So did RMS or did not had an available opensource C compiler?
Theo deRaadt says it isn't ready (as of 2007)
Did RMS start writing GCC in 2007? Was PCC available when he started GCC? Was any other compiler available? How did RMS compiled GCC? Was the first GCC version tainted with "unpure software"? For how long?
What was the most recent version of GCC you ever used under RMS leadership?
Slashdot is also almost completely supported by advertising.
I really don't care. Sometimes some ads are interesting. Sometimes they aren't. I have the option to turn them off, but I choose not to. I like to see what's out there, because sooner or later - if it is relevant - I will need to have an informed opinion about it. Or just dont't, and have a good motive for that. Because in IT, clients don't like to hear "I've never even heard of it" from their consultants.
So, what you're saying is that 30-minute long publicity WILL NOT pay for content they air (but they will still be able to afford the shows), but instead will focus on other revenue models? I can see why you are upset. Welcome to the 21st century.
RMS tried to find an open-source C compiler, but couldn't.
Do you even search what you believe? From Wikipedia's GCC page: Richard Stallman's initial plan[10] was to rewrite an existing compiler from Lawrence Livermore Lab from Pastel to C with some help from Len Tower and others.[11] Stallman wrote a new C front end for the Livermore compiler but then realized that it required megabytes of stack space, an impossibility on a 68000 Unix system with only 64K, and concluded he would have to write a new compiler from scratch.[10] None of the Pastel compiler code ended up in GCC, though Stallman did use the C front end he had written.[10]
Go ask Linus. Probably because most of the available *nix compilers weren't i386 friendly. Heck, if he *did* have free i386-compatible unix environment, probably you wouldn't have Linux today. Does that mean that closed source and courts (AT&T vs BSDs) foster innovation and improvement?
Shure, those arab pricks or jew pricks would have been much better. Because franciscan monks are to blame for people needing an owner and a motive to live.
But you don't cut off a hearse or piss on people's graves do you?
No, I just don't care more about random strangers just because they had their life facilitated by being able to do academic work and public talks. You have people dying in Syria right now trying to defend values much more honorable than anything RMS ever stood for, do you give a shit about them? Because it is easy to talk about freedom (wtf!) and badmouth "evil corporations" when you and the ones that are close to you are protected from harm.
Show some goddamned decency.
YOU show some goddamned decency. There are people dying for what they believe is right, and you talk about decency in the context of someone that has used the only somewhat good idea it ever had to get a free lunch. Get some perspective, there is a lot more in the world than computers.
But a man's life is in the balance here. Let's try to understand the gravity here.
As an human being. he deserves as much respect as everyone else. I haven't denied him of that, nor said anything in contrary. But thousands of people die everyday, and few of them have had the opportunity to see the world, travel, and be fed by their own personal views. Why should I care more than every other anonymous that die eveyday? Was he better than them? Does his life has more value? I doubt.
Which version of BSD? Because BSD itself is older than GCC, are you telling me it wasn't compiled then? And FreeBSD 9 can be compiled using LLVM (now integrated in the tree). And (at least some releases) of NetBSD can be compiled with ICC. And I guess Linux is also ICC-friendly.
And who wrote that initially?
You are talking (and I guess using) GCC. So what you say is that the first Unix C compiler was done by RMS? Or that the first open source C compiler was done by RMS? Or that the first usable open source C compiler whas done by him? Or that the hundreds/thousands of contributions that GCC has had all over the years are RMS merit? Or that the merge with the EGCS patch (because people actually wanted features) is also RMS at work?
Who wrote the GPL?
That is easy. Someone on crack with no sense whatsoever of the real world.
Sure, RMS hasn't done any cool GUI apps or really any notable apps in 20 years.
I suggest you try to find genious in any of the code he's ever made. I'm not downsizing the importance of GCC or even the publicity GPL has gained, but everything you credit him for was a collective effort. Can you name anywone else involved in those projects?
He built the foundation for something big
No, he went home to play with his toys until Linux came around. Because until then, nobody really cared about GPL or the GCC. Linus built the foundation for something big. And I'm not even a Linux fan, but credit should be given when credit is due. And RMS should have none of it.
