There is a free Amazon AWS tier. Look here. It's even called AWS Free Usage Tier.
Yes, it's pretty slow; yes, there are limits. If you need more, then you need to pay a little more. Compared to the situation 5 years ago, costs are way, way down.
original creater own moral right on the code. moral right can not be given or sold off, it is permanent.
Moral rights include the right to be known as the creater of the code, it also allows you to veto in case of etical issues in how the code is used.
Um....No, not on this planet.
Really, you seem to think that there is some universally agreed upon moral right, but other people don't have your beliefs. They aren't written down, they aren't based on any sort of agreement. Your legal rights have been hashed over for a long time, though they change slowly.
Do you have a legitimate link for these claims? (Yes, as a matter of fact, I do get to decide if your link is legitimate).
Seriously, what you are saying is far outside the claims that have been made about this, and what has been discussed in the 'main stream media'. So I'm very skeptical.
Ignore at your own peril, but don't spread your ignorance in this forum.
Your attitude doesn't lend you credibility either. You have given us absolutely no reason to believe that your unusual claims are anything but the ravings of a loony.
No, you could not. You might end up with a robot, but you might not; lots of engineering projects end up in complete failure. More importantly, even if they 'succeeded' you would not have a standard, stable, reproducible platform. You would have a system held together with bailing wire and duct tape, and when one or more of those graduate students left, you would have nothing because they would be the only ones that could get it to work.
When they have gotten old and are in pain, and are unable to have a reasonable life, even with medical care, I have them euthanized. So, I'm killing them. PETA doesn't think that animals should be pets, so they don't ever leave the shelter, and eventually (after living a long pleasant life) they need to be euthanized. So, they kill them all.
That -- plus SNAP (aka Food Stamps) -- lets Americans with no self-respect live what by world standards is a pretty posh life (cars, air conditioning, X-Boxes, etc).
No, it doesn't. Take a look at people (reporters, activists, members of congress on a lark), have tried to live on what is provided by welfare and food stamps. It's bleak, unhealthy, and unpleasant. It's only in your mind and Fox News that people in those programs are living it large.
Plus, it's about as realistic as many of the other scenarios we're getting here. At least in the parent's scenario, it's an extrapolation of what is currently going on rather than a reversal.
That's what you take from the last 30-40 years? We're much better off now than the mid-70s, when we had all those things plus gas lines!
No, you are misinterpreting what he said. Yes, in some terms, we are definitely better off. However, take a look at the distribution of wealth within the society. There is a disappearing middle class and the wealth is overhelmingly becoming collected by a small group. Income inequality is way up; wealth inequality is way, way up. Take a look at this page; median income has not changed much since the 70's while productivity has continued to improve. The benefit of improvements have gone primarily to the rich.
That will continue with improved AI and more automation. Benefits will accrue to the already wealthly, and median income will not increase.
That's the point there will be no resource wars because supply will always outstrip demand. That is why no one will have to work. Your such an ingrained slave you cannot even imagine this concept.
That's a gigantic assumption, that I don't see any basis for. Food is incredibly cheap, relative to historical standards, and people still starve and are malnourished. Further, the supply is not a monolithic thing, even for food. There is only so much filet to go around, somebody needs to buy the crappy chuck. In theory, the people directing beef production could make enough filet for everyone, but why would they? What is their incentive? Or, are you imagining some super-economist determining what gets produced?
I don't think that you have thought through the incentives in your idealistic system. There are currently people who have much more wealth than other people. They like it that way, and they will keep it that way. Even in a world where everyone could have a 100' yacht, it's not going to happen if the people who currently have 100' yachts don't want everyone to have one. What is your transition plan and how does it not involve violence?
SCOTUS proves they are suckling off the teats of big business. They should all be impeached and removed. They are all a disgrace.
Um..no, you are an idiot.
Really, it was not even close. It was unanimous and the opinion was written by Kagan; not only were there no dissenting opinions, there were not any partially dissenting or secondary opinions. There's lots of issues that are split 5-4 or 6-3, but when you get 9-0 with nobody bothering to put their twist on it, then something is pretty definite. Several of the justices are pretty liberal and Sotomayor is supposedly famous for her anti-business stance; given a loophole, or anti-business opportunity, one of them would have written something against the decision.
There's lots of references in this thread to both what you said and Monsanto going after innocent farmers who are victims of unwanted cross-polination. Do you, or the OP, have any references to cases? Seems like lots of FUD on both sides here.
