SSDs should not be considered a viable option for long term storage just yet. Keep in mind that Flash cells are memory arrays and as such are susceptible to ionizing radiation that can and will flip bits. Store a Flash drive long enough and there will be bit errors beyond the capacity of the on-board CRC/ECC to correct.
If you insist on using SSDs at least use them with ZFS.
Everybody out there complaining about Sun needing to open-source this or that, should take some time to consider what they would do in return!
Next time you need a new, heavy duty workstation or server, checkout Sun's offerings - rocksolid engineering, excellent price performance.
We all know Sun made mistakes, and like in all human endeavours they will likely make some more, at least they are trying to innovate and share - it's up to you to participate.
well, it's the difference between an MBA making a business call based on cost/profit analysis and an experienced chip designer looking at the actual risks involved....
MBAs are good in cutting corners in traditional businesses, but generally have no understanding of technology risks....
That is why I have a Volvo station with the (optional) third row seat installed. I can comfortably seat 4 adults and 2 children. Luggage goes on top in the ski-box.
Re: "Adding a flash storage option" is pretty much an engineering nonevent, and a very minor logistical task.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Sun customers demand that the product Sun sells them have known reliability properties and that Sun guarantees their products properly interact with each other. It takes a significant amount of resources to do this validation. At the same time SSDs and HDDs react very differently to load and can have all sorts of side effects if the OS/application is not prepared to deal with them.
Ummm, most programs are not completely loaded into memory and inactive pages do get swapped out in favor of active pages. While the most active regions of a program are in memory most of the time, having the whole program in memory is not the general case.
Also, DRAM burns ~8W/GB (more if FB-DIMMS), Flash burns only 0.01W/GB. Thus swapping inactive pages to Flash allows you to use your DRAM more effectively, improving your performance/W.
From a different perspective: you have a datacenter and you are energy constrained. Most applications use 10% of the DRAM 90% of the time. It may be an attractive proposition to give the applications less DRAM (at a slight performance loss) and let them swap to Flash (with a significant reduction in power). Multiply by 10000 servers, even a 20W reduction per server becomes significant.
RAM drive uses DRAM, Enterprise class DRAM ~ $100/GB and uses ca 8W/GB. Enterprise Flash, ~ $30-80/GB and uses 0.01W/GB
In addition, assume that 90% of ram-drive accesses go to 10% of the storage, you can see that effectively you are burning a lot of energy with zero gain. Multiply by up-time.
Flash has the potential of greatly improving performance/watt for most servers.
that is utterly stupid... you'd rather have an automatic update break your box so you can spend hours trying to find out how???
For a reasonable commercial system downtime is measured in thousands of dollars of lost revenue per hour. You will want to update your post after you have had a CEO, CTO, CFO etc... throwing a hissy fit because the system is down... 'automatic update' as an excuse will get you fired, and rightly so.
After returning from a rather difficult customer engagement, my manager asked: 'how did it go?'
I responded: 'Never underestimate the stupidity of your customer.'
My manager decided that I had burned out and moved me to the inside. Mind you I never insulted the customer. I managed through. But there were times I could just cry. They had severe technical problems, most of them the result of bad and conflicting policy decisions. Rather than align the policies they insisted on making technology fit the policies.
Consumers of IT services can be just as dense as the suppliers.
In my post there is no mention of economics at all. It is purely within the context of the global warming debate and some proposed solutions. Nowhere did I make (or intend to make) a link with the economic feasability. I fully realize that all proposals carry an economic burden, but that is a very different aspect of the Global warming debate. The thread until now was about the realities of global warming and its expected effect.
My first language is Dutch. My education is in astronomy.
There is only one thing I take issue with in your reply. It is your assumption of the existence of cyclical events in Earth's history. Many of the events you mentioned are nothing like cyclical, they are recurrent. The earth's diurnal and the seasons are cyclical. I think there is a real danger in assuming, without hard evidence, that these recurrent events are endemic to Earth, i.e. there are no additional causes.
One possible explanation for the early ice-ages was a period of diminished sunshine. Possible causes are Solar activity, or the Solar system passing through a dust cloud. There really is a precarious balance between the influx of solar light, the composition of the atmosphere and the average temperature on Earth. All the reported trends show a marked increase over the last 100 years in temperature and CO2 concentration.
How is the cyclical/recurrent nature of Earth the simplest explanation? Make your case, for I don't buy it. What is the mechanism that generates these cyclical/recurrent events? What are the dampening factors? Why now?