Where I live (EU country) 16 is the legal age for consented sexual intercourse, given that you have the parents consent. If you are older than 18, and you have intercourse with a minor (even if she is 16 and madly in love with you), you can be criminaly charged, if you don't have her explicit parent's consent.
quite probably running software compiled with the compiler he wrote
I actually doubt that. I have used the compiler "he wrote" (as in the pre-EGCS merge), and by then, GCC was already a collective effort. Have you used it?
or licensed under the licence he created
Yes, he created a new license instead of using the already available (and still available today) open source licenses. And if you believe that crap about "BSD can be close sourced", you aren't using the internet today. Or you do it with a "GPL" shield that acts as proxy between those BSD technologies and yourself.
which changed the course of history
Linux changed the course of (from today's perspective) history. And it is the major GPL-licensed project. Not Hurd, not Emacs, not even GCC. How many lines did RMS contributed?
Either way, please do not call me mate, you do not mean it.
You're in the wrong place not to be offended, mate. This is a *discussion* site, so every point of view deserves their space. RMS itself is a firm believer of "freedom" (or whatever he thinks is freedom), so why aren't you?
I doubt that you yourself have changed the course of history for the better.
I doubt he has too, but only time will tell. Maybe his message will be lost in translation and end up like Guy Fawkes. Maybe you will run over the next world dictator with your car, and - never knowing how you changed the course of history for the better - serve a life sentence for murder. Who knows?
Think about it.
Dictator. Car. Or that homeless guy you gave a sandwich when he was plotting a mass murder on a shopping mall. Think about it.
Steve Jobs has been in the past an horrible father and a horrible bully, but that doesn't negate everything else he has done.
Which was what, exactly? Being a good marketeer? Being a follower of bullshit, sorry, alternate medicine? Being at the right place at the right time, and knowing the exact people? Am I missing something?
And yes, some people do some pretty weird things to avoid getting distracted by the Internet, but in his case, since he's actually been a very productive software developer
I'm eager to see Hurd finished. No, really. I can't stand RMS for various reasons (and some of them were already posted), but Hurd was a promising project that could actually foster innovation, and instead is a dead turd. And most of what he's made is either 1) developed and maintained by someone else 2) running happly on those non-free systems he talks about thanks to in-tree patches.
Also, pedophilia is about attraction to prepubescent children which is hardly what a 15,16 or 17 year old is.
Depends on the country you live in. A while ago, there was a big fuss about an american 16(?) year old (boy/girl?) that sent naked pictures of herself to a boyfriend. There are also some scandals with teachers and 16/17 year-old students, so I'd guess its not that black-and-white.
No, he has spent his life picking up his toys and going to play in a corner. And he has been freeriding the open source "movement" ever since. I won't argue the impact GPL has made, or the merits it may have - but how many of that *popular* GPL-licensed software was actually done by him? Not much. And how well is that software supported in "non-free" operating systems? Well, at least *BSD ports keep their patches for a given application off the official sourcetree:P. Talking about hipocrisy...
but in all cases he pushes for greater personal freedom
No he doesn't. Not only he talks trash about things he knows nothing about (google the OpenBSD rant), he is clearly pushing his own agenda and his own view of the world as the only valid approach. He is a fanatic, plain and simple, and much of his career was built on the backs (and efforts) of others. And yes, I am surprised how much relevance is given to anything that he says.
This stuff is for prototyping and playing around with, not making production models.
So, you already have breadboards, spring-based terminals (used in old teaching kits), and solder-based development pcb's. And my favourite - a sheet of thick non-conductive material (such as acetate-based or bakelite boards, or even cardboard) with holes punched in so you could assemble the connections on one side of the card. There were even tools for that - check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiring_pencil
Your assertion that you'd save "way more" by switching to SSD storage is assuming that the spindle disks are the main consumer of current.
No, I was only mentioning that power saving by itself isn't the reason for these adjustments. The obvious DC-on-a-rack argument is power savings trough PSU efficiency, but the real problem they are trying to solve is actually heat dissipation and server density, and the obvious AC/DC conversion power savings are only "a consequence".
According to WD, the WD20EARX draws 5.3W during read/write, 3.3W during idle, and 0.7W standby/seep(which, admittedly is a rare situation in datacenters.) (from the WD20EARX datasheet)
I wouldn't use Caviar Green disks on a server, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were common. But, comparing a Caviar Green with a "top of the line" SSD isn't a fair comparison. A Caviar Black/Scorpio Black (still low-end for server storage) will probably consume much more than the model you mention, let alone 15K SAS units. As for capacity, well, if we actually compare server-grade disks, 300GB SAS disks are pretty common. And as a "rule of thumb", using few high-capacity mechanical disks instead of more low-capacity ones is usually dumb, except if you really know what you're doing.