It is somewhat disheartening, although expected, that so many are just as close-minded as those they criticize. Differing cultures have different creation stories. Why it's only Christianity that seems to draw the ire of the "enlightened" is beyond me..
Because it's Christianity that is trying to get its creation stories put into the science curriculum, over the objections of scientists and educators. It's a political decision induced by their Christian beliefs.
If Christians didn't try to get their pseudo-science into the science classroom, then they would not draw my ire. I don't have the same animosity towards astrologers because they are not trying to teach children in the schools that the zodiac affects their life. Homeopathic practitioners are not trying to get their beliefs into grade school biology classes. Etc. But the Christians are.
Rocks are dated by the fossil record, and the fossil record dated by the rocks in which they occur.
No, they are not. Radiometric dating is usually done on igneous rock. It does does not depend, at all, on fossils. On the other hand, fossils usually occur in sedimentary rock. The dates of fossils are determine by the ages of the rocks in igneous rock above and below them in strata. Further, the most common dating methods use isochrons, which are able to determine if there is signfiicant changes in the rocks or if they have undergone events that would affect dating accuracy.
Ignoring for a moment that there are other methods of dating, imagine the sort of mistakes that could occur in a discipline which has no problem using circular logic to arrive at their conclusions.
So you believe that an entire scientific discipline has failed to realize that it was based on circular logic and then failed yourself to even take a cursory glance at how the scientific discipline works? Your premise that it is based on circular logic is so far from reality that I can only conclude that you are willfully ignorant of how radiometic dating works. It would take, I swear, less than an hour or two to learn enough about radiometric dating to have a pretty good grasp of the underlying concepts, how they are implemented in practice, and then read and understand an isochron.
While I find the prospect of a 6,000 year old Earth a bit implausible, I have only slightly more confidence in the ability of science to determine the Earth's age in an accurate manner. I might be willing to die for my faith, but I wouldn't bet anything more than a dollar on the age off the Earth.
Then, sir, you are deluded. We are not arguing over a small amount of difference. We're disagreeing about 6 orders of magnitude; that the Earth is anywhere close to 6000 years old is farcical.
Actually, many leading creationists are engineers; they probably know more about GPSes and DVD players than you do. There's a lot of physics, chemistry, and math you can work with that doesn't involve understanding evolution.
Yes, but engineers also don't need to understand a lot of physics and chemistry; they need to understand engineering. The physics and chemistry that they do need to understand doesn't overlap a lot of geophysics, or Rubidium-Strontium Isochrons, or biochemistry. They seem to compartmentalize a lot as well.
Finally, the disgreement isn't even with evolution in this case. It's with the fundamental nature of the universe, how long it has existed, how it developed, etc.
Earth has more than enough resources for 20 billion people if we were not squandering them on welfare for the non-working leaches who live off the hard work of others. Of course I am talking about the owning class of billionaire plutocrats.
No, it doesn't (currently). Not at what Western citizens would consider to be a 'average' lifestyle. It's a question of available resources, their cost and availability. There's a great book called "How Many People Can the Earth Support?" by Joel Cohen. He doesn't give a single answer, because the answer is that 'it depends', on what lifestyles people have, what resources are available to them, what those resources cost, etc. If we all ate simply (i.e. little meat) and conserved water and didn't drive cars and lived in apartment buildings and lots of other caveats, then the earth could support 20 billion, though the long term ecological effects would still need to be accounted for.
However, there simply isn't enough wood in the world to give everybody a single famly home. Before you say 'well, people could life in multi-family housing units', then you have to realize that you are changing the problem and making assumptions (and demands) about what resources people will have access to and how they are distributed. Good luck with that.
As technology changes, then the number of people that can be supported at a particular average life style will change. However, the trend is not always positive. Just look at fresh water availability; it's getting worse, not better in many places as we're using non-renewable sources (well, short- to medium-term non-renewable like lakes and aquifers).
Maybe. Or Something like it. The interesting question is "What happens to people we just don't need anymore?" What do they do? McDonalds has a robot that flips burgers, but hasn't rolled it out because customers find the burger less appealing if it's entirely cooked by machine.
Really? The cooking part? I find that hard to believe, since we don't interact with the cooks. I go in to McD's, order a hamburger, fries, and milkshake. Yes, it's comforting to tell the person making miminum wage what I want and it would make sense that removing that person would cause psychological issues. However, all they do is go and get the hamburger from the slot. Yeah, I can kind of see that there appears to be people back there, but if they were suddenly not there, or if a little wall was there, then I might not even notice.
