In enterprise use of software, upgrading is often not the right thing to do. You upgrade only when your apps require that, and you never upgrade any machine that doesn't specifically have such a requirement, as the upgrade may break previously working functionality, and testing costs much more than a new machine.
The applications we run on Windows are only supported by the manufacturer on win2k for some and only nt4 for others. Yes these are specialized apps where the programmers are actually adding quality, features, reliability, and speed instead of wasting time supporting the latest flying madonna features from redmond. Upgading those systems to XP would be very unwise because the output of those applications is only guaranteed to be correct on the supported platform and problems will not be addressed by the support department of the applications.
After invention of the wheel, it took humanity thousands of years to built a car. Yet after that, it was less than a century until they built airplanes and rockets, and flew to the moon.
Things go faster now, and they are speedier too...
First, the section of the flight from low earth orbit to mars most probably won't be on the same fuel as that used for launching from the ground, for the simple reason that it's not the most efficient way to do it.
Second, the most cost-effective method of hauling heavy equipment into low earth orbit from the ground is not the space shuttle. Even the ISS gets resupplies in soyuz pods.
If they launch to the ISS, then they don't always need to send a crew with it, becuase the ISS crew has a robotarm and can to spacewalks to assemble things in space.
this company already launches commercially in both ksc in florida and in baikonur in russia. With the Proton K rocket and also with the largest version of the Atlas V, they can launch over 45000 pounds into orbit, that's more than what the shuttle can, and I'm sure a protonk launch from baikonur is a lot cheaper than a shuttle launch from jfk. Maybe energia can make bigger rockets for this, but I don't speak russian to the website is all 'chinese to me'.
(of course this all assumes they're launching spaceship parts and fuel to the ISS and assemble there).
64bit, that is approx 16 billion gigabytes (assuming one byte per address). Although that seems unlikely now, let's do some approximate math. Disks now are up to 160GB, and in 1990 they were up to 20MB. That's a factor of 8000 in 12 years, that's approximately a factor or 8000^(1/12)=2.115 per year (more than Moore!). If that continues, then we'll be at 16 billion gigabytes in less than 25 years (2.115^25 > 100 million).
Is it feasible? How many atoms are there on a 3.5" platter? Or in a cubic inch of crystal? For the latter I'm gessing more than 1e21 atoms in a cubic inch of crystal (any physicists out there?), so that's approx 60 atoms per byte in a cubic inch of crystal. That's not a lot, but just might be enough. But there is not a lot of slack, if the LBA addresses blocks of, say, 512 bytes, then suddenly each atom would need to carry 70 bits of entropy. Of course, then with a gallon of crystal material, that would be back to almost 70 atoms per byte.
So.... I'm not convinced yet that 64bits is enough;-)
Considering that the platter in the drive costs next to nothing, and that the ASIC and the PCB cost is probably also negligable in volume, my guess would be that the servo's, heads and the arm(s) would already be the major cost in a harddisk today.
I think that those multi-armed disks you mention would be pretty expensive to manufacture, and that's why the manufacturers went with just spinning the thing faster and higher-densities of the bits, which requires no additional components.
I was once told that the hydroplants in Norway and Switzerland generate peak power, not base power. They sometimes use electricity at night to pump some water back up into the reservoirs, like big batteries for the peaks during the day.
Whatever. All I remember is that back in the eighties, the record companies all increased the price of albums when they went to the black LPs to the silver CDs with the argument that that was because of the higher cost associated with the new medium and the promise of returning to the LP price as soon as the medium cost went down.
Well, the medium cost has gone down, now where are the promised price reductions? Twenty years and still higher cost of CDs manufactured in a few huge fabs than those big black LPs that were manufactured in a much higher numer of smaller operations? Sure.
All I can see is record companies not keeping their promise by keeping the price of CDs high.
They've created a oligopily and the consumer is the victim.
Re:They don't need to GPL their own work...
on
DishPVR 721 Review
·
· Score: 2, Offtopic
> "The Linux OS?! when did that come out?"
Sigh.
< bite> Some time in 1991, Let met quote from the www.linux.org webpage: "Linux is a free Unix-type operating system originally created by Linus Torvalds with the assistance of developers around the world."</bite>
Insisting on calling Linux "GNU/Linux systems" is like insisting on calling a car a "horseles carriage".
Wat we call Linux today is an OS, deal with it.
Note that there are also other OS's that use FSF/GNU tools (such as the gcc compiler). You can find some more information here.
And if you put the representatives from those three websites in the same room, you've got yourself a really nice family reunion: they're all related but they don't really enjoy it. But they are family and will have to get over it.
The speed rating is what their marketing dept calls "Quantispeed Architecture": "*QuantiSpeed (TM) architecture operates at the following frequencies for these model numbers: 2200+operates at 1.8GHz,2000+operates at 1.67GHz.".
