Look at any politician and you see the same look. Think Blair is happy guy, how about Putin or Rice. They're all so far gone it's sad. It's one of the reasons I believe so much in karma. They fought all their lives to get into this position and now they find out they don't like it, but best of all they're incapable of letting go. So like crazed children they run round trying to be in charge only to find out they're really is no way to be in charge only the illusion of power is available.
It's like the people with money all their time is spent making sure they don't lose it, enjoy it? They can't enjoy it spending it causes them pain as they have to work out how to replace it.
The happiest people I know have the basics and that's all they want. Everybody else is tied in knots trying to be something they don't want to be.
At my company we have a clear de-markation Dev does dev and IT looks after the env, including OS and all installs.
IT has it easy beacuse we have an automated install process which includes roll backs etc. The only time we have any sort of issue is when the automated install software needs to be re-configured. Then two people one from IT and one from Dev get given the task of developing and implementing the change.
Basically, promotion to production is a non-isuue due to automation.
Now if I could just get the stupid devs to automate unit testing and the stupid users to automate regression testing my life would be a lot easier.
Depends, before silicon we had human computers, now there's a fun job for you.
Also, the first stirings of computers were around in the 30s and before they just weren't fully featured. Look up Konrad Zuse. Then step back to Hollarith and so on backwards. It's amazing to me that we didn't have a mechanical computer or elctro mechanical computer before 1900. I can build a functioning cpu with no more than telephone relays, clocked in kilo hertz.
I am just a poor fisherman with many friends........who would like you not to mention shipping insurance........in fact, it would be better for all if neither shipping........nor insurance was discussed.
Geological time frames are central to the discussion. If people are saying what is happening now has never happened before then we should be able to go back and prove those statements. The scale of observed change is a problem if we cannot use the same scale within historical data.
There is more than one place his models don't capture the extremes of the observation. I'm not saying it's 100% wrong I am saying based on that graph his model is not accurate to anything more than saying it's going to get slightly warmer.
The problem with historical data is that the data is known. If you make a model and then compare it to historical data what do you do if your model fails? You probably tweak it to match the data. After all a model that is shown not to follow historical data is not going to be trusted for predictions.
Are you saying that we have an accurate model built by people who never built such a model before and who never tweaked the model based upon comparisons to historical data? Of course not. You know damn well that the models have taken decades to get where they are and most of that progress has been made by looking at historical records and pondering why your model doesn't match recorded data.
Face facts all current models are built or verified by comparisons to historical data.
The only judge of a model is future prediction. You are talking predicting 10-20 years out. I am saying that at present we do not have the models to do that with any level of accuracy. Go back and look at the predicitons made by models in 1987, trends is all they got right if that.
I fully understand the difference between a model and a moving average. It would appear you cannot understand that if the same answer comes from two different systems then both systems are equally accurate for the question asked. Who cares how they got the answer if the answer is all you are interested in. Now when given many questions you can start to see which system is the more accurate for a given range of questions and which one you are going to trust more for predictions.
Of course a moving average can be used for prediction, it's just the further out it goes the less likely it is to be accurate.
The climate models were built to follow the data points. Think about it how much validity would you have in a model if it didn't follow the know data points. So now you want to say look our model follows the data points so it must explain the system. That is just not valid reasoning, it's fallacy.
There is no proof that man either makes the weather better or worse. We have some idea that our actions slightly influence the weather but we have zero predictive accuracy. But don't let that stop you from planning to trigger volcanos with nukes or dumping iron in the ocean by the mega tonne.
Careful, weather and climate are the same thing but at different levels of granularity.
Your willingness to act decisively is a sign of arrogance and youthfulness. If it was just your existence at stake then I rather think I'd let you go ahead and act the quicker the better. But it's not just you and your belief system at stake, is it? So cool your heals and think some more.
I believe in the way. In my experience action is very rarely needed and when it is moderation is the action needed most. My society and that of most of the world lives out of step with the way, but it is not my role to change it. I have enough faults within my person to contemplate without trying to correct my perception of faults in others.
If the last paragraph sounds like gibberish then you probably need to sit down and have a cup of tea.