If I'm doing drive-through, then I definitely don't see who is cooking.
The lack of personal details about the child aren't important here to anyone but a creepy stalker.
> > > "....my 15-year-old...etc."
> >
> > "You really should say if your 15-year-old is male or female!!!"
>
> "Um, okay..... my 15-year-old daugther.....etc."
No, the value of a currency is that it is legal tender, for all debts public and private. Basically, if I am a merchant in the US, I have to take dollars. People can reasonably expect that pretty much anything that they buy or sell can be done in dollars (in the US).
Bitcoins have very limited locations where they can be used. They are only useful because they can be converted into something that can be used to buy and sell goods and services.
When bitcoins have reached that level, then it will be a currency.
I don't think fossil fuels will exist in 100 years
Of course they will.
There are several factors here. First, the amount that we use is dependent upon the cost. As the cheaper-to-get fossil fuels are used up, the cost goes up and the amount that will be used will go down. So, there will be a shift in the market from fossil fuels to others, but the fossil fuels will continue to be used for some purposes because they are so damn useful: really high energy / weight and energy / volume ratios and easy to manage at industrial scales.
Also, the amount of fossil fuels 'available' depends largely upon the price. When you see graphs or estimates of oil remaining in the ground, that is for a particular price or projected price. If the price becomes high, way more fossil fuels become economically viable and we have more of it.
Finally, the technology involved in getting fossil fuels out of the ground continues to change. The amount of natural gas in the ground in the US has not significantly changed in the last 20 years. However, fracking technology has changed the economic viability of getting it, so all of a sudden the US 'has' lots of natural gas. Oil shale technology has improved, though the fact that is viable now is partly because the cost of oil is higher and partly technology. What happens if someone figures out a way to get methane clathrates cheaply? Then all of sudden we have even more natural gas.
So, fossil fuels are not going anywhere. The energy mix will change as function of economics and technology, but they will be with us for hundreds of years.
It has nothing to do with a higher density of devices and people than what the system in the area was built for... Not at all. It has to mean that they are blocking and jamming the cell service. Yup.
Really? This would be easy to test as a function of the signal versus time. If the signal drops dramatically at exactly 8:15 every day, then it's a jammer. If the dropoff is a ramp, even over the matter of a minute or 30 seconds, then it would be load. I've seen jammers that turn on and off, but I haven't seen any that gradually affect reception. Human beings don't turn things on and off all at the same time.
This only works when the barrier to entry into the market is fairly low. The cost / difficulty in stopping and then re-starting a mine and associated processing pipeline is significant. It is worth a small but long-term supported effort to ensure that the US has the capability to mine and process the materials quickly as necessary. The continued presence of that capability will help keep prices low and supplies flowing. The threat of competition is far more effective when a limited capability exists rather than being a theoretical possibility.
Other industries can be more or less effected or more or less critical to national interests. For example, we don't need to maintain a domestic production of clothes. They can be produced in many places and production can and does shift rapidly when needed. On the other hand, the cost / difficulty of stopping and re-starting the ability to produce nuclear reactor containment vessels has a huge barrier for entry; I believe that there is only one place (in Japan) that currently has the capability. Fortunately, that isn't a critical national interest.
These were similar to my thoughts. I'm old enough to remember waiting for the latest Asimov to come out, and then he passed away. Then we lost Douglas Adams, David Foster Wallace kills himself, Terry Pratchett is headed out, and now Iain Banks. Yes, I know that dying is part of life, but these authors have brought so much joy to my life (and others), made me think in new and different ways, and I imagine what else they could accomplish if they had more time; it's incredibly sad.
Seems like Chronos is yet another 'Let's re-invent the wheel' project to create a scheduler'. Projects such as Grid Engine do the same thing, and have been doing it very well for a very long time. There are also API interfaces to Grid Engine such as DRMAA (www.drmaa.org) so you can incorporate it into your applications as well.
Grid Engine is not longer open source or free. They're charging $500/processor (!) for the latest version and have hidden the previously free versions. You might be able to find the earlier versions in other places on the net, but not through Oracle.
But since Grid Engine is not written in Java.....the Java guys have to go and write yet another scheduler....that does less, is less scalable, etc...
