Copy on Write saves you real memory, cache memory, and CPU time by pretending that each forked process has a true copy of a memory segment when it in fact is looking at the original. That is, right up until a fork tries to write to that memory location, in which case an exception is handled by making an actual copy to a new location and allowing the write.
Linus believes that the exception will occur enough in real world usage that it will be slower than just doing the copy in the first place.
Linus wants to push the manual use of zero-copy memory sharing through the vmsplice() routine. He believes that the programmer will always know better than the system when to share memory.
Linus doesn't like "VM Games" despite the fact that Virtual Memory, Memory Mapped Files, Disk I/O, Write Caching, etc, etc, etc, are all already "Memory Games" and "VM Games"
Do I have that right?
If so, I'm not really seeing his issue. Or at least not as hard-line as he sees it. The issue of memory copy performance is a tricky one, especially since CPU cycles are not the be-all to end-all of performance. Does the exception generated really cost that much more than he believes, or is it often eclipsed by the cost of the extra memory read/writes and CPU waits that are normally generated by a copy? Is it really feasible to expect program developers to do manual memory management in a day in age when programs easily weigh in at hundreds of megs?
I'm just not sure that Torvalds is really looking at all sides of this. He may be right, but I'd like to hear more discussion between the *BSD guys and Torvalds before we put this matter to rest. And preferrably without the insults this time.:-/
Well, it wasn't exactly a "parallel-universe" as much as this chick from the future who took back her gun parts before this scientist dude put them back together and accidently killed himself, thereby sending shockwaves into the future, and creating the destruction of all mankind. Then there were lots of cool explosions around the time gate just before the brains in a bottle blew up. It's quite simply, really.
I don't know where you've been looking, but Atlanta is currently handling more traffic than even Chicago O'Hare. Which sucks for the pilots, because the ground crews are apparently quite slow.
Indeed. I look back at BoBW, and I keep thinking, "Now this is how you build up the suspense!"
Can you even imagine seeing a quiet but tense moment in a new series where you see a Borg cube in the distance, and the Captain merely states, "Contact Starfleet... (dramatic pause) We have engaged, The Borg."
It would never happen today. The writers and producers see it as "not enough action". Which is stupid, because action doesn't mean anything if you don't care about the characters in the story. Getting to know each character, and entering a situation fraught with suspense is the best way to get something out of action sequences. Otherwise you might as well watch an hour of skydiver and bungie jumper clips.
Now explain how that helps you defeat the one-time pad.
Your decoder ring contains the one time pad used to decode the message, right? Then by showing me the ring, you've just shown me the key I need for the message. The problem with a ring is that it is incredibly difficult to dispose of the pad. When you're using a scheme like Solitare, the cards can be quickly dumped or shuffled to destroy the key. But with a decoder ring? Not likely. Either there's a secondary key that sets the ring to produce the same pad (in which case any of the rings can be captured for decoding the message) or each ring contains a unique pad, thus requiring the complete and utter destruction of the ring after the message has been received.
Given enough time, it's likely that someone would slip up.
If the same code is used twice, it's not a one-time pad.
Uh, yeah. But these are humans we're talking about. Constantly producing and disposing of pads is a costly process. If the humans involved reach a sense of false security, they may be tempted to reuse the same key more than once on the off chance that two messages using the same key will not be intercepted. A foolish choice, perhaps, but humans often prefer convenience over absolute security.
I think you may want to reread my post. If you use one time pads using decoder rings, then the decoder rings each need to be properly disposed of after the message is decoded. If the ring falls into the wrong hands (or if the same code is used twice!) then the message will be compromised. Using that many rings will eventually result in a ring/message combo being captured.
Let me share with you friends, the deep, dark, scary secret that Starbucks is keeping. A secret so shocking that when it is released on the world, it will literally change things forever! I've only recently figured this out myself, so pay attention as I walk you through the sordid details.
