Ummm.. So provide a chip and mount one on the board? Surely BMC has a part in mind for this. Or are you saying NOBODY makes a way to connect the BMC part to 1 GB of RAM?
Hadoop on a Pi? LOL Yea, that was destine to be a performance nightmare.
If you can go to DIRECT inter-processor communications and bypass all the load sucking USB 2.0 Ethernet connection business, not to mention having to go though the SAME USB connection for your storage, Hadoop might actually be able to do something for you on a pile of Pis. As it is, all that USB interrupt servicing is going to be a real bottleneck. Not that I'd suggest Hadoop on the Pi to start with....
Nope, it was a cost cutting measure pure and simple. There's plenty the voyager's can still do that absolutely nothing else can or will be able to do for the next 40 years - measure the heliopause.
By 2025, there will not be enough power on the Voyager 1 spacecraft to run any of it's sensors, even if we can talk to it, there won't be much information we can get. The gyroscopes are expected to stop working sometime around 2016, which may make continued communications impossible after that date. Voyager 2 is not that far behind. So we have less than 2 more years of expected ability to communicate with the spacecraft. All of this has nothing to do with NASA's budget but the expected limitations of the spacecraft itself, which we cannot change at this point.
He was informed there would be a human shield preventing anyone trying to turn them off.
Not to void your political views.... Voyager probes are by necessity being slowly turned off one part at a time as power from the reactor declines. As more and more power is lost, they've had to turn off things and we will be pretty much done by 2025 no matter what we do. Personally I'm all for continuing the mission as long as there is unique science they can do, but if we've reached the end, we've reached the end.
There are some severe legal questions surrounding this service. In a nutshell, the FAA considers anyone who advertises at all ("Holding out" as a provider in their terminology) as a charter service. The fact that it's limited to the passenger's share of the costs is not relevant as far as the FAA is concerned -- you need a valid commercial pilot's license and a 121 license to do this legally in the opinion of many.
I would agree. As a private pilot, I can share costs with passengers, but I personally would limit that to people that I know and routinely associate with. NEVER am I going to haul somebody someplace for their benefit only, but if we are heading out on a weekend trip together and they want to help out with the fuel costs, seems that would not be a 121 situation and my private pilot license would be good enough.
I can NOT imagine how a smart phone app arranged ride would be OK with the FAA. Taking strangers up in hopes of getting reimbursed for a fraction of the fuel cost seems to be a problem to me. First off, DON'T go flying with some yahoo you don't know who agrees to this because if they are stupid enough to take strangers up in a light aircraft for fuel shares you don't want them as a pilot. Second, many people I've taken up in a smaller aircraft have been uncomfortable with experience. I cannot imagine how anybody would hop into an C172 with a stranger as the pilot. Finally, I'd hate to see the insurance claims and lawsuits should some private pilot ball one up while carrying "paying" passengers who are strangers.
Drive, or take a commercial fight, or if you want to take some one as a private pilot, make it a gift and pay the costs yourself.
How much compute power do these guys have, would it be worthwhile to produce a backplane to run several of them in parallel? What about for redundancy in mission critical applications?
They have an IO board that can run ONE of these, but you don't just toss multiple processors on the same bus to get redundancy. The CPU and inter-processor communication setup is going to be an issue you'd have to work out, not to mention the OS support for redundancy or Mufti-Processor operation. Neither the hardware or software problems are always straight forward...
Good luck and let me know when you get it working. I'd love to have one or two.
Well, I love this, but can we PLEASE get more RAM or at least the ability to add some more in somehow? The Pi is limited to 512Meg and so is this new format.
If you simply change everyone's temporal frame of reference by the exact same amount, you have done nothing, really. Everyone will simply account for the 500ms delay, and trades will still execute in the same order.
The problem with your idea is that "trading" can be done outside of the exchanges too. You can stand on the street corner and trade with a passersby or do the digital equivalent if you wanted. In fact, many traders do just this. They have back channel trading connections that they use to shave fractions of pennies off of trades on one exchange by using another. There is no way you can force trading to be done only at specific times in these situations and if you apply this rule only to the exchanges, then the high frequency traders will only have another advantage.
One could put some uncertainly in the trading process, by randomly choosing orders which are executable in the queues or introducing random delays, but I still think that there is no real way to fix this nor is there an easy answer for this problem.