You say: 'the problem is that you are defining a disease solely by its symptoms', is there any other way? If you say you are thirsty, I would ask more questions to correlate symptoms and most likely end up at diabetes. I should infact turn that statement around, it is you who is saying drink more... Since you accept as fact the existence of cyclical events ( I don't, they are recurrent), you *think* you recognize another cycle... But, the planet might in fact be seriously sick....
Let me be honest, I started studying Global warming issues back in the 1980s, long before it was 'in vogue' so to speak. It takes real effort to understand the observations, their meaning, the theories and their mechanisms. It is also a fascinating subject. I hope I have challenged you enough to make you delve deeper and critically into the subject.
condescension?
Condescension was neither intended or implied in my original post. If you
got that feeling, my apologies. English is not my first language,
sometimes I get the tone wrong.
I couldn't find your definition anywhere so I will go with Wiki's. It is essentially the same as every other source I found.
Global warming is a term used to describe an increase over time of the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans.
My definition of Global warming was contextual, not factual. You have
provided the factual definition.
The things you list above are not a definition, they are symptoms of some unknown or as yet unproven process.
They are indeed symptoms and the leading explanation at this point is 'Global warming'. To claim that this is an unkown or unproven process is incorrect. The same process that keeps our planet habitable is involved in global warming. It is a process that combines solar radiation, the earth's albedo, heat radiation and atmospheric heat retention. The issue is, are we adding so many greenhouse gasses that the net effect is a warming up of the earth beyond what we consider economically and fysiologically attractive.
You left out Greenland, which is also melting. And the Antarctic is probably not.
I did leave out Greenland, and in fact, Antarctica's ice-sheet is also
collapsing at an alarming rate
Most weather stations are (and always have been) near cities, the population and density of cities has increase significantly since 1830. Research the heat island effect. This might have a significant effect on any averages.
The effect of urban centers on temperature measurement is in fact well
understood. There is solid evidence that a city 'climate' is on
average between 1.6-2.0 degrees Celsius warmer, for a city at moderate
latitudes (between 48 and 53 degrees north). These results are based
on a study performed in Europe in the late 1980's. There are
temperature measurements from a number of astronomical observatories
that are indicative of rising temperatures. Since these observatories
-are far removed from urban centers, I tend to believe their data.
- year over year averages of sea-water temperature are going up. This may be true. It may not. It is very difficult to tell. The sea level is up in some places and down in others. Determining the average is not possible. If it is rising, it might be directly attributable to Greenland.
Are you confusing sea-level increase with my claimed rise in average
sea-temperature? The rise in sea temperature (and acidity) has also
been observed and documented.
Global warming does explain those observations. So does idiopathic current changes in the North Atlantic. So do volcanic vent under the arctic. I am sure there a hundred things that explain them that no one has bothered to look into, because they are so happy to have funding. People don't get funding for trying to disprove global warming. Science is supposed to be two sided.
I agree on your observation that there is an insidious relation
between funding and the type of research that is performed. However,
if you look at funding levels for global warming you will discover
that they have only recently had a marked increase. Also, while there
will always be some fads in science, as in any human endeavor, the
majority of the published papers are reviewed for their quality. Junk
science does not easily get through in the established research
papers. The better research papers also foster a healthy debate in
their community, since debate ultimately leads to better science.
I don't necessarily deny either. What I deny is that these things are facts. They are theories. Theories are explanations of an event with supporting evidence (my definition). But they are not facts. Because they are not facts they can be disputed.
I miss the point here. It seems to me that you are disputing global warming as a theory, but
acknowledging my list of observations as
An increase in solar radiation will only exacerbate the problem of global warming. Combining an increase of solar radiation with increased CO2 levels will create an even hotter greenhouse. One only needs to study Venus' weather to get an idea.
Lowering the CO2 levels and other greenhouse gasses is one of many approaches to tackling global warming. There are two major approaches that go hand in hand; 1. reducing the amount of CO2 and Methane into the atmosphere, 2. actively removing CO2 from the atmosphere.
The Sun goes through many short and long cycles. It is true that we cannot conclusively state the amount of solar radiation remains the same. However, there are many stars of similar composition and mass like the Sun, none of them break the principal relation between Mass and Luminosity. Do you have any data to support a recent increase in Solar luminosity, say over the last 100 years?