Like many super-intelligent-people-in-the-computer-industry- that-write-for-a-magazine, I get a cup of Starbucks every morning. However, this morning was to be different than all the rest. You see, a brand new Starbucks opened up near my office. (Well, nearer-er than the old one.) This new Starbucks boasted an incredible new feature: A drive through window! I could drive up to the Starbuck as if it were a McDonald's, and order a cup of coffee from the comfort of my own car.
But then I got to thinking. What does Starbucks need with drive through windows? I mean, they're in the coffee business, not the fast food industry. People come into Starbucks to enjoy the environment, not grab their cup and run! Then it hit me! Starbucks needs drive-up windows because they are planning to bring that same environment to your vehicle! That's right, Starbucks wants to give you that same coffee-saturated, easy listening, comfortable seating feeling you get in their stores, but in your car. But how will they do it? Will they allow you to place your Venti cup in a cup holder and allow the smell to drift across your Caddilac? No!
There can be only one explanation: Starbucks is going to make cars. Nothing else makes sense! So two years from now when you're driving your Starbucks-mobile, remember this. You heard it here first. --John C. Dvorak
Just an FYI on that, the Chinese pole method is described in several childrens books on basic cryptography and information hiding. I checked out a few from the library when I was a kid, and the Chinese method was listed along with such classics as Pig Latin, word skipping, newspaper encodings, and Caesar's Cipher. The primary difference was that the book described the original Greek method using paper instead of cloth.
As someone else noted, this is not a secure scheme by any stretch of the imagination. Don't rely on it for anything other than fun and games.:-)
but it does and can. the decoder ring can be usedto create a UNBREAKABLE cipher easily.
Right up until someone captures the ring. Which means that the rings would have to be disposed of in a secure fashion, or the message would be open to all. When you think about this for a bit, it's easy to realize that the use and disposal of so many "codebooks" would have eventually resulted in a huge slip-up.
I have a feeling that this has more to do with careful control of the information pipelines, large payoffs to corrupted officials, lots of money poured into lawyers, and the ability to disappear when things get hot. The purpose of using a cipher is to create a last line of defense in the case that your information pipeline is compromised.
Given that murder has no statute of limitations, he would have been equally stupid to use a more secure cryto but with unsecured channels. Even if it took the police 10 years to decrypt his message, they could still drag him into court and nail him.
Heavier crypto would have even more problems. Not only would computers be required, but the constant use of such a crypto would ensure that at least some of the keys would eventually be captured by the police. This is almost as bad as using a codebook, something I'm sure this mob-boss was looking to avoid.
His best bet would have been a combination of physical security, with crypto dependent on how sensitive the message was. Sensitivity could easily have been determined by the legal penalty. For example, burning down someone's shop would have been low enough to use a hand cipher. Committing murder, OTOH, would have been sensitive enough to require the use of military grade encryption.
He apparently wrote notes to his henchmen using a modified form of the Caesar Cipher
To put that into computer terms, he ROT13ed the text. This sort of cipher was used by Caesar not because it was secure, but because most people couldn't read. Even those that could read undoubtedly lacked sufficient education to consider a cryptoanalysis of the text. But if someone does consider a cryptoanalysis, it is incredibly easy to break this cipher.
Simply substituting the first letter with each letter of the alphabet allows for a brute force attempt at decoding by then replacing the rest of the letters with the exact same offset used on the first character. This method ensures that the message will be decrypted even if the alphabet has additional characters. (Either for purposes of obfuscation or additional information.) The only method that can be used to prevent an attacker from using this simple decoding method (you don't even need a computer!) is to mangle the alphabet somehow. For example, if the alphabet is backwards an attacker would have more trouble decrypting the cipher. Even then, however, a simple statistical analysis on the occurance of the letters would quickly decrypt the message and reveal the secret alphabet used.
That being said, this particular mobster was smart enough to realize that a simple cipher like this would be insufficient to deter a decoder. So he attempted to confuse would-be attackers by using a number code to obscure names. I imagine that he thought that attackers would assume that he was using a codebook to keep track of the assigned names. Unfortunately (for him), his 8th grade education was obviously insufficient for him to know that his number sequences are very similar to compression techniques. Anyone with experience would note that the codes were far too long, and that the number 1 appeared quite often. Its appearance suggests that its a "trigger" for interpreting the next number differently.
