. If your doctor has been carefully monitoring your liver with CT scans every six months because he realizes you're at risk (perhaps because you have Hep B), you will have a good chance at early detection of liver cancer. If you have no such proactive care, good luck!
Next, your doctor has to present you the option, you have to recognize its urgency, and you have to ask for the transplant, aggressively. If your doctor says, "This is not yet urgent", or "We can wait and monitor this", or if you say, "Can we just wait and see?", it might be too late by the time you recognize the danger (much like climate change and peak oil). That's because...
It takes 6 months to process a liver transplant application, then months to years to actually receive the transplant.
The application process has two parts: medical evaluation and financial means. The medical evaluation is a comprehensive evaluation to determine that you're a good candidate for transplant, that the cancer has not spread beyond the liver, and that you're psychologically fit for the transplant. The financial means evaluation... well, if you don't have the financial means, you do NOT get listed on the transplant list. Period. The only way to get a liver transplant without financial means is if you're an emergency case with sudden liver failure. Oh, you also need to have a designated caregiver who commits to taking time off work to take care if you, if/when necessary.
Once the application process starts, it can take 5 months to actually get on the transplant list. If the winter holidays occur fall in this time period, make that 6 months. If they accidentally list you on the non-cancer waiting list (with lower priority than the cancer waiting list), it might be another month (total 7 months) by the time somebody catches this mistake and it gets corrected. Most likely it will be YOU who catches the mistake, because nobody else is paying attention. If YOU fail to catch this error, the patient may be on the wrong (lower priority) waiting list indefinitely.
Once you're listed, it could take weeks to years to get the transplant. For non-cancer patients, the priority is determined strictly by a function of three blood test results: bilirubin, creatinine, and INR. As these levels go up, you develop ascites (fluid in abdomen), encephalopathy (cloudy mind), and then it gets worse. The problem is, you typically lose weight as you get sicker, and as you lose weight, the creatinine level goes DOWN, so your priority gets lower, initially! If you're lucky enough to be in Oregon or Florida, with no motorcycle helmet laws, you might get your transplant in a few months. If you're in Southern California or New York, you might be waiting a year or longer, progress to extreme illness and hospitalization, and be on the verge of death before getting the transplant. These are the patients who take 6 months to recover from the transplant. Often it takes days to weeks for the transplanted liver to start functioning. These patient have been IV fed for so long that the digestive tract is initially dysfunctional. They have to start with limited plain-cracker diets. Because their gut microbes have been ravaged, their gastric emissions are horrendous foul smelling.
If you're a liver cancer patient (like Jobs) the good thing is, you'll probably get your transplant sooner than the non-cancer patients, because liver cancer transplant priority goes up strictly by time on waiting list. "Sooner" is relative to when you got listed. If you trusted your Kaiser doctor and didn't sense any urgency, you probably didn't apply for the transplant until it was almost too late (there are limits are tumor size for transplant). If you are well-informed and proactively asked for a transplant application, you might get your transplant before you start to feel any symptoms of a dysfunctional liver. This is probably wha
They've done some absolutely amazing things in the last couple of years on a budget that makes all the governments combined look pretty silly.
Sure. It's amazing that such a well-funded "private" company can have a 100% failure rate in a 40 year old industry, using off-the-shelf technology and public funding.
We should keep in mind that there's nothing particularly new or exotic about SpaceX's rocket. Their failures have been caused by poor design of basic parts and lack of basic testing and rigorous analysis. This can't be compared to early NASA launch failures, when the science of rocketry had not been as firmly established as they are today.
Seriously folks, this may be rocket science, but it's rocket science that has been firmly established by the time time most of us were born.
Many fans of SpaceX encourage the company to carry on, pointing out that NASA's current success rose out of numerous early failures.
That's fine and dandy, but if SpaceX truly is a PRIVATE space launch company, let the failures be paid for by PRIVATE INVESTMENT and NOT BY PUBLIC FUNDING.
I just went to the trouble of buying a temperature controlled soldering station so I'd have better luck transitioning to lead-free solder, and now I read about the problems with tin. So, what exactly is the implication for hobbyists? I'm soldering radio and power circuits. The solder I just bought from Radio Shack is labeled "Lead-Free Silver Bearing Solder 96/4". Does that mean it's 96% tin and 4% silver? Will my radio and power circuits be affected by the tin whiskering problem? Should I go back to lead-full solder and return my Weller soldering station?