So it's OK to lie so long as you have some grander ulterior motive! Re-read your post and seriously ask yourself if this is a sane and rational idea.
It's madness couched in the terms of science.
Why not just point out that in fact the world is our only available eco-system. Then go on and point out that although you have no solid basis you feel that it would all be for the best if everybody behaved in a way you found acceptable.
I'll tell you why, you know damn well eveybody would agree with the first statement and laugh in your face at the second.
Agreed that climate and weather are different predictions. But the current climate prediction models are not accurate for anything other than hand waving. They are certainly not accurate enough to base action upon.
I think it would be better to list the top 100 things that cause our climate. Then sit down and assign weightings to each one. Then go outside and thank the sun for being reasonably stable.
Agreed that long term climate predictions are different to short term weather forecasts. But the graphs given do not seem to show a high dgree of accuracy but rather a high degree of correlation i.e. they tend to show the correct deflection but not magnitude. The analogy of the waves vs the tides is pretty good. The less precison you want and the more variables you can eliminate the better the prediciton.
Hansen's prediction was basically it's going to get warmer over the next ten or so years unless we have a volcano in which case it will still get warmer only not so fast. His paper was then mis-quoted by a skeptic to try and show how the climatologists were inept. Two points, ten years is not a geological time frame. His graph shows very large swings in the observed tack, sometimes falling outside all three of his predictions. I cannot see how this is meant to show how good his models are, rather it gives a very good indication of his models failings.
The links to a AntiSkeptic FAQ can hardly be considered impartial. The FAQ also seems to fly in the face of good science, claiming that using historical data to prove a models validity is good enough to trust it's forward predictions. And those forward predictions are good enough to justify radical action on the behalf of the human race! Link to prime sources e.g. his original paper.
I am impressed by Hansen though he seems able to hold a firm belief that he is right but also entertain the idea that the skeptics have some valid points that if true might overturn his beliefs. His rebbutal of his detractors was a model in restraint.
Obviously our definitions of 'remarkably robust and accurate' are different. The graphs you provide show have the general trend but that's about it. A moving average would also follow the trend. If the models are no better than a moving average why should people use them?
The ice cores are an interesting area. Personally I feel the temperature trend rather more than a specific temperature is important. They are much more useful to show what has happened and get a pattern for how temperature has changed over time in that location than they are a reliable measurment of global temperature.
Your post did motivate me to do some of my own graphs though. I'm curious just how close one can model the earths surface temperature using simple stats e.g. moving average etc. I'm also very interested to see if using sun activity alone is enough to model historical temperature swings, my guess is that it would be. Guess I'll have to bust out GNU Plot again:-(
I'm not from the US and I only came around in '68 but I remember tales of the winters of the early 60s. As a youngster I was miffed we didn't get good snow like the olden days:-)
The question is was this normal or abnormal for winter at that time. Back in the day the Thames used to freeze over and they would have a fair on the ice. But before that in the middle ages it was warm and mild.
Also, I do remember the summer of '76 in the UK, glorious warm and mild. Of course every other summer was lously and I moved to California because of it. I hear the last summer was pretty good.
I agree there are a number of data points that are moving, but what does that mean? Is it part of a natural cycle, is it a response to a natural event, is it a response to mans actions. Should I be worried, should I take action, what action, when, how.
Again targeting one variable, CO2, in a complex system is doomed to failure. All the more so, if we do not understand what all the variables are and how they interact.
I'm not saying the weather doesn't change I am saying man cannot predicte it or it's causes with any certainty. I go further and say we as yet do not fully comprehend our eco-system. To base any overt action on climatology is to base your actions on clairvoyance.
I tend towards a centered disposition, so acting without action whould seem to be me to be the best action. This can quite easily be mistaken for acting like an ostrich but can never be mistaken for acting without cause.
First off I never said global warming in my post, I never said if it was fact or fiction. I never said if the world was getting hotter or colder. I pointed out the flaws as I see them in the current reasoning in climatology. That's all, in my opinion climatology is not based on sound scientific principals.