So there you have it, security through obscurity does not work.
The Core Duo cannot do the same things the Athlon 64 X2 can. Largely because (gasp) it cannot run 64bit code.
Such as? A 64 bit chip generally means that you'll be addressing gobs (>4GB) of memory. Since that isn't a concern at the moment, Intel hasn't rushed EMT64 into their laptop chips. However, EMT64 will be in the Merom processor, scheduled for late this year.
AMD has both Turion and Sempron 64 bit processors available for mobile platforms, but you may notice that they are very difficult to find in new laptops. This would suggest that there is not much demand for high-end 64 bit CPUs in laptops right now. While that could change at any time, it does seem that Intel still has time to reach the market with a 64 bit laptop CPU before the matter becomes an issue.
While dose rates on irradiated fuel are substantially lower after 40 years they aren't exactly negligible and they are not 1000 times less.
That depends on the state the fuel is in. Unused fuel does not decrease a 1000 fold because it has an extremely long half-life. But then again, it's nowhere near as dangerous. The state of fuel after being burned is extremely radioactive, but then it tends to have a shorter half life. The really hot stuff disappears within minutes, days, or months. (Depending on the precise material.) Many of the remaining materials have a half-life short enough to lose massive potency within 40 years. (e.g. Pu-238 has a half-life of 87 years.)
So his figure of "1000 fold" isn't necessarily incorrect, but it is perhaps naive as it lacks proper context.
Wow. I mean... just... wow. I knew that the anti-nuclear movement had long been losing steam, but to get a Greenpeace founder on board? Wow.
Perhaps even more amazing is that he really does understand the pros and cons. His article spells out in plain language that Nuclear power is not dangerous, and that the chance for nuclear weapons is a small risk to take to reduce the amount of pollution coming from coal plants. To read this, you'd think he was a regular on NuclearSpace.com!
Some excellent sound-bites:... Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power...... What nobody noticed [...] was that Three Mile Island was in fact a success story: The concrete containment structure did [...] prevent radiation from escaping into the environment...
... Wind and solar power have their place, but because they are intermittent and unpredictable they simply can't replace big baseload plants such as coal, nuclear and hydroelectric...
... Within 40 years, used fuel has less than one-thousandth of the radioactivity it had when it was removed from the reactor. And it is incorrect to call it waste, because 95 percent of the potential energy is still contained in the used fuel after the first cycle....
(The emphasis is mine. This is the first time I've ever heard a hard-core environmentalist promote nuclear recycling. It's just incredible!)
... And even if a jumbo jet did crash into a reactor and breach the containment, the reactor would not explode. There are many types of facilities that are far more vulnerable, including liquid natural gas plants, chemical plants and numerous political targets....
... If we banned everything that can be used to kill people, we would never have harnessed fire. The only practical approach to the issue of nuclear weapons proliferation is [...] to use diplomacy and, where necessary, force...
Everything he says in his article is basically true. I never thought I'd find myself in 100% agreement with Greenpeace, but at this very moment I can't disagree with anything he's said. Kudos to you, Mr. Moore!
From the article, "Now Oracle, Microsoft (MSFT), and SAP (SAP) must respond to the SaaS movement while trying to avoid cannibalizing their existing software business in the process." This is a bald-faced attempt at spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
In a pure act of corporate hubris they named it http://trust.salesforce.com/. You know know something's deeply wrong when a simple status screen is given that hard of a PR spin.
The Trust was taken over by the Goa'uld. How did you expect them act? I mean, duh.:-P
The article acknowledged that this was merely the reincarnation of old-style Application Service Providers
Even though they mention ASP (probably to get their buzzword quota), the "concept" has nothing to do with ASP. Back when VAN companies charged your company money to move EDI data, they were providing a third party service. What the article is saying is that a service like this would be "special" because it used (wait for it) the INTERNET!