Up-leveling a bit, one of the most effective treatments of global warming is to reduce the amount of solar radiation the earth receives. In fact, a proposal has already been put forward to launch a solar-shield and put it in the Lagrange-point between Sun and Earth. Calculations have shown (and I apologize for not having a link available), that this shield would only have to reduce total Solar radiation by one or two percent to effectively mitigate the effects of extra CO2. If the Sun where increasing its output, such a shield would greatly help. However, reducing CO2 levels would still help since it makes it easier for the Earth to radiate excess heat into space.
The one thing I certainly agree with is that humanity should not rely on a singular approach. Spending money only to reduce CO2 would be bad. However, in my opinion, doing nothing to curb CO2 emissions would be an even larger folly.
Ok, I'll bite. You have at least are registered, not some AC.
Let me dissect your post a little, and vary between philosophy and science...
'But Global warming is far from fact...'
Let me first define 'Global warming' : global warming is a theory, supported by the majority of the scientific community.
Central to the theory are the following observations: - Ice caps and glaciers are becoming smaller. - The Tree-line is creeping north and upwards. - The perma frost line is going north. - The artic and antartic ice-caps are getting smaller - The Sahel (region below the Sahara) is getting dryer (average annual rain fall). - year over year averages of weather stations show an increase in average temperature (since 1830). - year over year averages of sea-water temperature are going up. The theory explains these observations as the result of human activity. Specifically the increase in CO2 and Methane which have been identified as so called 'greenhouse' gasses.
So back to 'But Global warming is far from fact.' What is your statement here, do you deny the observations or do you deny the proposed theory?
Let me assume that you deny the link between CO2 and other greenhouse gasses as causes of increasing temperatures. Would you be so kind as to propose an alternative theory that explains these phenomenon? Please use of Occam's razor.
The 'war on drugs' and 'war of terror' are artifacts of American policies, they only live in the US (but with devastating global effects). Global warming is supported by a much larger group of countries world wide, a group which went as far to sign and ratify the Kyoto treaty.
'They are a creation by some entity to gain power and take money.'... please be specific, who would benefit and why?
'There are a lot of specious claims about what the truth is, but no one knows for sure.' True, such is the nature of debate. But human discourse is a way to contrast such opposing view points, investigate their supporting evidence and move to a new level in rational discourse. It is called learning. "Eppure si muove," (Galileo)
'There are more than a few studies that endorse global warming. There are just as many (though not as well publicized or funded) that dispute it.'
There are many studies that report on observations supporting an increase in temperature, CO2 concentration, greenhouse gas increase or albedo reduction. There are also many studies that link these observations together into a comprehensive theory named 'Global warming'. There are not many studies that dispute these observations, there are not many studies that dispute the trends presented. There are a few studies that present alternatives to the CO2/Greenhouse gas model of Global warming. Where many studies differ is in their predictions on how bad the situation is, in other words some believe we have already crossed the threshold, others believe it will take many years. None of these latter studies advocate doing nothing.
'There is no proof, but let's pretend.' Here you are plain wrong... go visit a glacier. The debate is NOT on the rising temperature, the debate is if this is a cyclical pattern in the earth's long term climate and what role humanity has.
etc...
'there is evidence to support his position.' Cherry picking goes two ways, you are accusing the leading scientific establishment of cherry picking their way into global warming. Crichton is cherry picking his way as a critic...
Having been to the Columbia ice-fields, Glacier national park, and some more glaciers around the world, I can tell you for a fact. They are retreating. Whatever is heating up the earth is doing so fast and it will have consequences for humanity.
Now I believe that the observations I mentioned above are most comprehensively explained by the theory of global warming that links the concentration of CO2 and Greenhouse gasses to the average temperature of the planet. I also believe that human activity is a major producer of
I also use a graphics tablet (specially for illustrations), and agree that they are not convenient to lug around.
I think we are in agreement that the computer is a tool that should fit the task. You have found your groove, I have found mine. Together we have shared our experiences and someone hopefully better understands the options.
In respect to the grandfather post, my opinion remains that he should choose what works....
When the main purpose is publishing (and I assume academic publishing), the computer is a tool... Why would I keep a dull knife if I can vastly improve my productivity by buying a sharp one....
Expense and form factors are just nits when considering the task at hand... If he needs a Tablet PC for something, please don't consider writing your thesis on it... It's like expecting the comfort of a sedan when buying a go-cart...
I am now in the final stages of my dissertation. I have had four brushes with carpal tunnel and other ergonomic issues. I can say from bitter experience, if someone is serious about publishing but inwilling to spend $2500 on a good laptop, wireless ergonomic keyboard and mouse etc., GIVE UP... The pain ain't worth it...
For ergonomics the adagium is also true: penny wise, pound foolish...