I guess, my point is to challenge the popularly regarded idea that mechanical harddrives are extremely power hungry. While CPU efficiency has improved considerably in recent years, I hold that CPUs and associated electronics consume a much larger portion of a server's power than commonly believed.
A Xeon HP DL160 with 4xSATA7200 1TB draws around 110W working (light load, 1 CPU) and peaks at 160W when booting, due to disk usage and fan usage. We are talking Midline disks (low-end SATA) I'd argue that at least in this model, 40% of the power consumed is disk-related. The spec for my quad-core desktop CPU says it will draw upto 100W of power while in use - that is a (at least) 4x increase in processing capacity when comparing to a P4 with the same power consumption. While server power consumption has been somewhat steady over the past decade, you have a huge increase in processing power and memory for the same watts consumed.
But, my point was that power saving isn't the main goal, given there are so much obvious choices (such as disk replacement) that would result in significant power savings. Heat dissipation is a real problem, and a major challenge that most vendors are trying to solve. As a consequence, usually less heat translates to less power consumed (and less power needed for HAVAC), so it may lead to substantial power savings.
And that increased capital cost will be completely and utterly dominated by the increased efficiency in power useage. If you think these guys haven't analyzed the numbers every which way and run a pilot datacenter to prove out their numbers before releasing this stuff you're delusional.
Can you please provide some numbers and web links for that analysis? Because power-wise, you'd save way more switching all the storage of a given rack to SSD than replacing the PSU's with DC rectifiers/inverters. What all these new designs try to accomplish (and not only big companies - every major player in datacenter infrastructure is doing the same) is the same - increase server density by reducing heat emission (and yes, saving power in the HAVAC system). The question isn't DC powering of racks, it's the choice of 12V rails, specially considering there is already a 48V standard for such purpose, at 1/4 of the gauge needed for 12V.
I'd consider 400W a bit more than "few hundred watts".
The point I was making is that some applications exist where 12V isn't that crazy. Regarding the story itself, I do agree that 12V DC powering for a rack seems like a dumb idea (voltage drop, cost of copper, catastrophic short-circuits, increase in weight, etc). But I think many modern blade cages (and many industrial computer cages) already provide common DC rails for every card in the system, so maybe isn't such a crazy idea.
Demands on the vehicle's systems are such that many cars now have their alternators plumbed into the engine cooling system,
Traditionally, (gasoline) cars allways had inverters - traditional (electromechanical) ignition systems usually work at the KV range to generate the ignition spark. They probably also have embedded inversors for any CFL-based TFT panels it may have. Car companies already have the know-how of 24V circuitry, since many manufacturers already manufacture 24V vehicles (RVs, trucks, etc).
But yeah, I agree that 12V for auto isn't the best choice (but 24V will probably only decrease the wiring gauge, not the number of inverters - 36V or 48V would be a better choice), specially with long cables. But that doesn't make it a "crazy" choice - specially considering battery design limitations at the time.
Oh, and as far as 500A being a lot of current, sure but datacenters deal with large currents all the time
Usually not using DC, and not on a computer-tech acessible zone. Not only 500A can easily melt/vaporize metal (electric welders usually are on the 100A-200A range), but as the parent pointed out, the voltage drop is significant. And there is another motive why this is not very smart - ticker conductors are heavier and more expensive. Considering the increasing cost of copper, this will translate on an substantial increase in cost per rack.
I never said a company can't pay fair salaries and be profitable.
Whell, you said "You also have to take advantage of the hard work of others, pay them less than the value of their labor so you can skim off a portion of that value for yourself.", so it will get you to the same point - according to you,there is no way someone gets rich honestly.
I said you can't get rich unless you pay people less then the value of their work.
The value of a transformed/created product is not the sum of the value of the collective work necessary to do it. And in the cases where you pay less than the potential value of their work, there are always the perks of job stability - said person is free to go and create her own business and potentially, in time, become rich.
That doesn't happen in America [ctj.org] Here, almost everybody pays close to the same fraction of their income in taxes. The top 10% pay about 48% of the total taxes and they get about 45% of total income. To me, that seems pretty fair.
Slashdot Mirror
My bad, I forgot that from Open Sources
So did RMS or did not had an available opensource C compiler?
Theo deRaadt says it isn't ready (as of 2007)
Did RMS start writing GCC in 2007? Was PCC available when he started GCC? Was any other compiler available? How did RMS compiled GCC? Was the first GCC version tainted with "unpure software"? For how long?
What was the most recent version of GCC you ever used under RMS leadership?
Slashdot is also almost completely supported by advertising.
