Gawd.... I'm almost embarrased to say so.... But sharing an office with the client who pays my bills, he knows anyway....
I have a 37 h/w contract... Add to that 2 hours of traveltime (also payed for by my company), about 10 hours of overtime (that's when I ACTUALLY work), I bill about 40 hours/week to the costumer, 48 to the company, but I only really do the 10 hours overtime, and MAYBE a full 1 hour a day when I'm sitting in the office waiting for something to happen... Guess that's why I have the time to read/.
I work with SAP R/3, and have seen the sapdb in action. It's actually just an old DB system they bought from somewhere (I think informix or some such, but I can't remember the company right now). All they did was rename it.
Reason they did so was actually to be able to compete with the other DB's that's usually distributed with SAP R/3, such as Oracle, DB2 etc. 'coz when You buy a "SAP in a box" set, You get a DB of Your choice, plus SAP version of Your choice for an OS of Your choice. Of course most SAP custumers run on UX systems, and use obscenely expensive DB's like Oracle. But SAP pays for the Oracle License (it's in the box, I think I have like 40). This ofcourse cuts into SAP's profits. So by simply letting people choose a DB that's FREE for SAP to use, they save a SH*TLOAD of cash (consider half a mil. customers worth 5-10K in licensing fees pr. year. Haven't checked the numbers, but I imagine it's in that neighborhood).
As for the use of the DB, I still go for Oracle, and so does our customers. After all, the Oracle DB has better support, a better name, and as an SAP customer You don't pay no matter WHICH DB You choose. So why not go for the best ?
Most do.
And seeing the base in action, I would say it's nice, but needs some major renovation rather than just the current level of patchwork that has been done to it for years on end. Once You scale up to 5-6000 SAPS (measurement for usage in an SAP system), You might aswell get out the hand-cranck, 'coz it just wont do. But for smaller systems with less then 2000 SAPS it runs fine... The smaller the better. It might be able to handle big loads, but not REALLY big loads.
Personally, I wouldn't get caught dead with the sapdb in my systems. But if SAP gives it a big overhaul, maybe it will be able to compete with the big DB's. Unfortunately, knowing SAP's record for ovehauls, they'll probably be fixing it for years on end before it runs even close to smoothly. Anyone who's worked on an SAP system (development) will agree with me on that.
So for now I's go with one of the other free DB's in the market, if I needed a large DB for free. Otherwise I stick to what I know to be working without any problems (read: Oracle, DB2 etc.)
In case anyone didn't notice. The google cache is from January !!! So there's not really a lot about the more recent activities like that PC selling thingy....
Well, I guess that would more or less depend on how you define a "moon" as such. Under the very broad definition, that a planet is orbiting around the solarsystems center of mass, and a moon is orbinting around a planet. Then I would think that very few people would argue the point that our moon was a planet.
However, this is only ONE way to define moons and planets. Our knowledge of objects this size is very limited, as we only have our one solar system as refrence. What would happen in zones near or in the recently argued "negative gravity" zones ? How would the center of mass be defined ? How would planets orbit ?
see this slashdot article on negative gavity for details.
But true, if You define a "moon" as an object with a mass so limited it does not affect the planet it orbits, then our moon would definately not qualify... Few moons would I'd guess.
Really, if You define a dog as being a creature that wags it's tail and has four legs... Couldn'y you put that tag on an elephant ? Untill You give us YOUR defeinition of a moon, we'll never know if Your argument is valid.
That's not the case. True over time Oxygen will combine with other elements, but the existstance of large amounts of "free" Ozygen, is NOT a guarantee that the palanet has or hasn't life.
First, we must assume that not all life needs pure oxygen to exist. Who's to say that extraterrestial life doesn't "breathe" though photosynthesis? Or are even carbon based lifeforms ?
Second, if there's lot's of Oxygen, is that proof alone that life exists there ? Can You be certain that Oxygen is the ONLY basis of life ? What if the atmosphere is strongly radiated ?
Third, what if the planet is gaseous ? It might have lots of Oxygen, but no Carbon. This could proove to be a very inhospitable place for life to exist.
Other arguments exist, but these are certainly dominant amongst those...
Unfortunately we'll have to wait a few hundred years for a sattelite to swing by, with our current level of technology. Hopefully, in the near future the world will pull together and pour some money into researching possible new (cheaper and faster) methods of space vehicle launching, and interstellar travel.
Was thinking the same thing... Who in their right minds would want to run around in the street getting fried by electrical wires ?
Gotta be a joke... And not even a very good one.
Personally, I have to make this very descition several times a year for discriminating customers who only wants waht's best for them.
Problem being that 9 of 10 of our customers choose a UNIX platform, and as such MSSQL is out of the question.
Aditionally, they all want at least 16 hours of support every day (usually excluding Sundays), and some want 24/7. This leaves out the more or less free DB's.
This usually leave me with only three choices (four if it's an SAP R/3 system the customer is running, 'coz they have their own large scale DB only for SAP R/3): Oracle Informix DB2
And since I hate administering an informix DB, I usually recommend one of the others (most frequently Oracle, as I can get better support for it). And in these cases YES they ARE worth the cost !
For smaller custumers on NT platforms or LINUX, we still most often go for Oracle or DB2, mainly because they're easier to convert if the customer decides to change platform from NT to UNIX or vice versa. MSSQL is just out of the question.
We have one customer on a NT platform with a 2 Terrabyte DB, their main problem is that NT cant handle anymore logical drives, and therefore the DB can't be extended ! If this had been on MSSQL, we would have a SERIOUS problem convering the data to a UNIX box with another DB, well, at least a very TIME-consuming problem.
