Re:A time of leaps and bounds
on
Secret Empire
·
· Score: 1
I think we would approach the point of diminishing returns at that point but it's a funny post anyhow...
Re:A time of leaps and bounds
on
Secret Empire
·
· Score: 1
I guess giving asylum to those Nazi scientist really paid off...
Re:ya! a real tragedy!
on
Secret Empire
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Omm... that secrecy may have just saved their lives and given them the piece of mind to be able to keep innovating without fear the soviet union was going to kidnap or assassinate them... I wonder what those people think about the secrecy they had to live in? Not everyone wants to be a movie star...
Yeah, it's a difficult fact that our rights don't have priority ratings... Like first and foremost, the right to be free... Interestingly enough, most people refer to the Declaration of Independence as the Ur-foundation for our rights. Despite the fact that the Declaration has no legally binding power, people throughout the civil rights movement have referred to it as providing justification for their struggle. In some ways it goes back to the struggle at the heart of any modern state between justice and freedom. Europeans tend to think they err on the side of justice and Americans err on the side of freedom, but I think this case shows Americans can err on the side of "justice" and the war in Iraq shows Europeans can err on the side of "freedom"...
Ok, a lot of you have made good points about degrees not being necesary or even harmful. For the most part, I agree, but you shouldn't ignore someone just because they do have a degree. That's just the same stupid prejudice except in reverse. I do think degrees are useful for providing theoretical frameworks and historical contexts that can help programmer's make better design decisions than they would otherwise, but when it comes to getting something done, there is nothing like practical experience.
Maybe the new systems will be legacy systems by the time they are done? Seriously though, there must be a business opportunity here for a company. I know some companies do focus on this segment of the market (e.g. EDS's contract with the U.S. Navy, etc...), but it doesn't sound like anyone is doing it really well.
Apple could start distributing MacOs for x86-32 or 64 in about six months. The only reason it would take that long would be to write basic drivers. If you just want an OS that runs on x86, they could probably do it in a week. So, if they really wanted to change they could do it at will. If the G4 isn't up to the task then why haven't they? Anyone who has followed the development of OS X knows the answer. Most apps would need to be rewritten. The OX X version of Quark is just coming out now. Do you think they would just go and rewrite it again? No, of course not. Apple's future depends on the PowerPC and that means the 970. If the 970 sucks, Apple is fucked.
You're right I haven't worked at a really large corporation (i.e. more than 10,000 employees)... but that really has nothing to do with my point. I'll admit that there may be some areas where it is essential to keep legacy apps, and I think there are some good reasons to keep old code and proprietary solutions (e.g. security), but on the whole I think larger companies are moving away from them because of the cost of maintaining them. We may be thinking of different aspects of a company's operations. I am thinking of supply chain and event management software, manufacuring software, etc...
Yes, and what is the biggest focus in IT right, now? Getting rid of these exceptions in order to cut costs. I could justify keeping around a couple of extra Java/XML guys for future growth, but my first priority is to get the legacy folks on-board with something standards compliant, or at least less arcane, or get rid of them. And those folks are followed closely to the door by those people that refuse to share knowledge. You make yourself indispensable by being a leader, not by hoarding knowledge. In reality, nobody is indispensable.
On the other hand, as far as hiring and firing in this market goes... A lot of people seem to have bought into the myth that employees are interchangeable. Maybe to a certain extent someone's technical skills are interchangeable, and that's debatable, but their personality and their "soft skills" are not. Believe it or not, soft skills matter in every part of the company. So, getting the right person is often more important than getting exactly the right skill set.
It's odd to see how opinion seems to break down into extremes, like indispensable or interchangeable, in adverse conditions, when, really, any good manager with a good sense of perspective doesn't believe in either of those opinions.
I was really surprised he didn't mention fusion. It's not viable at the moment, but, as he said about fuel cells, it is an engineering problem, not a science problem. For a proof of concept, just look at the bright, shiny, ball of fire in the sky. It could be a different path to a hydrogen economy. In other words, go through the utilities instead of the oil comapnies. However there would still be a role for oil companies, they could provide the material from which the hydrogen would be extracted with the fusion energy provided by the utility companies.
I agree with your advice, but only those people who are really good at what they do should take it. I'm serious. And just because you got A's in all of your classes doesn't mean you are good at what you do. If you are confident based on your knowledge of how the field works, rather than just because you got the grades you paid for, then you can almost always afford to take things on your own terms. Unfortunately, this means that 99% of people, and amazingly enough this does include some people who read/., do need to get those internships and need to kiss as much ass as possible to get ahead. It's an ugly but true fact.
Probably not much better... I think the blackbird is the finest of its kind... to do better we would need a "quantum leap" (I hate that expression but in this case it's true) in technology (e.g. scramjet, etc...)