Climatology is not alone, string theory is another area that has made no accurate models or predictions. But string theorists aren't running round claiming they've got anything more than a very weak idea.
Your post starts off saying my post lack substance and then goes on to make my case for me!
Carbon dixoide is not the sole cause of anything. It's part of a system that we as yet do not understand in anything but the most basic terms.
Weather forecasts are accurate up to about three days. After that the models used to predict the weather break down. The reason for the models failure is a lack of precision, the butterfly flapping it's wings takes over. But they are the most accurate prediction model we have for the climate. Every other model that has been built has been shown not only to be inaacurate but wildly inaccurate. I would love for you to prove me wrong here and give me a link to a model that has proven accuracy i.e. it predicted our climate and that prediction happened.
10years? Where did that number come from, bit like the ten commandments, someone made it up. When the east coast had their power stations offline the change in the atmosphere was measurable the next day, sulphur levels plummetted.
Don't get me wrong the weather always changes but man is not yet in any sort of position to make long term predicitons about the climate. If we are unable to accurtely predict the weather how can we talk about it changing, we have no baseline to measure from. How can we talk about what affects our climate if we do not know how it works. And most frigtheningly how can we progress if people are willing to accept clairvoyance as fact.
just why oh why are sane reasonable people wasting their time with this shit.
In most spheres of physics we put forward ideas and then test to see if those ideas are proveable and repeatable. We build from small ideas to larger models and then see if our models are consistent and accurate. We then take glee in trying to prove the model wrong or inaacurate. Only if the model matches observation and we find no conflicts do we begin to trust it.
To let you know how accurate the large model for climatologists is look at the weather prediction in your news paper.
The problem is they're trying to run before they'ved walked. They have no big model that is provably accurate so they have to guess. They are not sure as to just what influences our weather let alone to what extent. Ask them how much influence the sun or the earths core temp or the annual freezing of the southern oceans contribute to our weather and all they can do is shrug their shoulders and talk in non specifics.
So how as an intelligent person are you meant to interpet their findings and conclusions? I think that the findings are most likely accurate when they talk about discrete facts e.g. the level of CO2 in ice cores is less the further down the same core you go. But when they draw conclusions they are just blowing smoke the more assumptions the more smoke e.g. higher CO2 means higher temperature, therefore the level of CO2 measured in ice cores proves the temperatures years ago were less therefore we have global warming therefore etc etc
piss poor answers so far, basically more of the same.
If all you want to do is app hosting, be it a store or an ERP package then a secure version of something like X or VNC is perfect. Many clients and servers available, standards available, bandwidth is probably there for the most part. Before you dis this solution make damn sure you understand what X can do e.g run seamlessly with normal apps etc.
Go a step further brings in things like 2nd life etc. The apps are going to be non traditional and maybe even interesting. But be careful of vendor lock in.
Alan Kay has a nice project going with croquet, maybe in a few years that'll start to gain traction. would solve the centralised server problem of 2nd life and get back to the net as an end to end system.
The thing to grasp is that the net is just a net, bandwidth and latency are the limits not the protocols.
Personally, I hope that people start to use X or some such client rather like they used to use telnet. Would make things a lot easier all round.
The glasses stuff doesn't work for me because I have monocular vision:-( But there is a tech that might work http://3dscreen.ramboll.dk/ has anybody seen this in the flesh? It looks great, I keep trying to work out how they do it?
Yep I submitted this to/. over a week ago and it was rejected, obviously to technical for the readership.
I was thinking of all the books I've collected over the years for reference including Knuth, Tufte, SICP, SICM etc etc Maybe some early texts Plato, Aristole, Socrates, Newton etc Or early computer papers Turing, Church, Shannon etc etc What do I find on the list a bunch of how to books, that is how to with little or no understanding. (Bleh)
To the OP put down these comics and go and research something to first principles, just one interesting subject e.g. gunpowder or steel or calculus. Find out not only how the stuff is made today and in the past, but also the reasons for the change the people involved, who was the monk who first wrote it down in the western world and why were the chinese ahead of us. The chemistry and the physics involved, how much gunpowder do you need to knock down a wall vs. how much gasoline. To get a good foundation should take no longer than three months of daily application. At the end of which you'll know a lot about gunpowder but also a lot more about how to find and use information to garner knowledge. The latter is far more valuble skill than what's available in the how to for dummies.
