What's so hard here? Just tell your boss your position on software patents. If he insists that this be done and it means that much to you then you should start looking for another job. If your boss really believes in this you will be asked to file patents on your work again.
Is this something you really believe in? Are you really going to feel comfortable speaking against software patents when you agreed to file one yourself?
Instead of "fighting tooth-and-nail for the user's privacy, as we expect Google, YAHOO, and AOL" to do??? You're kidding, right? There are a few pro-democracy activists in China that you should read about.
So if there is a quota in place you'll assume that HALF your employee/co-workers are incompetent. That's prudent? Why don't you actually find out by giving them something to do. A good boss/co-worker gives a new employee an opportunity to show what they can do; gives them the benefit of the doubt. You will only do that for men, which would only be HALF of your workforce. That's prudent? You let the women see all the men get cool and challenging projects to work on while they get trivial tasks and are micromanaged. You think this is good for the morale and growth of HALF your workorce? The good women will leave very quickly since you didn't even bother to find out what they could do and you'll be left with the bad employees. This would of course confirm your theory that all women are incompetent. BTW, at what point will a woman's cloud of suspicion be lifted? Will you ever give her a chance? Why not do it sooner than later?
And as I said before, you don't know how any of the men got hired, but they ALL get the benefit of the doubt. For all you know there's a good-ol-boys network getting men jobs and protecting their positions. But you assume there isn't and ALL men get a shot in your company, but none of the women do. I'm sure when the sexual discrimination suits come in the judge will agree that it was prudent to only give men an opportunity to suceed because there was a quota in place.
I should mention also that I speak from experience since my wife works in high tech and has had co-workers and bosses with your attitude. There's nothing prudent about your attitude. It hurts morale and will make you miss many good employees. To some extent this is also about being a decent human being.
Your take on it is, "we have a quota so all new women employees suck", mine is "we have a quota, but maybe we got lucky. Let's find out."
I am not discriminating by saying there's a greater probability that someone whose job was mandated by law isn't up to the task, and paying closer attention to them. I'd do the same for white males, if they ever passed one of these idiotic quota laws for white males.
You basically said that if there is quota for women then every new woman is suspect. So you make assumptions of a person's qualifications because of their gender, yet that is not really discriminating against them?? Really? Because there is a quota that makes it OK?
Just because a woman is hired and there is a quota mandate doesn't mean that the woman was hired because of the quota. There is a chance that this woman would have been hired regardless of quotas. But you assume the opposite because they are a woman. You also assume they have no interest in the field because "many women just plain don't show any interest". You're making a lot of assumptions about a person because of their gender, to the point where you won't trust their work.
My point is that you should apply the same standard of suspicion to everyone until you determine how qualified they are. Singling out women because you know there is a quota in place is discrimination.
Why do you assume that everyone else did earn it? This assumption that without quotas you can know that everyone is qualified is ridiculous. Did you ever consider that your co-worker (male or female) might have gotten the job through family connections? Or they might have been lucky and been able to get a job way above their level of knowledge? Or that they aren't as good as their resume would lead you to believe? Since they would never admit any of these I think you should scrutinize all your co-workers equally until you
know what they can do.
You are discriminating if you decide that the white male that's been around for a few years must be good, and the new white male employee must be OK since he isn't under any quotas, but you'll have to scrutinize the work of the new African American female employee since she came in after the quotas were mandated. I threw in African American since that also leads to an assumption of affirmative action.
The deputy director of the NSCA is quoted as saying, "When we deployed Windows on our cluster, which has more than 1,000 nodes..." so I assume the compute nodes are in fact Windows HPC. They might be using Linux boxes with the Lustre FS as file servers.
HPC clusters are typically installed very quickly because most of the nodes just get the OS and whatever apps they need to run. Management tools allow the admin to re-image clusters very easily.
Tha majority are around the 1-4k mark, but in the top 25 the range is from 6720 cores to 212992 cores. Only 2 entries in the top 25 have fewer cores than Microsoft
It is not "highly optimized for HPC appliccations." The main diference between HPC server and the regular server is that HPC will not allow you to run DB servers, web servers, etc. They're sold at a much lower price so this restriction makes sense.
People don't mind paying.
According to most reports a significant number of people paid nothing for Radiohead's pay-what-you-want album, many using BitTorrent instead of Radiohead's web site.
If they offer a better service and experience than the pirates, they will get people to pay. The pirates would have to put more effort into service and quality.
More effort? If the labels provide high quality music without DRM the pirates just have to distribute those same files. No increased effort is required and the quality will be the same.