This piece is not so much a refutation of the other piece, but it comes at R&D from the government angle rather than the corporate angle... http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID= sa004&arti cleID=0005277B-64C2-1E5E-A98A809EC5880105 In light of the corporate side, I'm not sure this guy's argument holds up. If corporations aren't investing in R&D then shouldn't government step in to fill the gap? I am not sure...
Sorry. You're right... There are two fans, and therefore they are somewhat redundant, but they are not hot-swappable. Thanks!
Yes, but they would need to be clustered. I'm not sure if such fault-tolerant clustering is available for the Xserve. I saw your other post about the Nasa cluster, which is really cool, BTW, but fault tolerant clustering is a little different. Do you know?
Can you cluster Xserves together? If so, how? If not, I wonder if this is on Apple's to do list? Does Oracle 9i App. Server run on Mac OS X? If so, does the clustering work well for Xserves?
You have a point with ECC to a certain extent, but the PSU is a non-issue. Dell is the only Tier 1 vendor that supplies a back-up PSU, and it's jury-rigged at that... It's not standard issue. Why not take the Xserve to task for the lack of redundant cooling as well? The 1650 has it... By the very fact that the Xserve does not have redundant PSUs or cooling, it is aimed at a different market segment than the one that requires absolute 100% up time, and therefore ECC is not that much of an issue. The single cosmic ray that switches a single bit during a year is not going to matter much to the market the Xserve is aimed at. The 1U market is based on price, including space, and performance, not on reliability. Obviously, it can't be a piece of crap, but... I'm sure if Apple made a 2U unit they would include redundant everything, but then they also would need to come up with a processor that can compete with the Xeons in 2u units. Maybe when the 970 comes out, but not now... Anyhow, why is it that everyone assumes the people at Apple are stupid? They have done a fine job at finding the right balance for the right market segment. Obviously, if you NEED ECC or redundancy, don't buy an Xserve. It's pretty simple... Although I can understand your disappointment over not being able to buy one because you do need those things...;-)
There seems to be some confusion about the CPU performance for the Xserve. The fastest processor Dell offers for a 1U is a 1.4 Ghz PIII in the 1650... Yes, of course, you can get a second processor for cheaper, but 2 1.4 GHz Pentium III do not equal 2 1.33 Ghz G4s. The G4s are more like a hypothetical 2.0 Ghz Pentium III. This is the advantage of the G4; in general, it is more efficient (performance/power/Mhz). It's no accident that Apple only offers a 1U. It's the only server market segment that they can compete in. A 2U offering from Apple would not cut it on price/performance.
Also the FSB of the Dell box is only 133 Mhz where as the Xserve is 167 Mhz. Yes, it's true there is not real DDR support, but, on the whole, I'd say you're definitely not going to be hurting on performance if you get an Xserve.
There seems to be some confusion about the CPU performance for the Xserve. The fastest processor Dell offers for a 1U is a 1.4 Ghz PIII in the 1650... Yes, of course, you can get a second processor for cheaper, but 2 1.4 GHz Pentium III do not equal 2 1.33 Ghz G4s. The G4s are more like a hypothetical 2.0 Ghz Pentium III. Also the FSB of the Dell box is only 133 Mhz where as the Xserve is 167 Mhz. Yes, it's true there is not real DDR support, but, on the whole, I'd say you're definitely not going to be hurting on performance if you get an Xserve.
That's really interesting... America is very much focused on the individual... I have noticed this before but it didn't even occur to me in this case... thanks for pointing out another way of thinking about things!
He may have made mistakes, but it doesn't make him irresponsible or untrustworthy. He may have been working under assumptions that were incorrect (i.e. his wife would contribute to income). I don't know why he made himself exclusively responsible for the debt.
But you see, all of these "may have"s are the whole problem. You never know the circumstances. Now credit companies make decisions based on this info and it must be a reasonable gauge of how someone handles their own finances, but it says nothing about how someone handles other people's money. I'd love to see data about how reliable a credit rating is in determining how well people handle other people's money. It sounds like fallacious thinking to me.
Wow, apparently, you can't read. He denied all of the things that you are accusing him of... Great, you think we should punish people based on how much damage you think they can do (which is legally bogus, btw)? Ok, so if it were 1620 and somebody thought I was a witch and burned me at the stake, then you think they would be justified? Punishing people based on fear and ignorance makes sense to you? Why don't we just dial the clock back to the middle ages? It never ceases to amaze me that people like you still exist... Apparently you and the young Mitnick have something in common; you don't think about consequences. For him it was the consequences of his actions and for you it is the consequences of your ideas.
