It's not the government that's the problem, but rather any large concentration of power. Once a company or a private individual has that, it can bribe the government to bust an union, or it can hire thugs of its own to do it. Either way, it's anyone having that kind of power that's the source of hte problem.
I think a diversionary reference to the Iron Law is appropriate here.
That's not true. Specifically, I know that there has been a big push to get more men involved in education. The motivation for this is that young boys (and even teenage boys) who are behaviorally disruptive in class respond very well to a male teacher. And that's a win for everyone. Unfortunately, teachers are not well-payed, so it's hard to get people into the field, period, let alone men.
Indeed I suspect there is some outward pressure (socialogically, biologically, what's in the balance?). But is also there also a greater liability for, at least in terms of the current progression of student vs teacher rights, harassment or sexual assault?
Overusing resources? Wait a minute here.. Last time I checked, Verizon is selling me a DSL connection capable of 3 Mbps down, 1 Mbps up. They advertise it as such, and I am billed for this service. Am I not allowed to use the service I'm paying for? Should I only be using 1 Mbps down and maybe 100 Kbps up? Or, perhaps I should only be using it in bursts, 3-5 seconds per burst with a suitable wait interval in between. Kind of how the typical web browser works.
Unfortunately, I can't seem to come up with a good car analogy for this.. Hrm..
I've got a great car analogy. It's as if the car manufacturer told you that you could travel up to 200mph, but when you're around traffic or urban areas they silently limit you to 30mph.
But all of the observations are made based on the assumption that you're falling not that you are going to meet the ground in the middle. The tools used to measure would be expanding too so your calculations, although right for your perception, would be wrong to "reality" of the situation.
Well, this example of expansion to explain gravity is flawed. Your concept of 'falling' does not account for orbital motion, whereas Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity do.
Which is why reality is based of perception not the other way around. If you believe strong enough in something that it is fundamentally true to you it's called faith not science. However, we place faith in science because we where told that these calculations/experiments prove reality in the perception of the scientist.
The scientist? Fundamentally, experiments and calculations are repeatable. "The scientist" is too much of an exaggeration. More like many well-trained, knowledgable professionals, at the very least.
However, this debate becomes circular and worthless. It's hard to prove/disprove someone's own delusions of the reality they have faith in. You may be able to give them proof of YOUR reality, but has their perception of reality really changed?
But at least, in your Expanding Matter theory, we can easily proclaim that our current theory of gravity is better since its explanatory power is a superset of Expanding Matter's.
Yes, amongst what others have already said, this vagueness will allow them to rhetorically project any deficiencies found in one one linix distribution on to the whole class.
Suppose someone suggests to you that there is a pencil in your cupboard. If you don't look in the cupboard, do you have any evidence that there is no pencil there? No - you merely have absence of evidence.
Well, this is rather vacuous. I would say to argue from this position of not even having looked is the fallacy of argument from ignorance. From being in the position of not having looked, it would be rather audacious to claim that there is an absence of evidence.
I think the confusing issue is the difference between knowledge and evidence. To not have looked and claim that evidence is lacking is to commit such a confusion. Note I am not claiming that somehow we can know something without evidence of it (let me now say I am excluding formally/intrinsically provable things, like mathematics, in this discussion, though what I say here could still apply). What you say is true. Without having even looked, it would be invalid to imply evidence of absence. But that is not the negation of what I have said.
That is exactly backwards. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
In fact, "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" can be seen a simple rephrasing of the scientific method. Consider some falsifiable and testable proposition P. How do we give ourselves confidence that P is true? We repeatedly test the proposition P. If we consistently find P (that is, the event ~P doesn't occur, that is, there is absence of ~P), we more strongly believe P (that is, we have evidence that ~P is false). It is not a proof, because P is falsifiable, but we have evidence of the falsity of ~P.
Wouldn't that undermine the GPL? If the linux kernel is in the public domain, companies could use it freely without having to give back.
It certainly would. But instead, putting up media for public access should be seen as mass-distribution.
Then your downloading the kernel source from some site isn't "copying" as meant in the GPL (see paragraphs 0 and 1), but merely your receiving the distributed source. The GPL then applies when you make copies of your received instance of the kernel source, or if you modify or redistribute the source.