A strangelet probably doesn't need a bulls eye hit to kill a person. The surface area of the lethal region might be 1000 times larger than the surface area of a standing person (hmm, come to think of it, we spend a lot of time sitting or lying down, increasing our surface area). Well, that gives us a change of 1 in 10^12 to be killed by a strangelet. With a planet population of approx 6*10^9, that means that once every 166 generations (20 year/generation * 166 generations =3333 years), somebody will be killed by a strangelet.
And I have yet to see patches for the mentioned MS programs that use that library according to that news.com page: Microsoft Office, Internet Explorer, DirectX, Messenger and Front Page.
But in Debian, the patch was applied and the fixed debian package distributed on the same day that the vulnerability was discovered.
That phrase was either taken completely out of context, or is just plain wrong. But then again, they can teach whatever they want at CS courses.
Pfleeger probably has a more pragmatic approach than for example people with an encryption background such as Bruce Schneier.
My point is: Obscurity does not make anything more secure. It only delays the discovery and exploitation of an existing security leak. The world is full of examples in this matter. Sure, when securing something obscurity can be used as a tool to give a better probability of the security hole to be fixed before it's discovered, but that assumes you're searching for them better and faster than the crackers.
So obscurity can be helpful in delaying the attackers and giving you an edge, but only when combined with significant effort from your end to stay ahead. Hence, obscurity not a security paradigm, just one of the security tools in a much larger toolbox. If you use obscurity as a paradigm, you're basically just hoping that 'they' don't find your network.
A good reading on the subject of security through obscurity is the snake oil faq. Pay special attention to the section about 'secret algorithms'.
Slashdot Mirror
In enterprise use of software, upgrading is often not the right thing to do. You upgrade only when your apps require that, and you never upgrade any machine that doesn't specifically have such a requirement, as the upgrade may break previously working functionality, and testing costs much more than a new machine.
The applications we run on Windows are only supported by the manufacturer on win2k for some and only nt4 for others. Yes these are specialized apps where the programmers are actually adding quality, features, reliability, and speed instead of wasting time supporting the latest flying madonna features from redmond. Upgading those systems to XP would be very unwise because the output of those applications is only guaranteed to be correct on the supported platform and problems will not be addressed by the support department of the applications.
But if you use the sneakers to kick somebody in the b*tt, then you can't say 'hey I bought the sneakers from somebody else'.
"Companies like Dell don't harvest addressess. They deal with direct marketing companies"
Hiring a marketing company to do some work in your name makes you liable for whatever they do in your name.
After invention of the wheel, it took humanity thousands of years to built a car. Yet after that, it was less than a century until they built airplanes and rockets, and flew to the moon.
Things go faster now, and they are speedier too...
First, the section of the flight from low earth orbit to mars most probably won't be on the same fuel as that used for launching from the ground, for the simple reason that it's not the most efficient way to do it.
Second, the most cost-effective method of hauling heavy equipment into low earth orbit from the ground is not the space shuttle. Even the ISS gets resupplies in soyuz pods.
If they launch to the ISS, then they don't always need to send a crew with it, becuase the ISS crew has a robotarm and can to spacewalks to assemble things in space.
this company already launches commercially in both ksc in florida and in baikonur in russia. With the Proton K rocket and also with the largest version of the Atlas V, they can launch over 45000 pounds into orbit, that's more than what the shuttle can, and I'm sure a protonk launch from baikonur is a lot cheaper than a shuttle launch from jfk. Maybe energia can make bigger rockets for this, but I don't speak russian to the website is all 'chinese to me'.
(of course this all assumes they're launching spaceship parts and fuel to the ISS and assemble there).
64bit, that is approx 16 billion gigabytes (assuming one byte per address). Although that seems unlikely now, let's do some approximate math. Disks now are up to 160GB, and in 1990 they were up to 20MB. That's a factor of 8000 in 12 years, that's approximately a factor or 8000^(1/12)=2.115 per year (more than Moore!). If that continues, then we'll be at 16 billion gigabytes in less than 25 years (2.115^25 > 100 million).
;-)
Is it feasible? How many atoms are there on a 3.5" platter? Or in a cubic inch of crystal? For the latter I'm gessing more than 1e21 atoms in a cubic inch of crystal (any physicists out there?), so that's approx 60 atoms per byte in a cubic inch of crystal. That's not a lot, but just might be enough. But there is not a lot of slack, if the LBA addresses blocks of, say, 512 bytes, then suddenly each atom would need to carry 70 bits of entropy. Of course, then with a gallon of crystal material, that would be back to almost 70 atoms per byte.
So.... I'm not convinced yet that 64bits is enough
Considering that the platter in the drive costs next to nothing, and that the ASIC and the PCB cost is probably also negligable in volume, my guess would be that the servo's, heads and the arm(s) would already be the major cost in a harddisk today.
I think that those multi-armed disks you mention would be pretty expensive to manufacture, and that's why the manufacturers went with just spinning the thing faster and higher-densities of the bits, which requires no additional components.
I was once told that the hydroplants in Norway and Switzerland generate peak power, not base power. They sometimes use electricity at night to pump some water back up into the reservoirs, like big batteries for the peaks during the day.
That flap also has a switch. Good chance the only one hearing the sound effect is you.
