39U of these plus 2-3 U of network equipment seems reasonably efficient. I didn't see the bit about the 13U consolidated chassis, but that is pretty sensible.
Then do so - and you're free to use non-MS tools to do so. But web application developers address multiplatform through browser support, and have no need to design for multiple hardware platforms. Mainframe developers and embedded developers usually focus on one hardware platform.
The fact is that within JUST the web development world, there's a ton of open source stuff that's usable in tandem with MS technologies. So just because MS doesn't necessarily embrace multiple native development platforms doesn't mean they aren't supporting and interoperating with open source.
What changed? What was different from the early days?
What changed was selling development stacks that were both first-class tools aimed at real programmers (i.e. not VB compilers as glorified spreadsheet builders), embracing and NOT extending 3rd party and open source components, and open sourcing their own stuff (i.e. Roslyn).
As a former open source guy, I find that I ENJOY using MS tools to build software, and increasingly see them working to make their stuff more and more interoperable and less and less locked in.
I took GP as meaning that he's quite convinced AGW is real, and OP is overstating claims, thus making GP's camp look foolish, because overstated claims have repeatedly been shown to be false, and that causes a credibility gap. Because that's pretty much what I told the kid in town getting signatures for carbon sequestration or some such. And the kid admitted the overstatement of claims is a big problem.
Place false memories in people. Assassins, or just government functionaries who honestly don't believe they did the paperwork to have you audited. No problem.
This is absolutely right. There are MUCH better ways, even with professional instruction.
I am taking piano and jazz theory lessons for $50/hour. It's entirely tailored to my learning wants, time budget, and abilities, costs a fraction of the equivalent in credit hours. So what if I don't get "a degree"? I already know more about what I want to know than most BAs, and I work with my teacher to be certain we're rounding out the overall curriculum so I'm not too deep and narrow. 6 years, estimate about 45 half hour lessons/year, $25/lesson, I'm at about $6750 in lesson fees. That would have been spent in two or three semesters.
That's not the correct use of the word "coercion", and it's a misuse that indicates a bias regarding economic policy. Coercion indicates the use of force or threat of force by one against another. A person in the wilderness must work or die, and no other person is there to coerce him to work.
You do realize that the entire point of civilization is to make things different from being alone in the wilderness, right? So if they aren't, then the civilization has failed miserably. Also, the conditions in wilderness are not under anyone's control, while the conditions in civilization are.
And I absolutely have a "bias" regarding economic policty: I believe economy exists to serve human needs and as such must address not just efficiency, but also fairness and security. Our current economy fails with all three.
That's fine, and you're entitled to your opinion. I'm calling out the redefinition of words a la Hegelian Dialectic or some other nonsense to suit an appeal to emotion.
In fact, the socialist avenue is the one that uses coercion, and thus is the violence-espousing approach, as opposed to voluntarism or similar libertarian or free-market approaches.
I don't follow why you even think I'm arguing that mechanization could or would directly solve this problem?
Because as I see it, we're already capable of meeting much of the subsistence material needs, and the more important needs are the needs for fixing social problems (and I'm not necessarily advocating more social workers, just saying there are problems that mechanization can't fix).
Mechanization may alleviate some of the economic factors, but I don't expect it is a solution by itself.
Fair enough - I was reading something into what you were saying which wasn't there, apparently. But some don't make a sufficient distinction between post-labor scarcity and human misery.
Someone close to me worked in an economically depressed neighborhood. While food and shelter were provided to the poorest families, basic parenting was still needed. Abuse and neglect were so bad that many children end up emotionally harmed and needing constant supervision and psychological & psychiatric care. The bad parents continue to have children, and continue neglect/abuse. How would mechanization solve for this?
Current economy is ultimately based on coercion: work or die, or at least be extremely miserable
That's not the correct use of the word "coercion", and it's a misuse that indicates a bias regarding economic policy. Coercion indicates the use of force or threat of force by one against another. A person in the wilderness must work or die, and no other person is there to coerce him to work. The fundamental law of economic scarcity is here proven, and the fact that a person has neighbors, yet still must work to satisfy the need to deal with economic scarcity, does not mean coercion has entered the scenario.
You'd like to reconsider that in the way this Dutch traffic engineer made people smarter by making them uncomfortable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
If you consider engineering a process rather than results, it's only a joke to call it engineering in 80% of companies. I do engineering every day when I use an existing proven process to get a result, or use known solutions for security features, etc.
It's the people who ignore the known body of work who cause much of the trouble. And they seem to be in the majority. But it doesn't mean there is no software engineering being done.