How much are pain-free arms and wrists worth?
In my experience the Macbook has been an extreme pleasure to work with. Mind you. I stack my Macbook on two Phonebooks and use a wireless mouse and keyboard for all my typing. Good ergonomics are a must.
I could not agree more! Macbook with Intel Core Duo, 2 GB of RAM, 120 GB harddisk and *Parallels*!! I can run Windows 98, Windows ME, Ubuntu, OpenSolaris and WindowsXP whenever I want! Shared disks using NFS or SAMBA.
As for my publishing needs, I am writing my thesis in LaTeX, using Xemacs as editor. Xfig, R, OCTAVE, gnuplot etc. to do the research and generate the plots (all under MacOS X, thanks to macports).
It is *so* usable... why would anyone need anything else... and it looks cool too!
Four years ago I would have said that Linux was the desktop of choice... I no longer believe that to be true. The ease of use of MacOS X convinced me, a computer is a tool not a workout station. I still play with Linux and Windows, but rarely boot them anymore... From a user experience MacOS X is sooo much better than Linux (yes my Ubuntu is the most recent), and Windows... nothing compelling there....
I think you're talking like someone who has no experience what-so-ever with what lies outside your borders. This statement contradicts the rest of your post since the rest of your post is mostly in agreement with my original statement.
I can tell you with 100% certainty that if you changed your laws to allow anyone to come and do IT work in the US top dollar in IT will be something like 50K per annum with the average wage being closer to 20K. And I completely agree, that is why I said that a blanket H1B would not help, it would not improve the skills of the American workforce one bit. As I outlined in my original post, it will only encourage companies to reduce their investment in employees. You have just provided a very nice illustration to my original point.
Such broad statements don't help. I think it is a mixture of the IT industry needing more specific skills AND more people.... I don't believe that blanket H1 increases will solve the problem.
The IT industry should look inward and admit that it has done a piss-poor job of training people (and the employees have been complacent in their training demands). While many companies have training courses, most of these courses cover only general topics. Highly specific and technical knowledge takes more than a two-week course can provide, it takes months, even years to develop. IT companies somehow expect Universities to deliver these people, ready made for work. As long as employee training is considered a cost more than a benefit, the industry will keep saying that they can't find the skilled people. What these companies are saying in reality is that it is not cost effective for them to train their own employees, it is much cheaper to get foreigners trained at much lower cost and then import them. This outlook denies the fact that many employees posses the practical experience to quickly learn new skills if given the opportunity.
So what is the solution? I don't know, but the net effect of allowing more H1's will not be an overall improvement of American skills.
You are confusing Patriot performance agains ballistic missiles with Patriot performance agains aircraft. Patriot against ballistic missiles performs poorly at best. Patriot against aircraft however... very high kill ratio.
it is hard for me to comment on your specific situation since I run on Solaris-x86 (OpenSolaris build 41) and have no knowledge of Ubuntu/Kubuntu. Regarding the use of QEMU, I am quite happy with it. I mainly use it to run applications like Acrobat reader, Microsoft Office (Word and Excel) and whenever a site requires IE. My main problem is that it runs at close to 100% CPU utilization, regardless of what you do (I've heard there is a patch, but not yet installed it).
QEMU on Linux runs much better than on Solaris x86, since it has some accelerations that make it more efficient (kernel based acceleration). If I understand the documentation correctly you can give QEMU a virtual network interface to allow it full network access. I use it only with the proxy networking. Guessing from your short description QEMU is an option you should consider.
This is brought to you from a SunRay at home, talking to the server in the garage...
Combined with Tarantella, you can have every Windows application you want. The latest revision of the SunRay server also works on Linux (RedHat I think)!
I run my Windows apps in QEMU, but that is because only my wife and I share the SunRay server...(2.4GHz P4, 3GB RAM). From a users perspective its just perfect! Power-on in the morning, insert your card, login and last nights session is still there. Just upgraded to the latest Open Solaris build so I had to reboot the machine, but before that my machine had reached 317 days of uptime!
In an office environment your mileage will vary, but I have always appreciated the silence of my office working on a SunRay.
Regarding the GP, downloading VM images just doesn't make sense compared to a SunRay, especially if you already have GB ethernet. Make sure the servers have enough RAM and don't let them play Quake!
Slashdot Mirror
SSDs should not be considered a viable option for long term storage just yet. Keep in mind that Flash cells are memory arrays and as such are susceptible to ionizing radiation that can and will flip bits. Store a Flash drive long enough and there will be bit errors beyond the capacity of the on-board CRC/ECC to correct.