Well, I know that personality profile type tests used, say, for job applications, contain questions whose answers characterise candidate consistency. While your post is trying to demonstrate bias, which will be impossible to get rid of, it also demonstrates that with a little thought, extremes can be identified and perhaps tested for (in terms of consistency) to identify the test-taker's ability to discern bias.
Hear that? That's the sound of you demonstrating the point. How much money did he give? Who cares? If you're developing non-commercial F/OSS, you're doing it because you want to, not because it helps in making the payments on the Porsche.
Indeed. This doesn't imply though that he wants to do it for others.
Why should they care? Well, a couple of things here, basic pride in one's work maybe? Because they're the people responsible for the program, so when someone tries to give them honest and constructive feedback, they might want to listen, or at least give a polite, "we'll keep it in mind" response. If developer responsible for NAT issues in Gaim does't care about NAT issues in Gaim, that's fucked.
Maybe he does have pride in his work. Maybe the NAT module in GAIM is the prettiest, most readable, most efficient, best goddamned piece of code ever to have existed. But asking for NAT-traversing file-transfers is a feature request for a non-core function.
You also seem to deliberately feel that those who program OSS must defer all attention and effort to the user. The developer is his own most important user, and so in every important, useful way, he is listening to his most valued customer. The fact that the code is open means that he can be as rude as he likes to you, and you can be as rude as you like to him. You can then take the source and add all the bells and whistles you want.
So far, all you've demonstrated is that some people lack manners. There are worse. Maybe he won't keep your constructive criticism in mind. Maybe he doesn't like deluding people into thinking he'll set aside time for requests that they could, in principle, fulfill themselves. Maybe that's his loss. Maybe his golden rule is that it only matters when he personally runs up against it. That seems almost the defining aspect of successful opensource software, actually. When enough people run up against, set aside time for, and implement NAT file transfers, then GAIM will have the best NAT-traversal file-transfer module out there. Has any project really bent to the will of a critical mass of non-developer users? Your question, "Why should they care?" sounds rhetorical, yet you haven't really answered it.
Oh, and how do you start a post with quotes? I'm relatively new to slashdot and have been typing with html by hand, it's rather annoying.;)
Yes, unfortunately that's the way I'm doing it here too. But, this is slashdot. Criticisms about its own comment moderation system/UI/editorial staff/users/Cowboy Neal abound.
Without trying to repeat myself too much, a materialistic world view isn't necessary for the scientific method to work.
Yes, I'm not sure sure if we're agreeing or not here, but on the face of it we are. I'm not saying that scientists look at some hypothesis or theory, say 'Hmm. Not based on naturalism or materialism. Must be invalid.' What I am saying is that experiments and entities in any scientific theory must be operationally defined; ie. they must be measurable and observable to us in some consistent, repeatable way. This implies naturalism, whether one takes it on as their worldview or not.
None of these require the Theory of Evolution as an explanation for how we came to be. They do require an understanding of genetics, chemistry, and other sciences that are completely compatible with the theory of ID.
Hmm. I will concede this much: We have an detailed understanding of the chemical processes at, say, the cellular and subcellular level of cell-based life. Let E be the theory of modern synthesis. Let B be the collection of biology that concerns, say, genetics, microbiology, pharmacology, biochemistry. Then I claim that B -> E (where '->' is material implication). The equivalent (contrapositive) statement is that ~E -> ~B (where '~' is the negation operator).
On the otherhand, since ID is unfalsifiable, B is vacuously compatible with ID.
What I mean by saying that Evolution's implications are controversial is that the Theory of Evolution lends itself to an atheistic world view, because if you can explain how we got here through natural processes, you don't need to invoke a creator except to explain the 'first cause'.
This is only the case only if you need to believe that god must play a part in every process. It seems to me that under this criterion, any explanatory system that doesn't involve god denies god. In fact, you've rather explicity spelt out the god-of-the-gaps argument.
ID doesn't attempt to explain the universe supernaturally after that 'first cause' either, it uses the scientific method.
If it uses the scientific method, presumably you can cite some ID hypotheses that can be experimentally tested. Note that claiming 'evolution cannot explain this, or cannot offer a sufficient explanation of this, therefore ID' is not a hypothesis that can be falsified. It's hardly a hypothesis of any kind at all. I would say that if ID doesn't attempt to explain anything after the first cause, it doesn't explain anything.