The idea is that you don't stop at one subject but you take an interest in something related e.g. machining or poisons. This leads to other areas. Each time you'll reach understanding a little quicker. After a year or so any new subject should be childs play for you to grasp and manipulate.
What you are proposing is that every student has to be bored senseless in ethics class because you do not have an idea that will work!
I think it would be just better if everybody woke up to the fact that business is the pursuit of wealth. There are enough greedy bastards in the world that to convert them all to ethics is impossible. So just make sure everybody knows that businesses cannot be trusted and leave it at that. No new laws, no sensless law cases, you invest in a business you had better know what the hell you are doing.
To all the dotcom, Enron, Arthur Anderson case victims, that'll teach you for expecting to be protected. The business world is not for the meek or the stupid.
The US doesn't care as long as you stick to killing North Koreans. It'll just save them having to do it themselves in a couple of years. Axis of Evil and all.
Re:Definitely has uses but..
on
Oracle Linux?
·
· Score: 1
Most large companies will upgrade thru the vendor. It's unusual for them not to.
The company that employed me would in a heart beat buy a full stack like this. Email, DB, ERP, CRM etc. The cost of the server is peanuts compared to anything else including housing the damn box. If we out grew the box then we'd be back for the next size as long as the support had been adaquete.
The savings they're after are not cost but reliability. You increase their MTF and they'd love you. The cost reduction would come from reucing the number of support staff.
I'll say it again, centralised computing is coming back and app servers will be one way to go. The other is hugely fault tolerant cluster or mainframe, zero unplanned downtime baby:-)
Re:I'd switch, but for career reasons
on
Oracle Linux?
·
· Score: 1
Still have to work huh? Prehaps you meant $ not $$$
Pre-Configured Servers
on
Oracle Linux?
·
· Score: 1
For a large IT department this is going to make a lot of sense.
Oracle will provide a 4u box that is an all in solution. Plug in and go. DB Server in a box.
Oracle ERP could be shipped the same way.
Now what if other vendors came onboard with this.
For any large package setting up the server and installing, configuring the software is a nightmare. But I'll buy an overpriced box from you if you configure everything before it ships. Oh, and I'll pay through the nose for you to support it. No my staff won't touch the configurations just add and remove users from one of five or so classes.
I imagine Dell will be look for partners shortly. Rebadge this Dell as an SAP server. You want your Dell/Siebel. How about Dell/Cognos.
Setting up a new company I'll take a Dell/SAP, Dell/MailBox, Dell/Oracle, Dell/Archiver. Default settings.
It won't be long before HP, IBM et al would need to get onboard.
Now I've got my data center under control and cost effective. What about these fscking PCs on people's desk. Oh you you have an IBM/Productivity, install it in the data center and allow network access via dumb termninals. Costs go down and control goes up. I'll have two please. Yep and the support contract. We'll start with the software client but next PC upgrade we'll go with the network displays.
Personally, this is could be a big win for Oracle if Larry doesn't fsck it up with his ego. Keep Sun out of the picture and start adding items to your product list.
Oh, I need an Oracle/IM box and an Oracle/WorkFlow and an Oracle/DocStore. I just have to plug em in right???
There is going to be a huge market when companies start treating software this way.
The only way MS is going to compete is to do the same, that'll be fun watching them support there own software.
I use the nv module by default, I really can't be asked to futz with non-open stuff on Linux. My hope is that Nvidia stops all dev on the closed kernel module.
IF NVidia/ATi stopped all dev it would make it clear that an open spec 3d card is needed. Currently people are able to get by but that's all it is, getting by. Give me a card with the same performance as my NVida 5200 with dual HDMI and open source drivers and I'd be over joyed to the tune of $500.