But for the smaller customers, say my brother who runs the IT department of a small company, yeah, mySQL is fine for him. Only 15-20 concurrent users, load is low, data entry is minimal, support is well, not that needed, since there's very few problems with a DB You don't use a lot. For very small DBs You Don't really need the huge ass expenses, and as such You should not buy the "brand"-name DB's like Oracle. But it's all a matter of usage. Often You'll find that paying the bucks is actually something You need to do to be able to provide the level of security / support / availability / speed that the project requires. And most often, the big point of sale for these huge ass DB's is the scalability. Like I said earlier, You might run into a situation where You need to be able to scale up Your DB, without the loss of any of Your business requirements needing to be "altered" to conform to Your choice of RDBMS, instead of the other way around.
But this discussion has been on/. before... I just can't seem to find it in the Database:)
My sentiments exactly (except for teh part about compiling my kernel:)
I tried my hand at asynchronous parcel handling (for memory) to find ways to bypass the limitations on synchronous memory once (this was many years ago, and I'm no longer involved in theorethical engineering). But our findings back then was that HANDLING of the packages usually made the processing much slower than using timed synchronization, where no (or very basic) handling is (most frequently) used. Or at least that was the case "in Ye ole' dayz" about 8-10 years ago. Anyone have some idea of the feasability of such a project today ? Not that I'd EVER start again (too much money in software development anyways:), but just to satisfy my curiosity I'd like to know.
hmmmm, anyone have a clue as to what type of gear they are using?
So was I. I've read up and down the posts, I've searched the net, but found no factual information about this. Is it UMTS ? Just wondering with the speed they're offering. The "usual" 802.11 is SUPPOSED to go to 11Mbps, but rarely gets more than 2 Mbps sustained while in motion. I'm just wondering 'coz I tried to set up a wireless no-per-minutte-charges internet in Copenhagen a few years back, we got squished by the big telecomunications companies. I guess this wont be much of a problem anymore with flatrate internet access everywhere.
Still I'm intrested but apparently the only way to get more info is to subscribe to a mailing-list with no disclaimer, or privacy statement. Not very encouraging.
Oh.. And about Your idea of using the 2.4 GHz spectrum. Forget it... Have You noticed how much equipment is out there on the 2.4GHz unlicenced spectrum ? There was an article on slashdot a while ago. And I must say that the comments were right on the mark. You CANNOT buy a 2.4GHz product and expect it to work.
I've seen it, but I don't work there.. I'm too much of a slob to get my documents scanned (yeah, bledin' low-tech'ers still send me stuff on PAPER of all things), so a lot of paper just lies around. Anything that goes OUT of my office however is on disks/CD's or in a mail.
Where I work, we have all documentation in electronic format, readily available, and a LOT more searchable that a zillion books and little post-its.
Really it's just a matter of WANTING it enough. Though I still go print the contracts before I read them, simply because it's easier to read that way, but when I'm done, it's to the schredder.
But hey, don't take my word for it, just look at all the ways to take the peper out of the office. They're there someone is using them, it may not be You. But eventually more and more paper is gone from the offices. Try walking through the halls where You work, how many people still get more regular mail than email ? I'd bet not many.
Same thing will happen to the books. More and more books sold will be e-books. But it will take a while.
Take a look at Oticon (page is in english) for a company that employs the paperless office, it's kinda cool to see the schredded paper blown through a glass tube in the lobby.
I would have thought so too, but this new tech is NOTHING like what You see today. The advantage of the mylar coated tech-thing they're creating now, is that it's so much more like a "real" book than the ones that are around now.
I've actually been to my local library to check out an "e-book" in it's present form, and it's not really nice to read on those limited calculator like pads. But that's not what this development is about. This will be so much more like a real book, have the general feel and look of paper end everything, only diff is that You can set bookmarks, make searches, and don't even have to strain Yourself to turn the page.
In my opinion, the E-book WILL survive, but for the very foreseeable future it will co-exist with the regular book, since As You point out, they're part of our history. Additionally the production costs are a lot bigger at present. But as the E-book becomes cheaper and easier on the eyes, I truely believe that it will eventually become accepted.
You're partly right. The reason for the reabate is NOt that they keep Your money for 4-6 weeks. No, in fact the MAJOR intake is from people forgetting to get the rebate check, or filing too late or mis-filing. Anything that'll let the company keep the rebate for themselves.
Face it. The gains from investing $50 for 4 weeks could NEVER yeild a doubling of the $50.
True, some people DO file for the rebate, but when it comes right down to it, historically, less than HALF the people buying the product end up getting the rebate. I've seen cases where we're talking single figure percentages that actually get the rebate when it all comes down to it.
Not to mention the fact that SOMEONE has to pay for the local calls that's being made through YOUR little $100 box. It might not sound like much, but knowing that most European countries still pay pr. minute charges, You need a REALLY wealthy guy to afford the cost of half the world calling France or whereever.
I guess the system only really works if all the members are evenly distributed over the world, paying the same charges, and calling roughly the same people, thus roughly distributing the cost evenly between them, and noone exploiting the system, or similarly sliding by for free ?
I'd love to be a part of a project that can keep the phonebill down, but if it means I have to shell out a few hundred bucks a month for users tying up my phone line... I'm not really for that. My phone bill isn't that high to begin with.
I would LOVE to see Your point being made into realities. Unfortunately, as You may or may not know, the nice mr. Bush is not exactly pro-ecology (infact, he's not even pro-choice, AFAIK, but that's not the topic of our discussion), and being the former govenor of Texas, a state which pollutes more than even the Coal-mining, Oil-pumping, not-our-concern entire COUNTRY of Brittain (Yeah, I mean good-ole-England). I don't see that "the new leadership" will change the current venues of the countrys policy towards environmental concern.
