Steel girders are to a skyscraper as IT is to a large company. That is, IT is an absolutely must if a company is going to scale. There is absolutely no way around that. If your IT is insufficient or poorly constructed, your entire enterprise is on shaky ground.
You can't scale without it. It contains all of your business logic or "rules that your business runs on" and enforces them. It houses all your important data. It is a critical component.
Of course, outside of large companies, there is the angle you take on it, which is that IT is for a competitive advantage. In some industries, there are more advantages than others, and different degrees to which those advantages can be leveraged.
For example, financial institutions, who Id probably say have the best understanding of how much IT is worth, would be where I would look for an overall value of IT.
However, I do agree that companies are cutting back. I think there has been some overspending in IT where it really wasn't all that necessary. It goes back to internal controls and peer review. If you're putting in a new system, in-house, it is better to have two teams to compete for the best solution. Having your in-house guys do it by themselves ends up getting a lot of extra goodies thrown in. (And I'm not just talking about the Palm Pilots or UNIX workstations. But 4gb of RAM, when 2gb will do, for example. Or 600gb of disk when 200gb will serve the initial system size and a year's growth.)
I figured that if my skills start to go downhill, instead of becoming a project manager at an IT firm, I'd just become a home builder. More or less the same thing, but wood can be easier to mold than coders at times.
But this is really really old news. I'm surprised that anyone would still be motivated to go after something like this. (Well, except for a law firm that would get the cut.) The money certainly is a bit of a punishment for AT&T. But what, are we actually going to see money from this? This really wasn't worth going after, for the average guy.
BTW: I really am considering getting a rotary with a big-ass ringer back in the house. Those were the bomb. And it'll keep the kiddies away from the phone -- they won't know how to use it!
If you are not sure and think a teacher might be an ass, that IS enough justification to switch around your schedule IMMEDIATELY. Don't wait. Don't think you might be wrong. If you get bad vibes about a teacher, redo your schedule THAT DAY. You'll thank yourself later.
Try not to spend to much time with a certain segment of the female population which is looking for the MRS degree. (They typically will have an Education or a touchy-feely kind of major, like hotel and restaraunt management.) But they're looking for a degree in MRS, and will be quick to abandon their major!
> If you have nanotech, you should be able to rebuild > the body to any degree you like, atom by atom.
It'll have to be an awfully small nanoprobe to fit between cells in a dense part of the body, and to repair them. And something that small isn't going to be able to perform cellular repairs on a cellular scale with any speed. And to have the intelligence to know what kind of cell it is working on, how it should connect to the cells around it, and how to repair this specific type of scale.
Yes. Nanotechnology can be used to do it. Much like engineering can be used to build a 100 mile tall skyscraper. But that doesn't mean it realistically can or is going to happen.
(I know you're on my side, but I wanted to jump in there.)
I know you're being funny, but maybe there IS a parallel to what you are saying. My personal belief (which is NOT scientific) is that there is a "key" that links your consciousness with your body (meat puppet).
Normally, the correspondance is very tight. However, it can be weakened (identical twins with a common lock on some pieces), or it can be insecure (a more generic lock with some pins missing in the tumbler), causing a multiple personality disorder.
Of course, if someone things this is hokey, then putting faith in the religion of technology is at least equally as suspect.
Your username indicates a clear bias. However, I will continue with a reply, regardless.
> Why would you think it impossible? It definitely > is impossible today. And probably will be > impossible 20 years from now.... What about > 1000 years? 2000 years? Liquid nitrogen > essentially stops rot for at least 10000 years, > and that limit is only die to radiation, which > can be worked around....
You're betting on too many things. And you also seem to assume that as the length of time increases, the chances of you being revived also increases. I would put say, in fact, it is quite the opposite. Not for reasons of medical technology, but for other reasons.
You're assuming the Earth will be around for another 1k+ years. Many people aren't so positive about the next 100 years. You assume that ALL the kinks have been worked out (destroyed cells throughout the body, the ability to "jumpstart" a brain that is dead, etc). This I have my greatest doubts about. You assume that the company that is preserving your flesh will remain in business and be able to maintain the state of your head for 1000 years (super unlikely).