I really don't care. Sometimes some ads are interesting. Sometimes they aren't. I have the option to turn them off, but I choose not to. I like to see what's out there, because sooner or later - if it is relevant - I will need to have an informed opinion about it. Or just dont't, and have a good motive for that. Because in IT, clients don't like to hear "I've never even heard of it" from their consultants.
So, what you're saying is that 30-minute long publicity WILL NOT pay for content they air (but they will still be able to afford the shows), but instead will focus on other revenue models? I can see why you are upset. Welcome to the 21st century.
RMS tried to find an open-source C compiler, but couldn't.
Do you even search what you believe? From Wikipedia's GCC page: Richard Stallman's initial plan[10] was to rewrite an existing compiler from Lawrence Livermore Lab from Pastel to C with some help from Len Tower and others.[11] Stallman wrote a new C front end for the Livermore compiler but then realized that it required megabytes of stack space, an impossibility on a 68000 Unix system with only 64K, and concluded he would have to write a new compiler from scratch.[10] None of the Pastel compiler code ended up in GCC, though Stallman did use the C front end he had written.[10]
But Hey, here's a BSD licensed one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_C_Compiler
why didn't Linus use them instead of GCC?
Go ask Linus. Probably because most of the available *nix compilers weren't i386 friendly. Heck, if he *did* have free i386-compatible unix environment, probably you wouldn't have Linux today. Does that mean that closed source and courts (AT&T vs BSDs) foster innovation and improvement?
In the absence of GCC, how much of Linux would have been written?
Every single line. RMS did not invent compilers, not even open source compilers.
Shure, those arab pricks or jew pricks would have been much better. Because franciscan monks are to blame for people needing an owner and a motive to live.
But you don't cut off a hearse or piss on people's graves do you?
No, I just don't care more about random strangers just because they had their life facilitated by being able to do academic work and public talks. You have people dying in Syria right now trying to defend values much more honorable than anything RMS ever stood for, do you give a shit about them? Because it is easy to talk about freedom (wtf!) and badmouth "evil corporations" when you and the ones that are close to you are protected from harm.
Show some goddamned decency.
YOU show some goddamned decency. There are people dying for what they believe is right, and you talk about decency in the context of someone that has used the only somewhat good idea it ever had to get a free lunch. Get some perspective, there is a lot more in the world than computers.
But a man's life is in the balance here. Let's try to understand the gravity here.
As an human being. he deserves as much respect as everyone else. I haven't denied him of that, nor said anything in contrary. But thousands of people die everyday, and few of them have had the opportunity to see the world, travel, and be fed by their own personal views. Why should I care more than every other anonymous that die eveyday? Was he better than them? Does his life has more value? I doubt.
'I think we are all astonished by this find,' says Stephen Houston, an archaeologist at Brown University who was not part of the team."
What an insightful comment by someone related with this find. Oh wait...
Which compiler does BSD use for everything?
Which version of BSD? Because BSD itself is older than GCC, are you telling me it wasn't compiled then? And FreeBSD 9 can be compiled using LLVM (now integrated in the tree). And (at least some releases) of NetBSD can be compiled with ICC. And I guess Linux is also ICC-friendly.
And who wrote that initially?
You are talking (and I guess using) GCC. So what you say is that the first Unix C compiler was done by RMS? Or that the first open source C compiler was done by RMS? Or that the first usable open source C compiler whas done by him? Or that the hundreds/thousands of contributions that GCC has had all over the years are RMS merit? Or that the merge with the EGCS patch (because people actually wanted features) is also RMS at work?
Who wrote the GPL?
That is easy. Someone on crack with no sense whatsoever of the real world.
Sure, RMS hasn't done any cool GUI apps or really any notable apps in 20 years.
I suggest you try to find genious in any of the code he's ever made. I'm not downsizing the importance of GCC or even the publicity GPL has gained, but everything you credit him for was a collective effort. Can you name anywone else involved in those projects?
He built the foundation for something big
No, he went home to play with his toys until Linux came around. Because until then, nobody really cared about GPL or the GCC. Linus built the foundation for something big. And I'm not even a Linux fan, but credit should be given when credit is due. And RMS should have none of it.