The fact of the matter is that the average American, from the president to the bum sleeping on the sidewalk, on average produces about 200 times the greenhouses gasses as the average thirdworld citizen (even fairly well-developed countries like say, India). Heck even the chineese know that their more than 1 bil. population can do some serious damage to the environment and thus are more concerned than most.
But look at the big 1990'ies summits. US voved to "only" increase it's emmisions of greenhouse gasses by 10%, if other countries decreased theirs by the proposed 15-25 % (depending on the various summits, it's not like there was ever a general agreement on these numbers).
No my friend. I believe that no American president will EVER have the guts to stand up and say "Hey guys, we need to double Your taxes in order to get this environment thing going again". Now I'm not saying that I have any hard evidence that a doubling of the tazes is the amount of money required, but I have no doubt that it's the economics of it that's keeping the environment out of any serious political discussions in the US (government).
And who can blame them ? After all, it's not like the US is about to be flooded like so many other countries with loads of lowland areas, like say... Holland. And hey, those big floodings, that's just nature throwing a fit. Just because a few states got flooded, doesn't mean we should use money on the environment, Oh no. After all we just used millions on rebuilding after the flooding.
Climate changes ? Oh no, it's always been this warm in the states, and the few glaciers that melt in Canada and Alaska, who cares ? It's so far away anyway, and doesn't concern us.
The average American WANTS to drive a car that only give 6 miles to the gallon. The average American WANTS to "buy-and-throw-away", the average American WANTS to only pay a buck for a gallon of gas (ok that part is changing a LITTLE, but not because of people insisting on paying more), the average american WANTS a heated swimmingpool (ok, maybe the "a-little-more-than-average" american, but You get the picture). In short the Average American dosn't want to be concerned with the environment, and while that's true, no president needs to concern himself with getting elected on those premises. After all, there are no votes in it for him, so why do it ? It's not like the politicians of today actualy has moral values....
No unfortunately I think that no politician will start to speak up untill the average American realizes, apparently like You've done aswell, that this isn't someone ELSE's concern.. It's YOURS !
I could not agree with You more on a purely social level. And if we lived ina perfect world, You could be right. Problem is that we DON'T live in a perfect world. And what drives me, doesn't drive you. And as You point out Yourself; If people have money, they don't just spend them (otherwise they wouldn't be rich, now would they ?) This is why higher income (or for that matter even accumulation of wealth) are or should be taxed. Because if You have a little money wou will spend it, thus providing the society with much needed revenue and trade. Farmers grow crops, industry builds goods, gvt. holds comitees etc.
But when people have a LOT of money they start acting "asocially". They don't actually SPEND their money. They just pay off their house, and do't buy a new one, They SAVE money. Now ISN'T THAT unfair ?
Not in my book. But then again I don't know what You americans are actually complaining about. You live in a country where You CAN live off $6000 a year. In a country where that $10.000 income is taxed at a measly 15%. A country where the EXTREMELY high incomes are taxed as low as 40%. A country where You can drive a SUV, and pay less than $2 per gallon of gas.
In most "western" countries around the world I SERIOUSLY doubt You could live off $6000 a year (I tried it and it didn't work for me, BECAUSE I had to pay tax off that $6000). In a lot of coutries You pay a LOT more in taxes off that last dollar earned (I now pay 68%, and I don't even earn $100.000 a year). Additionally, I believe that the US might possibly be the ONLY country in the world (No I haven't checked) where You pay less than $4 for a gallon of gas.
I know i Shouldn't even CARE about the presidency, as I'm not american, but my point is that on many levels, the US is not that different from the rest of the world, and neither is it's people.
The American president isn't going to be YOUR president, he's going to be the AMERICAN president. So Shouldn't he be elected on what's best for America, not what's best for You ?
He might not be, same as all the pollution that everyone agrees that "someone" should take care of. But if everyone cared, then there would BE no economic intrest that stopped the effort. Just like there'd BE no economic intrest in seeing someone else elected, rather than the one who's best for the country as a whole.
Actually, NASA, ESA, (can't remeber the russian space programmes name) and others do NOT engange in a "faster, cheaper, better" thing. Better is good. But living up to specs is not enough. Because You never can tell if/when something might not go as planned, in which case the specs should be a far cry better then just exactly what's needed. 'Coz You never know what's needed.
Seems to me that if the board is electrically compatible, and the majority of the microcode is X86 compatible, that it should be possible to "hack" the chipset by inserting Your own code based on the specs for the Athlon (I believe the chipset info needed is widely available). Of course not all the code NEED be in the flash, which would be the trick, if it wasn't (Can't really tell without the board).
Ofcourse I'd be REAL sure that the warranty on the board was void before I started;)
In the beginning of the Year I was involved in the purchase of a 2U rackmounted system (with a lotta gadets) from Compaq. It had a Matrox graphics card, but hardly a highend card. However, according to the NT diag, there's an AGP slot on the board, so I guess Compaq makes these (Compaq is usually available worldwide, and You can get a pretty good service deal). If You need more info on model or whatever, let me know.. Even thgouh Im pretty sure Your local Compaq dealer will be able to tell you.
I work for a compnay that amongst other things make a living out of selling stuff like Custumer realtions management software, Mass-billing and financials software, etc.
When these things happen, it's usually becuase the company in question does NOT use a "real" massbilling software, in which case a lot of intresting things can happen.
In my case I got an abscenely large bill from my electrical company, but no-one could tell me why I suddenly had to pay in advance for three months the amount that I usually pay in two years. So I never paied the bill. They STILL haven't come collecting, because they have no software telling them that this account was not credited with the obscene amount of money, but only the "regular" amount of money.
Now I'm not saying what I did was the right thing to do. I'm just saying that I exploited a weakness in the system, because I knew how to do so.
So when You experience things like this, then it's most often because the company have no eperience in handling these situations with their exsisting financial software, or they simply HAVE no way to handle the specific situation...