Slashdot Mirror
Look at any politician and you see the same look. Think Blair is happy guy, how about Putin or Rice. They're all so far gone it's sad. It's one of the reasons I believe so much in karma. They fought all their lives to get into this position and now they find out they don't like it, but best of all they're incapable of letting go. So like crazed children they run round trying to be in charge only to find out they're really is no way to be in charge only the illusion of power is available.
It's like the people with money all their time is spent making sure they don't lose it, enjoy it? They can't enjoy it spending it causes them pain as they have to work out how to replace it.
The happiest people I know have the basics and that's all they want. Everybody else is tied in knots trying to be something they don't want to be.
At my company we have a clear de-markation Dev does dev and IT looks after the env, including OS and all installs.
IT has it easy beacuse we have an automated install process which includes roll backs etc. The only time we have any sort of issue is when the automated install software needs to be re-configured. Then two people one from IT and one from Dev get given the task of developing and implementing the change.
Basically, promotion to production is a non-isuue due to automation.
Now if I could just get the stupid devs to automate unit testing and the stupid users to automate regression testing my life would be a lot easier.
Depends, before silicon we had human computers, now there's a fun job for you.
Also, the first stirings of computers were around in the 30s and before they just weren't fully featured. Look up Konrad Zuse. Then step back to Hollarith and so on backwards. It's amazing to me that we didn't have a mechanical computer or elctro mechanical computer before 1900. I can build a functioning cpu with no more than telephone relays, clocked in kilo hertz.
I am just a poor fisherman with many friends.... ....who would like you not to mention shipping insurance.... ....in fact, it would be better for all if neither shipping.... ....nor insurance was discussed.
Geological time frames are central to the discussion. If people are saying what is happening now has never happened before then we should be able to go back and prove those statements. The scale of observed change is a problem if we cannot use the same scale within historical data.
There is more than one place his models don't capture the extremes of the observation. I'm not saying it's 100% wrong I am saying based on that graph his model is not accurate to anything more than saying it's going to get slightly warmer.
The problem with historical data is that the data is known. If you make a model and then compare it to historical data what do you do if your model fails? You probably tweak it to match the data. After all a model that is shown not to follow historical data is not going to be trusted for predictions.
Are you saying that we have an accurate model built by people who never built such a model before and who never tweaked the model based upon comparisons to historical data? Of course not. You know damn well that the models have taken decades to get where they are and most of that progress has been made by looking at historical records and pondering why your model doesn't match recorded data.
Face facts all current models are built or verified by comparisons to historical data.
The only judge of a model is future prediction. You are talking predicting 10-20 years out. I am saying that at present we do not have the models to do that with any level of accuracy. Go back and look at the predicitons made by models in 1987, trends is all they got right if that.
I fully understand the difference between a model and a moving average. It would appear you cannot understand that if the same answer comes from two different systems then both systems are equally accurate for the question asked. Who cares how they got the answer if the answer is all you are interested in. Now when given many questions you can start to see which system is the more accurate for a given range of questions and which one you are going to trust more for predictions.
Of course a moving average can be used for prediction, it's just the further out it goes the less likely it is to be accurate.
The climate models were built to follow the data points. Think about it how much validity would you have in a model if it didn't follow the know data points. So now you want to say look our model follows the data points so it must explain the system. That is just not valid reasoning, it's fallacy.
There is no proof that man either makes the weather better or worse. We have some idea that our actions slightly influence the weather but we have zero predictive accuracy. But don't let that stop you from planning to trigger volcanos with nukes or dumping iron in the ocean by the mega tonne.
Careful, weather and climate are the same thing but at different levels of granularity.
Your willingness to act decisively is a sign of arrogance and youthfulness. If it was just your existence at stake then I rather think I'd let you go ahead and act the quicker the better. But it's not just you and your belief system at stake, is it? So cool your heals and think some more.
I believe in the way. In my experience action is very rarely needed and when it is moderation is the action needed most. My society and that of most of the world lives out of step with the way, but it is not my role to change it. I have enough faults within my person to contemplate without trying to correct my perception of faults in others.
If the last paragraph sounds like gibberish then you probably need to sit down and have a cup of tea.