Bjorn Lomborg demonstrates that you can take skepticism too far. Skepticism calls for the questioning of a hypothesis based on doubts about evidence supporting that hypothesis and on faith in counter-evidence. If the hypothesis is supported by little data, or if the counter-evidence is as great as the supporting data, it is reasonable to doubt the hypothesis.
In the case of climate change, previous finding of anthropogenic global warming are continually reinforced by new findings while alternative explanations are steadily debunked by new findings.
If you listen to Lomborg's interviews, you'll notice him dodging direct questions about whether the environment is getting worse, and redirecting the discussion to hypotheses that the environmental changes can have a positive effect and that humans can adapt to take advantage of these changes. He puts a real positive spin on the possibility of change.
The /. community has a technical term for this: FUD! (or perhaps, reverse-FUD - putting a positive spin on a negative thing).
The article gives a false impression of climate security based on the premise that higher concentrations of CO2 are leading to increased plant growth. While everything else in the article is wrong and/or misleading, it is true that increased CO2 increases plant growth, up to a certain point. The problem is, this is low-quality plant growth.
This Nature Journal article (2 Aug 2007, subs. required) describes research confirming increased CO2 concentration increases the mass of crop output. However, the nutritional content of the crops dropped and the growth of crop-destroying pests doubled.
This article in New Scientist reports research showing increased CO2 levels increase pollen production in ragweed. The researchers report a strong correlation between increasing CO2 concentration and increasing rates of asthma.
Similar findings, along with additional information, are described in this blog post.
I give Forrester Research credit for finally waking up and smelling the coffee, but they're still in a groggy, early morning stupor.
AFAIK, this is the first article from a mainstream computer industry research report that acknowledges Apple may have a very serious and viable five year product plan, beyond their existing hit products.
But then, Forrester goes on to say Apple's "commitment to closed systems" poses a barrier to wide adoption. In the previous paragraph, Microsoft and HP are cited as tough competitors, without mention of how much more closed Windows is. Nor does the article mention that Apple's proprietary parts are superior interfaces to open protocols.
I would have been much more impressed if the article discussed how Apple's practice of continuously building and improving on past technical and product successes poses a serious challenge to Microsoft and HPs practice of quarterly product planning. I guess this degree of insightfulness is reserved for more independent sources, like Roughly Drafted.
You can laugh now, but a slow introduction of an Apple product does not guarantee eventual failure.
Estimates indicate 1-1.5 million Apple TVs were sold in their first year on the market.
In comparison, the iPod sold 376,000 units in their first year on the market. We're not laughing at iPod now, are we?
I concede the point regarding Mac issues in the enterprise. Now that I think about it, I do realize that Apple's support for NIS and related services has been annoyingly inconsistent. I suspect this is why Apple is taking only baby steps into the enterprise. Note that enterprise adoption is being pulled by Mac users, not pushed by Apple.
For now, I'll give Apple the benefit of the doubt for being a relative newcomer to the modern enterprise computing market. I expect Apple to quickly mature in enterprise support. One evidence of this is Apple's recent discontinuation of Xserve RAID, along with partnering with an established enterprise storage provider. This should help Apple focus on what it does best.
I also expect Apple to depend on service providers like IBM to serve the largest enterprises. For the smaller businesses, I expect Apple will expand its retail store training offerings.
Keep in mind that Apple's success with iPod, MacOS X, Intel Macs, etc. are based on ten years of steady improvement starting with early efforts to switch to a UNIX based system. Given time (hopefully not 10 years), I expect Apple's enterprise support to make similarly steady improvements.
Now that the pundits are finally realizing that Macs are being introduced to the enterprise, let's have some fun and look further into the future, at the things pundits will be announcing a few years from now.
As enterprises increasingly replace Windows with Mac, there will be two effects most pundits haven't thought of yet. First, IT staffs will decrease dramatically because of the lower support burden of Mac. Second, the army of Windows support workers will be out of a job.
For any minimally-skilled person (think high school diploma, GED, associates degree, etc.) the easiest way to get a decent paying job has been training in Windows. Think about your local community college course catalog. If it's anything like mine, the computer technology section is full of Microsoft courses and devoid of Mac and Unix courses. That will change.
The effect on the economy could be interesting. On the one hand, the number of corporate IT jobs will drop. On the other hand, the ease (and lower cost) of MacOS X server will create numerous new IT jobs for smaller businesses who could not handle the financial or technical burden of Windows.
I predict those Windows courses will rapidly disappear from community college course catalogs over the next several years.
Happens on a regular basis to us, and then the new machines doesn't support the current release of OS X, so we cant deploy until we fully test...