As to a 'first cause', if you're referring to either the Big Bang or abiogenesis, evolution doesn't purport to explain either of these.
You wouldn't put a human hand on a small lizard, nor would you put a monster truck tire on a bicycle, but you would match the parts with the whole.
I still don't understand how this is an argument for a designer. Sure, there are always considerations of scale (since an elephant could not possibly stand on a linearly-scaled stiletto heal, say), but if we take your analogy at face value, we might ask why the lizard doesn't have 5 digit 'mini-hands', or why humans don't have adhesive fingertips. Or why we don't have tails. Or why flies have compound eyes. or why we don't. This 'matching the parts with the whole' seems to beg the question of design, and even then still looks contradictory. Note, also, that most biological features are sub-optimal (did I menti
I think they did science a favor. I find the redefinition (within Kasnas) preferrable to the fiction that ID is science as defined elsewhere.
Genius! K-Science, we'll call it. And when those Kansas students find out that what they think science is is really K-science... "Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore."
A materialistic world view colors the interpretation of data...
Not that all scientists would label themselves explicitly materialist, but note that it is essentially the view that we can actually make observations and that the explanations of observable phenomena are humanly achievable that lies at the heart of it.
[...] but they're hard to find in the realm of origins, since the implications of Evolution [...] are very controversial.
Really? The implications of evolution are controversial? Pharmaceutical research and testing, botany, genetic research? These are hardly groundless, unscientific endevours. Or did you mean controversial in some politcal sense?
[...] but I will at least explain my understanding of the theory. It seems that by nature we were designed. We have specialized body parts, all which serve a purpose, even though we don't always understand what that purpose is at first [...]. We have homologous structures, and can infer that they are to be used for similar purposes [...], the fossil record indicates a disaster or multiple disasters in the past reminiscent of the flood [...], and our DNA seems to be an intricate program. Furthermore, the way our cells interact with each other has been found to be extraordinarily complex. All this is evidence that at the beginning of the universe, we were designed this way [...]. I'm not trying to prove this, just giving some points for clarification of ID's perspective.
Unfortunately, this is merely argumentation from incredulity. Until irreducible complexity, or some other analysis tool can posit (and when I say posit, I don't mean "take into account the probabilities of something occuring by a mechanism within our understanding, and call the leftover Design") 'intelligence' or design, this won't change. Note, also, that many organs are suboptimal. The fact that homologous structures are neither totally different or exactly the same is in fact evidence for natural selection. I'm surprised you cite DNA, since the fact that every living organism on earth (and even near-living, like viruses) use DNA and RNA to carry and propogate biological information, and that DNA sequences and changes therein can be traced back through populations and species is one of the triumphs of the modern synthesis. In fact, this is one area where the predictions of evolutionary theory can be seen: drift of genotypes throughout populations and species have been estimated and then confirmed.
I am not sure where you came across the idea that the fossil record disproves the modern synthesis. Variations of fossils in rock strata do not falsify evolution, and are further confirmed by geological theories. There is the cambrian explosion, but this is not a problem for biologists. Note, also, we do not find modern species in ancient fossil records.
The Theory of Evolution is unprovable, precisely because it requires so much time to accomplish that it is completely unobservable.
This is a strange take on science, evolution and the word 'unobservable'. For instance, is chemistry in trouble because we can't observe the electron?
Note that *no* valid scientific theory is provable. Good theories are falsifiable. The longest-standing theories are ones that could have been falsified over and over again, yet have held up experimentally every time. Evolution is one of those theories. At any rate, your assertion that evolution in unobservable is wrong. See this and this.
Statistical analysis is indeed used to analyse models. But, of course, when some scientist claims something is true, or that some model conforms to reality, there will always be the proviso that it conforms to x significant figures, or some other measure of inaccuracy or uncertainty.
This will have to be the case with any reasonably complex experimental setup, since no one assumes that any experiment can possibly nullify all-but-one of the independent variables. That is the purpose of repeatability.
If you really want some clear-cut example of falsification, look at the details of the discovery of the photoelectric effect and wave-particle duality.
As to your comment about assumptions being dropped are added when experiments prove a proposition false: scientists value parsimony in their descriptions of the world. It does in fact help distinguish useful theories from mere lists of ad-hoc hypotheses.
