I see you don't know how they actually recycle electronics. They don't recycle components, they recycle materials. Basically, they throw the entire device into a crusher and pulverize it, then use magnets, air currents, screens, chemical solutions, centrifuges, etc to recover the raw materials. Sealing the case has no impact on recyclability.
You seem to be missing a rather important point - they want to sell the cars now, not in the future. And to do that, you must market to the people who are buying cars now. And for some reason I think car manufacturers would rather sell a NEW car to the 'future' generation then have the buy a used car that already has all the crap they simply can't live without.
What an obnoxious asshole. Yes, I did attend an American school, and it taught me much more than whatever Dumbfuckian school you went to. You see, I learned not only what a blind experiment is, but WHY and HOW to conduct one.
The purpose of a blind experiment is to REMOVE biases and expectations. The only possible reason to have lights in the experiment is to EXPLOIT biases and expectations, the exact opposite of what should be done.
If people were sensitive, but also fooling themselves with the lights, more people would have shown something when the lights were dark but the radio was on.
I don't understand this. Why is the suggestion that the radio is off (dark lights) not as strong as the suggestion that the radio is on?
But the South Africa test and this experiment are both strongly influenced by what the subjects thought. At most, that shows that the power of suggestion overrides any real effect. But that situation is not all that unusual - I gave some examples above.
Why would it not be a stronger experiment if there were no lights at all? Just put them in a room with an antenna and have them indicate when it is on or off. There is no reason to provides any other hints or clues, real or misleading, at all.
The whole reason there is a placebo group is precisely because we know the human brain is susceptible to suggestion. In an experiment like this, there is no reason at all to provide that suggestion.
I disagree. There is no reason at all to show lights if what you are really testing is sensitivity to radio signals. It is well known that humans are susceptible to suggestion. You can make people feel itchy by showing them pictures of mosquitos. You can make people feel warm by showing a rising thermometer. You can make people misidentify the taste of food by coloring it. Do those tests refute the fact that people can sense touch, temperature, or taste? Of course not.
Now, I don't believe at all that people can detect radio signals. But, demonstrating that by what amounts to parlor tricks is not going to convince anyone who does not already believe. A real test would not provide any misleading clues.
I see no reason why inventory management and these are mutually exclusive. In fact, it seems like an ideal thing for inventory management.
If I am opening the last roll of papers towels, there is a very good chance I am already involved in some task. Do I stop that task and go do whatever is required so I remember to get towels next time I am at the store? More likely I keep going with the task and forget about the towels until we run out. The button would make it easy to order the towels without interrupting the task at hand. Seems like a good idea to me.
I guess what I would really like is buttons like these that just make an entry on a shopping list, without actually ordering the item. Maybe I'll get one and see if it can be hacked to do that.
What you call 'ultra-lazy' others call 'busy' and/or 'forgetful'.
To take the example of razors: there are exactly two times when the thought of buying razor blades enters my mind - when I am shaving, and if i pass by the razor blades in a store. By the time I get done shaving, complete the rest of my morning routine, and start using my computer, I have completely forgotten the need to order razor blades. Lazy has nothing to do with it.
Why? If there is a recognizable brand in a show, they were paid to put it there. If you aren't smart enough to figure that out then listing it in the credits is not going to help.
Specialty engines are not crippled in any way, they always run at full speed. Even when the CPs are not full speed. And they cost less than full speed CPs. As for why don't the ISVs change how they license or bill, you would have to ask the ISVs. My guess is they don't want to do extra work and make their code more complicated for the sole purpose of getting paid less.
Specialty processors like AAPs and ZIPs exist for one reason - saving the customer money. IBMs own software is mostly priced by workload - the more you use it the more you pay. But most ISV software is priced by the capacity of the machine. Since ISV software will not be dispatched on the specialty engines, those engines do not count towards the machine capacity, thereby lowering software costs.
I am not sure exactly how 'IBM sells you more than you bought'. Perhaps what you meant is that under certain conditions you get more physical hardware than you paid for, but can't use it. So what?
Somehow I completely missed the fact that you were talking about the virtualization aspect of it. Sorry about that.
Even so, I don't think it that big of a deal. Linux on Z has it's own drivers, for DASD, OSA, etc. The virtualization layer only needs to trap the 'start subchannel' instruction and translate the CCWs into the 'real' CCWs then do it's own start subchannel. There is no need for the virtualization layer to emulate things like the channel controllers because that is all invisible to the OS anyway. Z architecture is probably easier to virtualize (I/O wise) because so much of it is invisible to the program. Catch the 'start subchannel' and create an I/O interrupt when done and whatever happens in between is unknown.