Personally, I'm not impressed. The Internet has made communications easier/faster/smoother/etc., but do we really need a buzzword for every little thing that has been translated to... (wait for it) the INTERNET!
Maybe I should go patent this. Taking old concepts and coupling them with.... (you know the drill) the INTERNET; is sure to be a non-obvious invention! </sarcasm>
To condense the article down: SaaS is a fancy term for outsourced business operations. The only difference is that companies provide communications about these services through... (wait for it)
(wait for it)
(keep waiting)
the INTERNET!
Are you impressed yet? It's very Web 2.0, I'm sure. Some of them might even use AJAX and Social Networking and Portal Technology and Peer to Peer Business to Customer relationships and...
But to start a project without any notion of a deadline is a sure fire way to never release anything.
I understand his point to be that a goal with a reasonably projected timeframe needs to be set, then met. Forcing a deadline will only result in half-finish crud going out the door.
To use the aforementioned DNF reference, Id Software releases games when they are Done(TM). Yet they still manage to release them while 3D Realms has gone over a decade without a release. Why the difference?
The answer is in setting goals. Id Software sets goals they want to achieve, then they achieve them. 3D Realms keeps moving the bar (Quake -> Quake II -> Unreal -> Unreal 2.0, etc.), ensuring that they'll never manage to meet their goals. Thus "when its done" means "when we get tired of moving the bar."
One of the key factors in deciding a case is the precedent set by previous court cases. That is, how other judges decided in a particular situation. When a US judge comes across a case that has no precedent in the US system, he'll sometimes look to the British system (the foundation for the American system) for precedent. If the precedent for that system agrees with the US laws, it can have a major impact on the judge's decision.
Believe it or not, that's a pretty common joke about Duke Nukem Forever.
Some other gags include:
* Duke Nukem Taking Forever * Duke Nukem Forever and Ever * Duke Nukem If Ever
:=)
Re:It's a good thing they beta tested it
on
Google Calendar
·
· Score: 1
Meh. I'm just grumbling because it seems like it would make more sense to post these gags in response to the original post rather than my snarky (but accurate) reply.
Slashdot Mirror
Do I have that right?
If so, I'm not really seeing his issue. Or at least not as hard-line as he sees it. The issue of memory copy performance is a tricky one, especially since CPU cycles are not the be-all to end-all of performance. Does the exception generated really cost that much more than he believes, or is it often eclipsed by the cost of the extra memory read/writes and CPU waits that are normally generated by a copy? Is it really feasible to expect program developers to do manual memory management in a day in age when programs easily weigh in at hundreds of megs?
I'm just not sure that Torvalds is really looking at all sides of this. He may be right, but I'd like to hear more discussion between the *BSD guys and Torvalds before we put this matter to rest. And preferrably without the insults this time.
Links:
Copy on Write as explained by Wikipedia
FreeBSD page on Zero Copy Patches
Duke Uni Research
Somehow I missed the earlier posts on this fine peripheral! I hope they got a patent on this. It's going to take over the world!
Exibit A: An Infinium Shill trolling the message boards, just as they promised in their financial briefings. Cool, huh?
better than the parallel-universe headline
Well, it wasn't exactly a "parallel-universe" as much as this chick from the future who took back her gun parts before this scientist dude put them back together and accidently killed himself, thereby sending shockwaves into the future, and creating the destruction of all mankind. Then there were lots of cool explosions around the time gate just before the brains in a bottle blew up. It's quite simply, really.
I don't know where you've been looking, but Atlanta is currently handling more traffic than even Chicago O'Hare. Which sucks for the pilots, because the ground crews are apparently quite slow.
The peak was at The Best of Both Worlds, part 1.
Indeed. I look back at BoBW, and I keep thinking, "Now this is how you build up the suspense!"
Can you even imagine seeing a quiet but tense moment in a new series where you see a Borg cube in the distance, and the Captain merely states, "Contact Starfleet... (dramatic pause) We have engaged, The Borg."