"3. HDDs are now commodities."
As are operating systems and word processors, but you haven't seen the price of those become marginalized (yet)...
Did I say that out loud? My bad. ;-)
I call for Ren and Stimpy in the movie theater.
Who's in?
"She's buying content"
Whatever. All I remember is that back in the eighties, the record companies all increased the price of albums when they went to the black LPs to the silver CDs with the argument that that was because of the higher cost associated with the new medium and the promise of returning to the LP price as soon as the medium cost went down.
Well, the medium cost has gone down, now where are the promised price reductions? Twenty years and still higher cost of CDs manufactured in a few huge fabs than those big black LPs that were manufactured in a much higher numer of smaller operations? Sure.
All I can see is record companies not keeping their promise by keeping the price of CDs high.
They've created a oligopily and the consumer is the victim.
> "The Linux OS?! when did that come out?"
Sigh.
< bite> Some time in 1991, Let met quote from the www.linux.org webpage: "Linux is a free Unix-type operating system originally created by Linus Torvalds with the assistance of developers around the world."</bite>
Insisting on calling Linux "GNU/Linux systems" is like insisting on calling a car a "horseles carriage".
Wat we call Linux today is an OS, deal with it.
Note that there are also other OS's that use FSF/GNU tools (such as the gcc compiler). You can find some more information here.
And if you put the representatives from those three websites in the same room, you've got yourself a really nice family reunion: they're all related but they don't really enjoy it. But they are family and will have to get over it.
"Is there anyone out there who WOULDN'T fly on it just because it doesn't have windows?"
With all the necessary security patches out there, I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't fly on it if it had windows(tm).
"I'm on Debian Woody"
They have me on that too, and they say it will reduce my dependencies.
Im afraid you're the one who's wrong.
I'll substantiate it with some links to the AMD webpage:
For example, they compare the XP2100 with The P4/2000 and the P4/2200 on their benchmarks page. And the XP2200 to the P4/2200 in their Software Performance Guide
The speed rating is what their marketing dept calls "Quantispeed Architecture": "*QuantiSpeed (TM) architecture operates at the following frequencies for these model numbers: 2200+operates at 1.8GHz,2000+operates at 1.67GHz.".
See also Introducing the AMD AthlonXP processor
And if you live in florida, then a domain squatter just (last night) sat on the respective domains for florida.
There should be a law against that.
And emoticons aren't? Go away and stay away until you're sober.
A strangelet probably doesn't need a bulls eye hit to kill a person. The surface area of the lethal region might be 1000 times larger than the surface area of a standing person (hmm, come to think of it, we spend a lot of time sitting or lying down, increasing our surface area). Well, that gives us a change of 1 in 10^12 to be killed by a strangelet. With a planet population of approx 6*10^9, that means that once every 166 generations (20 year/generation * 166 generations =3333 years), somebody will be killed by a strangelet.
;-)
Maybe Elvis was killed by a strangelet.
Hmm, lemon law is there to protect the consumer. When a car is bad, the consumer get its money back.
GNU, BSD, other open source programs aren't sold. People already get their money back.
End of discussion. Story moderation: -1 Troll
"...is so morally repugnant that congress would be forced to act..."
When that's the goal, then why not patent the concept of 'congress'? That should get some attention.
Or 'television', or 'newspaper', or 'record company', or 'movie studio'.
Want attention? Use big fish. Forget about emoticons.
"Remember when the one compression lib had problems a month or so ago?"
Yes I do.
And I have yet to see patches for the mentioned MS programs that use that library according to that news.com page: Microsoft Office, Internet Explorer, DirectX, Messenger and Front Page.
But in Debian, the patch was applied and the fixed debian package distributed on the same day that the vulnerability was discovered.
What was your point?
It sounds like you're talking about 'dselect', which is horrible, but has become obsolete since apt-get.
Need a program? 'apt-get install programname'
Need the source? 'apt-get source programname'
Patch and compile? 'dpkg-buildpackage'
Remove a program? 'dpkg --purge progamname'
How hard is that?
And/or use the GUI wrappers around apt-get mentioned by Scooby Snacks.
"obscurity is an accepted security paradigm"
That phrase was either taken completely out of context, or is just plain wrong. But then again, they can teach whatever they want at CS courses.
Pfleeger probably has a more pragmatic approach than for example people with an encryption background such as Bruce Schneier.
My point is: Obscurity does not make anything more secure. It only delays the discovery and exploitation of an existing security leak. The world is full of examples in this matter. Sure, when securing something obscurity can be used as a tool to give a better probability of the security hole to be fixed before it's discovered, but that assumes you're searching for them better and faster than the crackers.
So obscurity can be helpful in delaying the attackers and giving you an edge, but only when combined with significant effort from your end to stay ahead. Hence, obscurity not a security paradigm, just one of the security tools in a much larger toolbox. If you use obscurity as a paradigm, you're basically just hoping that 'they' don't find your network.
A good reading on the subject of security through obscurity is the snake oil faq. Pay special attention to the section about 'secret algorithms'.