Circa 1980 or so. It's depressing really, how far behind most people are. The really depressing thing is they continually insist they have a clue what they're doing and others have to do it their way too. Then they have an epiphany and re-invent the wheel, all over again, but this time in Ruby (with added expressivity) so it's not really the same thing at all.
Look up 'tacking'. They do it both upwind and downwind. Downwind they go faster than the wind & they've known they can go faster for just as long. No debate about it.
Run remote desktops. Bandwidth consumption to the desktop drops dramatically. Run your heavy network I/O over the switch stacking fabric, where you've got shit loads of bandwidth. Channel bond. Separate access ports/switches and storage network ports/switches. Use jumbo frames on the storage network, but don't route them. Prefer shared memory first, then unix domain sockets over TCP/IP/LAN over WAN. Microsecond (or better) latency vs milliseconds or seconds. Dedicate servers to applications, take advantage of copy on write & modern memory management. Let your VM management hold a significant proportion of dirty pages. WTF is the point of loads of RAM if you insist on running at disk speed? But do use a logged filesystem. Use a load management system. Grid Engine, Condor etc.
And the bloody media come up with crap like "Mobile phones responsible for disappearance of honey bee" based on it.
"Study says", "scientists say". It's tealeaf reading. Crystal ball gazing. Science is nothing more than a marketing term to convince people to buy whatever they're selling.
We need a term to describe things which appear to be science but in fact which are not.
It's been shown that you have an infinitesimally small but real chance of not actually existing. It's difficult to aim for 100% when the best reality itself can offer is 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%
To be blunt, most IT departments act like cost centers and don't provide any strategic value.
IT is treated as a cost in the accounts, they are cost centers. The drive is always to reduce costs, so IT services are centralised, standardised, outsourced and the interfaces between IT professionals and the business, reduced to the "help desk". There is simply no way that the IT dept can effectively know what "value" is with respect to the business units.
It's just the way accounting practice is set up. Accounts are grouped and centralised to make costs visible => IT becomes an industry standard cliche. It might make a difference if the IT funding was centrally calculated, then simply added to the business unit budgets in an appropriate proportion to do with as they pleased.
Slashdot Mirror
Circa 1980 or so. It's depressing really, how far behind most people are. The really depressing thing is they continually insist they have a clue what they're doing and others have to do it their way too. Then they have an epiphany and re-invent the wheel, all over again, but this time in Ruby (with added expressivity) so it's not really the same thing at all.
The easy oil is gone, they're having to drill in 5000 feet of water now, so of course there will be a next time.
Look up 'tacking'. They do it both upwind and downwind. Downwind they go faster than the wind & they've known they can go faster for just as long. No debate about it.
Nokia & Intel.
But with added committees.
HTH
Would you really want it to last 2000 years?
Take Cumbernauld as an example. Very definitely not.
Which is another thing. Concrete doesn't have to be ugly. So WTF are so many modern concrete buildings so god damned ugly?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_concrete
something that until recently was extraordinarily hard to measure.
Really?
Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util
hda 0.00 0.00 114.85 0.00 0.45 0.00 8.00 0.73 6.28 6.34 72.87
Where await and svctm are average wait (milliseconds) for the disk & queue and service time for the disk.
Or do you mean something else?
Many of which are still standing, 2000 years later.
I predict the common factor may be the concrete.
hth.
Don't they just google it like the rest of us?
This is in America and therefore real, whereas the Nokia was the rest of the world and therefore doesn't exist.
He should patent it quick before anyone notices.
Oh yeah I forgot. That'll be $20k consultancy please.
Subversion.
Run remote desktops. Bandwidth consumption to the desktop drops dramatically.
Run your heavy network I/O over the switch stacking fabric, where you've got shit loads of bandwidth. Channel bond.
Separate access ports/switches and storage network ports/switches. Use jumbo frames on the storage network, but don't route them.
Prefer shared memory first, then unix domain sockets over TCP/IP/LAN over WAN. Microsecond (or better) latency vs milliseconds or seconds.
Dedicate servers to applications, take advantage of copy on write & modern memory management.
Let your VM management hold a significant proportion of dirty pages. WTF is the point of loads of RAM if you insist on running at disk speed? But do use a logged filesystem.
Use a load management system. Grid Engine, Condor etc.
And the owner of the store has every right to kick any old piece of crap should they choose too.
If your app doesn't match up to the level of quality that Apple require, then it's a message. Go do something else with your life.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Fixes most of the deficiencies of the train and the car.
Uses less than 50% of the energy per passenger kilometer than a train does.
I mean, seriously.
And the bloody media come up with crap like "Mobile phones responsible for disappearance of honey bee" based on it.
"Study says", "scientists say". It's tealeaf reading. Crystal ball gazing. Science is nothing more than a marketing term to convince people to buy whatever they're selling.
We need a term to describe things which appear to be science but in fact which are not.
There were millions of bees. The results are highly significant.
Clearly we are seeing a great contribution to science.
It's been shown that you have an infinitesimally small but real chance of not actually existing. It's difficult to aim for 100% when the best reality itself can offer is 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%
I blame Planck myself.
http://www.org/
H.T.H.
Course it should probably be zipped as well.
um. you want a Beowulf with that?
Linux has been in the supercomputer lists for decades.
Google is a much better example of how you can use Linux to take over the world; which is what every self respecting middle manager want's to do.
I.e. Shit loads of cheap compute power. Got any tasks which need that?
With
NiMH batteries
Place for 4 occupants & a trunk for luggage
Crash tested
in 1996...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solectria_Sunrise
Not the German state.
Get it now?
i.e. They want a slice.
20% bonus if I come in ahead of schedule. etc etc etc.
Or should that be China?
I'm never too sure these days with trillion dollar handouts and trillions in national debt.
Indeed. It couldn't be used with traditional programming methods, you'd only be able to use it with statistical methods.
Genetic programming maybe. Errors are mutations.
To be blunt, most IT departments act like cost centers and don't provide any strategic value.
IT is treated as a cost in the accounts, they are cost centers. The drive is always to reduce costs, so IT services are centralised, standardised, outsourced and the interfaces between IT professionals and the business, reduced to the "help desk". There is simply no way that the IT dept can effectively know what "value" is with respect to the business units.
It's just the way accounting practice is set up. Accounts are grouped and centralised to make costs visible => IT becomes an industry standard cliche. It might make a difference if the IT funding was centrally calculated, then simply added to the business unit budgets in an appropriate proportion to do with as they pleased.