Slashdot Mirror
I think we would approach the point of diminishing returns at that point but it's a funny post anyhow...
I guess giving asylum to those Nazi scientist really paid off...
Omm... that secrecy may have just saved their lives and given them the piece of mind to be able to keep innovating without fear the soviet union was going to kidnap or assassinate them... I wonder what those people think about the secrecy they had to live in? Not everyone wants to be a movie star...
Yeah, it's a difficult fact that our rights don't have priority ratings... Like first and foremost, the right to be free... Interestingly enough, most people refer to the Declaration of Independence as the Ur-foundation for our rights. Despite the fact that the Declaration has no legally binding power, people throughout the civil rights movement have referred to it as providing justification for their struggle. In some ways it goes back to the struggle at the heart of any modern state between justice and freedom. Europeans tend to think they err on the side of justice and Americans err on the side of freedom, but I think this case shows Americans can err on the side of "justice" and the war in Iraq shows Europeans can err on the side of "freedom"...
This is dumb and it's not even that funny...
Ok, a lot of you have made good points about degrees not being necesary or even harmful. For the most part, I agree, but you shouldn't ignore someone just because they do have a degree. That's just the same stupid prejudice except in reverse. I do think degrees are useful for providing theoretical frameworks and historical contexts that can help programmer's make better design decisions than they would otherwise, but when it comes to getting something done, there is nothing like practical experience.
Maybe the new systems will be legacy systems by the time they are done? Seriously though, there must be a business opportunity here for a company. I know some companies do focus on this segment of the market (e.g. EDS's contract with the U.S. Navy, etc...), but it doesn't sound like anyone is doing it really well.
Apple could start distributing MacOs for x86-32 or 64 in about six months. The only reason it would take that long would be to write basic drivers. If you just want an OS that runs on x86, they could probably do it in a week. So, if they really wanted to change they could do it at will. If the G4 isn't up to the task then why haven't they? Anyone who has followed the development of OS X knows the answer. Most apps would need to be rewritten. The OX X version of Quark is just coming out now. Do you think they would just go and rewrite it again? No, of course not. Apple's future depends on the PowerPC and that means the 970. If the 970 sucks, Apple is fucked.
You're right I haven't worked at a really large corporation (i.e. more than 10,000 employees)... but that really has nothing to do with my point. I'll admit that there may be some areas where it is essential to keep legacy apps, and I think there are some good reasons to keep old code and proprietary solutions (e.g. security), but on the whole I think larger companies are moving away from them because of the cost of maintaining them. We may be thinking of different aspects of a company's operations. I am thinking of supply chain and event management software, manufacuring software, etc...
Yes, and what is the biggest focus in IT right, now? Getting rid of these exceptions in order to cut costs. I could justify keeping around a couple of extra Java/XML guys for future growth, but my first priority is to get the legacy folks on-board with something standards compliant, or at least less arcane, or get rid of them. And those folks are followed closely to the door by those people that refuse to share knowledge. You make yourself indispensable by being a leader, not by hoarding knowledge. In reality, nobody is indispensable.
On the other hand, as far as hiring and firing in this market goes... A lot of people seem to have bought into the myth that employees are interchangeable. Maybe to a certain extent someone's technical skills are interchangeable, and that's debatable, but their personality and their "soft skills" are not. Believe it or not, soft skills matter in every part of the company. So, getting the right person is often more important than getting exactly the right skill set.
It's odd to see how opinion seems to break down into extremes, like indispensable or interchangeable, in adverse conditions, when, really, any good manager with a good sense of perspective doesn't believe in either of those opinions.
I was really surprised he didn't mention fusion. It's not viable at the moment, but, as he said about fuel cells, it is an engineering problem, not a science problem. For a proof of concept, just look at the bright, shiny, ball of fire in the sky. It could be a different path to a hydrogen economy. In other words, go through the utilities instead of the oil comapnies. However there would still be a role for oil companies, they could provide the material from which the hydrogen would be extracted with the fusion energy provided by the utility companies.
I agree with your advice, but only those people who are really good at what they do should take it. I'm serious. And just because you got A's in all of your classes doesn't mean you are good at what you do. If you are confident based on your knowledge of how the field works, rather than just because you got the grades you paid for, then you can almost always afford to take things on your own terms. Unfortunately, this means that 99% of people, and amazingly enough this does include some people who read /., do need to get those internships and need to kiss as much ass as possible to get ahead. It's an ugly but true fact.
If we are trying to remove pilots from aircraft via UCAVs, then why would we not try to remove astronauts from space?
Probably not much better... I think the blackbird is the finest of its kind... to do better we would need a "quantum leap" (I hate that expression but in this case it's true) in technology (e.g. scramjet, etc...)
