So, the auther cites a study saying that the 85% of the assets of companies in the S&P 500 are "intangible," which he assumes to mean intellectual property (strike 1). He then goes on to say that the ultimate goal of OS is to devalue IP (strike 2), which in turn means that 85% of assets belonging to companies in the S&P 500 are "worthless" (strike 3).
It's a pretty interesting point though, because there are companies whose primary asset is IP, specifically software. And OS is definitely a threat to them. And yes, if MS were to lose even 50% of its "value" (not assets - think stock price), there would be worldwide financial catastrophy. Hm.
Sorry, I've seen too many math pros (particularly in finance) that are terrible at programming to agree with you. Here, there's an easy way to show you why: What's the mathematical equivalent of a for-loop? memcpy? class? I won't even get into databases, disk latency, networking, or dynamic libraries. Complexity of math vs. programming? How about they're both complex enough to be different professions!
This is a pretty important point - If we expect Linux to continue getting mainstream application support, then we need to make sure that all distros can compete.
RTFA. It's a horn subwoofer, not a cone. Compression is achieved using 8 10" woofers - not one big one. I do agree with you though - I can't imagine how this could sound good.
Hm, IIRC, don't think it works like that. You're assuming that a device draws enough current to meet power requirements (P = VI). However, in this case V is fixed, and I is determined by resistance (R). Remember V = IR? So, the effect of fixing V at a lower value is: 1) I goes down according to V = IR, and 2) P goes down because of the new (lower) I in addition to the lower fixed V, according to P = VI.
A couple different reasons, actually. First, as mentioned in the article, performance. If you're using generics (come on, call them templates!) and compile-time checking, then you don't need to do the dynamic casting at run-time (c# doesn't, according to the article).
Second, don't scoff at compile-time type checking - I've run into problems on large java projects where there's been some confusion as to what, actually, has been stored in certain collections. Generics prevent this.
It comes down to this: How much help do you, as a programmer, want?
Sorry, I don't have the links for them, but there have been quite a few rebuttals to the 'outsourcing is the way to go' viewpoint.
There are quite a few disadvantages to outsourcing - think management, documentation, specification, lack of feedback, etc.
I'm just suggesting that you do some real research before jumping to the conclusion that US programmers are up shit creek without a paddle.
Re:Spirit not that impressive...?
on
News from Mars
·
· Score: 1
You're forgetting that the Mars Rover is autonomous. NASA gives it high-level instructions (move over there), and Rover figures out the best way to get there on its own. Lunokhod is remote-controlled.
I can tell you from personal experience that isometric exercises are some of the most strenuous that you can do. Don't believe me? Try an easy one: Tense your thigh muscles as much as you can for 2 minutes. Here's a harder one: Start to do a push-up, but stop halfway down. And hold it for 2 minutes.
Re:How does this reduce spam in any shape or form?
on
SPF Design Frozen
·
· Score: 1
I largely agree with you, but keep in mind that SPF uses DNS; we don't need every host on the planet to adopt it, only those organizations that run mail and DNS servers.
The big ones (yahoo, hotmail) are on board already; that's going to put some fierce pressure on ISPs to use this.
Surprisingly, there have been studies showing that average output (in lines of code) per developer per week is less than 50. Keep in mind that this is for complete (and correct!), debugged code. Also, refactoring may actually reduce line count over time. Doing the #lines/developers calculation as you did gives a quite apocryphal impression.
Sorry, not trying to flamebait here, but how long does a Linux kernel build take on a 3GHz P4? 2 hours? Tops? There's an order of magnitude of difference between the complexity of Windows and Linux (which may or may not be a good thing).
Heard of it? First written about (in the US) by Lorenz many moons ago, he says that most physical systems have extremly different long-term behavior based on small changes in initial conditions (in a nutshell). What this means is that if NASA was even a little off in measuring the orbits of potential 'earth-killers', we may very well be fsck'ed long before that 8000 year mark.
I was a carpenter in a previous life. I helped build the house I'm living in now. I *like* the fact that my house was crafted not by the sharing of blueprints and computer-aided customization, but by real (as opposed to fake) people working on-site, making adjustments as construction progressed. A message to the OSBA: Don't take craftmanship out of building.