Leave it to the users to find new and intresting ways to mess up that perfect system You just made.
"How was I supposed to know I couldn't answer 'only on wednesdays' at the prompt ?"
WEll, in essence You're right.. But You might be taking the more... Commercial view of making a DVD.. I think the dude wants to know if it's feasible for a PRIVATE user to make one (movie).
I usually tend the larger computer/consumer electronics shows and do articles/reviews of some of the products, and I did answer this exact question about 6 months ago.
I know 6 months is a long time, but the conclusions should remain the same:
You CANNOT buy a DVD recorder that can play DVD movies in Your stationary DVD player (sony, phillips, denon or whatever) for any even REMOTELY resonable amount of money.
You CANNOT buy an MPEG authoring program that contains more than the basic features of a normal DVD, such as subtitle/language selection to one video stream. The only "reasonably" priced software, (such as say, DVD-it and others) ONLY supports ONE videotrack, WITHOUT any overlays such as audio or subtitles. But has basic features such as selectable buttons and interactivity.
This kinda makes it unlikely that You'll be running Your own DVD movies in Your own player anytime soon... Phillips has a recorder on the way that's SUPPOSED to be able to record on Your PC and playback on Your stationary DVD player, or You can go and record directly on the stationary model. However, this still imposes the limitations of not being able to add in the "cool" DVD features.
However, if the user is willing to sacrifice a few of the features or compromise on the usability of the DVD it's possible to make Your own movies.
Using the new Matrox GT2000 hardware Mpeg encoder and complementary software, I've managed to make a DVD like movie setup on a CD. And recording it on a mediatype (mr. platinum, blue coated discs) that's playable on my Sony DVD-525, I managed to format it as a VCD, and thus attained a full 11 minutes of MPEG-2 quality homemade video, that I could playback on my DVD player... But it's unfortunately still a far cry from actually making my own DVD movies, or moving my VHS collection to DVDs. But I hope that the new 2nd generation DVD recorder from Phillips will change that in the near future.. It should hit the market around early spring 2001. This could force competitors into making the DVD a more publicly accessible mediatype.
Well, You're more optimistic than me, but I guess that's because You've found some info on their dataretrieval method.. Because I do believe that from the science put forsth so far, that a working (reasonably fast) prototype to read, write and access data to/from a PC system in an unprotected environment is at least 5-10 years away. But maybe when I see some of the math I'll believe otherwise.
I like the iead of the idea of the Long Chain polymer, but wouldn't this conflict with the idea of sincle cell switching (on/off switching that is), as the chain would contain MORE than on bit at a time ? And wouldn't this affect the rate of transfer, possibly even making it too slow for comfort ? I mean reading one DNA string might take a while, but imgine having to read a few billion.
I might be wrong, I haven't done the math yet, but I would imagine this to be the case.
Did I ever say I disbelieved their efforts ?
No
Ddi I ever call the inventor unimaginative ?
No
In fact. Did I do ANYTHING other than question the mere fact that this particular group of scientists (Whom I've been following for some years in the scientific journals now), has NOT produced anything even REMOTELY like effective storage ?
No
And if You want proof from me that their invention is NOT feasable. Then I likewise challenge You to proove that ghosts do not exist. Not because I belive they do or don't, but merely because this would proove an equally vain effort on Your part.
In fact I encourage new scientific breakthroughs, not only because I've long since given up being part of that world myself. But also because I believe that the future of mankind is determined not only by the things we create, but also by how we use them.
But in particular this group of scientist have made ASTOUNDING progress in the field of molecular science, which is why I will do nothing to "disproove" their findings.
On the other hand, this very reputable group all of a sudden claims to achieve a breakthrough, but are not intersted in sharing the datils with anyone ? Do anyone here remember the "cold-fusion" hoaxes ? I just do not believe that thay've achieved this kind of breakthrough for several reasons. And if You read the particular article in question, You should be doubtfull aswell. In many places is says "can", "may" and "should", is stead of "is", "does" and "Eureka !"
IF in fact these problems WERE solved, would this not have caused an uproar in the scientific community ? I would believe so. So even if it's not this group that's responsible for the apparent "disinformation", then it's disinformation nonetheless, as the "essential" breakthroghs have not yet been achieved.
There's a reason that this tech has been researched so long by so many independant groups and noone has achieved results. As I've written in other comments, I have no doubt that this could be brought to work, I just doubt that the problems (mainly) of acessing the data, has been solved suffiently to satisfy my curious mind.
Sure it sounds nice... Doens't all new tech ?
But seriously, have anyone considered that these are RISC processors ? Do they (Intel) plan to abandon their CISC processors for the private user ? Or is this simply Intel's way of saying "we want a bigger piece of the Business pie"
I certainly think the latter is true. I seriously doubt that we could get along without the CISC, it would just cause to much incompatability, or the translation matrix would make the apparent speed increase gained from the CISC->RISC insignificant. This has no bearing on "us" the private users as I see it.
That You should define an OS, as HARDWARE INDEPENDANT. We all know it usually isn't, but in the "early days" it was revolutionary when Intel though up the x86 architechture that truely allowed programmers to reuse their code on new machines, regardless of the "new and improoved" CPU/harddrive/whatever. In "the old days" we (Ok, my brother did the most work) had to rewrite all code for a new CPU, even a new network interface would screw things up. The microcode interface was REVOLUTIONARY (It still is if You ask me), as the old instructions would just be interpreted difrently, but do the same thing they've always done.
Though I do not know which was the actual FIRST OS to implement these changes, I know the first machine we got to work on with this interface was an IBM mainframe.