A smaller risk would be that your head/body is not chosen as a test/development candidate but was instead unthawed and revived as a production process. And also that they've decided to bring back everyone who died hundreds of years ago. And that they're able to do it without brain damage or a quality of live reduction.
You are making bets left and right. It seems to be that while you can expect (hope) the level of technology to increase and increase over hundreds of years until it reaches the sweet spot, all the other factors regarding your survivability are going to become less and less likely.
Further, all the electro-chemical reactions have stopped 100%. Has anyone revived a brain that was 100% "brain dead" as seen on a EEG? Nope.
> Wrong. Happens EVERY day on surgical operating > tables all over the world.
Give a single case as evidence. If this has happened, it is extremely major news. EEG measure electrical activity in the brain. Do not confuse it with an EKG, which can indeed flatline and be recovered. There is no documented case that I am aware of where a brain (via EKG) flatlined and was later brought back. If you STILL claim this to be true, then why not give us the procedure necessary to revive a brain that is devoid of electrical activity?
> I can learn whatever I need, given time, and > if I wake up in the future, I will have a lot > of time....
Not to mention the fact that you're many more times likely to die in a technological society you don't understand. But I doubt "waking up in the future" and being able to "learn whatever I need". Your entire paradigm on how the world operates will be completely invalidated. I'll go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt that your mind has somehow been rejuvinated.
> Freezing does not randomize information, like > cremation does.
Sure, you can name something worse than being frozen. Simple enough, but that doesn't make the problem of undoing the effects of catastrophic, system wide cell desctruction any easer.
>> And then you're going to die anyways. > Sez you....
So, you believe that the brain is electro-chemically based, and are willing to bet on the odds of it being brought back to life as "you". Yet you seem to think you will live forever without dying. Notice a contradiction?
I really am surprised that so many tech people buy into this. (The only one that I actually know of was an easy 1st round candidate for layoffs. He was smart but had no work ethic.)
Is their judgement clouded by rosy glasses? Do they but into specific aspects and ignore others? What is it that would make a logical person thing this is an answer?
You're betting that your consciousness is totally phyiscally based. All a special combination of molecules with electrical and chemical reactions. Nothing more.
You're also betting that, with a little repair and a jump-start, your consciousness would continue from the moment it left off. YOU would still be YOU. (I wonder how important the ONGOING electro-chemical reaction is to consciousness.)
That is what you're betting on, after all, when you bet on cryogenics. Further, if you believe that the chemical and electrical is all there is to a person, then there isn't much point in bringing you back. Because you will finally be dead not too long after, and you don't matter anymore because you cease to exist.
So, if you believe that you will cease to exist, but that it is important to have a long as life as possible, then cryogenics is for you.
That seems to be the opposite of Pascal's Wager, isn't it? You're betting $100k+ that you will cease to exist.
Personally, I'm a fan of the meat-puppet theory. These bodies exist, and the brain has a purpose in interfacing with this physical world, but *I* exist elsewhere.
I think the greatest obstacle is the damage done by freezing. I don't care what their advocates say. If you destroy ever single cell in your body (when the water expands and solidifies, cracking all your cells), there is a MASSIVE amount of repair to do. "We can rebuild him", indeed, Mr. Austin. Can you think of the technology required to create nanodevices which have the *specialied* ability to repair the unique characteristics of every different type of body cell?
And then there is the problem that actually killed you that you need to have repaired. And that not all freezing techniques are not done in whatever "special way" which will be discovered later for something like this to even be attempted.
Further, all the electro-chemical reactions have stopped 100%. Has anyone revived a brain that was 100% "brain dead" as seen on a EEG? Nope. Oh. Looks like someone will have to discover what makes that "spark of life" in the brain. And that whatever they end up producing is still YOU.
And frankly, if they could bring back frozen people, then they'd be just as likely (if not more likely) to reanimate people who have been dead for a few hours.
And you'd hope that society will continue to evolve technically and medically. And that their deep freeze. And the company doesn't go out of business. And that the legal system doesn't reclassify them as medical parts which can be used for other purposes since they are dead (cyborg, transplants, research, whatever). And that people decide that those 90's and 00's guys were really cool enough to bring back en mass. (Yeah, right.)