About the ONLY thing I can figure *might* work is to make programed trading totally transparent to all. Make everybody who is using some kind of automated trading platform publish their trading logic for all to see before they can use it. Require a minimum amount of time between publishing of the algorithms and when they can be used. They should also outlaw the use of anything beyond level 2 quotes in automated trades on an exchange and require the publishing of all trades which are automated within a short time frame (say a few seconds) of their execution. Automated trading is defined as a computer program filling out all or part of an order, setting price, limits, stops etc. If a human enters the order, it's NOT automated trading, even if they are copying the data from an automated system, but they must TYPE in each part of the order to enter it, no Cut and Paste, or just selecting "GO" from a list.
I smell a business opportunity... Or, perhaps not.
Having used Dyndns for nearly a decade, I'm sad to see it go pay only. Can't say I'm surprised. I figured this was on the way when they went to this - you have to log in each month or we delete your two free host names - that they where just trying to get us all to pay. Problem is, I really cannot see paying $25/year for the services they provide.
I have not questioned Torvalds' decision to stop accepting Kay's contributions, only his method of doing so. It could of and should of been a lot less abrasive and still been effective. Torvalds got frustrated, vented in public and comes across as brutish. Such behavior is unnecessary.
IMHO, there are many developers out there that decide, like me, not to get involved with Torvalds for this reason. Which I believe detracts from the various projects he is part of. Which is the essence of my critique. For those who still choose to work with him, I wish them luck.
I don't disagree, there comes a time, but it's sooner rather than later. This may have been most justified and I've NEVER questioned Torvalds' technical choice of refusing to merge any more code from Kay. But there is a professional way to handle such issues that don't involve a public flogging or loosing one's cool as Torvalds is prone to do. You can be firm and decisive without going out of your way to offend somebody.
You apparently missed what I said. My position has been about Torvalds and his lack of people skills and the negative effect these episodes have on the Kernel Development project. This event with Kay is just another example of Torvalds being unnecessarily abrasive, a trait that Torvalds prides himself in and jokes about. So I'm not defending Kay or even questioning Torvalds' decision, I'm rolling my eyes and chalking up another brutish public E-mail from Torvalds because he lost his cool again.
Haven't defended Kay at all actually. All I've been saying is Torvalds has a history of inappropriate behavior (IMHO) and I've heard him justify his abrupt behavior and his unwillingness to consider changing. He gets tolerated because he's good technically, but I feel that his lack of people skills are a detriment to the Kernel project overall. Your mileage may vary.
Is he actually a volunteer? I thought he was a Red Hat employee.
Perhaps he is (or at this point WAS) in which case Torvalds should take it up with Red Hat directly.
Benevolent Dictator For Life, yes. After a certain point, the health of the product overrules the feelings of a programmer who is perpetually breaking the build.
My issue with Torvalds is not about his choice, but his method. IMHO, it would be better if Linus would vent his frustrations more diplomatically. I believe he is driving off a lot of help who just don't want to deal with him and the various projects he controls are worse off for it.
Ignoring someone's repeated attempts to unfuck something is a kind of response in its own way.
Sure it can a response. But what information is it conveying? Hard to know unless you can get a response from Kay..
There are LOTS of reasons for not responding that have NOTHING to do with the project. Developers have lives, stuff happens, stuff that is WAY more important than some Torvalds run project. Torvalds gets paid to do this Kernel thing, most developers are not so lucky. I have no clue what Kay's situation is, but there just *might* be good reasons he's not responding.
Sometimes the only way to get through to somebody is to publicly yell at them. If I've talked to you civilly in private a dozen times and you pull the same shit a 13th time, I would lose it, too.
I don't see any reason to publicly shame anybody on purpose, especially in a situation where that someone is a volunteer who is not responding quick enough for you.
Torvalds prides himself in being abrupt, no nonsense and a dictator. IMHO A position he uses to self righteously justify behavior that I find unnecessarily abrasive and borderline abusive. You can be a no nonsense dictator and still not need to publicly shame someone you are frustrated with.
Yea, but if you mess up and do something he declares "STUPID", it's off to the public stocks for you in a flurry of expletives. IMHO Stuff like that just lacks class and reflects badly on him.
On the contrary, I think this doesn't reflect badly on him. Kay has been pushing it for ages, and there was nothing else to be done. It's in everyone's best interest that the public is warned a) not to try such tricks, b) to stay away from Kay until he improves his behavior. Remember, Linux kernel is developed in the open. Public scorn is to be expected. You don't like it, maintain your own fork, that's what git is for, you know.
Look, this may have been in the best interest of the project, and it is certainly with the privilege of Torvalds to stop taking code from Kay but my complaint is about the way he chooses to vent. Torvalds prides himself in being an abrupt, no nonsense dictator. But IMHO he is unnecessarily abrasive, self righteous and borderline abusive, especially when he gets frustrated. Kay may have had a "ban" coming, but there are ways to do this without resorting to a public ridicule of somebody who has contributed value to your project in the past. No need to dig out the flame thrower, just calmly ask for somebody else to start looking at a fix, or start a discussion about removing Kay's code.