This piece is not so much a refutation of the other piece, but it comes at R&D from the government angle rather than the corporate angle...= sa004&arti cleID=0005277B-64C2-1E5E-A98A809EC5880105
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID
In light of the corporate side, I'm not sure this guy's argument holds up. If corporations aren't investing in R&D then shouldn't government step in to fill the gap? I am not sure...
Sorry. You're right... There are two fans, and therefore they are somewhat redundant, but they are not hot-swappable. Thanks!
Yes, but they would need to be clustered. I'm not sure if such fault-tolerant clustering is available for the Xserve. I saw your other post about the Nasa cluster, which is really cool, BTW, but fault tolerant clustering is a little different. Do you know?
Can you cluster Xserves together? If so, how? If not, I wonder if this is on Apple's to do list? Does Oracle 9i App. Server run on Mac OS X? If so, does the clustering work well for Xserves?
You have a point with ECC to a certain extent, but the PSU is a non-issue. Dell is the only Tier 1 vendor that supplies a back-up PSU, and it's jury-rigged at that... It's not standard issue. Why not take the Xserve to task for the lack of redundant cooling as well? The 1650 has it... By the very fact that the Xserve does not have redundant PSUs or cooling, it is aimed at a different market segment than the one that requires absolute 100% up time, and therefore ECC is not that much of an issue. The single cosmic ray that switches a single bit during a year is not going to matter much to the market the Xserve is aimed at. The 1U market is based on price, including space, and performance, not on reliability. Obviously, it can't be a piece of crap, but... I'm sure if Apple made a 2U unit they would include redundant everything, but then they also would need to come up with a processor that can compete with the Xeons in 2u units. Maybe when the 970 comes out, but not now... Anyhow, why is it that everyone assumes the people at Apple are stupid? They have done a fine job at finding the right balance for the right market segment. Obviously, if you NEED ECC or redundancy, don't buy an Xserve. It's pretty simple... Although I can understand your disappointment over not being able to buy one because you do need those things... ;-)
Yes, Digital Video editing... It reduces the amount of time you have to wait for video to download to the server...
There seems to be some confusion about the CPU performance for the Xserve. The fastest processor Dell offers for a 1U is a 1.4 Ghz PIII in the 1650... Yes, of course, you can get a second processor for cheaper, but 2 1.4 GHz Pentium III do not equal 2 1.33 Ghz G4s. The G4s are more like a hypothetical 2.0 Ghz Pentium III. This is the advantage of the G4; in general, it is more efficient (performance/power/Mhz). It's no accident that Apple only offers a 1U. It's the only server market segment that they can compete in. A 2U offering from Apple would not cut it on price/performance.
Also the FSB of the Dell box is only 133 Mhz where as the Xserve is 167 Mhz. Yes, it's true there is not real DDR support, but, on the whole, I'd say you're definitely not going to be hurting on performance if you get an Xserve.
There seems to be some confusion about the CPU performance for the Xserve. The fastest processor Dell offers for a 1U is a 1.4 Ghz PIII in the 1650... Yes, of course, you can get a second processor for cheaper, but 2 1.4 GHz Pentium III do not equal 2 1.33 Ghz G4s. The G4s are more like a hypothetical 2.0 Ghz Pentium III. Also the FSB of the Dell box is only 133 Mhz where as the Xserve is 167 Mhz. Yes, it's true there is not real DDR support, but, on the whole, I'd say you're definitely not going to be hurting on performance if you get an Xserve.
That's really interesting... America is very much focused on the individual... I have noticed this before but it didn't even occur to me in this case... thanks for pointing out another way of thinking about things!
He may have made mistakes, but it doesn't make him irresponsible or untrustworthy. He may have been working under assumptions that were incorrect (i.e. his wife would contribute to income). I don't know why he made himself exclusively responsible for the debt.
But you see, all of these "may have"s are the whole problem. You never know the circumstances. Now credit companies make decisions based on this info and it must be a reasonable gauge of how someone handles their own finances, but it says nothing about how someone handles other people's money. I'd love to see data about how reliable a credit rating is in determining how well people handle other people's money. It sounds like fallacious thinking to me.
Wow, apparently, you can't read. He denied all of the things that you are accusing him of...
Great, you think we should punish people based on how much damage you think they can do (which is legally bogus, btw)? Ok, so if it were 1620 and somebody thought I was a witch and burned me at the stake, then you think they would be justified? Punishing people based on fear and ignorance makes sense to you? Why don't we just dial the clock back to the middle ages? It never ceases to amaze me that people like you still exist... Apparently you and the young Mitnick have something in common; you don't think about consequences. For him it was the consequences of his actions and for you it is the consequences of your ideas.
I thought it was obvious this was XSS from the beginning, that's why it is old news...