Hmm. Last time I checked there were no license or agreements restricting the modification of any CPUs I own. I may even redistribute any of them (with no implied warranty, of course!).
Also, while you point out proprietary hardware, I'll let you note that Linux also runs on commodity hardware.
I will *also* let you note that programs in many ways are an abstraction, and their meaning *should* be independent of their implementation.
Hmm. I seem to have lost track of whether I'm arguing for or against you, or for or against my grandparent.
The only chance newspapers have of surviving is to provide some sort of "alternative commentary".
I disagree that the only way of surviving is the alternative commentary route. Consider that the sophistication of readers has increased somewhat, with a greater awareness of bias and editorial interest.
There may never have been a Golden Age of journalism, but I feel that a good journalist should be objective and have a relentless curiosity. Now, 'objectivity' is paid lip-service to with a bogus, equal-time-to-all-sides-of-the-debate-regardless-o f-merit kind of counterpoint. That is the sort of thing I think 'alternative commentary' entails.
Instead, established media should really be exploiting the resources that are unique to them, namely access (especially, say, to politicians, law enforcement officers, eye-witnesses) and funding (for travel, equipment, crew). We are aware of editorial bias, as are they. They should acknowledge it from time-to-time, but in no way try to hide it, or somehow distort their view by attempting to bludgeon it.
Anyway, to mince my own words, this is quite a generalisation. There are great journalists and media outlets, and there are poor ones. They attempt to sell both to the over-critical and the uninformed alike. And the established, print-only media is now a myth -- they all have a hand in the online biz.
Given that the Advisor ranks your system, it's apparent that it doesn't really test compatibility, it tests adequacy. If you've got an SLI system, are you really going to be worried whether your system will be fast enough once you've got DirectX 9.whatever installed? Unlikely.
The kind of gamer who will try this out is the one that's wondering whether Microsoft thinks that his PentiumII can run DoomIII.
Seriously though, why would someone subscribe to this service? Its not like computers are overly expensive anymore...
I think I said this last time this topic came.
Essentially, you get to pay for the exact amount of compute power that you want. If you aggregate the cost of the hardware, maintainence, etc over the actual utilised cycles, you'll find it's probably much higher than Sun's offering, precisely because they have gambled on getting economies of scale.
It seems, for the present anyway, that it has been a bit of an expensive commercial experiment.
Spoken like someone who has never voted before themselves.
I think you'll find, if you investigate a little deeper (and take the hint given in his username), that your parent comment was written by an Australian. Voting is compulsory in Australia.
Slashdot Mirror
I seriously wish that Godwin's law could be modified to include the phrases "liberal media bias", "Fox News", "New World Order," sheeple," and "shill"
Would that not just be Scourfish's Corollary?
-Tez
It's not the government that's the problem, but rather any large concentration of power. Once a company or a private individual has that, it can bribe the government to bust an union, or it can hire thugs of its own to do it. Either way, it's anyone having that kind of power that's the source of hte problem.
I think a diversionary reference to the Iron Law is appropriate here.
-Tez
That's not true. Specifically, I know that there has been a big push to get more men involved in education. The motivation for this is that young boys (and even teenage boys) who are behaviorally disruptive in class respond very well to a male teacher. And that's a win for everyone. Unfortunately, teachers are not well-payed, so it's hard to get people into the field, period, let alone men.
Indeed I suspect there is some outward pressure (socialogically, biologically, what's in the balance?). But is also there also a greater liability for, at least in terms of the current progression of student vs teacher rights, harassment or sexual assault?
-Tez
Holding out for absolute perfection, I see. Let me know when you find it. I'm stuck here on planet Earth where nothing is 100% anything.
Yeah. 100% true, that.
-Tez
Right. Absence of evidence is evidence of guilt. Gotcha.
No, absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Absence of evidense is evidense of absence, especially when you know what you're looking for and have been looking hard.
-Tez
I've got a great car analogy. It's as if the car manufacturer told you that you could travel up to 200mph, but when you're around traffic or urban areas they silently limit you to 30mph.
OMG! Bandwidth throttling saves lives!!!
-Tez
Well, this example of expansion to explain gravity is flawed. Your concept of 'falling' does not account for orbital motion, whereas Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity do.