But can we do it without the expletives or putting somebody into the public stocks in the town square? Reading the whole thread, what seems to be going on is Kay was simply not responding. It wasn't like Kay was out there being actively disruptive or pushing code into the kernel behind Torvalds' back. Linus just wanted something fixed in Kay's past contribution and was frustrated that he wasn't getting the fix fast enough.
I don't think that this requires public shaming, in fact IMHO this is more likely to actually delay the arrival of any fix as Kay is likely Torvalds's best bet for getting a fix. There is a non-zero chance that Kay will just tell Torvalds to shove off and leave him to fend for himself, which means somebody else will have to come up the learning curve and get the problem fixed. That might be the best choice in the long run, but something tells me that it isn't, that Linus just shot himself in the foot. But that's just the perspective from some uninvolved observer.
Yea, but if you mess up and do something he declares "STUPID", it's off to the public stocks for you in a flurry of expletives. IMHO Stuff like that just lacks class and reflects badly on him.
But if *you* want to work for him, I encourage you to dig in. There are worse projects... Like subversion.... (That's a joke, in case you don't Git it)
You Ban him, but you don't need to vent and throw mud at him in the process. There is no need to publicly shame someone, just stop pulling patches from him and/or assign somebody else to fix it. Torvolds lacks class when he does stuff like this.
Look, I don't have a dog in this hunt, I don't do kernel development or work with Torvolds, and I don't want his job. Torvolds can do what he wants with his project and treat his developers how he wants. Apparently this behavior works for him well enough to keep the project going. I just don't think his approach is the best. But, in the long run, my opinion doesn't matter. I'm sure Torvolds doesn't care what I think and he's made it clear to others in the past he doesn't plan to change. IMHO It's a shame that he runs off potential developers by doing stuff like this, but I don't suppose he sees it that way.
Slashdot Mirror
Ummm.. So provide a chip and mount one on the board? Surely BMC has a part in mind for this. Or are you saying NOBODY makes a way to connect the BMC part to 1 GB of RAM?
Hadoop on a Pi? LOL Yea, that was destine to be a performance nightmare.
If you can go to DIRECT inter-processor communications and bypass all the load sucking USB 2.0 Ethernet connection business, not to mention having to go though the SAME USB connection for your storage, Hadoop might actually be able to do something for you on a pile of Pis. As it is, all that USB interrupt servicing is going to be a real bottleneck. Not that I'd suggest Hadoop on the Pi to start with....
Nope, it was a cost cutting measure pure and simple. There's plenty the voyager's can still do that absolutely nothing else can or will be able to do for the next 40 years - measure the heliopause.
By 2025, there will not be enough power on the Voyager 1 spacecraft to run any of it's sensors, even if we can talk to it, there won't be much information we can get. The gyroscopes are expected to stop working sometime around 2016, which may make continued communications impossible after that date. Voyager 2 is not that far behind. So we have less than 2 more years of expected ability to communicate with the spacecraft. All of this has nothing to do with NASA's budget but the expected limitations of the spacecraft itself, which we cannot change at this point.
He was informed there would be a human shield preventing anyone trying to turn them off.
Not to void your political views.... Voyager probes are by necessity being slowly turned off one part at a time as power from the reactor declines. As more and more power is lost, they've had to turn off things and we will be pretty much done by 2025 no matter what we do. Personally I'm all for continuing the mission as long as there is unique science they can do, but if we've reached the end, we've reached the end.
There are some severe legal questions surrounding this service. In a nutshell, the FAA considers anyone who advertises at all ("Holding out" as a provider in their terminology) as a charter service. The fact that it's limited to the passenger's share of the costs is not relevant as far as the FAA is concerned -- you need a valid commercial pilot's license and a 121 license to do this legally in the opinion of many.
I would agree. As a private pilot, I can share costs with passengers, but I personally would limit that to people that I know and routinely associate with. NEVER am I going to haul somebody someplace for their benefit only, but if we are heading out on a weekend trip together and they want to help out with the fuel costs, seems that would not be a 121 situation and my private pilot license would be good enough.
