Er, no. IPI was a slightly more intelligent competitor to SCSI that was seen lurking around in the late 1980s particulary on Sun gear.
5-10Mb/sec, nothing more than the SCSI of the day, and similar numbers of peripherals, even controllers. I don't believe they ever made IPI drives in less than a 5.25" full-height form factor.
Solid state drives have been around for a while. for using as database index drives. Remember it isn't the bandwidth which would kill a conventional disk, it's the seek times.
I remember back in the good old days, when people were more than fully aware that Stallman was a frothing left-wing pinko frothing commie frothing fanatic... I specifically remember him trying to pull a very similar trick.
All at once, he popped up on the linux kernel mailing list and demanded that becuase he was a big and very important person, that linux immediately be renamed 'lignux'. Naturally enough he was laughed off the face of thelist.
Some weeks later the next major version of emacs was released featuring autoconf identifying systems as i386-unknown-lignux. Naturally enough, the rest of the world who hadn't seen Stallman's tantrum were puzzled by this. Eventually (the next day) someone released a patch and it swept the world bringing a certain frothing fanatic's to his knees.
After the laughter and taunting had died down, it all just died away. I wonder how many people now involved with linux and this issue actually remember. Perhaps it should be a maxim that fanatics of any kind make dangerous enemies, but even more dangerous friends...
B>
"That's not an article" -- What is Science?
on
Profit vs. Science
·
· Score: 1
An article that contains nothing but results with the disclaimer "if you want the data, you can buy it" is nothing more than an
advertisement for the company selling the data
Firstly, as several other posters have pointed out, this isn't the case. If you want to make commercial use of the data Celera have invested vast sums of money in, you can pay them. For research, it's all available. You're even granted permission to make your own publications, to which Celera have no rights.
But then, this is a
magazine article. If this was a legitimate scientific journal, how exactly could the peer review process occur when the data is kept
secret?
I don't suppose you've ever heard of the term Impact Factor. It's a measure of how widely read and influential a journal is. Science is as legitmate as any other Journal, it conducts reviews of articles and has an impact factor, from my latest available numbers of just over 24. Nature has about 28. A typical specialist journal such as Applied Optics is lucky if it has a factor much over 1.
What this means is that you can't deride this as the work of some glossy magazine, nor as another result of a global conspiracy by megacorporations. This is decision by one of the most influential journals to develop new ways of dealing with intellectual property so that the results of research can be published and knowledge advanced.
So what you're basically saying is that everything would be much better in the world of science if everyone was forced to work without recognition or reward? That noone can claim any sort of ownership over their own work, or seek any reward from it?
In the real world, research doesn't suddenly discover something. Generally something is noticed and then it takes months to years to develop it into something that can be published. Allowing other people to leap in and take over before you've achieved something is tantamount to the loss of that work.
In the genomics field, things are progressing at such a rapid pace that the publishing of original work can't wait until all the commercial possibilities have been thrashed out, so they come up with a workable compromise, even guaranteeing access to the data if Celera go back on their obligation.
It's all very well to spout about big companies and profits, but I wager that you'd be the first person to scream if your government raised taxes by 10 percent to fund research. So if you're not going to pay for something, why criticize organizations who will.
What advocates of that raving lunatic RMS don't seem to grasp is that the majority of people are motivated to some extent by self-interest and that one is unlikely to achieve much by removing elements of self-interest. I wait with interest to see if these deluded people will eventually work it out on their own.
If you had the choice of a webserver that could serve N hits a day, lacked useful remote admin capabilities, was filled with obscure nasty security flaws which generally couldn't be worked around, ran on an OS that requires 24/7 *in person* baby sitting, and one which served N/2 or N/4 hits a day on the same hardware, but which didn't have any of these problems, which would you choose?
Now if you have to spend another $5,000 in order to make the second webserver go as fast, but could then not spend 30k/year x 3 for people to sit in front of the machine in case it needed rebooting (a real scenario), how could you make a sensible business case purely based upon 'speed'.
I'm surprised the assembly OS weenies haven't jumped in with their own thread.
I don't suppose you realize, PC weenie as you no doubt are, that it's nearly impossible for hand-written assembler to perform nearly as well as the code from a sensible compiler on modern architectures?
The 8086 is gone, let it rest in peace.
Now I could be blowing smoke, but I'm positive I saw an article about a chap in Britain who had quite successfully managed to get the common Jelly Baby to lase. I believe the red ones worked best. I'd love to provide a link to this but that confounded Doctor Who has taken over the search engines.