This assumes you try to shoehorn the Mac into the Windows paradigm, where six months of testing is required, mainly to wait for the SP1 and SP2 releases.
With an enterprise full of Macs, corporations will discover three things that nullify the issues of replacement machines and extended testing. First, five year old Macs are very functional with the latest MacOS X. Second, MacOS X upgrades are so smooth you don't need the extended testing required of Windows. Third, MacOS X is backward compatible enough that a mixed Tiger/Leopard environment is not a serious issue.
The Mac is more than just a hardware/OS switch from Windows PCs. It will change the way we deploy, maintain, and use computers.
I've read a few criticisms that the Mac might be easy for the end-user, but it's harder on the system administrator. I don't think this is generally true, but I can see two situations that generate this opinion.
The more obvious is sysadmins who are familiar with Windows and Unix having trouble adapting to the Mac. I had quite a bit of difficulty during my first few months of using a Mac because I'd become accustomed to the complicated ways of doing things on Windows. Once I lost my Windows habits, I was amazed at how much time I wasted on Windows before switching to Mac.
The less obvious condition is when the Mac is forced to adapt to procedures and paradigms designed for Windows or Unix. There are naturally some issues when a Mac tries to authenticate user logins through a Windows server, and otherwise tries to fit itself into a Windows environment.
I expect the situation will be very different once the IT infrastructure is based on Mac. There are many underutilized Mac features, like Netboot and network install. Once these features are implemented in an infrastructure designed for Mac, it will be the Windows and UNIXes that seem like an awkward fit.
The effect hasn't become dominant yet, but IT budget cuts in the face of economic recession will accelerate enterprise adoption of Macs.
Until recently, IT departments got a blank check so there was no hard necessity to take cost seriously. Windows skated by on familiarity and prior market dominance.
When the recession finally hits corporations, IT departments will understand the significance of per-client pricing of Windows server vs. the unlimited client pricing of MacOS X server. The accountants will start to notice Mac hardware has a longer useful life and a higher resale value. When the blank check for Windows support stops arriving, corporations will take a hard look at Mac.
Yes, there will be some divas who have built a career's worth of critical analysis software in VBA and insist on keeping their Windows computer. They will be considered a necessary additional cost, and not the baseline support configuration.
Not all companies will switch at once, but those who make the switch will have a competitive advantage. The remaining companies will follow suit, or suffer from higher operating costs. The enterprise transition from Windows to Mac will be quick (surprisingly quick to most).
Many companies will adopt Linux in some capacity, especially if they user server farms that need large-scale computing capacity. However, I expect Macs to be in high demand as a front-end server and desktop system.
When the bottom line depends on companies taking IT costs seriously, Windows will fall rapidly to Mac.
I didn't mean to imply Apple invests in basic scientific research, the way Bell Labs once did. What I meant is:
(Why isn't the UL tag giving me a bulleted, unnumbered list?)
Apple has the vision to dream of possibilities 5-10 years ahead, and the diligence to start working on those today. (On a side note, Apple also has the practicality to discontinue products that aren't adding significant value: Xserve RAID is a good example.)
Show me a PC company that has a similar track record of visionary planning and impeccable execution.
Apple is driving the market and has been doing so since introducing the iMac. Apple invests in technology years in advance while the Dells and HPs are running their businesses on a quarterly basis.
The punditry will be surprised when they finally notice Apple's growth in the enterprise, at 2-3 times the industry rate. Anyone who's paying attention will realize that the features and capabilities that will make Apple unstoppable in the enterprise in a few years are being designed into Apple products today.
Similar things can be said for Apple TV's prospects for becoming a more ubiquitous consumer appliance - but don't be surprised if even Apple TV shows up in the enterprise, as a device to stream corporate training podcasts hosted on a MacOS X Server.
Apple introduces useful new capabilities that provide compelling reasons to buy new Apple products. What compelling reason is there to upgrade Windows PCs, other than for the sake of upgrading?
Apple has $18 billion in cash and no debt. The P.A. Semi acquisition costs $0.278 billion and involves a 150 person engineering team. Apple can acquire P.A. Semi just because. Of course, Apple under Jobs is known for successful execution of visionary long-term business plans, not for reckless acquisitions.
So what can Apple do with P.A. Semi?
P.A. Semi doesn't have a significant revenue stream, as far as I can tell, but it does have technology and talent. According to Wikipedia, P.A. Semi's engineering team includes expertise in Itanium, Opteron, and UltraSPARC. Their products boast high performance embedded computing at 1/3 power consumption. This tells me the PWRficient processors are higher-performance than the ARM currently used in iPhone and iPods, but uses much less power than the Core 2 processors used everywhere else in Apple's product line.