So it's OK to lie so long as you have some grander ulterior motive! Re-read your post and seriously ask yourself if this is a sane and rational idea.
It's madness couched in the terms of science.
Why not just point out that in fact the world is our only available eco-system. Then go on and point out that although you have no solid basis you feel that it would all be for the best if everybody behaved in a way you found acceptable.
I'll tell you why, you know damn well eveybody would agree with the first statement and laugh in your face at the second.
Agreed that climate and weather are different predictions. But the current climate prediction models are not accurate for anything other than hand waving. They are certainly not accurate enough to base action upon.
I think it would be better to list the top 100 things that cause our climate. Then sit down and assign weightings to each one. Then go outside and thank the sun for being reasonably stable.
Agreed that long term climate predictions are different to short term weather forecasts. But the graphs given do not seem to show a high dgree of accuracy but rather a high degree of correlation i.e. they tend to show the correct deflection but not magnitude. The analogy of the waves vs the tides is pretty good. The less precison you want and the more variables you can eliminate the better the prediciton.
:-(
Hansen's prediction was basically it's going to get warmer over the next ten or so years unless we have a volcano in which case it will still get warmer only not so fast. His paper was then mis-quoted by a skeptic to try and show how the climatologists were inept. Two points, ten years is not a geological time frame. His graph shows very large swings in the observed tack, sometimes falling outside all three of his predictions. I cannot see how this is meant to show how good his models are, rather it gives a very good indication of his models failings.
The links to a AntiSkeptic FAQ can hardly be considered impartial. The FAQ also seems to fly in the face of good science, claiming that using historical data to prove a models validity is good enough to trust it's forward predictions. And those forward predictions are good enough to justify radical action on the behalf of the human race! Link to prime sources e.g. his original paper.
I am impressed by Hansen though he seems able to hold a firm belief that he is right but also entertain the idea that the skeptics have some valid points that if true might overturn his beliefs. His rebbutal of his detractors was a model in restraint.
Obviously our definitions of 'remarkably robust and accurate' are different. The graphs you provide show have the general trend but that's about it. A moving average would also follow the trend. If the models are no better than a moving average why should people use them?
The ice cores are an interesting area. Personally I feel the temperature trend rather more than a specific temperature is important. They are much more useful to show what has happened and get a pattern for how temperature has changed over time in that location than they are a reliable measurment of global temperature.
Your post did motivate me to do some of my own graphs though. I'm curious just how close one can model the earths surface temperature using simple stats e.g. moving average etc. I'm also very interested to see if using sun activity alone is enough to model historical temperature swings, my guess is that it would be. Guess I'll have to bust out GNU Plot again
I'm not from the US and I only came around in '68 but I remember tales of the winters of the early 60s. As a youngster I was miffed we didn't get good snow like the olden days :-)
The question is was this normal or abnormal for winter at that time. Back in the day the Thames used to freeze over and they would have a fair on the ice. But before that in the middle ages it was warm and mild.
Also, I do remember the summer of '76 in the UK, glorious warm and mild. Of course every other summer was lously and I moved to California because of it. I hear the last summer was pretty good.
I agree there are a number of data points that are moving, but what does that mean? Is it part of a natural cycle, is it a response to a natural event, is it a response to mans actions. Should I be worried, should I take action, what action, when, how.
Again targeting one variable, CO2, in a complex system is doomed to failure. All the more so, if we do not understand what all the variables are and how they interact.
I'm not saying the weather doesn't change I am saying man cannot predicte it or it's causes with any certainty. I go further and say we as yet do not fully comprehend our eco-system. To base any overt action on climatology is to base your actions on clairvoyance.
I tend towards a centered disposition, so acting without action whould seem to be me to be the best action. This can quite easily be mistaken for acting like an ostrich but can never be mistaken for acting without cause.
First off I never said global warming in my post, I never said if it was fact or fiction. I never said if the world was getting hotter or colder. I pointed out the flaws as I see them in the current reasoning in climatology. That's all, in my opinion climatology is not based on sound scientific principals.
Climatology is not alone, string theory is another area that has made no accurate models or predictions. But string theorists aren't running round claiming they've got anything more than a very weak idea.