It would never happen today. The writers and producers see it as "not enough action". Which is stupid, because action doesn't mean anything if you don't care about the characters in the story. Getting to know each character, and entering a situation fraught with suspense is the best way to get something out of action sequences. Otherwise you might as well watch an hour of skydiver and bungie jumper clips.
Now explain how that helps you defeat the one-time pad.
Your decoder ring contains the one time pad used to decode the message, right? Then by showing me the ring, you've just shown me the key I need for the message. The problem with a ring is that it is incredibly difficult to dispose of the pad. When you're using a scheme like Solitare, the cards can be quickly dumped or shuffled to destroy the key. But with a decoder ring? Not likely. Either there's a secondary key that sets the ring to produce the same pad (in which case any of the rings can be captured for decoding the message) or each ring contains a unique pad, thus requiring the complete and utter destruction of the ring after the message has been received.
Given enough time, it's likely that someone would slip up.
If the same code is used twice, it's not a one-time pad.
Uh, yeah. But these are humans we're talking about. Constantly producing and disposing of pads is a costly process. If the humans involved reach a sense of false security, they may be tempted to reuse the same key more than once on the off chance that two messages using the same key will not be intercepted. A foolish choice, perhaps, but humans often prefer convenience over absolute security.
I think you may want to reread my post. If you use one time pads using decoder rings, then the decoder rings each need to be properly disposed of after the message is decoded. If the ring falls into the wrong hands (or if the same code is used twice!) then the message will be compromised. Using that many rings will eventually result in a ring/message combo being captured.
Let me share with you friends, the deep, dark, scary secret that Starbucks is keeping. A secret so shocking that when it is released on the world, it will literally change things forever! I've only recently figured this out myself, so pay attention as I walk you through the sordid details.
Like many super-intelligent-people-in-the-computer-industry
But then I got to thinking. What does Starbucks need with drive through windows? I mean, they're in the coffee business, not the fast food industry. People come into Starbucks to enjoy the environment, not grab their cup and run! Then it hit me! Starbucks needs drive-up windows because they are planning to bring that same environment to your vehicle! That's right, Starbucks wants to give you that same coffee-saturated, easy listening, comfortable seating feeling you get in their stores, but in your car. But how will they do it? Will they allow you to place your Venti cup in a cup holder and allow the smell to drift across your Caddilac? No!
There can be only one explanation: Starbucks is going to make cars. Nothing else makes sense! So two years from now when you're driving your Starbucks-mobile, remember this. You heard it here first. --John C. Dvorak
Just an FYI on that, the Chinese pole method is described in several childrens books on basic cryptography and information hiding. I checked out a few from the library when I was a kid, and the Chinese method was listed along with such classics as Pig Latin, word skipping, newspaper encodings, and Caesar's Cipher. The primary difference was that the book described the original Greek method using paper instead of cloth.
:-)
As someone else noted, this is not a secure scheme by any stretch of the imagination. Don't rely on it for anything other than fun and games.
but it does and can. the decoder ring can be usedto create a UNBREAKABLE cipher easily.
Right up until someone captures the ring. Which means that the rings would have to be disposed of in a secure fashion, or the message would be open to all. When you think about this for a bit, it's easy to realize that the use and disposal of so many "codebooks" would have eventually resulted in a huge slip-up.
Apparently Palazzolo and Oliva can't add.
You need to RTFA. He was using the Italian alphabet, which only contains 21 letters. With an offset of +3, the last letter would be '24'.
it only worked until the guy was 73 years old.
I have a feeling that this has more to do with careful control of the information pipelines, large payoffs to corrupted officials, lots of money poured into lawyers, and the ability to disappear when things get hot. The purpose of using a cipher is to create a last line of defense in the case that your information pipeline is compromised.
Given that murder has no statute of limitations, he would have been equally stupid to use a more secure cryto but with unsecured channels. Even if it took the police 10 years to decrypt his message, they could still drag him into court and nail him.
