You can do everything that used to suffice to insure success, and still fail. The bar keeps rising, and the state of play keeps changing. You can't make money in the 21st century stock market with a 1920 investing strategy, and you can't compete with 21st century education using 1st century (B.C.) tools.
If I learned from the "team" behaviour of local university atheletes, I'd be a gang rapist too. Here's hoping you enjoy your time in the cell with Bubba.
hell, if their "primary interest is to serve HTML & e-mail", why don't they just stop operating as a university and go into the business like Google did.
In the future, the period from 1920 to 2000 will be called "the black century", not because of the world-wide warfare and genocide, but because it produced no lasting human knowledge.
> How has the Internet changed the ability of students to get an excellent education without easy access to that information?
It has raised the bar. The upper range of the value of education with the Internet exceeds that of education without the Internet. (Both range from zero to some upper limit). It may make no difference to the underachievers, who will continue to underachieve regardless, but it does make an enormous difference to those who are able to take advantage of education to improve their lives and the lives of others.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics. I both agree and disagree. Throughput on applications is what matters to end users. Synthetic benchmarks are useful (and so matter) in as much as they identify specific architectural performance characteristics for a given implementation. They are less than useful (and do not matter) when they do not correspond in a predictable way to throughput results.
"...vs total power usage..."
For your application, perhaps. Most home and office users don't care about the power dissipation of their CPU, as long as the cooling rig is zero-maintenance. GPUs completely overwhelm small variations in CPU for gamers these days. For high-throughput computing systems, there is a major shared/distributed memory split. For shared memory systems (i.e. capable of scaling throughput on multithreaded applications by increasing CPU counts), interconnect scalability matters more than any thing else, and AMD wins handily. For distributed memory systems, blade farms, etc, scalability and rank density will be determined by power dissipation, and there, finally, I can agree with your comment, and Intel may have a (very small) lead. It's a rather small slice of a diverse market, however.
If Ms. Rice had actually been ignoring the available intelligence, she wouldn't have warned Willie Brown on 9/10, that he should not fly the next day. I think you give her less credit than her accomplishments deserve.
"The way to write software" smell like a method to me. Methodology is simply the study of method, or more broadly, any discourse on the topic. A statement beginning as quoted is a methodological claim.
A lot of good code has been written using genetic programming and genetic algorithms, so I find it to be an erroneous or at least over-broad claim.
I agree heartily about security policy being, in any rational scheme, a product of principled risk management. But it is worthwhile to observe that the principal risk involved is damage to business processes -- and that risk does not come only from intrusions, but also from the security policies themselves. To put it starkly: Security policies are no less potentially damaging to an enterprise than intrusions are. Both, in the worst case, have the ability to damage the enterprise fatally. While we generally assume that the CSO or CIO or NSE is on "our side", experience proves that this is often not the case. He or she is really on their own side. Security policy, therefore, should be derived from an *independent* business process analysis, and incorporate enough adaptability to accomodate innovation and initiative in business process.
It's one 8-socket motherboard running 2-cores today, but swapping in 4-cores as they become available. And it's cheap cheap cheap. I've got one being built right now, as I write, that cost less than a two-year old Camry, with 2.4TB RAID and 64GB of ECC DDR2-667 included.
I wouldn't resort to HORUS until I needed to scale to double that CPU*RAM capacity, because it's not cheap. You're talking new Z5 prices there, not used Camry prices.
Ingo Molnar (and others) have been designing Linux to be real-time for many years now. And Novell has elaborated on that work, to provide a packaged system with a large supporting enterprise, which system is specifically designed to be capable of hard real-time operation. What's not to like? Portable code, familiar tools, free as in free... Would you rather trust a closed-source product with 10 engineers reviewing the code, or an open-source one with 10,000 engineers reviewing the code, among them, quite possibly, several of your own hires? Would you rather trust a system that has been deployed in 100 designs, or one deployed in 100,000 designs? Given the free software adoption rates in the engineering community, Linux will quickly become the latter, while QNX and VxWorks will forever remain in a ghetto.
Slashdot Mirror
You can do everything that used to suffice to insure success, and still fail. The bar keeps rising, and the state of play keeps changing. You can't make money in the 21st century stock market with a 1920 investing strategy, and you can't compete with 21st century education using 1st century (B.C.) tools.
I wouldn't last long on a Windows desktop without VirtuaWin, myself. Highly recommended.
Just putting another drop in the ocean, here.
> Am I crazy not to go with Google?
Yes.
For that there's torpark.
> the handhold ... proves to be annoying to me every day
You would prefer a cuckold?
> where I'm at
Where else?
If I learned from the "team" behaviour of local university atheletes, I'd be a gang rapist too.
Here's hoping you enjoy your time in the cell with Bubba.