As it stand the pirate have set the bar for what the consumer wants.
The only thing pirates offer that the labels do not is that they don't charge anything.
I agree that DRM sucks, but I don't think getting rid of it will help the record labels. The best scenario for the labels is that a decent percentage of people will pay for DRM free music and labels will become much smaller, moderately profitable companies. Not a bad thing. The worst case for the labels is that they disappear and the artists take care of themselves. That may be bad for consumers because groups like n'sync that aim for the teen market may take over the world.
"a few select universities to teach students how to program such clusters using a software tool called MapReduce [1]. Berkeley has gone so far as to plan on teaching their freshman how to program using the MapReduce framework"
and you would assume that the article argue why this is a bad trend. They may be right that MapReduce might be getting more attention than it deserves but in their article doesn't discuss this at all. Their editor should have pointed out to them that they went way off topic.
I don't know. I guess not every CEO acts like Steve Ballmer. The evidence I found leads me to believe that Blu-ray is winning but maybe it's close enough that the holiday season can swing it either way.
Bad analogy. The volume of movies sold vs. game consoles sold is huge. You can easily see which high volume items are selling or expected to sell based on the shelf space they get. That's why as a holiday approaches you see a lot more shelf space devoted to the corresponding products. If a merchant is willing to devote more space to Blu-ray than to HD-DVD it means that they expect them to sell more or that they are already selling more.
Some of you seem to be assuming that HD-DVD is doing very well while Blu-ray is floundering, but if you look around you'll see evidence to the contrary. Here are a few points from an editorial from The Digital Bits (http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/soapbox/soap060107.html), which favors Blu-ray, and a few other places:
Blockbuster, Target and BJ's Wholesale Club have all decided to promote Blu-ray exclusively in their U.S. retail store locations this holiday season
Blu-ray hardware prices are expected to be as low as $399 by Christmas (and possibly lower).
Retailers across the country are reporting that Blu-ray player sales have begun to outpace HD-DVD player sales over the summer.
Sony, Pioneer, Panasonic, Philips, LG, Sharp, Mitsubishi, Denon, Samsung and a few others make or will make Blu-ray players (Official Blu-ray site.)
And just from my own observations at a few retailers in NY I see more Blu-ray movies than HD-DVDs on the shelves. I'm not buying a player until there's a clear winner, but if I had to buy soon (i.e. my DVD player dies) I'd pick a Blu-ray player.
Slashdot Mirror
What's so hard here? Just tell your boss your position on software patents. If he insists that this be done and it means that much to you then you should start looking for another job. If your boss really believes in this you will be asked to file patents on your work again.
Is this something you really believe in? Are you really going to feel comfortable speaking against software patents when you agreed to file one yourself?
Instead of "fighting tooth-and-nail for the user's privacy, as we expect Google, YAHOO, and AOL" to do??? You're kidding, right? There are a few pro-democracy activists in China that you should read about.
So if there is a quota in place you'll assume that HALF your employee/co-workers are incompetent. That's prudent? Why don't you actually find out by giving them something to do. A good boss/co-worker gives a new employee an opportunity to show what they can do; gives them the benefit of the doubt. You will only do that for men, which would only be HALF of your workforce. That's prudent? You let the women see all the men get cool and challenging projects to work on while they get trivial tasks and are micromanaged. You think this is good for the morale and growth of HALF your workorce? The good women will leave very quickly since you didn't even bother to find out what they could do and you'll be left with the bad employees. This would of course confirm your theory that all women are incompetent. BTW, at what point will a woman's cloud of suspicion be lifted? Will you ever give her a chance? Why not do it sooner than later?
And as I said before, you don't know how any of the men got hired, but they ALL get the benefit of the doubt. For all you know there's a good-ol-boys network getting men jobs and protecting their positions. But you assume there isn't and ALL men get a shot in your company, but none of the women do. I'm sure when the sexual discrimination suits come in the judge will agree that it was prudent to only give men an opportunity to suceed because there was a quota in place.
I should mention also that I speak from experience since my wife works in high tech and has had co-workers and bosses with your attitude. There's nothing prudent about your attitude. It hurts morale and will make you miss many good employees. To some extent this is also about being a decent human being.
Your take on it is, "we have a quota so all new women employees suck", mine is "we have a quota, but maybe we got lucky. Let's find out."
I am not discriminating by saying there's a greater probability that someone whose job was mandated by law isn't up to the task, and paying closer attention to them. I'd do the same for white males, if they ever passed one of these idiotic quota laws for white males.