Which is why reality is based of perception not the other way around. If you believe strong enough in something that it is fundamentally true to you it's called faith not science. However, we place faith in science because we where told that these calculations/experiments prove reality in the perception of the scientist.The scientist? Fundamentally, experiments and calculations are repeatable. "The scientist" is too much of an exaggeration. More like many well-trained, knowledgable professionals, at the very least.
However, this debate becomes circular and worthless. It's hard to prove/disprove someone's own delusions of the reality they have faith in. You may be able to give them proof of YOUR reality, but has their perception of reality really changed?But at least, in your Expanding Matter theory, we can easily proclaim that our current theory of gravity is better since its explanatory power is a superset of Expanding Matter's.
-Tez
Yes, amongst what others have already said, this vagueness will allow them to rhetorically project any deficiencies found in one one linix distribution on to the whole class.
-Tez
Well, this is rather vacuous. I would say to argue from this position of not even having looked is the fallacy of argument from ignorance. From being in the position of not having looked, it would be rather audacious to claim that there is an absence of evidence.
I think the confusing issue is the difference between knowledge and evidence. To not have looked and claim that evidence is lacking is to commit such a confusion. Note I am not claiming that somehow we can know something without evidence of it (let me now say I am excluding formally/intrinsically provable things, like mathematics, in this discussion, though what I say here could still apply). What you say is true. Without having even looked, it would be invalid to imply evidence of absence. But that is not the negation of what I have said.
-TezThat is exactly backwards. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
In fact, "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" can be seen a simple rephrasing of the scientific method. Consider some falsifiable and testable proposition P. How do we give ourselves confidence that P is true? We repeatedly test the proposition P. If we consistently find P (that is, the event ~P doesn't occur, that is, there is absence of ~P), we more strongly believe P (that is, we have evidence that ~P is false). It is not a proof, because P is falsifiable, but we have evidence of the falsity of ~P.
-Tez
It certainly would. But instead, putting up media for public access should be seen as mass-distribution.
Then your downloading the kernel source from some site isn't "copying" as meant in the GPL (see paragraphs 0 and 1), but merely your receiving the distributed source. The GPL then applies when you make copies of your received instance of the kernel source, or if you modify or redistribute the source.
-Tez
Well, I know that personality profile type tests used, say, for job applications, contain questions whose answers characterise candidate consistency. While your post is trying to demonstrate bias, which will be impossible to get rid of, it also demonstrates that with a little thought, extremes can be identified and perhaps tested for (in terms of consistency) to identify the test-taker's ability to discern bias.
-Tez
'Hinder' is a verb. The noun form is 'hindrance'.
You also seem to deliberately feel that those who program OSS must defer all attention and effort to the user. The developer is his own most important user, and so in every important, useful way, he is listening to his most valued customer. The fact that the code is open means that he can be as rude as he likes to you, and you can be as rude as you like to him. You can then take the source and add all the bells and whistles you want.
So far, all you've demonstrated is that some people lack manners. There are worse. Maybe he won't keep your constructive criticism in mind. Maybe he doesn't like deluding people into thinking he'll set aside time for requests that they could, in principle, fulfill themselves. Maybe that's his loss. Maybe his golden rule is that it only matters when he personally runs up against it. That seems almost the defining aspect of successful opensource software, actually. When enough people run up against, set aside time for, and implement NAT file transfers, then GAIM will have the best NAT-traversal file-transfer module out there. Has any project really bent to the will of a critical mass of non-developer users? Your question, "Why should they care?" sounds rhetorical, yet you haven't really answered it.
-Tez
Yes, unfortunately that's the way I'm doing it here too. But, this is slashdot. Criticisms about its own comment moderation system/UI/editorial staff/users/Cowboy Neal abound.
Yes, I'm not sure sure if we're agreeing or not here, but on the face of it we are. I'm not saying that scientists look at some hypothesis or theory, say 'Hmm. Not based on naturalism or materialism. Must be invalid.' What I am saying is that experiments and entities in any scientific theory must be operationally defined; ie. they must be measurable and observable to us in some consistent, repeatable way. This implies naturalism, whether one takes it on as their worldview or not.
Hmm. I will concede this much: We have an detailed understanding of the chemical processes at, say, the cellular and subcellular level of cell-based life. Let E be the theory of modern synthesis. Let B be the collection of biology that concerns, say, genetics, microbiology, pharmacology, biochemistry. Then I claim that B -> E (where '->' is material implication). The equivalent (contrapositive) statement is that ~E -> ~B (where '~' is the negation operator).