If you insist on using SSDs at least use them with ZFS.
WABI was not Sun's IP to give away.
Everybody out there complaining about Sun needing to open-source this or that, should take some time to consider what they would do in return!
Next time you need a new, heavy duty workstation or server, checkout Sun's offerings - rocksolid engineering, excellent price performance.
We all know Sun made mistakes, and like in all human endeavours they will likely make some more, at least they are trying to innovate and share - it's up to you to participate.
well, it's the difference between an MBA making a business call based on cost/profit analysis and an experienced chip designer looking at the actual risks involved....
MBAs are good in cutting corners in traditional businesses, but generally have no understanding of technology risks....
That is why I have a Volvo station with the (optional) third row seat installed. I can comfortably seat 4 adults and 2 children. Luggage goes on top in the ski-box.
Re: "Adding a flash storage option" is pretty much an engineering nonevent, and a very minor logistical task.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Sun customers demand that the product Sun sells them have known reliability properties and that Sun guarantees their products properly interact with each other. It takes a significant amount of resources to do this validation. At the same time SSDs and HDDs react very differently to load and can have all sorts of side effects if the OS/application is not prepared to deal with them.
Ummm, most programs are not completely loaded into memory and inactive pages do get swapped out in favor of active pages. While the most active regions of a program are in memory most of the time, having the whole program in memory is not the general case.
Also, DRAM burns ~8W/GB (more if FB-DIMMS), Flash burns only 0.01W/GB. Thus swapping inactive pages to Flash allows you to use your DRAM more effectively, improving your performance/W.
From a different perspective: you have a datacenter and you are energy constrained. Most applications use 10% of the DRAM 90% of the time. It may be an attractive proposition to give the applications less DRAM (at a slight performance loss) and let them swap to Flash (with a significant reduction in power). Multiply by 10000 servers, even a 20W reduction per server becomes significant.
RAM drive uses DRAM, Enterprise class DRAM ~ $100/GB and uses ca 8W/GB. Enterprise Flash, ~ $30-80/GB and uses 0.01W/GB
In addition, assume that 90% of ram-drive accesses go to 10% of the storage, you can see that effectively you are burning a lot of energy with zero gain. Multiply by up-time.
Flash has the potential of greatly improving performance/watt for most servers.
that is utterly stupid... you'd rather have an automatic update break your box so you can spend hours trying to find out how???
For a reasonable commercial system downtime is measured in thousands of dollars of lost revenue per hour. You will want to update your post after you have had a CEO, CTO, CFO etc... throwing a hissy fit because the system is down... 'automatic update' as an excuse will get you fired, and rightly so.
I'd vote this down as karma whoring...
After returning from a rather difficult customer engagement, my manager asked: 'how did it go?'
I responded: 'Never underestimate the stupidity of your customer.'
My manager decided that I had burned out and moved me to the inside. Mind you I never insulted the customer. I managed through. But there were times I could just cry. They had severe technical problems, most of them the result of bad and conflicting policy decisions. Rather than align the policies they insisted on making technology fit the policies.
Consumers of IT services can be just as dense as the suppliers.
Would you care to qualify your statement.
In my post there is no mention of economics at all. It is purely within the context of the global warming debate and some proposed solutions. Nowhere did I make (or intend to make) a link with the economic feasability. I fully realize that all proposals carry an economic burden, but that is a very different aspect of the Global warming debate. The thread until now was about the realities of global warming and its expected effect.
My first language is Dutch. My education is in astronomy.
There is only one thing I take issue with in your reply. It is your assumption of the existence of cyclical events in Earth's history. Many of the events you mentioned are nothing like cyclical, they are recurrent. The earth's diurnal and the seasons are cyclical. I think there is a real danger in assuming, without hard evidence, that these recurrent events are endemic to Earth, i.e. there are no additional causes.
One possible explanation for the early ice-ages was a period of diminished sunshine. Possible causes are Solar activity, or the Solar system passing through a dust cloud. There really is a precarious balance between the influx of solar light, the composition of the atmosphere and the average temperature on Earth. All the reported trends show a marked increase over the last 100 years in temperature and CO2 concentration.
How is the cyclical/recurrent nature of Earth the simplest explanation? Make your case, for I don't buy it. What is the mechanism that generates these cyclical/recurrent events? What are the dampening factors? Why now?