Your post starts off saying my post lack substance and then goes on to make my case for me!
Carbon dixoide is not the sole cause of anything. It's part of a system that we as yet do not understand in anything but the most basic terms.
Weather forecasts are accurate up to about three days. After that the models used to predict the weather break down. The reason for the models failure is a lack of precision, the butterfly flapping it's wings takes over. But they are the most accurate prediction model we have for the climate. Every other model that has been built has been shown not only to be inaacurate but wildly inaccurate. I would love for you to prove me wrong here and give me a link to a model that has proven accuracy i.e. it predicted our climate and that prediction happened.
10years? Where did that number come from, bit like the ten commandments, someone made it up. When the east coast had their power stations offline the change in the atmosphere was measurable the next day, sulphur levels plummetted.
Don't get me wrong the weather always changes but man is not yet in any sort of position to make long term predicitons about the climate. If we are unable to accurtely predict the weather how can we talk about it changing, we have no baseline to measure from. How can we talk about what affects our climate if we do not know how it works. And most frigtheningly how can we progress if people are willing to accept clairvoyance as fact.
Oi you,
put that razor away.
Arghhh,
just why oh why are sane reasonable people wasting their time with this shit.
In most spheres of physics we put forward ideas and then test to see if those ideas are proveable and repeatable. We build from small ideas to larger models and then see if our models are consistent and accurate. We then take glee in trying to prove the model wrong or inaacurate. Only if the model matches observation and we find no conflicts do we begin to trust it.
To let you know how accurate the large model for climatologists is look at the weather prediction in your news paper.
The problem is they're trying to run before they'ved walked. They have no big model that is provably accurate so they have to guess. They are not sure as to just what influences our weather let alone to what extent. Ask them how much influence the sun or the earths core temp or the annual freezing of the southern oceans contribute to our weather and all they can do is shrug their shoulders and talk in non specifics.
So how as an intelligent person are you meant to interpet their findings and conclusions? I think that the findings are most likely accurate when they talk about discrete facts e.g. the level of CO2 in ice cores is less the further down the same core you go. But when they draw conclusions they are just blowing smoke the more assumptions the more smoke e.g. higher CO2 means higher temperature, therefore the level of CO2 measured in ice cores proves the temperatures years ago were less therefore we have global warming therefore etc etc
piss poor answers so far, basically more of the same.
If all you want to do is app hosting, be it a store or an ERP package then a secure version of something like X or VNC is perfect. Many clients and servers available, standards available, bandwidth is probably there for the most part. Before you dis this solution make damn sure you understand what X can do e.g run seamlessly with normal apps etc.
Go a step further brings in things like 2nd life etc. The apps are going to be non traditional and maybe even interesting. But be careful of vendor lock in.
Alan Kay has a nice project going with croquet, maybe in a few years that'll start to gain traction. would solve the centralised server problem of 2nd life and get back to the net as an end to end system.
The thing to grasp is that the net is just a net, bandwidth and latency are the limits not the protocols.
Personally, I hope that people start to use X or some such client rather like they used to use telnet. Would make things a lot easier all round.
The glasses stuff doesn't work for me because I have monocular vision :-( But there is a tech that might work http://3dscreen.ramboll.dk/ has anybody seen this in the flesh? It looks great, I keep trying to work out how they do it?
/. over a week ago and it was rejected, obviously to technical for the readership.
Yep I submitted this to
I was thinking of all the books I've collected over the years for reference including Knuth, Tufte, SICP, SICM etc etc Maybe some early texts Plato, Aristole, Socrates, Newton etc Or early computer papers Turing, Church, Shannon etc etc What do I find on the list a bunch of how to books, that is how to with little or no understanding. (Bleh)
To the OP put down these comics and go and research something to first principles, just one interesting subject e.g. gunpowder or steel or calculus. Find out not only how the stuff is made today and in the past, but also the reasons for the change the people involved, who was the monk who first wrote it down in the western world and why were the chinese ahead of us. The chemistry and the physics involved, how much gunpowder do you need to knock down a wall vs. how much gasoline. To get a good foundation should take no longer than three months of daily application. At the end of which you'll know a lot about gunpowder but also a lot more about how to find and use information to garner knowledge. The latter is far more valuble skill than what's available in the how to for dummies.
