I hate those things, let them die a slow painful death at the bottom of the Atlantic. Use them to dredge a new shipping channel. Teach explosives training to new recruits in the Army with them. Use them as obstacles in automotive crash tests.
The 3000 that I used to work with (a 1981 vintage machine still running on 2001/01/01) wouldn't miss a cycle during any of those events. Admittedly the US Army no longer has atomic demolition munitions in its inventory; that might do the trick.
Not to sound harsh, but isn't that the kind of thing you should have thought of 10 years ago? They stopped deleoping these ages ago, so an exit should have been looked at at least as a side project.
This is the prime reason Microsoft and Wintel still struggle to get into the datacenter. When you put in something like a 3000, you expect it to work for 10-15 years, and for the vendor to support it for that time, including the wind-down time after "de-productization".
So if HP was saying the 3000 was a viable datacenter product last year, it is perfectly reasonable for a customer not to start replacement planning. If HP wants to stay in the data center market, that is.
Several decades, indeed (but only for very small values of "several").
We spent about 2 hours on the Y2K topic in my CS2 class in 1981. The instructor was an ex-Bell System programmer (business side, not research), so they must have been considering it before that. And the Social Security Administration had most of their Y2K remediation done around 1990 (which makes sense when you think about the time spans they deal with), so again there someone was thinking about it.
Not everyone, perhaps, but some people with foresight.
Having worked for HP, I can only be glad they would scrap it. The application that are still running on this are nightmarish stuff coming from the seventies... So it's all COBOL and EDI. Yuk
Yes, crappy old programs such as ASK ManMan, upon which 93% of the MRP-II applications on the market were modeled.
Back in the 1970's, software companies actually tested, and took responsibility for, their software. They also kept fixing things until the actual code started to work the way the documentation (documentation? what's that?) said it would.
I doubt you will find very many organizations with HP3000 code bases who are very excited about moving them to crap... I mean, the latest and greatest new platform.
Umm, no, sorry, that's not how it works. With a penny per page, Google would make $1 a day, or something like $350 per year, because people would use alternatives. Anyone who has taken Microeconomics knows that in an efficient capitalistic model businesses make zero profits. The internet isn't perfectly efficient (we still have patents, in the case of Google), but the fact of the matter is that I have instant access to competition. I need only type in a word, a dot, and com into my browser.
Perhaps so, but you are leaving quality and value out of the equation. I hit about 200 Google pages per day and I would gladly pay 2.00 USD for that service if Google agreed to maintain the same level of quality they have today. From the corporate side, compared to the license fees from the big software vendors a $1000/year subscription to Google wouldn't even register - again IF quality were to be maintained.
The billing mechanism should track for and eliminate charges for that, as well as for pages that auto-refresh themselves, error and non-existant pages, pages arrived at by pressing the back button, duplicate pages and so on."
Alas, not so easy. Even legitimate web site designers have spent the last 6 months figuring out ways to increase their number of pages loaded. Take a look at infoworld.com: once one of the most usable technical sites on the web, now a page-hit monstrosity. Yet all of the clicks required to navigate the site are "legitimate", in the sense that they aren't designed solely with the purpose of forcing a click. Deviously, yes, but solely, no.
Neat trick, since the Manhattan Project started in 1942.
The story is, as you indicate, much more complex, with dozens of people, places, dates, nation-states, and motivations involved. I agree my summary isn't the best possible, but as I have noted before Slashdot is a discussion forum, not a Master's program in history.
However, you do seem to be forgetting the Tubealloys project and Klaus Fuchs, who was involved from 1938 and was one of the first from the British team to transfer information to the US. And to the Soviet Union as well, although that wasn't known at the time.
Similiarly, research on military applications of fisson, and attempts to suppress knowledge of that research, occurred before the Manhatten Project was officially started (which actually happened pretty late in the game).
would you extend these arguments to support it in non-virtual security? Should the CIA and other international organizations use full exposure? Should they publish something titled, "This is the vulnerability of our Nuclear Piles"?
Unfortunately, it isn't that simple. Read the history of the Manhatten Project. The FBI actually succeeded in its goal of not allowing a single leak of information out of the project [1]. It was the lack of published information on atomic research in the US in 1940 and 1941 that told Kurchatov that something was "up" and motiviated him to write a letter to Stalin suggesting that the Soviet Union get moving on atomic bomb research.
So just hiding information doesn't necessarily make you more secure.
sPh
[1] OK, the Soviet Union had spies inside the project before it started, but that doesn't count!
MR. GATES: Let me start out, really the reason that you see open source there at all is because we came in and said there should be a platform that's identical with millions and millions of machines, and the bios of that should be open to everybody to use, and all the extensibility should be there. And so it was very predictable that once we had gotten the PC going, and going and gotten hundreds of millions of machines out there, that it had always been sort of free software and the universities would flourish and there would be more of that. We certainly accept free software as part of the software ecosystem. In fact, there's a very virtuous cycle where people do free things, some people find that adequate, sometimes companies will take that work and turn it into commercial products, those companies will hire people, pay taxes. And so you see the free software and the commercial software existing together.