Suppose P.A. Semi can scale their CPUs smaller or larger to compete with the fastest ARMs and the slowest Core 2's. With scaled-down PWRficient processors, Apple can produce iPhones/iPods with dramatically longer battery life than their ARM-equipped competitors (or smaller devices with the same battery life). Similarly, Apple can produce subnotebook computers with dramatically longer battery life than their x86 competition.
If nothing else, Apple can use PWRficient as a bargaining chip with Intel. How much is Intel willing to discount sales to Apple, if Apple agrees not to use PWRficient in Apple TV? Considering the pains Apple went through when it was dependent on Motorola or IBM for PowerPC processors, Apple would be wise to keep several options open.
Of course, P.A. Semi has no fabs, so Apple is dependent on P.A.s current agreements with Texas Instruments for production. But, AMD is struggling to keep up with Intel's technology, and may have excess production capacity. If Intel doesn't give Apple deep enough discounts, AMD surely could do so.
Those not familiar with Apple's unique strengths may object to the complexities of supporting multiple platforms, but Apple has already solved that problem. Apple Universal Binaries can include binary code for up to four platforms: i386, x86_64, ppc, ppc64. What's one more? If Apple's history with Intel support is any indicator, Apple has probably had their software running on PWRficient all along, in their secret internal labs.
Also consider that one of Apple's research projects is LLVM, specifically designed for dynamic compilation and optimization of intermediate-level code for any supported hardware platform. Apple can borrow P.A. Semi's engineering talent to help with LLVM.
Unlike Microsoft's courtship (if you can call it that) of Yahoo!, the P.A. Semi employees would probably have no objection to working for Apple. This is likely to be a smooth acquisition.
Apple could do a lot of useful things with P.A. Semi. With the low cost of the acquisition, the small size of P.A. Semi, and Apple's abundance of cash, this is a low-risk acquisition with lots of possibilities.
I respect AMD and had faith in their ability to make a comeback in the past, but there's a new wrinkle this time: Apple.
Apple computer sales are growing at 2.5 times the industry rate, and they use Intel CPUs. With all the growth in the PC market going to Intel CPU's, is there much room for an AMD comeback?
I can see two ways for AMD to make a comeback. If Apple's agreement to use Intel CPUs expires and AMD can win some business with Apple, AMD can latch on to Apple's growth. But Apple chose Intel for its ability to ramp up production. Will AMD be able to provide the same? Will AMD be willing to give up other customers to meet Apple's demand?
If Apple chooses this route, how big of an architecture change will this be? I've no doubt Apple can provide developer tools to aid the migration, but will Core 2 optimizations easily translate to AMD optimizations?
Will Apple take the risk of supporting both architectures? They are very active in LLVM development, which allows dynamic optimization of code. If LLVM works as well as many hope, Apple could deliver software in a common binary format that automatically adapts to any architecture using LLVM. This would be quite novel. Apple would benefit from ongoing competition between Intel and AMD while giving AMD a fighting chance in a market increasingly dominated by Apple.
The other potential AMD savior is Linux. Can the open source community deliver software that can take advantage of AMD's CPU-GPU architecture spectacularly enough to give AMD the sales it needs?
If Apple weren't in Intel's camp, I would invest in AMD with confidence in a turnaround, but I think the fate of AMD lies largely with adoption by Apple or Linux.
What do you think?
Increasing our supply of oil will only extend the problems of climate due to excessive CO2 in the atmosphere.
The mainframe and the radio survive and perform their current functions because they were the "fittest" to do so. Simply natural selection applied to industrial tech.
When I got my amateur radio license, I was surprised to find that the use of Morse code is alive and well in the amateur community. While it doesn't have the high data rates of voice or digital modes, Morse code has greater range, uses the minimum bandwidth, and is intelligible through a much higher noise threshold than the other modes. Of course, many amateurs have never tried Morse code, but the few that do exploit its unique advantages.
For the same reasons, mainframes may never have as large a market as PCs, but they will remain alive and well in the market that appreciates the unique advantages of the mainframe.
After reading this article, I thank the heavens for my engineering student experience. I experienced none of the bad conditions stated in the article on anything but an occasional basis. Perhaps that's because I went to a well-endowed small private institution.
When I read the headline, I was expecting something about lack of interested (and interesting) women. I didn't experience that either, although my brief stint with a second major in poli sci helped with that quite a bit.