Heavier crypto would have even more problems. Not only would computers be required, but the constant use of such a crypto would ensure that at least some of the keys would eventually be captured by the police. This is almost as bad as using a codebook, something I'm sure this mob-boss was looking to avoid.
His best bet would have been a combination of physical security, with crypto dependent on how sensitive the message was. Sensitivity could easily have been determined by the legal penalty. For example, burning down someone's shop would have been low enough to use a hand cipher. Committing murder, OTOH, would have been sensitive enough to require the use of military grade encryption.
Minor correction to myself: The article seems to suggest that he was 8 years old when he dropped out of school, not in 8th grade.
He apparently wrote notes to his henchmen using a modified form of the Caesar Cipher
To put that into computer terms, he ROT13ed the text. This sort of cipher was used by Caesar not because it was secure, but because most people couldn't read. Even those that could read undoubtedly lacked sufficient education to consider a cryptoanalysis of the text. But if someone does consider a cryptoanalysis, it is incredibly easy to break this cipher.
Simply substituting the first letter with each letter of the alphabet allows for a brute force attempt at decoding by then replacing the rest of the letters with the exact same offset used on the first character. This method ensures that the message will be decrypted even if the alphabet has additional characters. (Either for purposes of obfuscation or additional information.) The only method that can be used to prevent an attacker from using this simple decoding method (you don't even need a computer!) is to mangle the alphabet somehow. For example, if the alphabet is backwards an attacker would have more trouble decrypting the cipher. Even then, however, a simple statistical analysis on the occurance of the letters would quickly decrypt the message and reveal the secret alphabet used.
That being said, this particular mobster was smart enough to realize that a simple cipher like this would be insufficient to deter a decoder. So he attempted to confuse would-be attackers by using a number code to obscure names. I imagine that he thought that attackers would assume that he was using a codebook to keep track of the assigned names. Unfortunately (for him), his 8th grade education was obviously insufficient for him to know that his number sequences are very similar to compression techniques. Anyone with experience would note that the codes were far too long, and that the number 1 appeared quite often. Its appearance suggests that its a "trigger" for interpreting the next number differently.
So there you have it, security through obscurity does not work.
The Core Duo cannot do the same things the Athlon 64 X2 can. Largely because (gasp) it cannot run 64bit code.
Such as? A 64 bit chip generally means that you'll be addressing gobs (>4GB) of memory. Since that isn't a concern at the moment, Intel hasn't rushed EMT64 into their laptop chips. However, EMT64 will be in the Merom processor, scheduled for late this year.
AMD has both Turion and Sempron 64 bit processors available for mobile platforms, but you may notice that they are very difficult to find in new laptops. This would suggest that there is not much demand for high-end 64 bit CPUs in laptops right now. While that could change at any time, it does seem that Intel still has time to reach the market with a 64 bit laptop CPU before the matter becomes an issue.
I would like to correct something you said.
You mean, something he said. I was just quoting.
While dose rates on irradiated fuel are substantially lower after 40 years they aren't exactly negligible and they are not 1000 times less.
That depends on the state the fuel is in. Unused fuel does not decrease a 1000 fold because it has an extremely long half-life. But then again, it's nowhere near as dangerous. The state of fuel after being burned is extremely radioactive, but then it tends to have a shorter half life. The really hot stuff disappears within minutes, days, or months. (Depending on the precise material.) Many of the remaining materials have a half-life short enough to lose massive potency within 40 years. (e.g. Pu-238 has a half-life of 87 years.)
So his figure of "1000 fold" isn't necessarily incorrect, but it is perhaps naive as it lacks proper context.
Wow. I mean... just... wow. I knew that the anti-nuclear movement had long been losing steam, but to get a Greenpeace founder on board? Wow.
... Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power ... ... What nobody noticed [...] was that Three Mile Island was in fact a success story: The concrete containment structure did [...] prevent radiation from escaping into the environment ...
... Wind and solar power have their place, but because they are intermittent and unpredictable they simply can't replace big baseload plants such as coal, nuclear and hydroelectric ...