As you mention above Grid Engine supports DRMAA, so it works very well with Java from the controller side. The tasks need to be in scripts though, which is a pain.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it's pretty slow; yes, there are limits. If you need more, then you need to pay a little more. Compared to the situation 5 years ago, costs are way, way down.
original creater own moral right on the code. moral right can not be given or sold off, it is permanent. Moral rights include the right to be known as the creater of the code, it also allows you to veto in case of etical issues in how the code is used.
Um....No, not on this planet.
Really, you seem to think that there is some universally agreed upon moral right, but other people don't have your beliefs. They aren't written down, they aren't based on any sort of agreement. Your legal rights have been hashed over for a long time, though they change slowly.
Seriously, what you are saying is far outside the claims that have been made about this, and what has been discussed in the 'main stream media'. So I'm very skeptical.
Ignore at your own peril, but don't spread your ignorance in this forum.
Your attitude doesn't lend you credibility either. You have given us absolutely no reason to believe that your unusual claims are anything but the ravings of a loony.
No, you could not. You might end up with a robot, but you might not; lots of engineering projects end up in complete failure. More importantly, even if they 'succeeded' you would not have a standard, stable, reproducible platform. You would have a system held together with bailing wire and duct tape, and when one or more of those graduate students left, you would have nothing because they would be the only ones that could get it to work.
When they have gotten old and are in pain, and are unable to have a reasonable life, even with medical care, I have them euthanized. So, I'm killing them. PETA doesn't think that animals should be pets, so they don't ever leave the shelter, and eventually (after living a long pleasant life) they need to be euthanized. So, they kill them all.
That -- plus SNAP (aka Food Stamps) -- lets Americans with no self-respect live what by world standards is a pretty posh life (cars, air conditioning, X-Boxes, etc).
No, it doesn't. Take a look at people (reporters, activists, members of congress on a lark), have tried to live on what is provided by welfare and food stamps. It's bleak, unhealthy, and unpleasant. It's only in your mind and Fox News that people in those programs are living it large.
Plus, it's about as realistic as many of the other scenarios we're getting here. At least in the parent's scenario, it's an extrapolation of what is currently going on rather than a reversal.
That's what you take from the last 30-40 years? We're much better off now than the mid-70s, when we had all those things plus gas lines!
No, you are misinterpreting what he said. Yes, in some terms, we are definitely better off. However, take a look at the distribution of wealth within the society. There is a disappearing middle class and the wealth is overhelmingly becoming collected by a small group. Income inequality is way up; wealth inequality is way, way up. Take a look at this page; median income has not changed much since the 70's while productivity has continued to improve. The benefit of improvements have gone primarily to the rich.
That will continue with improved AI and more automation. Benefits will accrue to the already wealthly, and median income will not increase.
That's the point there will be no resource wars because supply will always outstrip demand. That is why no one will have to work. Your such an ingrained slave you cannot even imagine this concept.
That's a gigantic assumption, that I don't see any basis for. Food is incredibly cheap, relative to historical standards, and people still starve and are malnourished. Further, the supply is not a monolithic thing, even for food. There is only so much filet to go around, somebody needs to buy the crappy chuck. In theory, the people directing beef production could make enough filet for everyone, but why would they? What is their incentive? Or, are you imagining some super-economist determining what gets produced?
I don't think that you have thought through the incentives in your idealistic system. There are currently people who have much more wealth than other people. They like it that way, and they will keep it that way. Even in a world where everyone could have a 100' yacht, it's not going to happen if the people who currently have 100' yachts don't want everyone to have one. What is your transition plan and how does it not involve violence?
SCOTUS proves they are suckling off the teats of big business. They should all be impeached and removed. They are all a disgrace.
Um..no, you are an idiot.
Really, it was not even close. It was unanimous and the opinion was written by Kagan; not only were there no dissenting opinions, there were not any partially dissenting or secondary opinions. There's lots of issues that are split 5-4 or 6-3, but when you get 9-0 with nobody bothering to put their twist on it, then something is pretty definite. Several of the justices are pretty liberal and Sotomayor is supposedly famous for her anti-business stance; given a loophole, or anti-business opportunity, one of them would have written something against the decision.
There's lots of references in this thread to both what you said and Monsanto going after innocent farmers who are victims of unwanted cross-polination. Do you, or the OP, have any references to cases? Seems like lots of FUD on both sides here.
It is somewhat disheartening, although expected, that so many are just as close-minded as those they criticize. Differing cultures have different creation stories. Why it's only Christianity that seems to draw the ire of the "enlightened" is beyond me. .
Because it's Christianity that is trying to get its creation stories put into the science curriculum, over the objections of scientists and educators. It's a political decision induced by their Christian beliefs.