Slashdot Mirror
Gawd.... I'm almost embarrased to say so.... But sharing an office with the client who pays my bills, he knows anyway.... I have a 37 h/w contract... Add to that 2 hours of traveltime (also payed for by my company), about 10 hours of overtime (that's when I ACTUALLY work), I bill about 40 hours/week to the costumer, 48 to the company, but I only really do the 10 hours overtime, and MAYBE a full 1 hour a day when I'm sitting in the office waiting for something to happen... Guess that's why I have the time to read /.
I work with SAP R/3, and have seen the sapdb in action. It's actually just an old DB system they bought from somewhere (I think informix or some such, but I can't remember the company right now). All they did was rename it.
Reason they did so was actually to be able to compete with the other DB's that's usually distributed with SAP R/3, such as Oracle, DB2 etc. 'coz when You buy a "SAP in a box" set, You get a DB of Your choice, plus SAP version of Your choice for an OS of Your choice. Of course most SAP custumers run on UX systems, and use obscenely expensive DB's like Oracle. But SAP pays for the Oracle License (it's in the box, I think I have like 40). This ofcourse cuts into SAP's profits. So by simply letting people choose a DB that's FREE for SAP to use, they save a SH*TLOAD of cash (consider half a mil. customers worth 5-10K in licensing fees pr. year. Haven't checked the numbers, but I imagine it's in that neighborhood).
As for the use of the DB, I still go for Oracle, and so does our customers. After all, the Oracle DB has better support, a better name, and as an SAP customer You don't pay no matter WHICH DB You choose. So why not go for the best ?
Most do.
And seeing the base in action, I would say it's nice, but needs some major renovation rather than just the current level of patchwork that has been done to it for years on end. Once You scale up to 5-6000 SAPS (measurement for usage in an SAP system), You might aswell get out the hand-cranck, 'coz it just wont do. But for smaller systems with less then 2000 SAPS it runs fine... The smaller the better. It might be able to handle big loads, but not REALLY big loads.
Personally, I wouldn't get caught dead with the sapdb in my systems. But if SAP gives it a big overhaul, maybe it will be able to compete with the big DB's. Unfortunately, knowing SAP's record for ovehauls, they'll probably be fixing it for years on end before it runs even close to smoothly. Anyone who's worked on an SAP system (development) will agree with me on that.
So for now I's go with one of the other free DB's in the market, if I needed a large DB for free. Otherwise I stick to what I know to be working without any problems (read: Oracle, DB2 etc.)
In case anyone didn't notice. The google cache is from January !!! So there's not really a lot about the more recent activities like that PC selling thingy....
Well, I guess that would more or less depend on how you define a "moon" as such. Under the very broad definition, that a planet is orbiting around the solarsystems center of mass, and a moon is orbinting around a planet. Then I would think that very few people would argue the point that our moon was a planet.
However, this is only ONE way to define moons and planets. Our knowledge of objects this size is very limited, as we only have our one solar system as refrence. What would happen in zones near or in the recently argued "negative gravity" zones ? How would the center of mass be defined ? How would planets orbit ?
see this slashdot article on negative gavity for details.
But true, if You define a "moon" as an object with a mass so limited it does not affect the planet it orbits, then our moon would definately not qualify... Few moons would I'd guess.
Really, if You define a dog as being a creature that wags it's tail and has four legs... Couldn'y you put that tag on an elephant ? Untill You give us YOUR defeinition of a moon, we'll never know if Your argument is valid.
That's not the case. True over time Oxygen will combine with other elements, but the existstance of large amounts of "free" Ozygen, is NOT a guarantee that the palanet has or hasn't life.
First, we must assume that not all life needs pure oxygen to exist. Who's to say that extraterrestial life doesn't "breathe" though photosynthesis? Or are even carbon based lifeforms ?
Second, if there's lot's of Oxygen, is that proof alone that life exists there ? Can You be certain that Oxygen is the ONLY basis of life ? What if the atmosphere is strongly radiated ?
Third, what if the planet is gaseous ? It might have lots of Oxygen, but no Carbon. This could proove to be a very inhospitable place for life to exist.
Other arguments exist, but these are certainly dominant amongst those...
Unfortunately we'll have to wait a few hundred years for a sattelite to swing by, with our current level of technology. Hopefully, in the near future the world will pull together and pour some money into researching possible new (cheaper and faster) methods of space vehicle launching, and interstellar travel.
Was thinking the same thing... Who in their right minds would want to run around in the street getting fried by electrical wires ?
Gotta be a joke... And not even a very good one.
Personally, I have to make this very descition several times a year for discriminating customers who only wants waht's best for them.
/. before... I just can't seem to find it in the Database :)
Problem being that 9 of 10 of our customers choose a UNIX platform, and as such MSSQL is out of the question.
Aditionally, they all want at least 16 hours of support every day (usually excluding Sundays), and some want 24/7. This leaves out the more or less free DB's.
This usually leave me with only three choices (four if it's an SAP R/3 system the customer is running, 'coz they have their own large scale DB only for SAP R/3):
Oracle
Informix
DB2
And since I hate administering an informix DB, I usually recommend one of the others (most frequently Oracle, as I can get better support for it). And in these cases YES they ARE worth the cost !
For smaller custumers on NT platforms or LINUX, we still most often go for Oracle or DB2, mainly because they're easier to convert if the customer decides to change platform from NT to UNIX or vice versa. MSSQL is just out of the question.
We have one customer on a NT platform with a 2 Terrabyte DB, their main problem is that NT cant handle anymore logical drives, and therefore the DB can't be extended ! If this had been on MSSQL, we would have a SERIOUS problem convering the data to a UNIX box with another DB, well, at least a very TIME-consuming problem.