The idea is that you don't stop at one subject but you take an interest in something related e.g. machining or poisons. This leads to other areas. Each time you'll reach understanding a little quicker. After a year or so any new subject should be childs play for you to grasp and manipulate.
OK,
so who is going to be seeling these on eBay? $50 a throw sounds fair?
Can ethics be taught?
What you are proposing is that every student has to be bored senseless in ethics class because you do not have an idea that will work!
I think it would be just better if everybody woke up to the fact that business is the pursuit of wealth. There are enough greedy bastards in the world that to convert them all to ethics is impossible. So just make sure everybody knows that businesses cannot be trusted and leave it at that. No new laws, no sensless law cases, you invest in a business you had better know what the hell you are doing.
To all the dotcom, Enron, Arthur Anderson case victims, that'll teach you for expecting to be protected. The business world is not for the meek or the stupid.
Then set up RGB in each window :-)
The US doesn't care as long as you stick to killing North Koreans. It'll just save them having to do it themselves in a couple of years. Axis of Evil and all.
Most large companies will upgrade thru the vendor. It's unusual for them not to.
:-)
The company that employed me would in a heart beat buy a full stack like this. Email, DB, ERP, CRM etc. The cost of the server is peanuts compared to anything else including housing the damn box. If we out grew the box then we'd be back for the next size as long as the support had been adaquete.
The savings they're after are not cost but reliability. You increase their MTF and they'd love you. The cost reduction would come from reucing the number of support staff.
I'll say it again, centralised computing is coming back and app servers will be one way to go. The other is hugely fault tolerant cluster or mainframe, zero unplanned downtime baby
Still have to work huh? Prehaps you meant $ not $$$
For a large IT department this is going to make a lot of sense.
Oracle will provide a 4u box that is an all in solution. Plug in and go. DB Server in a box.
Oracle ERP could be shipped the same way.
Now what if other vendors came onboard with this.
For any large package setting up the server and installing, configuring the software is a nightmare. But I'll buy an overpriced box from you if you configure everything before it ships. Oh, and I'll pay through the nose for you to support it. No my staff won't touch the configurations just add and remove users from one of five or so classes.
I imagine Dell will be look for partners shortly. Rebadge this Dell as an SAP server. You want your Dell/Siebel. How about Dell/Cognos.
Setting up a new company I'll take a Dell/SAP, Dell/MailBox, Dell/Oracle, Dell/Archiver. Default settings.
It won't be long before HP, IBM et al would need to get onboard.
Now I've got my data center under control and cost effective. What about these fscking PCs on people's desk. Oh you you have an IBM/Productivity, install it in the data center and allow network access via dumb termninals. Costs go down and control goes up. I'll have two please. Yep and the support contract. We'll start with the software client but next PC upgrade we'll go with the network displays.
Personally, this is could be a big win for Oracle if Larry doesn't fsck it up with his ego. Keep Sun out of the picture and start adding items to your product list.
Oh, I need an Oracle/IM box and an Oracle/WorkFlow and an Oracle/DocStore. I just have to plug em in right???
There is going to be a huge market when companies start treating software this way.
The only way MS is going to compete is to do the same, that'll be fun watching them support there own software.
So you're alternative is?
I use the nv module by default, I really can't be asked to futz with non-open stuff on Linux. My hope is that Nvidia stops all dev on the closed kernel module.
IF NVidia/ATi stopped all dev it would make it clear that an open spec 3d card is needed. Currently people are able to get by but that's all it is, getting by. Give me a card with the same performance as my NVida 5200 with dual HDMI and open source drivers and I'd be over joyed to the tune of $500.
The java app is screen scraping which as I said is crap.
I use powerterm rather than CA but that's my preference. CA is big and clunky and doesn't give me the features I need.
The gui would not be for legacy apps although they could implment a screen scraper on the AS/400 if people wanted it. But rather for new apps.