You say: 'the problem is that you are defining a disease solely by its symptoms', is there any other way? If you say you are thirsty, I would ask more questions to correlate symptoms and most likely end up at diabetes. I should infact turn that statement around, it is you who is saying drink more... Since you accept as fact the existence of cyclical events ( I don't, they are recurrent), you *think* you recognize another cycle... But, the planet might in fact be seriously sick....
Let me be honest, I started studying Global warming issues back in the 1980s, long before it was 'in vogue' so to speak. It takes real effort to understand the observations, their meaning, the theories and their mechanisms. It is also a fascinating subject. I hope I have challenged you enough to make you delve deeper and critically into the subject.
Condescension was neither intended or implied in my original post. If you got that feeling, my apologies. English is not my first language, sometimes I get the tone wrong.
I couldn't find your definition anywhere so I will go with Wiki's. It is essentially the same as every other source I found. Global warming is a term used to describe an increase over time of the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans.
My definition of Global warming was contextual, not factual. You have provided the factual definition.
The things you list above are not a definition, they are symptoms of some unknown or as yet unproven process.
They are indeed symptoms and the leading explanation at this point is 'Global warming'. To claim that this is an unkown or unproven process is incorrect. The same process that keeps our planet habitable is involved in global warming. It is a process that combines solar radiation, the earth's albedo, heat radiation and atmospheric heat retention. The issue is, are we adding so many greenhouse gasses that the net effect is a warming up of the earth beyond what we consider economically and fysiologically attractive.
You left out Greenland, which is also melting. And the Antarctic is probably not.
I did leave out Greenland, and in fact, Antarctica's ice-sheet is also collapsing at an alarming rate
Most weather stations are (and always have been) near cities, the population and density of cities has increase significantly since 1830. Research the heat island effect. This might have a significant effect on any averages.
The effect of urban centers on temperature measurement is in fact well understood. There is solid evidence that a city 'climate' is on average between 1.6-2.0 degrees Celsius warmer, for a city at moderate latitudes (between 48 and 53 degrees north). These results are based on a study performed in Europe in the late 1980's. There are temperature measurements from a number of astronomical observatories that are indicative of rising temperatures. Since these observatories -are far removed from urban centers, I tend to believe their data.
- year over year averages of sea-water temperature are going up.
This may be true. It may not. It is very difficult to tell. The sea level is up in some places and down in others. Determining the average is not possible. If it is rising, it might be directly attributable to Greenland.
Are you confusing sea-level increase with my claimed rise in average sea-temperature? The rise in sea temperature (and acidity) has also been observed and documented.
Global warming does explain those observations. So does idiopathic current changes in the North Atlantic. So do volcanic vent under the arctic. I am sure there a hundred things that explain them that no one has bothered to look into, because they are so happy to have funding. People don't get funding for trying to disprove global warming. Science is supposed to be two sided.
I agree on your observation that there is an insidious relation between funding and the type of research that is performed. However, if you look at funding levels for global warming you will discover that they have only recently had a marked increase. Also, while there will always be some fads in science, as in any human endeavor, the majority of the published papers are reviewed for their quality. Junk science does not easily get through in the established research papers. The better research papers also foster a healthy debate in their community, since debate ultimately leads to better science.
I don't necessarily deny either. What I deny is that these things are facts. They are theories. Theories are explanations of an event with supporting evidence (my definition). But they are not facts. Because they are not facts they can be disputed.
I miss the point here. It seems to me that you are disputing global warming as a theory, but acknowledging my list of observations as
An increase in solar radiation will only exacerbate the problem of
global warming. Combining an increase of solar radiation with
increased CO2 levels will create an even hotter greenhouse. One only
needs to study Venus' weather to get an idea.
Lowering the CO2 levels and other greenhouse gasses is one of many
approaches to tackling global warming. There are two major approaches
that go hand in hand; 1. reducing the amount of CO2 and Methane into the
atmosphere, 2. actively removing CO2 from the atmosphere.
The Sun goes through many short and long cycles. It is true that
we cannot conclusively state the amount of solar radiation remains the
same. However, there are many stars of similar composition and mass
like the Sun, none of them break the principal relation between Mass
and Luminosity. Do you have any data to support a recent increase in
Solar luminosity, say over the last 100 years?
Up-leveling a bit, one of the most effective treatments of global
warming is to reduce the amount of solar radiation the earth receives.
In fact, a proposal has already been put forward to launch a
solar-shield and put it in the Lagrange-point between Sun and
Earth. Calculations have shown (and I apologize for not having a link
available), that this shield would only have to reduce total Solar
radiation by one or two percent to effectively mitigate the effects of
extra CO2. If the Sun where increasing its output, such a shield
would greatly help. However, reducing CO2 levels would still help
since it makes it easier for the Earth to radiate excess heat into
space.