Where I live (EU country) 16 is the legal age for consented sexual intercourse, given that you have the parents consent. If you are older than 18, and you have intercourse with a minor (even if she is 16 and madly in love with you), you can be criminaly charged, if you don't have her explicit parent's consent.
quite probably running software compiled with the compiler he wrote
I actually doubt that. I have used the compiler "he wrote" (as in the pre-EGCS merge), and by then, GCC was already a collective effort. Have you used it?
or licensed under the licence he created
Yes, he created a new license instead of using the already available (and still available today) open source licenses. And if you believe that crap about "BSD can be close sourced", you aren't using the internet today. Or you do it with a "GPL" shield that acts as proxy between those BSD technologies and yourself.
which changed the course of history
Linux changed the course of (from today's perspective) history. And it is the major GPL-licensed project. Not Hurd, not Emacs, not even GCC. How many lines did RMS contributed?
Either way, please do not call me mate, you do not mean it.
Yeah, maybe I was a bit patronizing, I apologize.
I think that everyone can acknowledge that RMS has devoted his entire life to something that has done many people very much good.
What exactly is that something?
It offends me deeply
You're in the wrong place not to be offended, mate. This is a *discussion* site, so every point of view deserves their space. RMS itself is a firm believer of "freedom" (or whatever he thinks is freedom), so why aren't you?
I doubt that you yourself have changed the course of history for the better.
I doubt he has too, but only time will tell. Maybe his message will be lost in translation and end up like Guy Fawkes. Maybe you will run over the next world dictator with your car, and - never knowing how you changed the course of history for the better - serve a life sentence for murder. Who knows?
Think about it.
Dictator. Car. Or that homeless guy you gave a sandwich when he was plotting a mass murder on a shopping mall. Think about it.
Do you see how vague bullshit works both ways?
Steve Jobs has been in the past an horrible father and a horrible bully, but that doesn't negate everything else he has done.
Which was what, exactly? Being a good marketeer? Being a follower of bullshit, sorry, alternate medicine? Being at the right place at the right time, and knowing the exact people? Am I missing something?
And yes, some people do some pretty weird things to avoid getting distracted by the Internet, but in his case, since he's actually been a very productive software developer
I'm eager to see Hurd finished. No, really. I can't stand RMS for various reasons (and some of them were already posted), but Hurd was a promising project that could actually foster innovation, and instead is a dead turd. And most of what he's made is either 1) developed and maintained by someone else 2) running happly on those non-free systems he talks about thanks to in-tree patches.
Also, pedophilia is about attraction to prepubescent children which is hardly what a 15,16 or 17 year old is.
Depends on the country you live in. A while ago, there was a big fuss about an american 16(?) year old (boy/girl?) that sent naked pictures of herself to a boyfriend. There are also some scandals with teachers and 16/17 year-old students, so I'd guess its not that black-and-white.
RMS has spent his life fighting for your rights.
No, he has spent his life picking up his toys and going to play in a corner. And he has been freeriding the open source "movement" ever since. I won't argue the impact GPL has made, or the merits it may have - but how many of that *popular* GPL-licensed software was actually done by him? Not much. And how well is that software supported in "non-free" operating systems? Well, at least *BSD ports keep their patches for a given application off the official sourcetree :P. Talking about hipocrisy...
but in all cases he pushes for greater personal freedom
No he doesn't. Not only he talks trash about things he knows nothing about (google the OpenBSD rant), he is clearly pushing his own agenda and his own view of the world as the only valid approach. He is a fanatic, plain and simple, and much of his career was built on the backs (and efforts) of others. And yes, I am surprised how much relevance is given to anything that he says.
This stuff is for prototyping and playing around with, not making production models.
So, you already have breadboards, spring-based terminals (used in old teaching kits), and solder-based development pcb's. And my favourite - a sheet of thick non-conductive material (such as acetate-based or bakelite boards, or even cardboard) with holes punched in so you could assemble the connections on one side of the card. There were even tools for that - check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiring_pencil
Your assertion that you'd save "way more" by switching to SSD storage is assuming that the spindle disks are the main consumer of current.
No, I was only mentioning that power saving by itself isn't the reason for these adjustments. The obvious DC-on-a-rack argument is power savings trough PSU efficiency, but the real problem they are trying to solve is actually heat dissipation and server density, and the obvious AC/DC conversion power savings are only "a consequence".
According to WD, the WD20EARX draws 5.3W during read/write, 3.3W during idle, and 0.7W standby/seep(which, admittedly is a rare situation in datacenters.) (from the WD20EARX datasheet)
I wouldn't use Caviar Green disks on a server, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were common. But, comparing a Caviar Green with a "top of the line" SSD isn't a fair comparison. A Caviar Black/Scorpio Black (still low-end for server storage) will probably consume much more than the model you mention, let alone 15K SAS units. As for capacity, well, if we actually compare server-grade disks, 300GB SAS disks are pretty common. And as a "rule of thumb", using few high-capacity mechanical disks instead of more low-capacity ones is usually dumb, except if you really know what you're doing.