I've been working for GNOME since years before there was a GNOME. In
1983, while formulating plans for the GNU operating system, I decided
it ought to include a window system. Later, around 1988, we obtained
X, but we found out that X only did the lower-level half of the job,
so I decided we needed to develop a free software desktop to do the
rest of the job. After our desktop initiatives in 1990 and 1994/5
didn't produce a working desktop (*), I became aware of another desktop
project based on a non-free library (**), and spoke to the community
about the problem posed by that dependency. This inspired Miguel to
launch our third desktop project, the one that succeeded: GNOME.
Ok, explain to me how giving a company MORE bandwidth is going to lesson the chances of getting high bandwidth services.
Once one entity controls a large percentage of a certain service/market, it starts cancelling "unprofitable" offerings and raising prices on the rest. Prime examples are the CLEC and independent ISP markets: now that the Baby Bells have driven the independents out of the market, DSL is disappearing and prices are going up.
1) George Bush won the election.
2) Michael Powell was appointed Chairman of the FCC.
Now, given that Mr. Powell is (a) very, very connected to the heaviest hitters in the Republican Party and in big business (b) has stated explicitly that he sees nothing wrong with 1 or 2 mega-corporations controlling all communications in the United States --- why would you expect any different outcome?
There's no such rule of thumb. If there is, please, produce some evidence. Thanks.
Do a quick Google on 'habit "21 times"' and you will find hundreds of references. Although this guy disagrees pretty strongly, too: http://www.ishn.com/CDA/Article_Information/Behavi oralSafetyItem/0,3563,1574,00.html
By the way, when sharply questioning another's facts or judgement, it is perhaps better not to post as Anonymous Coward, eh?
So, let me get this straight. His friend called him in 10 days, saying he had deleted windows from his computer. Later on in the phone conversation, he then said that "... after a month.. removing windows from my computer...".
Or - he deleted his Windows partition after 10 days, but it took him 30 days to feel fully comfortable with the transition.
Which is consistent with the psychological rule of thumb that (on averge) you have to do something for 30 times (or 30 days) before it becomes a habit. So if for several years the person booted into Windows every morning, it would take at least 30 boots for him to start losing the habitual memory of the process, and develop a comfort level with the new process.
First they came for the terrorists...
Then they came for the murders...
Then the rapists...
The burglars,
the shoplifters,
traffic violators.
Read Larry Niven's "Organlegger" series from the late 60's / early 70's, where he posited a government that sentenced people to death for traffic violations so that it could harvest their organs.
Then read news accounts from 2000 about how the government of the PRC selects prisoners' execution dates based on the need for transplant organs.
I believe that if it has been proven that you are indeed guilty of committing a crime, you have no rights
Um, no. When you are convicted of a crime, some of your rights are restricted or taken away. However, you do not lose all rights, nor do you lose the ability to petition a court for redress of grievences.
I would love to see how the right to counsel is being taken away. As far as I can tell, the only 'right' being taken away is that of privacy, which is automatically given up when you're a federal detainee. You should have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
After you are convicted of a crime, you have no expectation of privacy in prison. Before you are convicted of a crime, you are "innocent until proven guilty" and retain all your rights as a citizen (not that that seems to mean much to Mr. Ashcroft). Thousands of people with "funny sounding" names were swept up after 9/11 and remain behind bars; that does not mean that they are guilty of anything.
already been done? I do believe that one of the Cray models had a 'liquid cooled CPU', or something to that effect. I never saw the specifics on how it was done, if it was just the CPU, or if it was the whole machine being cooled that way.
For suitable values of "commonly", I guess. Mainframes (which probably process the majority of the world's bits, even today) have been water cooled since the 1960's.
already been done? I do believe that one of the Cray models had a 'liquid cooled CPU', or something to that effect. I never saw the specifics on how it was done, if it was just the CPU, or if it was the whole machine being cooled that way.
That's one of the most famous design hacks in computer hardware history (although that statement itself is a bit unfair, given the percentage of high performance hacks directly attributable to S. Cray): the entire processing section was submerged in liquid Freon, several hundred liters worth. There was a glass section so you could look in as with an aquarium, too.
This may seem like a really dumb question but does anyone know if
the Tunney Act allows/welcomes commentry from non-US citizens?
A. Not a dumb question at all.
B. One thing is known for certain: if you don't submit your comments, they won't be read. If you do submit them, they may or may not be read, but at least the possibility exists.
You're probably right - if they really can do this. Can anybody - or even somebody with a specific interest in the outcome of the case - submit such a brief? Is the judge supposed to read it?
I ran this by my brother, who is a technology lawyer who has practiced before the federal court. Anyone can submit a brief to the judge on any case. Whether or not the judge reads it is up to him/her. However, unless it is formatted the "right" way and submitted according to procedure, it will almost certainly be ignored.