And even then, you're buying a number of years in a world that you are completely inept to understand and for all practical purposes will be worthless after the novelty wears off in a year (assuming they are able to revive you in a way that doesn't leave you brain damaged or in a poor quality of life). And then you're going to die anyways.
It just isn't worth it. If they paid me $100k, then I might be tempted to let all the people around me in my life go through the inconvenience of my being frozen (are my assets tied up, or distributed as normal?). Oh, and what a legacy I would leave behind. "Yeah, he was that nutball who had his head frozen. Hahaha."
> InkSaver uses advanced algorithms, optimizing > printer data so that less ink is laid down on > the page.
Yeah. That's why it is called InkSaver. It saves ink. Duh. Now HOW does it work?
PS: I have no relation, direct or indirect to that company. It caught my eye only because it came up in my research as a piece of software designed to meter ink. If there are some good competitors (open source included, of course), I'd love to have options!
I have ATT DSL "small business" service, and I use it to work at a remote location. My employer is a Big Media Company that helps write legislation like the DMCA, etc.
So you're part of the problem, eh? Let me guess. "If not me, then someone else!"
But it is called "Cox Internet" and it is $34.95, or $44.95 if you rent the modem. Of course I'm biased. But I'd rather have a lower tier where I can pay less for a slower connection (than what they have been offering). I might even pay that much for a faster one... if it was MUCH faster. 38kbytes up sucks.
You've got me scratching my head. Right now, I work from home 90% of the time in my position as a senior UNIX (Solaris) administrator. I can hardly think of a viable scenario where I could do project level work for various companies.
From a UNIX admin perspective, it takes time to ramp up to the particular ways that various places do business. The policies and procedures and all of that. As well, there doesn't seem to be any mechanism in place for landing sysadmin projects like that. (Well, with the exception of working for a contracting company.)
Maybe I am limited myself by just looking at what I do best, which is systems administration, and not my broader set of skills. But I just don't see how I can freelance, not to mention to it and gain a benefit over what I already have going...?
If you want to see a video with the Virtual Chanbara (sword fighting) in action, to to this SIGGRAPH Emerging Technologies page. Actually, a coworker of mine is a committee member. Lucky bastard.
Click on the video stream towards the top of the page for audio visual enjoyment (which includes the virtual sword fighting and much more). I *so* wish I was there.
A very Quick Summary of the Virtual Chanbara is also available. Trust me. The video does a much better job.
Actually, it was a HUP on the inet daemon, and it was a kernel panic that quickly followed.
It was bugid #4178455 "recursive mutex_enbter panic in TCP Streams device driver" which was found by the kernel engineer when I sent the core dump and explorer script output. This problem was fixed with patch number 105529-07.
Hell, I'm on your side. If someone can get into the printer business and not rape us with the massively inflated ink costs, I'd vote for them with my cash. (But is that what Dell is trying to do, or what?)
But Dell loses its status as a partner or direct distributor. (Which affects things such as support and back-line engineering contacts, and sweet-deal contracts.) Chances are HP isn't losing much of anything (if at all) by selling to another distributor.
Well, it had to start somewhere, somehow. If it takes off, like we hope that it should, the original way it started won't be important. Would you be turned off against secretary's day if you found out that a secratary was the one who originally asked for it?
You're only giving a long-term leg-up to your competition by allowing them to smoothly and easily transition to their own product line by continuing to sell them yours. You're giving up a short-term gain for a bit of long-term hurt. Exactly what I would have done.
This whole 'coopetition' thing is just like Microsoft tries to get competitors to do. "Let us use your product and embrace it until we're ready to demolish it."
Slashdot Mirror
Steel girders are to a skyscraper as IT is to a large company. That is, IT is an absolutely must if a company is going to scale. There is absolutely no way around that. If your IT is insufficient or poorly constructed, your entire enterprise is on shaky ground.
You can't scale without it. It contains all of your business logic or "rules that your business runs on" and enforces them. It houses all your important data. It is a critical component.
Of course, outside of large companies, there is the angle you take on it, which is that IT is for a competitive advantage. In some industries, there are more advantages than others, and different degrees to which those advantages can be leveraged.