I guess, my point is to challenge the popularly regarded idea that mechanical harddrives are extremely power hungry. While CPU efficiency has improved considerably in recent years, I hold that CPUs and associated electronics consume a much larger portion of a server's power than commonly believed.
A Xeon HP DL160 with 4xSATA7200 1TB draws around 110W working (light load, 1 CPU) and peaks at 160W when booting, due to disk usage and fan usage. We are talking Midline disks (low-end SATA) I'd argue that at least in this model, 40% of the power consumed is disk-related. The spec for my quad-core desktop CPU says it will draw upto 100W of power while in use - that is a (at least) 4x increase in processing capacity when comparing to a P4 with the same power consumption. While server power consumption has been somewhat steady over the past decade, you have a huge increase in processing power and memory for the same watts consumed.
But, my point was that power saving isn't the main goal, given there are so much obvious choices (such as disk replacement) that would result in significant power savings. Heat dissipation is a real problem, and a major challenge that most vendors are trying to solve. As a consequence, usually less heat translates to less power consumed (and less power needed for HAVAC), so it may lead to substantial power savings.
And that increased capital cost will be completely and utterly dominated by the increased efficiency in power useage. If you think these guys haven't analyzed the numbers every which way and run a pilot datacenter to prove out their numbers before releasing this stuff you're delusional.
Can you please provide some numbers and web links for that analysis? Because power-wise, you'd save way more switching all the storage of a given rack to SSD than replacing the PSU's with DC rectifiers/inverters. What all these new designs try to accomplish (and not only big companies - every major player in datacenter infrastructure is doing the same) is the same - increase server density by reducing heat emission (and yes, saving power in the HAVAC system). The question isn't DC powering of racks, it's the choice of 12V rails, specially considering there is already a 48V standard for such purpose, at 1/4 of the gauge needed for 12V.
I'd consider 400W a bit more than "few hundred watts".
The point I was making is that some applications exist where 12V isn't that crazy. Regarding the story itself, I do agree that 12V DC powering for a rack seems like a dumb idea (voltage drop, cost of copper, catastrophic short-circuits, increase in weight, etc). But I think many modern blade cages (and many industrial computer cages) already provide common DC rails for every card in the system, so maybe isn't such a crazy idea.
Demands on the vehicle's systems are such that many cars now have their alternators plumbed into the engine cooling system,
Traditionally, (gasoline) cars allways had inverters - traditional (electromechanical) ignition systems usually work at the KV range to generate the ignition spark. They probably also have embedded inversors for any CFL-based TFT panels it may have. Car companies already have the know-how of 24V circuitry, since many manufacturers already manufacture 24V vehicles (RVs, trucks, etc).
But yeah, I agree that 12V for auto isn't the best choice (but 24V will probably only decrease the wiring gauge, not the number of inverters - 36V or 48V would be a better choice), specially with long cables. But that doesn't make it a "crazy" choice - specially considering battery design limitations at the time.
Using 12VDC on any type of system that uses more than a few hundred watts is insane
Like in a car?
Oh, and as far as 500A being a lot of current, sure but datacenters deal with large currents all the time
Usually not using DC, and not on a computer-tech acessible zone. Not only 500A can easily melt/vaporize metal (electric welders usually are on the 100A-200A range), but as the parent pointed out, the voltage drop is significant. And there is another motive why this is not very smart - ticker conductors are heavier and more expensive. Considering the increasing cost of copper, this will translate on an substantial increase in cost per rack.
I never said a company can't pay fair salaries and be profitable.
Whell, you said "You also have to take advantage of the hard work of others, pay them less than the value of their labor so you can skim off a portion of that value for yourself.", so it will get you to the same point - according to you,there is no way someone gets rich honestly.
I said you can't get rich unless you pay people less then the value of their work.
The value of a transformed/created product is not the sum of the value of the collective work necessary to do it. And in the cases where you pay less than the potential value of their work, there are always the perks of job stability - said person is free to go and create her own business and potentially, in time, become rich.
That doesn't happen in America [ctj.org] Here, almost everybody pays close to the same fraction of their income in taxes. The top 10% pay about 48% of the total taxes and they get about 45% of total income. To me, that seems pretty fair.
I wasn't mentioning a specific country, but in USA you do have taxation indexed on income: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Year_2012_income_brackets_and_tax_rates