I can NOT imagine how a smart phone app arranged ride would be OK with the FAA. Taking strangers up in hopes of getting reimbursed for a fraction of the fuel cost seems to be a problem to me. First off, DON'T go flying with some yahoo you don't know who agrees to this because if they are stupid enough to take strangers up in a light aircraft for fuel shares you don't want them as a pilot. Second, many people I've taken up in a smaller aircraft have been uncomfortable with experience. I cannot imagine how anybody would hop into an C172 with a stranger as the pilot. Finally, I'd hate to see the insurance claims and lawsuits should some private pilot ball one up while carrying "paying" passengers who are strangers.
Drive, or take a commercial fight, or if you want to take some one as a private pilot, make it a gift and pay the costs yourself.
Doesn't the Pi run Linux now? If so, the answer is YES, why wouldn't it?
How much compute power do these guys have, would it be worthwhile to produce a backplane to run several of them in parallel? What about for redundancy in mission critical applications?
They have an IO board that can run ONE of these, but you don't just toss multiple processors on the same bus to get redundancy. The CPU and inter-processor communication setup is going to be an issue you'd have to work out, not to mention the OS support for redundancy or Mufti-Processor operation. Neither the hardware or software problems are always straight forward...
Good luck and let me know when you get it working. I'd love to have one or two.
Well, I love this, but can we PLEASE get more RAM or at least the ability to add some more in somehow? The Pi is limited to 512Meg and so is this new format.
If you simply change everyone's temporal frame of reference by the exact same amount, you have done nothing, really. Everyone will simply account for the 500ms delay, and trades will still execute in the same order.
The problem with your idea is that "trading" can be done outside of the exchanges too. You can stand on the street corner and trade with a passersby or do the digital equivalent if you wanted. In fact, many traders do just this. They have back channel trading connections that they use to shave fractions of pennies off of trades on one exchange by using another. There is no way you can force trading to be done only at specific times in these situations and if you apply this rule only to the exchanges, then the high frequency traders will only have another advantage.
One could put some uncertainly in the trading process, by randomly choosing orders which are executable in the queues or introducing random delays, but I still think that there is no real way to fix this nor is there an easy answer for this problem.
About the ONLY thing I can figure *might* work is to make programed trading totally transparent to all. Make everybody who is using some kind of automated trading platform publish their trading logic for all to see before they can use it. Require a minimum amount of time between publishing of the algorithms and when they can be used. They should also outlaw the use of anything beyond level 2 quotes in automated trades on an exchange and require the publishing of all trades which are automated within a short time frame (say a few seconds) of their execution. Automated trading is defined as a computer program filling out all or part of an order, setting price, limits, stops etc. If a human enters the order, it's NOT automated trading, even if they are copying the data from an automated system, but they must TYPE in each part of the order to enter it, no Cut and Paste, or just selecting "GO" from a list.
Even that idea has problems...
I smell a business opportunity... Or, perhaps not.
Having used Dyndns for nearly a decade, I'm sad to see it go pay only. Can't say I'm surprised. I figured this was on the way when they went to this - you have to log in each month or we delete your two free host names - that they where just trying to get us all to pay. Problem is, I really cannot see paying $25/year for the services they provide.
I have not questioned Torvalds' decision to stop accepting Kay's contributions, only his method of doing so. It could of and should of been a lot less abrasive and still been effective. Torvalds got frustrated, vented in public and comes across as brutish. Such behavior is unnecessary.
IMHO, there are many developers out there that decide, like me, not to get involved with Torvalds for this reason. Which I believe detracts from the various projects he is part of. Which is the essence of my critique. For those who still choose to work with him, I wish them luck.
I don't disagree, there comes a time, but it's sooner rather than later. This may have been most justified and I've NEVER questioned Torvalds' technical choice of refusing to merge any more code from Kay. But there is a professional way to handle such issues that don't involve a public flogging or loosing one's cool as Torvalds is prone to do. You can be firm and decisive without going out of your way to offend somebody.
Exactly, but that's why I don't work for guys like Torvalds, either professionally or on open source projects. I got better things to do.
You apparently missed what I said. My position has been about Torvalds and his lack of people skills and the negative effect these episodes have on the Kernel Development project. This event with Kay is just another example of Torvalds being unnecessarily abrasive, a trait that Torvalds prides himself in and jokes about. So I'm not defending Kay or even questioning Torvalds' decision, I'm rolling my eyes and chalking up another brutish public E-mail from Torvalds because he lost his cool again.
Haven't defended Kay at all actually. All I've been saying is Torvalds has a history of inappropriate behavior (IMHO) and I've heard him justify his abrupt behavior and his unwillingness to consider changing. He gets tolerated because he's good technically, but I feel that his lack of people skills are a detriment to the Kernel project overall. Your mileage may vary.
Is he actually a volunteer? I thought he was a Red Hat employee.