But for the smaller customers, say my brother who runs the IT department of a small company, yeah, mySQL is fine for him. Only 15-20 concurrent users, load is low, data entry is minimal, support is well, not that needed, since there's very few problems with a DB You don't use a lot. For very small DBs You Don't really need the huge ass expenses, and as such You should not buy the "brand"-name DB's like Oracle. But it's all a matter of usage. Often You'll find that paying the bucks is actually something You need to do to be able to provide the level of security / support / availability / speed that the project requires. And most often, the big point of sale for these huge ass DB's is the scalability. Like I said earlier, You might run into a situation where You need to be able to scale up Your DB, without the loss of any of Your business requirements needing to be "altered" to conform to Your choice of RDBMS, instead of the other way around.
But this discussion has been on
My sentiments exactly (except for teh part about compiling my kernel :) :), but just to satisfy my curiosity I'd like to know.
I tried my hand at asynchronous parcel handling (for memory) to find ways to bypass the limitations on synchronous memory once (this was many years ago, and I'm no longer involved in theorethical engineering). But our findings back then was that HANDLING of the packages usually made the processing much slower than using timed synchronization, where no (or very basic) handling is (most frequently) used. Or at least that was the case "in Ye ole' dayz" about 8-10 years ago.
Anyone have some idea of the feasability of such a project today ? Not that I'd EVER start again (too much money in software development anyways
hmmmm, anyone have a clue as to what type of gear they are using?
So was I.
I've read up and down the posts, I've searched the net, but found no factual information about this. Is it UMTS ? Just wondering with the speed they're offering. The "usual" 802.11 is SUPPOSED to go to 11Mbps, but rarely gets more than 2 Mbps sustained while in motion.
I'm just wondering 'coz I tried to set up a wireless no-per-minutte-charges internet in Copenhagen a few years back, we got squished by the big telecomunications companies. I guess this wont be much of a problem anymore with flatrate internet access everywhere.
Still I'm intrested but apparently the only way to get more info is to subscribe to a mailing-list with no disclaimer, or privacy statement. Not very encouraging.
Oh.. And about Your idea of using the 2.4 GHz spectrum. Forget it... Have You noticed how much equipment is out there on the 2.4GHz unlicenced spectrum ? There was an article on slashdot a while ago. And I must say that the comments were right on the mark. You CANNOT buy a 2.4GHz product and expect it to work.
I've seen it, but I don't work there.. I'm too much of a slob to get my documents scanned (yeah, bledin' low-tech'ers still send me stuff on PAPER of all things), so a lot of paper just lies around. Anything that goes OUT of my office however is on disks/CD's or in a mail.
Where I work, we have all documentation in electronic format, readily available, and a LOT more searchable that a zillion books and little post-its.
Really it's just a matter of WANTING it enough. Though I still go print the contracts before I read them, simply because it's easier to read that way, but when I'm done, it's to the schredder.
But hey, don't take my word for it, just look at all the ways to take the peper out of the office. They're there someone is using them, it may not be You. But eventually more and more paper is gone from the offices. Try walking through the halls where You work, how many people still get more regular mail than email ? I'd bet not many.
Same thing will happen to the books. More and more books sold will be e-books. But it will take a while.
Take a look at Oticon (page is in english) for a company that employs the paperless office, it's kinda cool to see the schredded paper blown through a glass tube in the lobby.
I would have thought so too, but this new tech is NOTHING like what You see today. The advantage of the mylar coated tech-thing they're creating now, is that it's so much more like a "real" book than the ones that are around now.
I've actually been to my local library to check out an "e-book" in it's present form, and it's not really nice to read on those limited calculator like pads. But that's not what this development is about. This will be so much more like a real book, have the general feel and look of paper end everything, only diff is that You can set bookmarks, make searches, and don't even have to strain Yourself to turn the page.
In my opinion, the E-book WILL survive, but for the very foreseeable future it will co-exist with the regular book, since As You point out, they're part of our history. Additionally the production costs are a lot bigger at present. But as the E-book becomes cheaper and easier on the eyes, I truely believe that it will eventually become accepted.
You're partly right. The reason for the reabate is NOt that they keep Your money for 4-6 weeks. No, in fact the MAJOR intake is from people forgetting to get the rebate check, or filing too late or mis-filing. Anything that'll let the company keep the rebate for themselves.
Face it. The gains from investing $50 for 4 weeks could NEVER yeild a doubling of the $50.
True, some people DO file for the rebate, but when it comes right down to it, historically, less than HALF the people buying the product end up getting the rebate. I've seen cases where we're talking single figure percentages that actually get the rebate when it all comes down to it.
Not to mention the fact that SOMEONE has to pay for the local calls that's being made through YOUR little $100 box. It might not sound like much, but knowing that most European countries still pay pr. minute charges, You need a REALLY wealthy guy to afford the cost of half the world calling France or whereever.
I guess the system only really works if all the members are evenly distributed over the world, paying the same charges, and calling roughly the same people, thus roughly distributing the cost evenly between them, and noone exploiting the system, or similarly sliding by for free ?
I'd love to be a part of a project that can keep the phonebill down, but if it means I have to shell out a few hundred bucks a month for users tying up my phone line... I'm not really for that. My phone bill isn't that high to begin with.
I would LOVE to see Your point being made into realities. Unfortunately, as You may or may not know, the nice mr. Bush is not exactly pro-ecology (infact, he's not even pro-choice, AFAIK, but that's not the topic of our discussion), and being the former govenor of Texas, a state which pollutes more than even the Coal-mining, Oil-pumping, not-our-concern entire COUNTRY of Brittain (Yeah, I mean good-ole-England). I don't see that "the new leadership" will change the current venues of the countrys policy towards environmental concern.
The fact of the matter is that the average American, from the president to the bum sleeping on the sidewalk, on average produces about 200 times the greenhouses gasses as the average thirdworld citizen (even fairly well-developed countries like say, India). Heck even the chineese know that their more than 1 bil. population can do some serious damage to the environment and thus are more concerned than most.