As a U of Mn alumnus, I can guarantee you that I will never give them a dime, because of their contemptible stadium.
hell, if their "primary interest is to serve HTML & e-mail", why don't they just stop operating as a university and go into the business like Google did.
> Project Gutenberg only gets you to ~1920
In the future, the period from 1920 to 2000 will be called "the black century", not because of the world-wide warfare and genocide, but because it produced no lasting human knowledge.
The correct way to deal with that is to use the PeerGuardian black list. Filter out MediaSentry, not ISO torrents.
> Universities have been producing well-educated people for hundreds of years without the Internet being a part of it.
Correction, "had been". They don't anymore.
> How has the Internet changed the ability of students to get an excellent education without easy access to that information?
It has raised the bar. The upper range of the value of education with the Internet exceeds that of education without the Internet. (Both range from zero to some upper limit). It may make no difference to the underachievers, who will continue to underachieve regardless, but it does make an enormous difference to those who are able to take advantage of education to improve their lives and the lives of others.
"...what matters is benchmarks..."
Lies, damned lies, and statistics. I both agree and disagree. Throughput on applications is what matters to end users. Synthetic benchmarks are useful (and so matter) in as much as they identify specific architectural performance characteristics for a given implementation. They are less than useful (and do not matter) when they do not correspond in a predictable way to throughput results.
"...vs total power usage..."
For your application, perhaps. Most home and office users don't care about the power dissipation of their CPU, as long as the cooling rig is zero-maintenance. GPUs completely overwhelm small variations in CPU for gamers these days. For high-throughput computing systems, there is a major shared/distributed memory split. For shared memory systems (i.e. capable of scaling throughput on multithreaded applications by increasing CPU counts), interconnect scalability matters more than any thing else, and AMD wins handily. For distributed memory systems, blade farms, etc, scalability and rank density will be determined by power dissipation, and there, finally, I can agree with your comment, and Intel may have a (very small) lead. It's a rather small slice of a diverse market, however.
If Ms. Rice had actually been ignoring the available intelligence, she wouldn't have warned Willie Brown on 9/10, that he should not fly the next day. I think you give her less credit than her accomplishments deserve.
Treason never prospers -- what's the reason?
If it prosper, none dare call it treason.
"The way to write software" smell like a method to me. Methodology is simply the study of method, or more broadly, any discourse on the topic. A statement beginning as quoted is a methodological claim.
A lot of good code has been written using genetic programming and genetic algorithms, so I find it to be an erroneous or at least over-broad claim.
that wouldn't compile anyhow, so it's not surprising that we don't know what it is for.
So you're saying we need a fat chick to squirt goop on stuff out of her nether regions?
Tight security is only feasible by thinking like a criminal. Pleasant drugs are criminal. Therefore, good security engineering is best done stoned?
I agree heartily about security policy being, in any rational scheme, a product of principled risk management. But it is worthwhile to observe that the principal risk involved is damage to business processes -- and that risk does not come only from intrusions, but also from the security policies themselves. To put it starkly: Security policies are no less potentially damaging to an enterprise than intrusions are. Both, in the worst case, have the ability to damage the enterprise fatally. While we generally assume that the CSO or CIO or NSE is on "our side", experience proves that this is often not the case. He or she is really on their own side. Security policy, therefore, should be derived from an *independent* business process analysis, and incorporate enough adaptability to accomodate innovation and initiative in business process.
Whereas Eisenhower, who supervised the slaughter of over a million Germans after the war was *over*, became President of the U.S.
You're generous. I suspect astroturfing, after the debacle with the fraudulent TPC-B benchmarks.
Wait until you try to scale up past 2 cpus. The Intels will stink on ice, while the Opterons will scale essentially linearly.
It's one 8-socket motherboard running 2-cores today, but swapping in 4-cores as they become available.
And it's cheap cheap cheap. I've got one being built right now, as I write, that cost less than a two-year old Camry, with 2.4TB RAID and 64GB of ECC DDR2-667 included.
I wouldn't resort to HORUS until I needed to scale to double that CPU*RAM capacity, because it's
not cheap. You're talking new Z5 prices there, not used Camry prices.
Ingo Molnar (and others) have been designing Linux to be real-time for many years now. And Novell has elaborated on that work, to provide a packaged system with a large supporting enterprise, which system is specifically designed to be capable of hard real-time operation. What's not to like? Portable code, familiar tools, free as in free... Would you rather trust a closed-source product with 10 engineers reviewing the code, or an open-source one with 10,000 engineers reviewing the code, among them, quite possibly, several of your own hires? Would you rather trust a system that has been deployed in 100 designs, or one deployed in 100,000 designs? Given the free software adoption rates in the engineering community, Linux will quickly become the latter, while QNX and VxWorks will forever remain in a ghetto.