For example, financial institutions, who Id probably say have the best understanding of how much IT is worth, would be where I would look for an overall value of IT.
However, I do agree that companies are cutting back. I think there has been some overspending in IT where it really wasn't all that necessary. It goes back to internal controls and peer review. If you're putting in a new system, in-house, it is better to have two teams to compete for the best solution. Having your in-house guys do it by themselves ends up getting a lot of extra goodies thrown in. (And I'm not just talking about the Palm Pilots or UNIX workstations. But 4gb of RAM, when 2gb will do, for example. Or 600gb of disk when 200gb will serve the initial system size and a year's growth.)
I figured that if my skills start to go downhill, instead of becoming a project manager at an IT firm, I'd just become a home builder. More or less the same thing, but wood can be easier to mold than coders at times.
But this is really really old news. I'm surprised that anyone would still be motivated to go after something like this. (Well, except for a law firm that would get the cut.) The money certainly is a bit of a punishment for AT&T. But what, are we actually going to see money from this? This really wasn't worth going after, for the average guy.
BTW: I really am considering getting a rotary with a big-ass ringer back in the house. Those were the bomb. And it'll keep the kiddies away from the phone -- they won't know how to use it!
> For example, could you bounce an electromagnetic
> signal describing the discovery off a celestial
> body several light-years away?
Based on the example presented, I think we can guess that the secret doesn't have anything to do with long distance signal transmissions!
If you are not sure and think a teacher might be an ass, that IS enough justification to switch around your schedule IMMEDIATELY. Don't wait. Don't think you might be wrong. If you get bad vibes about a teacher, redo your schedule THAT DAY. You'll thank yourself later.
Try not to spend to much time with a certain segment of the female population which is looking for the MRS degree. (They typically will have an Education or a touchy-feely kind of major, like hotel and restaraunt management.) But they're looking for a degree in MRS, and will be quick to abandon their major!
I saw that one. I thought it was one of the more lame moments I've seen. Sometimes Alton's humor goes bad. :(
I can't wait for the QA session. I want to ask him why he hasn't been on Iron Chef yet, and if he thinks he has a good chance against those guys?
PS: I am glad that Alton does not teach us how to cook hot-dogs with an electrical plug and two forks.
> If you have nanotech, you should be able to rebuild
> the body to any degree you like, atom by atom.
It'll have to be an awfully small nanoprobe to fit between cells in a dense part of the body, and to repair them. And something that small isn't going to be able to perform cellular repairs on a cellular scale with any speed. And to have the intelligence to know what kind of cell it is working on, how it should connect to the cells around it, and how to repair this specific type of scale.
Yes. Nanotechnology can be used to do it. Much like engineering can be used to build a 100 mile tall skyscraper. But that doesn't mean it realistically can or is going to happen.
(I know you're on my side, but I wanted to jump in there.)
I know you're being funny, but maybe there IS a parallel to what you are saying. My personal belief (which is NOT scientific) is that there is a "key" that links your consciousness with your body (meat puppet).
Normally, the correspondance is very tight. However, it can be weakened (identical twins with a common lock on some pieces), or it can be insecure (a more generic lock with some pins missing in the tumbler), causing a multiple personality disorder.
Of course, if someone things this is hokey, then putting faith in the religion of technology is at least equally as suspect.
Your username indicates a clear bias. However, I will continue with a reply, regardless.
... What about
> Why would you think it impossible? It definitely
> is impossible today. And probably will be
> impossible 20 years from now.
> 1000 years? 2000 years? Liquid nitrogen
> essentially stops rot for at least 10000 years,
> and that limit is only die to radiation, which
> can be worked around....
You're betting on too many things. And you also seem to assume that as the length of time increases, the chances of you being revived also increases. I would put say, in fact, it is quite the opposite. Not for reasons of medical technology, but for other reasons.
You're assuming the Earth will be around for another 1k+ years. Many people aren't so positive about the next 100 years. You assume that ALL the kinks have been worked out (destroyed cells throughout the body, the ability to "jumpstart" a brain that is dead, etc). This I have my greatest doubts about. You assume that the company that is preserving your flesh will remain in business and be able to maintain the state of your head for 1000 years (super unlikely).