If Christians didn't try to get their pseudo-science into the science classroom, then they would not draw my ire. I don't have the same animosity towards astrologers because they are not trying to teach children in the schools that the zodiac affects their life. Homeopathic practitioners are not trying to get their beliefs into grade school biology classes. Etc. But the Christians are.
Rocks are dated by the fossil record, and the fossil record dated by the rocks in which they occur.
No, they are not. Radiometric dating is usually done on igneous rock. It does does not depend, at all, on fossils. On the other hand, fossils usually occur in sedimentary rock. The dates of fossils are determine by the ages of the rocks in igneous rock above and below them in strata. Further, the most common dating methods use isochrons, which are able to determine if there is signfiicant changes in the rocks or if they have undergone events that would affect dating accuracy.
Ignoring for a moment that there are other methods of dating, imagine the sort of mistakes that could occur in a discipline which has no problem using circular logic to arrive at their conclusions.
So you believe that an entire scientific discipline has failed to realize that it was based on circular logic and then failed yourself to even take a cursory glance at how the scientific discipline works? Your premise that it is based on circular logic is so far from reality that I can only conclude that you are willfully ignorant of how radiometic dating works. It would take, I swear, less than an hour or two to learn enough about radiometric dating to have a pretty good grasp of the underlying concepts, how they are implemented in practice, and then read and understand an isochron.
While I find the prospect of a 6,000 year old Earth a bit implausible, I have only slightly more confidence in the ability of science to determine the Earth's age in an accurate manner. I might be willing to die for my faith, but I wouldn't bet anything more than a dollar on the age off the Earth.
Then, sir, you are deluded. We are not arguing over a small amount of difference. We're disagreeing about 6 orders of magnitude; that the Earth is anywhere close to 6000 years old is farcical.
Actually, many leading creationists are engineers; they probably know more about GPSes and DVD players than you do. There's a lot of physics, chemistry, and math you can work with that doesn't involve understanding evolution.
Yes, but engineers also don't need to understand a lot of physics and chemistry; they need to understand engineering. The physics and chemistry that they do need to understand doesn't overlap a lot of geophysics, or Rubidium-Strontium Isochrons, or biochemistry. They seem to compartmentalize a lot as well.
Finally, the disgreement isn't even with evolution in this case. It's with the fundamental nature of the universe, how long it has existed, how it developed, etc.
Earth has more than enough resources for 20 billion people if we were not squandering them on welfare for the non-working leaches who live off the hard work of others. Of course I am talking about the owning class of billionaire plutocrats.
No, it doesn't (currently). Not at what Western citizens would consider to be a 'average' lifestyle. It's a question of available resources, their cost and availability. There's a great book called "How Many People Can the Earth Support?" by Joel Cohen. He doesn't give a single answer, because the answer is that 'it depends', on what lifestyles people have, what resources are available to them, what those resources cost, etc. If we all ate simply (i.e. little meat) and conserved water and didn't drive cars and lived in apartment buildings and lots of other caveats, then the earth could support 20 billion, though the long term ecological effects would still need to be accounted for.
However, there simply isn't enough wood in the world to give everybody a single famly home. Before you say 'well, people could life in multi-family housing units', then you have to realize that you are changing the problem and making assumptions (and demands) about what resources people will have access to and how they are distributed. Good luck with that.
As technology changes, then the number of people that can be supported at a particular average life style will change. However, the trend is not always positive. Just look at fresh water availability; it's getting worse, not better in many places as we're using non-renewable sources (well, short- to medium-term non-renewable like lakes and aquifers).
Cost of orbital flight for one person in 1962: $1.6B in 2010 dollars Cost of orbital flight for one person in 2014: $0.0002B in 2014 dollars
0.0002B is 0.2M, which is $200,000. That's for a sub-orbital flight. Big difference.
There's a bit of downward pressure on the cost, so we might see it in our lifetime yet, depending on where you are on the actuarial tables.
Yeah, but not that much.
Socialism.
Maybe. Or Something like it. The interesting question is "What happens to people we just don't need anymore?" What do they do? McDonalds has a robot that flips burgers, but hasn't rolled it out because customers find the burger less appealing if it's entirely cooked by machine.