The Samba team is clearly an interested party to this case so their brief might actually be considered.
You think the judge heard about "samba" -- I mean, other than "south-american dance"? I really doubt it.
And what can be added to the solution agreed upon by the DOJ - some specific technical requirements, like naming ports and protocols? There are no words for that in legalese.:)
I think Judge Jackson's conduct of the original trial (excluding the stupidity of talking to a reporter, which I thought was dumb at the time) shows that lawyers/judges are capable of handling complex/subtle technical issues. That's the job of judges, after all.
And the Samba team brief would of course have to start with a discussion of what Samba is and what its position/market share is in regards to Microsoft. Having a better-known name (dare I say RMS, or Linus?) sign on wouldn't hurt.
Maybe it's just me, but reading through the Samba project's analysis I didn't get the same sense of urgency that the Slashdot article gave. As I understand it, the Samba project would be no worse off if the settlement went through. They would simply not benefit from the settlement.
You need to factor the DMCA, the SSSCA, and language elsewhere in the settlement agreement concerning security, encryption, and "digital rights management". Those factors could easily be combined to allow Microsoft to use the settlement to sue Samba, rather than the other way around.
The Samba team should get this statement transformed into legal-brief-ese and submit it to the judge in the case. This (plus the DMCA/SSSCA gotcha's hidden elsewhere in the proposed settlement) hits the core of the weakness of the proposed settlement.
Slashdot Mirror
sPh
So if HP was saying the 3000 was a viable datacenter product last year, it is perfectly reasonable for a customer not to start replacement planning. If HP wants to stay in the data center market, that is.
sPh
Not everyone, perhaps, but some people with foresight.
sPh
Back in the 1970's, software companies actually tested, and took responsibility for, their software. They also kept fixing things until the actual code started to work the way the documentation (documentation? what's that?) said it would.
I doubt you will find very many organizations with HP3000 code bases who are very excited about moving them to crap... I mean, the latest and greatest new platform.
sPh
sPh
sPh
However, you do seem to be forgetting the Tubealloys project and Klaus Fuchs, who was involved from 1938 and was one of the first from the British team to transfer information to the US. And to the Soviet Union as well, although that wasn't known at the time.
Similiarly, research on military applications of fisson, and attempts to suppress knowledge of that research, occurred before the Manhatten Project was officially started (which actually happened pretty late in the game).
sPh
So just hiding information doesn't necessarily make you more secure.
sPh
[1] OK, the Soviet Union had spies inside the project before it started, but that doesn't count!
==========
Richard Stallman in his statement of candidacy for the GNOME Board of Directors.Hmmm...
sPh
Once one entity controls a large percentage of a certain service/market, it starts cancelling "unprofitable" offerings and raising prices on the rest. Prime examples are the CLEC and independent ISP markets: now that the Baby Bells have driven the independents out of the market, DSL is disappearing and prices are going up.
sPh
1) George Bush won the election.
2) Michael Powell was appointed Chairman of the FCC.
Now, given that Mr. Powell is (a) very, very connected to the heaviest hitters in the Republican Party and in big business (b) has stated explicitly that he sees nothing wrong with 1 or 2 mega-corporations controlling all communications in the United States --- why would you expect any different outcome?
sPh
Do a quick Google on 'habit "21 times"' and you will find hundreds of references. Although this guy disagrees pretty strongly, too: http://www.ishn.com/CDA/Article_Information/Behavi oralSafetyItem/0,3563,1574,00.html
By the way, when sharply questioning another's facts or judgement, it is perhaps better not to post as Anonymous Coward, eh?
sPh
Which is consistent with the psychological rule of thumb that (on averge) you have to do something for 30 times (or 30 days) before it becomes a habit. So if for several years the person booted into Windows every morning, it would take at least 30 boots for him to start losing the habitual memory of the process, and develop a comfort level with the new process.
sPh
Then read news accounts from 2000 about how the government of the PRC selects prisoners' execution dates based on the need for transplant organs.
Then read your post and its parent again.
sPh
At least, that's the way it used to be...
sPh
Sorry about the bold; it looked right on the preview. Honest!
sPh
sPh
sPh
sPh
Was there really any dispute between ac and Linus, or was it just a technical competition to see which system could be pushed the farthest?
I thought the eWeek article took an unnecessarily confrontational tone.
sPh
B. One thing is known for certain: if you don't submit your comments, they won't be read. If you do submit them, they may or may not be read, but at least the possibility exists.
sPh
The Samba team is clearly an interested party to this case so their brief might actually be considered.
sPh
And the Samba team brief would of course have to start with a discussion of what Samba is and what its position/market share is in regards to Microsoft. Having a better-known name (dare I say RMS, or Linus?) sign on wouldn't hurt.
sPh
sPh
The Samba team should get this statement transformed into legal-brief-ese and submit it to the judge in the case. This (plus the DMCA/SSSCA gotcha's hidden elsewhere in the proposed settlement) hits the core of the weakness of the proposed settlement.
sPh