The one thing I certainly agree with is that humanity should not rely
on a singular approach. Spending money only to reduce CO2 would be
bad. However, in my opinion, doing nothing to curb CO2 emissions would
be an even larger folly.
Ok, I'll bite. You have at least are registered, not some AC.
Let me dissect your post a little, and vary between philosophy and science...
'But Global warming is far from fact...'
Let me first define 'Global warming' : global warming is a theory, supported by the majority of the scientific community.
Central to the theory are the following observations:
- Ice caps and glaciers are becoming smaller.
- The Tree-line is creeping north and upwards.
- The perma frost line is going north.
- The artic and antartic ice-caps are getting smaller
- The Sahel (region below the Sahara) is getting dryer (average annual rain fall).
- year over year averages of weather stations show an increase in average temperature (since 1830).
- year over year averages of sea-water temperature are going up.
The theory explains these observations as the result of human activity. Specifically the increase in CO2 and Methane which have been identified as so called 'greenhouse' gasses.
So back to 'But Global warming is far from fact.' What is your statement here, do you deny the observations or do you deny the proposed theory?
Let me assume that you deny the link between CO2 and other greenhouse gasses as causes of increasing temperatures. Would you be so kind as to propose an alternative theory that explains these phenomenon? Please use of Occam's razor.
The 'war on drugs' and 'war of terror' are artifacts of American policies, they only live in the US (but with devastating global effects). Global warming is supported by a much larger group of countries world wide, a group which went as far to sign and ratify the Kyoto treaty.
'They are a creation by some entity to gain power and take money.'... please be specific, who would benefit and why?
'There are a lot of specious claims about what the truth is, but no one knows for sure.' True, such is the nature of debate. But human discourse is a way to contrast such opposing view points, investigate their supporting evidence and move to a new level in rational discourse. It is called learning. "Eppure si muove," (Galileo)
'There are more than a few studies that endorse global warming. There are just as many (though not as well publicized or funded) that dispute it.'
There are many studies that report on observations supporting an increase in temperature, CO2 concentration, greenhouse gas increase or albedo reduction. There are also many studies that link these observations together into a comprehensive theory named 'Global warming'. There are not many studies that dispute these observations, there are not many studies that dispute the trends presented. There are a few studies that present alternatives to the CO2/Greenhouse gas model of Global warming. Where many studies differ is in their predictions on how bad the situation is, in other words some believe we have already crossed the threshold, others believe it will take many years. None of these latter studies advocate doing nothing.
'There is no proof, but let's pretend.' Here you are plain wrong... go visit a glacier. The debate is NOT on the rising temperature, the debate is if this is a cyclical pattern in the earth's long term climate and what role humanity has.
etc...
'there is evidence to support his position.' Cherry picking goes two ways, you are accusing the leading scientific establishment of cherry picking their way into global warming. Crichton is cherry picking his way as a critic...
Having been to the Columbia ice-fields, Glacier national park, and some more glaciers around the world, I can tell you for a fact. They are retreating. Whatever is heating up the earth is doing so fast and it will have consequences for humanity.
Now I believe that the observations I mentioned above are most comprehensively explained by the theory of global warming that links the concentration of CO2 and Greenhouse gasses to the average temperature of the planet. I also believe that human activity is a major producer of
That's great.
I also use a graphics tablet (specially for illustrations), and agree that they are not convenient to lug around.
I think we are in agreement that the computer is a tool that should fit the task. You have found your groove, I have found mine. Together we have shared our experiences and someone hopefully better understands the options.
In respect to the grandfather post, my opinion remains that he should choose what works....
Logitech Cordless Desktop Pro (USB)
Bluetooth Ergonomic keyboards are not in ready supply, so I stick with USB.
When I travel and can't bring the keyboard along I use a Macally BTmouse (bluetooth) works like a charm.
When the main purpose is publishing (and I assume academic publishing), the computer is a tool...
Why would I keep a dull knife if I can vastly improve my productivity by buying a sharp one....
Expense and form factors are just nits when considering the task at hand... If he needs a Tablet PC for something, please don't consider writing your thesis on it... It's like expecting the comfort of a sedan when buying a go-cart...
I am now in the final stages of my dissertation. I have had four brushes with carpal tunnel and other ergonomic issues. I can say from bitter experience, if someone is serious about publishing but inwilling to spend $2500 on a good laptop, wireless ergonomic keyboard and mouse etc., GIVE UP... The pain ain't worth it...