You shouldn't be asking us this. The high schoolers that lurk here are going to make jokes or give their 'best guesses', the rest are going to give you anecdotal evidence (ie, 'what I've heard'), and those that really know what's going on will be ignored. This is something for an electrician, someone that does this stuff for a living. That sure isn't me, and it sure isn't 99% of the slashdot population.
Why change smtp/pop? Just add access controls to your mta - a little hacking in postfix/qmail (a lot of hacking on sendmail), bingo - only get email from those you want to. This doesn't fix the bandwidth problem, and it does somewhat reduce the effectiveness of email (send anything anywhere to anybody), but... no more spam.
Windows has a windows messaging service, if you're sniffing a network you can tell which machines have it enabled. Try doing a 'net send "foo"' from a command prompt. This is what he's talking about. The fix is to disable the windows messaging service (different than msn messaging), but this is beyond most average users w/o explicit instructions. Behold! The wonder that is Windows strikes again! (why I use os x)
The bigger issue here is the length of the cable. To get decent bandwidth, parallel communication has to cut down on cable length (see scsi,ide). With serial communication you can go for hundreds of feet (ethernet). For a small rack, such as the one you describe, this might be possible - but cost prohibitive. Think about the cost of an external ultra-160 cable - $100? For 1m? My prices are dated, probably, but still. Remember too that it's not bandwidth that's the problem in clusters - it's latency. That's why Myrinet is so damn costly. Even current cluster interconnects don't need more than 10Mb/s bandwidth - but they need as little latency as is possible.
I use both os x and linux pretty extensively. I've used linux on macs as well (yellowdog and linuxppc). Linux *is* faster, from a user experience point of view and from a systems standpoint - However, this is on older (400mhz) G4's. The new iMacs (and by extension the new PowerMacs) are *much* snappier, but they would be in linux too. Harkening back to a post from a few days earlier, os x has about 85-90% the raw speed of linux on identical hardware. Considering the UI and application base, that's good enough for me. Besides, if you wanted straight-up hardcore power, you wouldn't be using a ppc. You'd be using a.357.
Slashdot Mirror
First link on Amazon. Indispensible.
So, the auther cites a study saying that the 85% of the assets of companies in the S&P 500 are "intangible," which he assumes to mean intellectual property (strike 1). He then goes on to say that the ultimate goal of OS is to devalue IP (strike 2), which in turn means that 85% of assets belonging to companies in the S&P 500 are "worthless" (strike 3).
It's a pretty interesting point though, because there are companies whose primary asset is IP, specifically software. And OS is definitely a threat to them. And yes, if MS were to lose even 50% of its "value" (not assets - think stock price), there would be worldwide financial catastrophy. Hm.
Sorry, I've seen too many math pros (particularly in finance) that are terrible at programming to agree with you. Here, there's an easy way to show you why: What's the mathematical equivalent of a for-loop? memcpy? class? I won't even get into databases, disk latency, networking, or dynamic libraries. Complexity of math vs. programming? How about they're both complex enough to be different professions!
This is a pretty important point - If we expect Linux to continue getting mainstream application support, then we need to make sure that all distros can compete.
RTFA. It's a horn subwoofer, not a cone. Compression is achieved using 8 10" woofers - not one big one. I do agree with you though - I can't imagine how this could sound good.
Hm, IIRC, don't think it works like that. You're assuming that a device draws enough current to meet power requirements (P = VI). However, in this case V is fixed, and I is determined by resistance (R). Remember V = IR? So, the effect of fixing V at a lower value is: 1) I goes down according to V = IR, and 2) P goes down because of the new (lower) I in addition to the lower fixed V, according to P = VI.
A couple different reasons, actually. First, as mentioned in the article, performance. If you're using generics (come on, call them templates!) and compile-time checking, then you don't need to do the dynamic casting at run-time (c# doesn't, according to the article).
Second, don't scoff at compile-time type checking - I've run into problems on large java projects where there's been some confusion as to what, actually, has been stored in certain collections. Generics prevent this.
It comes down to this: How much help do you, as a programmer, want?
There are quite a few disadvantages to outsourcing - think management, documentation, specification, lack of feedback, etc.