People are misreading the announcement (and, yes, a lot of it has to do with bad reporting). The annoucement is not a MACHINE that is only capable of running Linux. The announcement is about SOFTWARE, namely that you can now have a virtualized mainframe (ie 'cloud') environment using ONLY Linux. Previously the virtualization had to be provided with z/VM. Now it can be provided by Linux running KVM.
Right. The hardware does not care what you run on it. However, if you have only IFLs z/OS won't load. They probably do that by not providing some undocumented instruction that z/OS needs when the engine is configured as an IFL. The Linux stuff is all open, there are no binary-only bits or undocumented instructions used by Linux.
There used to be a Z version of OpenSolaris. Don't know if it still exists or not. If it does, it would run on these machines.
The 'Linux-only' part of this announcement is not that the MACHINES are only capable of running Linux, it is that it is now possible to have a virtualized Linux environment using ONLY Linux (before you had to have z/VM to provide the virtualization).
They are not 'going down the road'. Linux on Z, and the IFL (Integrated Facility for Linux) has been around for 15 YEARS. This is not something new. I don't know why you think there is some sort of incompatibility between mainframes and Linux.
It doesn't allow KVM along side PR/SM. Before this announcement you could have Hardware->PR/SM->Linux or Hardware->PR/SM->z/VM->Guests. Now you can also have Hardware->PR/SM->Linux->KVM->Guests.
This announcement is not a new machine. The machine is z13. The announcement is the ability to virtualize with KVM instead of z/VM.
z processors are not and have never been based on PowerPC. I don't know where this myth comes from.
When someone says that an OS running on a platform 'requires virtualization', they mean that there is some required facility missing from the platform, and that facility is provided by the virtualization layer. There is no such requirement to run Linux on Z. PR/SM is not providiing anything that is not available in the hardware.
Linux-only mainframes (all IFLs, no CPs) have been available for years. This is not a new type of machine, it is more of a 'solution'. The major new thing is that you can use KVM to manage virtual images instead of z/VM.
The logic is packaged in 'drawers' (up to 4 per system). If one fails it is taken offline and replaced and the image keeps running (at lower capacity of course).
Slashdot Mirror
I see you don't know how they actually recycle electronics. They don't recycle components, they recycle materials. Basically, they throw the entire device into a crusher and pulverize it, then use magnets, air currents, screens, chemical solutions, centrifuges, etc to recover the raw materials. Sealing the case has no impact on recyclability.
When a hydrocarbon or nuclear plant goes offline, how does the grid handle it? By getting power from other hydrocarbon and nuclear plants.
When wind does not produce power, how does the grid handle it? By getting power from hydrocarbon and nuclear plants.
One of those is not like the other.
Well, if you could read instead of just looking at the pretty pictures, you would see that what is labeled Linux is Amazons own Linux image.
You seem to be missing a rather important point - they want to sell the cars now, not in the future. And to do that, you must market to the people who are buying cars now. And for some reason I think car manufacturers would rather sell a NEW car to the 'future' generation then have the buy a used car that already has all the crap they simply can't live without.
What an obnoxious asshole. Yes, I did attend an American school, and it taught me much more than whatever Dumbfuckian school you went to. You see, I learned not only what a blind experiment is, but WHY and HOW to conduct one.
The purpose of a blind experiment is to REMOVE biases and expectations. The only possible reason to have lights in the experiment is to EXPLOIT biases and expectations, the exact opposite of what should be done.
Now go crawl back under your rock.
If people were sensitive, but also fooling themselves with the lights, more people would have shown something when the lights were dark but the radio was on.
I don't understand this. Why is the suggestion that the radio is off (dark lights) not as strong as the suggestion that the radio is on?
But the South Africa test and this experiment are both strongly influenced by what the subjects thought. At most, that shows that the power of suggestion overrides any real effect. But that situation is not all that unusual - I gave some examples above.
Why would it not be a stronger experiment if there were no lights at all? Just put them in a room with an antenna and have them indicate when it is on or off. There is no reason to provides any other hints or clues, real or misleading, at all.
The whole reason there is a placebo group is precisely because we know the human brain is susceptible to suggestion. In an experiment like this, there is no reason at all to provide that suggestion.
I disagree. There is no reason at all to show lights if what you are really testing is sensitivity to radio signals. It is well known that humans are susceptible to suggestion. You can make people feel itchy by showing them pictures of mosquitos. You can make people feel warm by showing a rising thermometer. You can make people misidentify the taste of food by coloring it. Do those tests refute the fact that people can sense touch, temperature, or taste? Of course not.
Now, I don't believe at all that people can detect radio signals. But, demonstrating that by what amounts to parlor tricks is not going to convince anyone who does not already believe. A real test would not provide any misleading clues.
What kind of double blind test is that? It seems deliberately misleading, which would seem to me to be the opposite of a blind test.