A smaller risk would be that your head/body is not chosen as a test/development candidate but was instead unthawed and revived as a production process. And also that they've decided to bring back everyone who died hundreds of years ago. And that they're able to do it without brain damage or a quality of live reduction.
You are making bets left and right. It seems to be that while you can expect (hope) the level of technology to increase and increase over hundreds of years until it reaches the sweet spot, all the other factors regarding your survivability are going to become less and less likely.
Further, all the electro-chemical reactions have stopped 100%. Has anyone revived a brain that was 100% "brain dead" as seen on a EEG? Nope.
> Wrong. Happens EVERY day on surgical operating
> tables all over the world.
Give a single case as evidence. If this has happened, it is extremely major news. EEG measure electrical activity in the brain. Do not confuse it with an EKG, which can indeed flatline and be recovered. There is no documented case that I am aware of where a brain (via EKG) flatlined and was later brought back. If you STILL claim this to be true, then why not give us the procedure necessary to revive a brain that is devoid of electrical activity?
> I can learn whatever I need, given time, and
> if I wake up in the future, I will have a lot
> of time....
Not to mention the fact that you're many more times likely to die in a technological society you don't understand. But I doubt "waking up in the future" and being able to "learn whatever I need". Your entire paradigm on how the world operates will be completely invalidated. I'll go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt that your mind has somehow been rejuvinated.
> Freezing does not randomize information, like
> cremation does.
Sure, you can name something worse than being frozen. Simple enough, but that doesn't make the problem of undoing the effects of catastrophic, system wide cell desctruction any easer.
>> And then you're going to die anyways.
> Sez you....
So, you believe that the brain is electro-chemically based, and are willing to bet on the odds of it being brought back to life as "you". Yet you seem to think you will live forever without dying. Notice a contradiction?
I really am surprised that so many tech people buy into this. (The only one that I actually know of was an easy 1st round candidate for layoffs. He was smart but had no work ethic.)
Is their judgement clouded by rosy glasses? Do they but into specific aspects and ignore others? What is it that would make a logical person thing this is an answer?
You're betting that your consciousness is totally phyiscally based. All a special combination of molecules with electrical and chemical reactions. Nothing more.
You're also betting that, with a little repair and a jump-start, your consciousness would continue from the moment it left off. YOU would still be YOU. (I wonder how important the ONGOING electro-chemical reaction is to consciousness.)
That is what you're betting on, after all, when you bet on cryogenics. Further, if you believe that the chemical and electrical is all there is to a person, then there isn't much point in bringing you back. Because you will finally be dead not too long after, and you don't matter anymore because you cease to exist.
So, if you believe that you will cease to exist, but that it is important to have a long as life as possible, then cryogenics is for you.
That seems to be the opposite of Pascal's Wager, isn't it? You're betting $100k+ that you will cease to exist.
Personally, I'm a fan of the meat-puppet theory. These bodies exist, and the brain has a purpose in interfacing with this physical world, but *I* exist elsewhere.
I think the greatest obstacle is the damage done by freezing. I don't care what their advocates say. If you destroy ever single cell in your body (when the water expands and solidifies, cracking all your cells), there is a MASSIVE amount of repair to do. "We can rebuild him", indeed, Mr. Austin. Can you think of the technology required to create nanodevices which have the *specialied* ability to repair the unique characteristics of every different type of body cell?
And then there is the problem that actually killed you that you need to have repaired. And that not all freezing techniques are not done in whatever "special way" which will be discovered later for something like this to even be attempted.
Further, all the electro-chemical reactions have stopped 100%. Has anyone revived a brain that was 100% "brain dead" as seen on a EEG? Nope. Oh. Looks like someone will have to discover what makes that "spark of life" in the brain. And that whatever they end up producing is still YOU.
And frankly, if they could bring back frozen people, then they'd be just as likely (if not more likely) to reanimate people who have been dead for a few hours.
And you'd hope that society will continue to evolve technically and medically. And that their deep freeze. And the company doesn't go out of business. And that the legal system doesn't reclassify them as medical parts which can be used for other purposes since they are dead (cyborg, transplants, research, whatever). And that people decide that those 90's and 00's guys were really cool enough to bring back en mass. (Yeah, right.)