... Within 40 years, used fuel has less than one-thousandth of the radioactivity it had when it was removed from the reactor. And it is incorrect to call it waste, because 95 percent of the potential energy is still contained in the used fuel after the first cycle. ...
... And even if a jumbo jet did crash into a reactor and breach the containment, the reactor would not explode. There are many types of facilities that are far more vulnerable, including liquid natural gas plants, chemical plants and numerous political targets. ...
... If we banned everything that can be used to kill people, we would never have harnessed fire. The only practical approach to the issue of nuclear weapons proliferation is [...] to use diplomacy and, where necessary, force ...
Perhaps even more amazing is that he really does understand the pros and cons. His article spells out in plain language that Nuclear power is not dangerous, and that the chance for nuclear weapons is a small risk to take to reduce the amount of pollution coming from coal plants. To read this, you'd think he was a regular on NuclearSpace.com!
Some excellent sound-bites:
(The emphasis is mine. This is the first time I've ever heard a hard-core environmentalist promote nuclear recycling. It's just incredible!)
Everything he says in his article is basically true. I never thought I'd find myself in 100% agreement with Greenpeace, but at this very moment I can't disagree with anything he's said. Kudos to you, Mr. Moore!
From the article, "Now Oracle, Microsoft (MSFT), and SAP (SAP) must respond to the SaaS movement while trying to avoid cannibalizing their existing software business in the process." This is a bald-faced attempt at spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
Amen. Someone give the parent some Mod points.
In a pure act of corporate hubris they named it http://trust.salesforce.com/. You know know something's deeply wrong when a simple status screen is given that hard of a PR spin.
:-P
The Trust was taken over by the Goa'uld. How did you expect them act? I mean, duh.
The article acknowledged that this was merely the reincarnation of old-style Application Service Providers
Even though they mention ASP (probably to get their buzzword quota), the "concept" has nothing to do with ASP. Back when VAN companies charged your company money to move EDI data, they were providing a third party service. What the article is saying is that a service like this would be "special" because it used (wait for it) the INTERNET!
Personally, I'm not impressed. The Internet has made communications easier/faster/smoother/etc., but do we really need a buzzword for every little thing that has been translated to... (wait for it) the INTERNET!
Maybe I should go patent this. Taking old concepts and coupling them with.... (you know the drill) the INTERNET; is sure to be a non-obvious invention! </sarcasm>
To condense the article down: SaaS is a fancy term for outsourced business operations. The only difference is that companies provide communications about these services through... (wait for it)
...
(wait for it)
(keep waiting)
the INTERNET!
Are you impressed yet? It's very Web 2.0, I'm sure. Some of them might even use AJAX and Social Networking and Portal Technology and Peer to Peer Business to Customer relationships and
But to start a project without any notion of a deadline is a sure fire way to never release anything.
I understand his point to be that a goal with a reasonably projected timeframe needs to be set, then met. Forcing a deadline will only result in half-finish crud going out the door.
To use the aforementioned DNF reference, Id Software releases games when they are Done(TM). Yet they still manage to release them while 3D Realms has gone over a decade without a release. Why the difference?
The answer is in setting goals. Id Software sets goals they want to achieve, then they achieve them. 3D Realms keeps moving the bar (Quake -> Quake II -> Unreal -> Unreal 2.0, etc.), ensuring that they'll never manage to meet their goals. Thus "when its done" means "when we get tired of moving the bar."
One of the key factors in deciding a case is the precedent set by previous court cases. That is, how other judges decided in a particular situation. When a US judge comes across a case that has no precedent in the US system, he'll sometimes look to the British system (the foundation for the American system) for precedent. If the precedent for that system agrees with the US laws, it can have a major impact on the judge's decision.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_precedent
Believe it or not, that's a pretty common joke about Duke Nukem Forever.
:=)
Some other gags include:
* Duke Nukem Taking Forever
* Duke Nukem Forever and Ever
* Duke Nukem If Ever
Meh. I'm just grumbling because it seems like it would make more sense to post these gags in response to the original post rather than my snarky (but accurate) reply.