For ergonomics the adagium is also true: penny wise, pound foolish...
How much are pain-free arms and wrists worth?
In my experience the Macbook has been an extreme pleasure to work with. Mind you. I stack my Macbook on two Phonebooks and use a wireless mouse and keyboard for all my typing. Good ergonomics are a must.
My two cents.
I could not agree more! Macbook with Intel Core Duo, 2 GB of RAM, 120 GB harddisk and *Parallels*!!
I can run Windows 98, Windows ME, Ubuntu, OpenSolaris and WindowsXP whenever I want! Shared disks using NFS or SAMBA.
As for my publishing needs, I am writing my thesis in LaTeX, using Xemacs as editor. Xfig, R, OCTAVE, gnuplot etc. to do the research and generate the plots (all under MacOS X, thanks to macports).
It is *so* usable... why would anyone need anything else... and it looks cool too!
Four years ago I would have said that Linux was the desktop of choice... I no longer believe that to be true. The ease of use of MacOS X convinced me, a computer is a tool not a workout station. I still play with Linux and Windows, but rarely boot them anymore... From a user experience MacOS X is sooo much better than Linux (yes my Ubuntu is the most recent), and Windows... nothing compelling there....
I think you're talking like someone who has no experience what-so-ever with what lies outside your borders.
This statement contradicts the rest of your post since the rest of your post is mostly in agreement with my original statement.
I can tell you with 100% certainty that if you changed your laws to allow anyone to come and do IT work in the US top dollar in IT will be something like 50K per annum with the average wage being closer to 20K.
And I completely agree, that is why I said that a blanket H1B would not help, it would not improve the skills of the American workforce one bit. As I outlined in my original post, it will only encourage companies to reduce their investment in employees. You have just provided a very nice illustration to my original point.
Such broad statements don't help. I think it is a mixture of the IT industry needing more specific skills AND more people.... I don't believe that blanket H1 increases will solve the problem.
The IT industry should look inward and admit that it has done a piss-poor job of training people (and the employees have been complacent in their training demands). While many companies have training courses, most of these courses cover only general topics. Highly specific and technical knowledge takes more than a two-week course can provide, it takes months, even years to develop. IT companies somehow expect Universities to deliver these people, ready made for work. As long as employee training is considered a cost more than a benefit, the industry will keep saying that they can't find the skilled people. What these companies are saying in reality is that it is not cost effective for them to train their own employees, it is much cheaper to get foreigners trained at much lower cost and then import them. This outlook denies the fact that many employees posses the practical experience to quickly learn new skills if given the opportunity.
So what is the solution? I don't know, but the net effect of allowing more H1's will not be an overall improvement of American skills.
You are confusing Patriot performance agains ballistic missiles with Patriot performance agains aircraft. Patriot against ballistic missiles performs poorly at best. Patriot against aircraft however... very high kill ratio.
David,
it is hard for me to comment on your specific situation since I run on Solaris-x86 (OpenSolaris build 41) and have no knowledge of Ubuntu/Kubuntu. Regarding the use of QEMU, I am quite happy with it. I mainly use it to run applications like Acrobat reader, Microsoft Office (Word and Excel) and whenever a site requires IE. My main problem is that it runs at close to 100% CPU utilization, regardless of what you do (I've heard there is a patch, but not yet installed it).
QEMU on Linux runs much better than on Solaris x86, since it has some accelerations that make it more efficient (kernel based acceleration). If I understand the documentation correctly you can give QEMU a virtual network interface to allow it full network access. I use it only with the proxy networking. Guessing from your short description QEMU is an option you should consider.
Boner
Exactly!
This is brought to you from a SunRay at home, talking to the server in the garage...
Combined with Tarantella, you can have every Windows application you want. The latest revision of the SunRay server also works on Linux (RedHat I think)!
I run my Windows apps in QEMU, but that is because only my wife and I share the SunRay server...(2.4GHz P4, 3GB RAM). From a users perspective its just perfect! Power-on in the morning, insert your card, login and last nights session is still there. Just upgraded to the latest Open Solaris build so I had to reboot the machine, but before that my machine had reached 317 days of uptime!
In an office environment your mileage will vary, but I have always appreciated the silence of my office working on a SunRay.
Regarding the GP, downloading VM images just doesn't make sense compared to a SunRay, especially if you already have GB ethernet. Make sure the servers have enough RAM and don't let them play Quake!
(and yes, I work for Sun...)