That's how it should work. But it is always up to management at some level to take responsibility to make sure someone competent is holding whoever is below accountable. This does not happen when there is a disconnect between the business team and the software team. And in most companies, there is a disconnect.
To answer my own question, definitely not. But realizing that there's a bit of variability in the data set, this certainly qualifies as an inflammatory description of expected data.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/...
"With records dating back to 1880, the combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces reached a record high for May, at 0.74C (1.33F) higher than the 20th century average. This surpassed the previous record high anomaly of 0.72C (1.30F) set in 2010."
You would expect records to be broken by small margins from time to time. I wonder if there was a record cold month in the past 15 or 20 years?
However, if I want to leave Time Warner Cable, I have no other wired broadband options. This is the case for most Americans.
That might be part of the confusion for me. We have Comcast and Verizon here as top tier carriers, and in the previous town I lived in lot of the immigrants used DirecTV for cable and used wireless internet. Maybe because I'm not really a big streaming fan this is just a problem that doesn't particularly affect me, or the internet scenarios I'm familiar with.
If ISPs were forced to remain separate from content services companies, this wouldn't happen.
How did Apple manage to win out against the wireless carriers? The biggest contribution they made, in my opinion, to the world of wireless internet was not the iPhone, but breaking out of the walled garden of "the content the carrier wanted you to see". I'm finding the situation with ISPs and online content analogous, and I'm wondering why the dynamic is so different. Perhaps the balkanization of paid content by distributors creates enough of a walled garden to begin with (compared to simple web access) that there are other issues preventing carriers from being forced by the market to be more open?
I played in a band with a guy who sold some significant patents to Unisys for their mainframes and worked in the CTO office. Smart guy, actually worked as a pro musician for a while in the 70s with David Bromberg (session player for the hippie giants like Joan Baez). 6 or 7 years ago, I was interviewing a guy applying to be my manager. He also worked at Unisys, and so I asked him if he knew the guy with the IP, and he got a funny look on his face - he did know him, and said there was antagonism in that relationship. Apparently there was a longstanding feud between the older big iron guys and the newer architecture team. It's interesting to me to see that play out.
Slashdot Mirror
Who tolerates it? People who can't get better offers.
39U of these plus 2-3 U of network equipment seems reasonably efficient. I didn't see the bit about the 13U consolidated chassis, but that is pretty sensible.
4.3U? They couldn't have made a reasonable tradeoff to go to an even unit size?
Then do so - and you're free to use non-MS tools to do so. But web application developers address multiplatform through browser support, and have no need to design for multiple hardware platforms. Mainframe developers and embedded developers usually focus on one hardware platform.
The fact is that within JUST the web development world, there's a ton of open source stuff that's usable in tandem with MS technologies. So just because MS doesn't necessarily embrace multiple native development platforms doesn't mean they aren't supporting and interoperating with open source.
What changed? What was different from the early days?
What changed was selling development stacks that were both first-class tools aimed at real programmers (i.e. not VB compilers as glorified spreadsheet builders), embracing and NOT extending 3rd party and open source components, and open sourcing their own stuff (i.e. Roslyn).
As a former open source guy, I find that I ENJOY using MS tools to build software, and increasingly see them working to make their stuff more and more interoperable and less and less locked in.
I took GP as meaning that he's quite convinced AGW is real, and OP is overstating claims, thus making GP's camp look foolish, because overstated claims have repeatedly been shown to be false, and that causes a credibility gap. Because that's pretty much what I told the kid in town getting signatures for carbon sequestration or some such. And the kid admitted the overstatement of claims is a big problem.
Place false memories in people. Assassins, or just government functionaries who honestly don't believe they did the paperwork to have you audited. No problem.
Brilliant, and apropos to GPs sig. Thank you for making my evening!
I am taking piano and jazz theory lessons for $50/hour. It's entirely tailored to my learning wants, time budget, and abilities, costs a fraction of the equivalent in credit hours. So what if I don't get "a degree"? I already know more about what I want to know than most BAs, and I work with my teacher to be certain we're rounding out the overall curriculum so I'm not too deep and narrow. 6 years, estimate about 45 half hour lessons/year, $25/lesson, I'm at about $6750 in lesson fees. That would have been spent in two or three semesters.
You do realize that the entire point of civilization is to make things different from being alone in the wilderness, right? So if they aren't, then the civilization has failed miserably. Also, the conditions in wilderness are not under anyone's control, while the conditions in civilization are.