Slashdot Mirror
Er, no. IPI was a slightly more intelligent competitor to SCSI that was seen lurking around in the late 1980s particulary on Sun gear.
5-10Mb/sec, nothing more than the SCSI of the day, and similar numbers of peripherals, even controllers. I don't believe they ever made IPI drives in less than a 5.25" full-height form factor.
Solid state drives have been around for a while. for using as database index drives. Remember it isn't the bandwidth which would kill a conventional disk, it's the seek times.
I remember back in the good old days, when people were more than fully aware that Stallman was a frothing left-wing pinko frothing commie frothing fanatic... I specifically remember him trying to pull a very similar trick.
All at once, he popped up on the linux kernel mailing list and demanded that becuase he was a big and very important person, that linux immediately be renamed 'lignux'. Naturally enough he was laughed off the face of thelist.
Some weeks later the next major version of emacs was released featuring autoconf identifying systems as i386-unknown-lignux. Naturally enough, the rest of the world who hadn't seen Stallman's tantrum were puzzled by this. Eventually (the next day) someone released a patch and it swept the world bringing a certain frothing fanatic's to his knees.
After the laughter and taunting had died down, it all just died away. I wonder how many people now involved with linux and this issue actually remember. Perhaps it should be a maxim that fanatics of any kind make dangerous enemies, but even more dangerous friends...
B>
An article that contains nothing but results with the disclaimer "if you want the data, you can buy it" is nothing more than an advertisement for the company selling the data
Firstly, as several other posters have pointed out, this isn't the case. If you want to make commercial use of the data Celera have invested vast sums of money in, you can pay them. For research, it's all available. You're even granted permission to make your own publications, to which Celera have no rights.
But then, this is a magazine article. If this was a legitimate scientific journal, how exactly could the peer review process occur when the data is kept secret?
I don't suppose you've ever heard of the term Impact Factor. It's a measure of how widely read and influential a journal is. Science is as legitmate as any other Journal, it conducts reviews of articles and has an impact factor, from my latest available numbers of just over 24. Nature has about 28. A typical specialist journal such as Applied Optics is lucky if it has a factor much over 1.
What this means is that you can't deride this as the work of some glossy magazine, nor as another result of a global conspiracy by megacorporations. This is decision by one of the most influential journals to develop new ways of dealing with intellectual property so that the results of research can be published and knowledge advanced.
So what you're basically saying is that everything would be much better in the world of science if everyone was forced to work without recognition or reward? That noone can claim any sort of ownership over their own work, or seek any reward from it?
In the real world, research doesn't suddenly discover something. Generally something is noticed and then it takes months to years to develop it into something that can be published. Allowing other people to leap in and take over before you've achieved something is tantamount to the loss of that work.
In the genomics field, things are progressing at such a rapid pace that the publishing of original work can't wait until all the commercial possibilities have been thrashed out, so they come up with a workable compromise, even guaranteeing access to the data if Celera go back on their obligation.
It's all very well to spout about big companies and profits, but I wager that you'd be the first person to scream if your government raised taxes by 10 percent to fund research. So if you're not going to pay for something, why criticize organizations who will.
What advocates of that raving lunatic RMS don't seem to grasp is that the majority of people are motivated to some extent by self-interest and that one is unlikely to achieve much by removing elements of self-interest. I wait with interest to see if these deluded people will eventually work it out on their own.
If you had the choice of a webserver that could serve N hits a day, lacked useful remote admin capabilities, was filled with obscure nasty security flaws which generally couldn't be worked around, ran on an OS that requires 24/7 *in person* baby sitting, and one which served N/2 or N/4 hits a day on the same hardware, but which didn't have any of these problems, which would you choose?
Now if you have to spend another $5,000 in order to make the second webserver go as fast, but could then not spend 30k/year x 3 for people to sit in front of the machine in case it needed rebooting (a real scenario), how could you make a sensible business case purely based upon 'speed'.
I'm surprised the assembly OS weenies haven't jumped in with their own thread.
B>
I don't suppose you realize, PC weenie as you no doubt are, that it's nearly impossible for hand-written assembler to perform nearly as well as the code from a sensible compiler on modern architectures? The 8086 is gone, let it rest in peace.
Now I could be blowing smoke, but I'm positive I saw an article about a chap in Britain who had quite successfully managed to get the common Jelly Baby to lase. I believe the red ones worked best. I'd love to provide a link to this but that confounded Doctor Who has taken over the search engines.