But look at the big 1990'ies summits. US voved to "only" increase it's emmisions of greenhouse gasses by 10%, if other countries decreased theirs by the proposed 15-25 % (depending on the various summits, it's not like there was ever a general agreement on these numbers).
No my friend. I believe that no American president will EVER have the guts to stand up and say "Hey guys, we need to double Your taxes in order to get this environment thing going again".
Now I'm not saying that I have any hard evidence that a doubling of the tazes is the amount of money required, but I have no doubt that it's the economics of it that's keeping the environment out of any serious political discussions in the US (government).
And who can blame them ? After all, it's not like the US is about to be flooded like so many other countries with loads of lowland areas, like say... Holland. And hey, those big floodings, that's just nature throwing a fit. Just because a few states got flooded, doesn't mean we should use money on the environment, Oh no. After all we just used millions on rebuilding after the flooding.
Climate changes ? Oh no, it's always been this warm in the states, and the few glaciers that melt in Canada and Alaska, who cares ? It's so far away anyway, and doesn't concern us.
The average American WANTS to drive a car that only give 6 miles to the gallon. The average American WANTS to "buy-and-throw-away", the average American WANTS to only pay a buck for a gallon of gas (ok that part is changing a LITTLE, but not because of people insisting on paying more), the average american WANTS a heated swimmingpool (ok, maybe the "a-little-more-than-average" american, but You get the picture). In short the Average American dosn't want to be concerned with the environment, and while that's true, no president needs to concern himself with getting elected on those premises. After all, there are no votes in it for him, so why do it ? It's not like the politicians of today actualy has moral values....
No unfortunately I think that no politician will start to speak up untill the average American realizes, apparently like You've done aswell, that this isn't someone ELSE's concern.. It's YOURS !
I could not agree with You more on a purely social level. And if we lived ina perfect world, You could be right. Problem is that we DON'T live in a perfect world. And what drives me, doesn't drive you. And as You point out Yourself; If people have money, they don't just spend them (otherwise they wouldn't be rich, now would they ?) This is why higher income (or for that matter even accumulation of wealth) are or should be taxed. Because if You have a little money wou will spend it, thus providing the society with much needed revenue and trade. Farmers grow crops, industry builds goods, gvt. holds comitees etc.
But when people have a LOT of money they start acting "asocially". They don't actually SPEND their money. They just pay off their house, and do't buy a new one, They SAVE money. Now ISN'T THAT unfair ?
Not in my book. But then again I don't know what You americans are actually complaining about. You live in a country where You CAN live off $6000 a year. In a country where that $10.000 income is taxed at a measly 15%. A country where the EXTREMELY high incomes are taxed as low as 40%. A country where You can drive a SUV, and pay less than $2 per gallon of gas.
In most "western" countries around the world I SERIOUSLY doubt You could live off $6000 a year (I tried it and it didn't work for me, BECAUSE I had to pay tax off that $6000). In a lot of coutries You pay a LOT more in taxes off that last dollar earned (I now pay 68%, and I don't even earn $100.000 a year). Additionally, I believe that the US might possibly be the ONLY country in the world (No I haven't checked) where You pay less than $4 for a gallon of gas.
I know i Shouldn't even CARE about the presidency, as I'm not american, but my point is that on many levels, the US is not that different from the rest of the world, and neither is it's people.
The American president isn't going to be YOUR president, he's going to be the AMERICAN president. So Shouldn't he be elected on what's best for America, not what's best for You ?
He might not be, same as all the pollution that everyone agrees that "someone" should take care of. But if everyone cared, then there would BE no economic intrest that stopped the effort. Just like there'd BE no economic intrest in seeing someone else elected, rather than the one who's best for the country as a whole.
Actually, NASA, ESA, (can't remeber the russian space programmes name) and others do NOT engange in a "faster, cheaper, better" thing. Better is good. But living up to specs is not enough. Because You never can tell if/when something might not go as planned, in which case the specs should be a far cry better then just exactly what's needed. 'Coz You never know what's needed.
Hmm...
;)
Seems to me that if the board is electrically compatible, and the majority of the microcode is X86 compatible, that it should be possible to "hack" the chipset by inserting Your own code based on the specs for the Athlon (I believe the chipset info needed is widely available). Of course not all the code NEED be in the flash, which would be the trick, if it wasn't (Can't really tell without the board).
Ofcourse I'd be REAL sure that the warranty on the board was void before I started
In the beginning of the Year I was involved in the purchase of a 2U rackmounted system (with a lotta gadets) from Compaq. It had a Matrox graphics card, but hardly a highend card. However, according to the NT diag, there's an AGP slot on the board, so I guess Compaq makes these (Compaq is usually available worldwide, and You can get a pretty good service deal). If You need more info on model or whatever, let me know.. Even thgouh Im pretty sure Your local Compaq dealer will be able to tell you.
I work for a compnay that amongst other things make a living out of selling stuff like Custumer realtions management software, Mass-billing and financials software, etc.
When these things happen, it's usually becuase the company in question does NOT use a "real" massbilling software, in which case a lot of intresting things can happen.
In my case I got an abscenely large bill from my electrical company, but no-one could tell me why I suddenly had to pay in advance for three months the amount that I usually pay in two years. So I never paied the bill. They STILL haven't come collecting, because they have no software telling them that this account was not credited with the obscene amount of money, but only the "regular" amount of money.
Now I'm not saying what I did was the right thing to do. I'm just saying that I exploited a weakness in the system, because I knew how to do so.
So when You experience things like this, then it's most often because the company have no eperience in handling these situations with their exsisting financial software, or they simply HAVE no way to handle the specific situation...