And I absolutely have a "bias" regarding economic policty: I believe economy exists to serve human needs and as such must address not just efficiency, but also fairness and security. Our current economy fails with all three.
That's fine, and you're entitled to your opinion. I'm calling out the redefinition of words a la Hegelian Dialectic or some other nonsense to suit an appeal to emotion.
In fact, the socialist avenue is the one that uses coercion, and thus is the violence-espousing approach, as opposed to voluntarism or similar libertarian or free-market approaches.
I don't follow why you even think I'm arguing that mechanization could or would directly solve this problem?
Because as I see it, we're already capable of meeting much of the subsistence material needs, and the more important needs are the needs for fixing social problems (and I'm not necessarily advocating more social workers, just saying there are problems that mechanization can't fix).
Mechanization may alleviate some of the economic factors, but I don't expect it is a solution by itself.
Fair enough - I was reading something into what you were saying which wasn't there, apparently. But some don't make a sufficient distinction between post-labor scarcity and human misery.
Someone close to me worked in an economically depressed neighborhood. While food and shelter were provided to the poorest families, basic parenting was still needed. Abuse and neglect were so bad that many children end up emotionally harmed and needing constant supervision and psychological & psychiatric care. The bad parents continue to have children, and continue neglect/abuse. How would mechanization solve for this?
Current economy is ultimately based on coercion: work or die, or at least be extremely miserable
That's not the correct use of the word "coercion", and it's a misuse that indicates a bias regarding economic policy. Coercion indicates the use of force or threat of force by one against another. A person in the wilderness must work or die, and no other person is there to coerce him to work. The fundamental law of economic scarcity is here proven, and the fact that a person has neighbors, yet still must work to satisfy the need to deal with economic scarcity, does not mean coercion has entered the scenario.
What level of mechanization makes it possible?
You'd like to reconsider that in the way this Dutch traffic engineer made people smarter by making them uncomfortable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
Politics makes for strange bedfellows, indeed.
You see, your problem is that you understand economics and human action. We can't have that here.
If you consider engineering a process rather than results, it's only a joke to call it engineering in 80% of companies. I do engineering every day when I use an existing proven process to get a result, or use known solutions for security features, etc.
It's the people who ignore the known body of work who cause much of the trouble. And they seem to be in the majority. But it doesn't mean there is no software engineering being done.
That's how it should work. But it is always up to management at some level to take responsibility to make sure someone competent is holding whoever is below accountable. This does not happen when there is a disconnect between the business team and the software team. And in most companies, there is a disconnect.
To answer my own question, definitely not. But realizing that there's a bit of variability in the data set, this certainly qualifies as an inflammatory description of expected data. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/...
"With records dating back to 1880, the combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces reached a record high for May, at 0.74C (1.33F) higher than the 20th century average. This surpassed the previous record high anomaly of 0.72C (1.30F) set in 2010."
You would expect records to be broken by small margins from time to time. I wonder if there was a record cold month in the past 15 or 20 years?
However, if I want to leave Time Warner Cable, I have no other wired broadband options. This is the case for most Americans.
That might be part of the confusion for me. We have Comcast and Verizon here as top tier carriers, and in the previous town I lived in lot of the immigrants used DirecTV for cable and used wireless internet. Maybe because I'm not really a big streaming fan this is just a problem that doesn't particularly affect me, or the internet scenarios I'm familiar with.
If ISPs were forced to remain separate from content services companies, this wouldn't happen.
How did Apple manage to win out against the wireless carriers? The biggest contribution they made, in my opinion, to the world of wireless internet was not the iPhone, but breaking out of the walled garden of "the content the carrier wanted you to see". I'm finding the situation with ISPs and online content analogous, and I'm wondering why the dynamic is so different. Perhaps the balkanization of paid content by distributors creates enough of a walled garden to begin with (compared to simple web access) that there are other issues preventing carriers from being forced by the market to be more open?
Fair enough; I doubt many people here would have known him on his own. Did not mean to belittle him in any way. Met him once, briefly.
I played in a band with a guy who sold some significant patents to Unisys for their mainframes and worked in the CTO office. Smart guy, actually worked as a pro musician for a while in the 70s with David Bromberg (session player for the hippie giants like Joan Baez). 6 or 7 years ago, I was interviewing a guy applying to be my manager. He also worked at Unisys, and so I asked him if he knew the guy with the IP, and he got a funny look on his face - he did know him, and said there was antagonism in that relationship. Apparently there was a longstanding feud between the older big iron guys and the newer architecture team. It's interesting to me to see that play out.