And even then, you're buying a number of years in a world that you are completely inept to understand and for all practical purposes will be worthless after the novelty wears off in a year (assuming they are able to revive you in a way that doesn't leave you brain damaged or in a poor quality of life). And then you're going to die anyways.
It just isn't worth it. If they paid me $100k, then I might be tempted to let all the people around me in my life go through the inconvenience of my being frozen (are my assets tied up, or distributed as normal?). Oh, and what a legacy I would leave behind. "Yeah, he was that nutball who had his head frozen. Hahaha."
I'm sorry. It just doesn't work for me.
PS: The original question was --
Is ink reducing software like inkSaver as good as they claim?
I hate would-be FAQ mongers in Ask Slashdot, when there isn't a FAQ at all.
> InkSaver uses advanced algorithms, optimizing
> printer data so that less ink is laid down on
> the page.
Yeah. That's why it is called InkSaver. It saves ink. Duh. Now HOW does it work?
PS: I have no relation, direct or indirect to that company. It caught my eye only because it came up in my research as a piece of software designed to meter ink. If there are some good competitors (open source included, of course), I'd love to have options!
You didn't just admit to being a moderator, did you? ;)
I have ATT DSL "small business" service, and I use it to work at a remote location. My employer is a Big Media Company that helps write legislation like the DMCA, etc.
So you're part of the problem, eh?
Let me guess. "If not me, then someone else!"
But it is called "Cox Internet" and it is $34.95, or $44.95 if you rent the modem. Of course I'm biased. But I'd rather have a lower tier where I can pay less for a slower connection (than what they have been offering). I might even pay that much for a faster one... if it was MUCH faster. 38kbytes up sucks.
You've got me scratching my head. Right now, I work from home 90% of the time in my position as a senior UNIX (Solaris) administrator. I can hardly think of a viable scenario where I could do project level work for various companies.
From a UNIX admin perspective, it takes time to ramp up to the particular ways that various places do business. The policies and procedures and all of that. As well, there doesn't seem to be any mechanism in place for landing sysadmin projects like that. (Well, with the exception of working for a contracting company.)
Maybe I am limited myself by just looking at what I do best, which is systems administration, and not my broader set of skills. But I just don't see how I can freelance, not to mention to it and gain a benefit over what I already have going...?
If you want to see a video with the Virtual Chanbara (sword fighting) in action, to to this SIGGRAPH Emerging Technologies page. Actually, a coworker of mine is a committee member. Lucky bastard.
Click on the video stream towards the top of the page for audio visual enjoyment (which includes the virtual sword fighting and much more). I *so* wish I was there.
A very Quick Summary of the Virtual Chanbara is also available. Trust me. The video does a much better job.
Actually, it was a HUP on the inet daemon, and it was a kernel panic that quickly followed.
It was bugid #4178455 "recursive mutex_enbter panic in TCP Streams device driver" which was found by the kernel engineer when I sent the core dump and explorer script output. This problem was fixed with patch number 105529-07.
Hell, I'm on your side. If someone can get into the printer business and not rape us with the massively inflated ink costs, I'd vote for them with my cash. (But is that what Dell is trying to do, or what?)
But Dell loses its status as a partner or direct distributor. (Which affects things such as support and back-line engineering contacts, and sweet-deal contracts.) Chances are HP isn't losing much of anything (if at all) by selling to another distributor.
Well, it had to start somewhere, somehow. If it takes off, like we hope that it should, the original way it started won't be important. Would you be turned off against secretary's day if you found out that a secratary was the one who originally asked for it?
Head of a company does not mean you get to have servants around you....it's not royalty!
Must have been a small company? Once you have 1,000 employees, you are royalty. At least, so it would seem.
You're only giving a long-term leg-up to your competition by allowing them to smoothly and easily transition to their own product line by continuing to sell them yours. You're giving up a short-term gain for a bit of long-term hurt. Exactly what I would have done.
This whole 'coopetition' thing is just like Microsoft tries to get competitors to do. "Let us use your product and embrace it until we're ready to demolish it."