On the otherhand, since ID is unfalsifiable, B is vacuously compatible with ID.
This is only the case only if you need to believe that god must play a part in every process. It seems to me that under this criterion, any explanatory system that doesn't involve god denies god. In fact, you've rather explicity spelt out the god-of-the-gaps argument.
If it uses the scientific method, presumably you can cite some ID hypotheses that can be experimentally tested. Note that claiming 'evolution cannot explain this, or cannot offer a sufficient explanation of this, therefore ID' is not a hypothesis that can be falsified. It's hardly a hypothesis of any kind at all. I would say that if ID doesn't attempt to explain anything after the first cause, it doesn't explain anything.
As to a 'first cause', if you're referring to either the Big Bang or abiogenesis, evolution doesn't purport to explain either of these.
I still don't understand how this is an argument for a designer. Sure, there are always considerations of scale (since an elephant could not possibly stand on a linearly-scaled stiletto heal, say), but if we take your analogy at face value, we might ask why the lizard doesn't have 5 digit 'mini-hands', or why humans don't have adhesive fingertips. Or why we don't have tails. Or why flies have compound eyes. or why we don't. This 'matching the parts with the whole' seems to beg the question of design, and even then still looks contradictory. Note, also, that most biological features are sub-optimal (did I menti
-Tez
I am not sure where you came across the idea that the fossil record disproves the modern synthesis. Variations of fossils in rock strata do not falsify evolution, and are further confirmed by geological theories. There is the cambrian explosion, but this is not a problem for biologists. Note, also, we do not find modern species in ancient fossil records.
This is a strange take on science, evolution and the word 'unobservable'. For instance, is chemistry in trouble because we can't observe the electron?Note that *no* valid scientific theory is provable. Good theories are falsifiable. The longest-standing theories are ones that could have been falsified over and over again, yet have held up experimentally every time. Evolution is one of those theories. At any rate, your assertion that evolution in unobservable is wrong. See this and this.
-Tez
This will have to be the case with any reasonably complex experimental setup, since no one assumes that any experiment can possibly nullify all-but-one of the independent variables. That is the purpose of repeatability.
If you really want some clear-cut example of falsification, look at the details of the discovery of the photoelectric effect and wave-particle duality.
As to your comment about assumptions being dropped are added when experiments prove a proposition false: scientists value parsimony in their descriptions of the world. It does in fact help distinguish useful theories from mere lists of ad-hoc hypotheses.
-Tez
Also, while you point out proprietary hardware, I'll let you note that Linux also runs on commodity hardware.
I will *also* let you note that programs in many ways are an abstraction, and their meaning *should* be independent of their implementation.
Hmm. I seem to have lost track of whether I'm arguing for or against you, or for or against my grandparent.
-Tez
There may never have been a Golden Age of journalism, but I feel that a good journalist should be objective and have a relentless curiosity. Now, 'objectivity' is paid lip-service to with a bogus, equal-time-to-all-sides-of-the-debate-regardless-o f-merit kind of counterpoint. That is the sort of thing I think 'alternative commentary' entails.
Instead, established media should really be exploiting the resources that are unique to them, namely access (especially, say, to politicians, law enforcement officers, eye-witnesses) and funding (for travel, equipment, crew). We are aware of editorial bias, as are they. They should acknowledge it from time-to-time, but in no way try to hide it, or somehow distort their view by attempting to bludgeon it.
Anyway, to mince my own words, this is quite a generalisation. There are great journalists and media outlets, and there are poor ones. They attempt to sell both to the over-critical and the uninformed alike. And the established, print-only media is now a myth -- they all have a hand in the online biz.
-Tez
The kind of gamer who will try this out is the one that's wondering whether Microsoft thinks that his PentiumII can run DoomIII.
-Tez
-Tez
Essentially, you get to pay for the exact amount of compute power that you want. If you aggregate the cost of the hardware, maintainence, etc over the actual utilised cycles, you'll find it's probably much higher than Sun's offering, precisely because they have gambled on getting economies of scale.
It seems, for the present anyway, that it has been a bit of an expensive commercial experiment.
-Tez
I stopped reading your comment after that quip
-Tez
-Tez