Leave it to the users to find new and intresting ways to mess up that perfect system You just made.
"How was I supposed to know I couldn't answer 'only on wednesdays' at the prompt ?"
WEll, in essence You're right.. But You might be taking the more... Commercial view of making a DVD.. I think the dude wants to know if it's feasible for a PRIVATE user to make one (movie).
I usually tend the larger computer/consumer electronics shows and do articles/reviews of some of the products, and I did answer this exact question about 6 months ago.
I know 6 months is a long time, but the conclusions should remain the same:
You CANNOT buy a DVD recorder that can play DVD movies in Your stationary DVD player (sony, phillips, denon or whatever) for any even REMOTELY resonable amount of money.
You CANNOT buy an MPEG authoring program that contains more than the basic features of a normal DVD, such as subtitle/language selection to one video stream. The only "reasonably" priced software, (such as say, DVD-it and others) ONLY supports ONE videotrack, WITHOUT any overlays such as audio or subtitles. But has basic features such as selectable buttons and interactivity.
This kinda makes it unlikely that You'll be running Your own DVD movies in Your own player anytime soon... Phillips has a recorder on the way that's SUPPOSED to be able to record on Your PC and playback on Your stationary DVD player, or You can go and record directly on the stationary model. However, this still imposes the limitations of not being able to add in the "cool" DVD features.
However, if the user is willing to sacrifice a few of the features or compromise on the usability of the DVD it's possible to make Your own movies.
Using the new Matrox GT2000 hardware Mpeg encoder and complementary software, I've managed to make a DVD like movie setup on a CD. And recording it on a mediatype (mr. platinum, blue coated discs) that's playable on my Sony DVD-525, I managed to format it as a VCD, and thus attained a full 11 minutes of MPEG-2 quality homemade video, that I could playback on my DVD player... But it's unfortunately still a far cry from actually making my own DVD movies, or moving my VHS collection to DVDs. But I hope that the new 2nd generation DVD recorder from Phillips will change that in the near future.. It should hit the market around early spring 2001. This could force competitors into making the DVD a more publicly accessible mediatype.
Heh... We can only hope... But maybe it comes with an IBM needle (tm) to press the keys ?
and an IBM magnifying glass (tm) to read the display ?
Well, You're more optimistic than me, but I guess that's because You've found some info on their dataretrieval method.. Because I do believe that from the science put forsth so far, that a working (reasonably fast) prototype to read, write and access data to/from a PC system in an unprotected environment is at least 5-10 years away. But maybe when I see some of the math I'll believe otherwise.
I like the iead of the idea of the Long Chain polymer, but wouldn't this conflict with the idea of sincle cell switching (on/off switching that is), as the chain would contain MORE than on bit at a time ? And wouldn't this affect the rate of transfer, possibly even making it too slow for comfort ? I mean reading one DNA string might take a while, but imgine having to read a few billion.
I might be wrong, I haven't done the math yet, but I would imagine this to be the case.
Did I ever say I disbelieved their efforts ?
No
Ddi I ever call the inventor unimaginative ?
No
In fact. Did I do ANYTHING other than question the mere fact that this particular group of scientists (Whom I've been following for some years in the scientific journals now), has NOT produced anything even REMOTELY like effective storage ?
No
And if You want proof from me that their invention is NOT feasable. Then I likewise challenge You to proove that ghosts do not exist. Not because I belive they do or don't, but merely because this would proove an equally vain effort on Your part.
In fact I encourage new scientific breakthroughs, not only because I've long since given up being part of that world myself. But also because I believe that the future of mankind is determined not only by the things we create, but also by how we use them.
But in particular this group of scientist have made ASTOUNDING progress in the field of molecular science, which is why I will do nothing to "disproove" their findings.
On the other hand, this very reputable group all of a sudden claims to achieve a breakthrough, but are not intersted in sharing the datils with anyone ? Do anyone here remember the "cold-fusion" hoaxes ? I just do not believe that thay've achieved this kind of breakthrough for several reasons. And if You read the particular article in question, You should be doubtfull aswell. In many places is says "can", "may" and "should", is stead of "is", "does" and "Eureka !"
IF in fact these problems WERE solved, would this not have caused an uproar in the scientific community ? I would believe so. So even if it's not this group that's responsible for the apparent "disinformation", then it's disinformation nonetheless, as the "essential" breakthroghs have not yet been achieved.
There's a reason that this tech has been researched so long by so many independant groups and noone has achieved results. As I've written in other comments, I have no doubt that this could be brought to work, I just doubt that the problems (mainly) of acessing the data, has been solved suffiently to satisfy my curious mind.
Sure it sounds nice... Doens't all new tech ?
But seriously, have anyone considered that these are RISC processors ? Do they (Intel) plan to abandon their CISC processors for the private user ? Or is this simply Intel's way of saying "we want a bigger piece of the Business pie"
I certainly think the latter is true. I seriously doubt that we could get along without the CISC, it would just cause to much incompatability, or the translation matrix would make the apparent speed increase gained from the CISC->RISC insignificant. This has no bearing on "us" the private users as I see it.
That You should define an OS, as HARDWARE INDEPENDANT. We all know it usually isn't, but in the "early days" it was revolutionary when Intel though up the x86 architechture that truely allowed programmers to reuse their code on new machines, regardless of the "new and improoved" CPU/harddrive/whatever. In "the old days" we (Ok, my brother did the most work) had to rewrite all code for a new CPU, even a new network interface would screw things up. The microcode interface was REVOLUTIONARY (It still is if You ask me), as the old instructions would just be interpreted difrently, but do the same thing they've always done.
Though I do not know which was the actual FIRST OS to implement these changes, I know the first machine we got to work on with this interface was an IBM mainframe.