Perhaps he is (or at this point WAS) in which case Torvalds should take it up with Red Hat directly.
Benevolent Dictator For Life, yes. After a certain point, the health of the product overrules the feelings of a programmer who is perpetually breaking the build.
My issue with Torvalds is not about his choice, but his method. IMHO, it would be better if Linus would vent his frustrations more diplomatically. I believe he is driving off a lot of help who just don't want to deal with him and the various projects he controls are worse off for it.
LOL... I suppose you can think that if you want.. I guess I won't be working for you or Linus..
Have a good weekend...
Ignoring someone's repeated attempts to unfuck something is a kind of response in its own way.
Sure it can a response. But what information is it conveying? Hard to know unless you can get a response from Kay..
There are LOTS of reasons for not responding that have NOTHING to do with the project. Developers have lives, stuff happens, stuff that is WAY more important than some Torvalds run project. Torvalds gets paid to do this Kernel thing, most developers are not so lucky. I have no clue what Kay's situation is, but there just *might* be good reasons he's not responding.
Sometimes the only way to get through to somebody is to publicly yell at them. If I've talked to you civilly in private a dozen times and you pull the same shit a 13th time, I would lose it, too.
I don't see any reason to publicly shame anybody on purpose, especially in a situation where that someone is a volunteer who is not responding quick enough for you.
Torvalds prides himself in being abrupt, no nonsense and a dictator. IMHO A position he uses to self righteously justify behavior that I find unnecessarily abrasive and borderline abusive. You can be a no nonsense dictator and still not need to publicly shame someone you are frustrated with.
Yea, but if you mess up and do something he declares "STUPID", it's off to the public stocks for you in a flurry of expletives. IMHO Stuff like that just lacks class and reflects badly on him.
On the contrary, I think this doesn't reflect badly on him. Kay has been pushing it for ages, and there was nothing else to be done. It's in everyone's best interest that the public is warned a) not to try such tricks, b) to stay away from Kay until he improves his behavior. Remember, Linux kernel is developed in the open. Public scorn is to be expected. You don't like it, maintain your own fork, that's what git is for, you know.
Look, this may have been in the best interest of the project, and it is certainly with the privilege of Torvalds to stop taking code from Kay but my complaint is about the way he chooses to vent. Torvalds prides himself in being an abrupt, no nonsense dictator. But IMHO he is unnecessarily abrasive, self righteous and borderline abusive, especially when he gets frustrated. Kay may have had a "ban" coming, but there are ways to do this without resorting to a public ridicule of somebody who has contributed value to your project in the past. No need to dig out the flame thrower, just calmly ask for somebody else to start looking at a fix, or start a discussion about removing Kay's code.
But can we do it without the expletives or putting somebody into the public stocks in the town square? Reading the whole thread, what seems to be going on is Kay was simply not responding. It wasn't like Kay was out there being actively disruptive or pushing code into the kernel behind Torvalds' back. Linus just wanted something fixed in Kay's past contribution and was frustrated that he wasn't getting the fix fast enough.
I don't think that this requires public shaming, in fact IMHO this is more likely to actually delay the arrival of any fix as Kay is likely Torvalds's best bet for getting a fix. There is a non-zero chance that Kay will just tell Torvalds to shove off and leave him to fend for himself, which means somebody else will have to come up the learning curve and get the problem fixed. That might be the best choice in the long run, but something tells me that it isn't, that Linus just shot himself in the foot. But that's just the perspective from some uninvolved observer.
Apologies to Linus Torvalds.... I'm having typing issues today apparently, shame because I'm working documentation duty too. But it is Friday!
Yea, but if you mess up and do something he declares "STUPID", it's off to the public stocks for you in a flurry of expletives. IMHO Stuff like that just lacks class and reflects badly on him.
But if *you* want to work for him, I encourage you to dig in. There are worse projects... Like subversion.... (That's a joke, in case you don't Git it)
You Ban him, but you don't need to vent and throw mud at him in the process. There is no need to publicly shame someone, just stop pulling patches from him and/or assign somebody else to fix it. Torvolds lacks class when he does stuff like this.
Look, I don't have a dog in this hunt, I don't do kernel development or work with Torvolds, and I don't want his job. Torvolds can do what he wants with his project and treat his developers how he wants. Apparently this behavior works for him well enough to keep the project going. I just don't think his approach is the best. But, in the long run, my opinion doesn't matter. I'm sure Torvolds doesn't care what I think and he's made it clear to others in the past he doesn't plan to change. IMHO It's a shame that he runs off potential developers by doing stuff like this, but I don't suppose he sees it that way.