You basically said that if there is quota for women then every new woman is suspect. So you make assumptions of a person's qualifications because of their gender, yet that is not really discriminating against them?? Really? Because there is a quota that makes it OK?
Just because a woman is hired and there is a quota mandate doesn't mean that the woman was hired because of the quota. There is a chance that this woman would have been hired regardless of quotas. But you assume the opposite because they are a woman. You also assume they have no interest in the field because "many women just plain don't show any interest". You're making a lot of assumptions about a person because of their gender, to the point where you won't trust their work.
My point is that you should apply the same standard of suspicion to everyone until you determine how qualified they are. Singling out women because you know there is a quota in place is discrimination.
Why do you assume that everyone else did earn it? This assumption that without quotas you can know that everyone is qualified is ridiculous. Did you ever consider that your co-worker (male or female) might have gotten the job through family connections? Or they might have been lucky and been able to get a job way above their level of knowledge? Or that they aren't as good as their resume would lead you to believe? Since they would never admit any of these I think you should scrutinize all your co-workers equally until you know what they can do.
You are discriminating if you decide that the white male that's been around for a few years must be good, and the new white male employee must be OK since he isn't under any quotas, but you'll have to scrutinize the work of the new African American female employee since she came in after the quotas were mandated. I threw in African American since that also leads to an assumption of affirmative action.
The deputy director of the NSCA is quoted as saying, "When we deployed Windows on our cluster, which has more than 1,000 nodes..." so I assume the compute nodes are in fact Windows HPC. They might be using Linux boxes with the Lustre FS as file servers.
Read the summary for TFA, it "debuted in the top 25". Look at the link I provided, it is #23.
Your thinking about the wrong kind of cluster.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-performance_computing
HPC clusters are typically installed very quickly because most of the nodes just get the OS and whatever apps they need to run. Management tools allow the admin to re-image clusters very easily.
Tha majority are around the 1-4k mark, but in the top 25 the range is from 6720 cores to 212992 cores. Only 2 entries in the top 25 have fewer cores than Microsoft
http://www.top500.org/list/2008/06/100
Basically, it's all brute force if you want to get into the top 25.
It is not "highly optimized for HPC appliccations." The main diference between HPC server and the regular server is that HPC will not allow you to run DB servers, web servers, etc. They're sold at a much lower price so this restriction makes sense.
I wonder if the bands that make a lot of money with this approach will share the wealth by lowering concert ticket prices. I doubt it.
People don't mind paying.
According to most reports a significant number of people paid nothing for Radiohead's pay-what-you-want album, many using BitTorrent instead of Radiohead's web site.
If they offer a better service and experience than the pirates, they will get people to pay. The pirates would have to put more effort into service and quality.
More effort? If the labels provide high quality music without DRM the pirates just have to distribute those same files. No increased effort is required and the quality will be the same.
As it stand the pirate have set the bar for what the consumer wants.
The only thing pirates offer that the labels do not is that they don't charge anything.
I agree that DRM sucks, but I don't think getting rid of it will help the record labels. The best scenario for the labels is that a decent percentage of people will pay for DRM free music and labels will become much smaller, moderately profitable companies. Not a bad thing. The worst case for the labels is that they disappear and the artists take care of themselves. That may be bad for consumers because groups like n'sync that aim for the teen market may take over the world.
In the intro they mention that
"a few select universities to teach students how to program such clusters using a software tool called MapReduce [1]. Berkeley has gone so far as to plan on teaching their freshman how to program using the MapReduce framework"
and you would assume that the article argue why this is a bad trend. They may be right that MapReduce might be getting more attention than it deserves but in their article doesn't discuss this at all. Their editor should have pointed out to them that they went way off topic.
I don't know. I guess not every CEO acts like Steve Ballmer. The evidence I found leads me to believe that Blu-ray is winning but maybe it's close enough that the holiday season can swing it either way.
Bad analogy. The volume of movies sold vs. game consoles sold is huge. You can easily see which high volume items are selling or expected to sell based on the shelf space they get. That's why as a holiday approaches you see a lot more shelf space devoted to the corresponding products. If a merchant is willing to devote more space to Blu-ray than to HD-DVD it means that they expect them to sell more or that they are already selling more.
- Toshiba seems to be the only company making HD-DVD players ( Official HD-DVD site)
And just from my own observations at a few retailers in NY I see more Blu-ray movies than HD-DVDs on the shelves. I'm not buying a player until there's a clear winner, but if I had to buy soon (i.e. my DVD player dies) I'd pick a Blu-ray player.