I see no reason why inventory management and these are mutually exclusive. In fact, it seems like an ideal thing for inventory management.
If I am opening the last roll of papers towels, there is a very good chance I am already involved in some task. Do I stop that task and go do whatever is required so I remember to get towels next time I am at the store? More likely I keep going with the task and forget about the towels until we run out. The button would make it easy to order the towels without interrupting the task at hand. Seems like a good idea to me.
I guess what I would really like is buttons like these that just make an entry on a shopping list, without actually ordering the item. Maybe I'll get one and see if it can be hacked to do that.
10-20% margin on a grocery store??? Try 1-3%.
What you call 'ultra-lazy' others call 'busy' and/or 'forgetful'.
To take the example of razors: there are exactly two times when the thought of buying razor blades enters my mind - when I am shaving, and if i pass by the razor blades in a store. By the time I get done shaving, complete the rest of my morning routine, and start using my computer, I have completely forgotten the need to order razor blades. Lazy has nothing to do with it.
Why? If there is a recognizable brand in a show, they were paid to put it there. If you aren't smart enough to figure that out then listing it in the credits is not going to help.
Specialty engines are not crippled in any way, they always run at full speed. Even when the CPs are not full speed. And they cost less than full speed CPs. As for why don't the ISVs change how they license or bill, you would have to ask the ISVs. My guess is they don't want to do extra work and make their code more complicated for the sole purpose of getting paid less.
Specialty processors like AAPs and ZIPs exist for one reason - saving the customer money. IBMs own software is mostly priced by workload - the more you use it the more you pay. But most ISV software is priced by the capacity of the machine. Since ISV software will not be dispatched on the specialty engines, those engines do not count towards the machine capacity, thereby lowering software costs.
I am not sure exactly how 'IBM sells you more than you bought'. Perhaps what you meant is that under certain conditions you get more physical hardware than you paid for, but can't use it. So what?
Somehow I completely missed the fact that you were talking about the virtualization aspect of it. Sorry about that.
Even so, I don't think it that big of a deal. Linux on Z has it's own drivers, for DASD, OSA, etc. The virtualization layer only needs to trap the 'start subchannel' instruction and translate the CCWs into the 'real' CCWs then do it's own start subchannel. There is no need for the virtualization layer to emulate things like the channel controllers because that is all invisible to the OS anyway. Z architecture is probably easier to virtualize (I/O wise) because so much of it is invisible to the program. Catch the 'start subchannel' and create an I/O interrupt when done and whatever happens in between is unknown.
People are misreading the announcement (and, yes, a lot of it has to do with bad reporting). The annoucement is not a MACHINE that is only capable of running Linux. The announcement is about SOFTWARE, namely that you can now have a virtualized mainframe (ie 'cloud') environment using ONLY Linux. Previously the virtualization had to be provided with z/VM. Now it can be provided by Linux running KVM.
Right. The hardware does not care what you run on it. However, if you have only IFLs z/OS won't load. They probably do that by not providing some undocumented instruction that z/OS needs when the engine is configured as an IFL. The Linux stuff is all open, there are no binary-only bits or undocumented instructions used by Linux.
There used to be a Z version of OpenSolaris. Don't know if it still exists or not. If it does, it would run on these machines.
The 'Linux-only' part of this announcement is not that the MACHINES are only capable of running Linux, it is that it is now possible to have a virtualized Linux environment using ONLY Linux (before you had to have z/VM to provide the virtualization).
They are not 'going down the road'. Linux on Z, and the IFL (Integrated Facility for Linux) has been around for 15 YEARS. This is not something new. I don't know why you think there is some sort of incompatibility between mainframes and Linux.
What exactly is so awful about z/VM?
It doesn't allow KVM along side PR/SM. Before this announcement you could have Hardware->PR/SM->Linux or Hardware->PR/SM->z/VM->Guests. Now you can also have Hardware->PR/SM->Linux->KVM->Guests.
This announcement is not a new machine. The machine is z13. The announcement is the ability to virtualize with KVM instead of z/VM.
z processors are not and have never been based on PowerPC. I don't know where this myth comes from.
When someone says that an OS running on a platform 'requires virtualization', they mean that there is some required facility missing from the platform, and that facility is provided by the virtualization layer. There is no such requirement to run Linux on Z. PR/SM is not providiing anything that is not available in the hardware.
Linux-only mainframes (all IFLs, no CPs) have been available for years. This is not a new type of machine, it is more of a 'solution'. The major new thing is that you can use KVM to manage virtual images instead of z/VM.
The logic is packaged in 'drawers' (up to 4 per system). If one fails it is taken offline and replaced and the image keeps running (at lower capacity of course).