I'm just suggesting that you do some real research before jumping to the conclusion that US programmers are up shit creek without a paddle.
You're forgetting that the Mars Rover is autonomous. NASA gives it high-level instructions (move over there), and Rover figures out the best way to get there on its own. Lunokhod is remote-controlled.
that's what site: is for. ie, google for "site: citeseer.nj.nec.com search_text"
I can tell you from personal experience that isometric exercises are some of the most strenuous that you can do.
Don't believe me? Try an easy one: Tense your thigh muscles as much as you can for 2 minutes. Here's a harder one: Start to do a push-up, but stop halfway down. And hold it for 2 minutes.
I largely agree with you, but keep in mind that SPF uses DNS; we don't need every host on the planet to adopt it, only those organizations that run mail and DNS servers.
The big ones (yahoo, hotmail) are on board already; that's going to put some fierce pressure on ISPs to use this.
It's exponential: frequency^2, iirc.
Surprisingly, there have been studies showing that average output (in lines of code) per developer per week is less than 50. Keep in mind that this is for complete (and correct!), debugged code. Also, refactoring may actually reduce line count over time. Doing the #lines/developers calculation as you did gives a quite apocryphal impression.
Sorry, not trying to flamebait here, but how long does a Linux kernel build take on a 3GHz P4? 2 hours? Tops? There's an order of magnitude of difference between the complexity of Windows and Linux (which may or may not be a good thing).
Heard of it? First written about (in the US) by Lorenz many moons ago, he says that most physical systems have extremly different long-term behavior based on small changes in initial conditions (in a nutshell). What this means is that if NASA was even a little off in measuring the orbits of potential 'earth-killers', we may very well be fsck'ed long before that 8000 year mark.
my girlfriend, you insensitive clod.
I was a carpenter in a previous life. I helped build the house I'm living in now. I *like* the fact that my house was crafted not by the sharing of blueprints and computer-aided customization, but by real (as opposed to fake) people working on-site, making adjustments as construction progressed. A message to the OSBA: Don't take craftmanship out of building.
here!
You shouldn't be asking us this. The high schoolers that lurk here are going to make jokes or give their 'best guesses', the rest are going to give you anecdotal evidence (ie, 'what I've heard'), and those that really know what's going on will be ignored. This is something for an electrician, someone that does this stuff for a living. That sure isn't me, and it sure isn't 99% of the slashdot population.
Why change smtp/pop? Just add access controls to your mta - a little hacking in postfix/qmail (a lot of hacking on sendmail), bingo - only get email from those you want to. This doesn't fix the bandwidth problem, and it does somewhat reduce the effectiveness of email (send anything anywhere to anybody), but... no more spam.
Windows has a windows messaging service, if you're sniffing a network you can tell which machines have it enabled. Try doing a 'net send "foo"' from a command prompt. This is what he's talking about. The fix is to disable the windows messaging service (different than msn messaging), but this is beyond most average users w/o explicit instructions. Behold! The wonder that is Windows strikes again! (why I use os x)
The bigger issue here is the length of the cable. To get decent bandwidth, parallel communication has to cut down on cable length (see scsi,ide). With serial communication you can go for hundreds of feet (ethernet). For a small rack, such as the one you describe, this might be possible - but cost prohibitive. Think about the cost of an external ultra-160 cable - $100? For 1m? My prices are dated, probably, but still. Remember too that it's not bandwidth that's the problem in clusters - it's latency. That's why Myrinet is so damn costly. Even current cluster interconnects don't need more than 10Mb/s bandwidth - but they need as little latency as is possible.
I use both os x and linux pretty extensively. I've used linux on macs as well (yellowdog and linuxppc). Linux *is* faster, from a user experience point of view and from a systems standpoint - However, this is on older (400mhz) G4's. The new iMacs (and by extension the new PowerMacs) are *much* snappier, but they would be in linux too. Harkening back to a post from a few days earlier, os x has about 85-90% the raw speed of linux on identical hardware. Considering the UI and application base, that's good enough for me. Besides, if you wanted straight-up hardcore power, you wouldn't be using a ppc. You'd be using a .357.
A quick google returns this as the first reference: MacOSXwithActiveDirectory.pdf.