Really? The cooking part? I find that hard to believe, since we don't interact with the cooks. I go in to McD's, order a hamburger, fries, and milkshake. Yes, it's comforting to tell the person making miminum wage what I want and it would make sense that removing that person would cause psychological issues. However, all they do is go and get the hamburger from the slot. Yeah, I can kind of see that there appears to be people back there, but if they were suddenly not there, or if a little wall was there, then I might not even notice.
If I'm doing drive-through, then I definitely don't see who is cooking.
The lack of personal details about the child aren't important here to anyone but a creepy stalker.
> > > "....my 15-year-old...etc." .... my 15-year-old daugther.....etc."
> >
> > "You really should say if your 15-year-old is male or female!!!"
>
> "Um, okay.
"Oh. What is she wearing?"
I think Bitcoins are more like Diablo or WOW equipment. Purely virtual objects that people trade real money for.
Bitcoins have very limited locations where they can be used. They are only useful because they can be converted into something that can be used to buy and sell goods and services.
When bitcoins have reached that level, then it will be a currency.
I don't think fossil fuels will exist in 100 years
Of course they will.
There are several factors here. First, the amount that we use is dependent upon the cost. As the cheaper-to-get fossil fuels are used up, the cost goes up and the amount that will be used will go down. So, there will be a shift in the market from fossil fuels to others, but the fossil fuels will continue to be used for some purposes because they are so damn useful: really high energy / weight and energy / volume ratios and easy to manage at industrial scales.
Also, the amount of fossil fuels 'available' depends largely upon the price. When you see graphs or estimates of oil remaining in the ground, that is for a particular price or projected price. If the price becomes high, way more fossil fuels become economically viable and we have more of it.
Finally, the technology involved in getting fossil fuels out of the ground continues to change. The amount of natural gas in the ground in the US has not significantly changed in the last 20 years. However, fracking technology has changed the economic viability of getting it, so all of a sudden the US 'has' lots of natural gas. Oil shale technology has improved, though the fact that is viable now is partly because the cost of oil is higher and partly technology. What happens if someone figures out a way to get methane clathrates cheaply? Then all of sudden we have even more natural gas.
So, fossil fuels are not going anywhere. The energy mix will change as function of economics and technology, but they will be with us for hundreds of years.
It has nothing to do with a higher density of devices and people than what the system in the area was built for... Not at all. It has to mean that they are blocking and jamming the cell service. Yup.
Really? This would be easy to test as a function of the signal versus time. If the signal drops dramatically at exactly 8:15 every day, then it's a jammer. If the dropoff is a ramp, even over the matter of a minute or 30 seconds, then it would be load. I've seen jammers that turn on and off, but I haven't seen any that gradually affect reception. Human beings don't turn things on and off all at the same time.
This only works when the barrier to entry into the market is fairly low. The cost / difficulty in stopping and then re-starting a mine and associated processing pipeline is significant. It is worth a small but long-term supported effort to ensure that the US has the capability to mine and process the materials quickly as necessary. The continued presence of that capability will help keep prices low and supplies flowing. The threat of competition is far more effective when a limited capability exists rather than being a theoretical possibility.
Other industries can be more or less effected or more or less critical to national interests. For example, we don't need to maintain a domestic production of clothes. They can be produced in many places and production can and does shift rapidly when needed. On the other hand, the cost / difficulty of stopping and re-starting the ability to produce nuclear reactor containment vessels has a huge barrier for entry; I believe that there is only one place (in Japan) that currently has the capability. Fortunately, that isn't a critical national interest.
These were similar to my thoughts. I'm old enough to remember waiting for the latest Asimov to come out, and then he passed away. Then we lost Douglas Adams, David Foster Wallace kills himself, Terry Pratchett is headed out, and now Iain Banks. Yes, I know that dying is part of life, but these authors have brought so much joy to my life (and others), made me think in new and different ways, and I imagine what else they could accomplish if they had more time; it's incredibly sad.
Seems like Chronos is yet another 'Let's re-invent the wheel' project to create a scheduler'. Projects such as Grid Engine do the same thing, and have been doing it very well for a very long time. There are also API interfaces to Grid Engine such as DRMAA (www.drmaa.org) so you can incorporate it into your applications as well.
Grid Engine is not longer open source or free. They're charging $500/processor (!) for the latest version and have hidden the previously free versions. You might be able to find the earlier versions in other places on the net, but not through Oracle.
But since Grid Engine is not written in Java.....the Java guys have to go and write yet another scheduler....that does less, is less scalable, etc...
As you mention above Grid Engine supports DRMAA, so it works very well with Java from the controller side. The tasks need to be in scripts though, which is a pain.