Everything I have learned, as the sands of time have rolled on and on, I still put to good use today, and I make a pretty good living using them. Nothing has gone to waste.
Yeah, it's a snap finding those jobs supporting UUCP on Irix. Well, as long as they're COFF binaries and I can telnet or rsh into the box, it's not too bad. I just look at the K&R source with pcat.
This is one of the few times where I wish there was a bury option for stories, if not outright delete. The summary is the exact opposite of what is said in the story,is reported by everyone else, and even of what can be inferred through looking at Tesla's financials.
Fortunately, the crack team of Slashdot editors vets every submission before putting it on the front page.
Everyone will have some criticisms, that's only expected, but no-one who has worked on the device wants to see a criticism with a brush so broad that it covers their contribution or component
Dear people who worked on this device:
Your contributions were meaningless. Your device is already forgotten. You wasted your time.
The opinions expressed in this post are the official view of Nokia.
Did someone just take freshman economics and want to dazzle us with his new vocabulary? Because, while technically correct, "basis points" is only commonly encountered when discussing finance. "Percentage points" fits in that sentence just fine.
And it's "basis points" not "basis point". Hat's off to Soulskill for the usual high quality editing.
Most posts so far insist that certs are useless, well I would only say that you can lie about your professional experience (I have found this while interviewing people) but you can't lie about your certifications.
However, certifications themselves are often a lie. Google for "(cert name) dumps" and you'll find the exact questions and answers for 90%+ of the major certs.
The reason that some certs are respected (CCIE, OCM) is that they have a live hands-on practicum. For lots and lots of other certs (MS certs, Cisco certs, Oracle certs, etc.), you can memorize the answer to 100 questions and go in and take the test with zero knowledge of the underlying knowledge.
When I'm looking for work, the #1 thing that generates the most calls about my resume (by a long shot) is the one product certification I have, which is (and all of this is indicated plainly on my resume) something like six major versions behind on the software I was certified in, was 11 years ago, and I've never done a complete installation of the product.
I was with a group of middle-aged friends two weeks ago and someone mentioned that a particularly type of power adapter might be available at Radio Shack.
The subsequent conversation determined that
none of use had any idea where a Radio Shack might be located
50% of us were very certain that Radio Shack was long out of business
the rest were not entirely sure if Radio Shack was still in business
none of us could remember the last time we shopped at a Radio Shack, but "sometime in the Reagan era" was a typical guess
I don't disagree with this part. But analyzing logic for chessgames is really new btw. And it isn't they way programs like rybka and fritz win at the moment. It just isn't. I hope someday it will be, but at this point in time it just isn't.
Yes, that is exactly how rybka and fritz win. They have an opening book that gets them to a certain point, and beyond that, all moves are dynamically decided upon in-game.
You fundamentally do not understand computer chess. I recommend you stop posting about it and go read, then come back when you understand that information.
It's not about boo hoo. It's about the fact that every chessgame in the world that can beat me (and there are heaps of them) use databases. The program doesn't know how to play chess. It only knows the number of wins and losses after a position and move on the board.
Just like humans. What do you think GMs spend the vast majority of their time on? Opening preparation and endgames,which are simply putting databases in their head. Computers can just remember a lot more.
If you think pointing such a fact out is the same as crying about it, then what the hell are you doing on slashdot?
Your "fact" is not a fact. Computers do use databases, but that's hardly the only reason they win. The chess possible moves tree is too large for every eventuality. They also use search algorithms and scoring algorithms to determine best moves. Computers are excellent at remembering past play and also at looking a dozen plys ahead to find tactical traps. Indeed, computers generally find tactical traps that humans miss and that's why players use them to analyze games.
If you don't believe me, turn off the opening book on a strong chess program on strong hardware and play at tournament time controls. You'll find it still plays a very good game. It just thinks faster. Now you can argue that the "brains" is the guy who programmed the scoring algorithm, but the computer's the one seeing the moves.
They tried that. It almost worked. Almost. The computer won, but not all games.
Deep blue was 14 years ago, playing against the best player in the world and one of the best of all-time. And he knew he was playing a computer and specifically prepared for it. This is 14 years later, playing tournament chess in France. You'll see IMs and some GMs, not a prepared Kasparov.
Your typical International Master or average Grandmaster is not in Kasparov's league and your typical modern chess program (e.g., Rybka) played on strong hardware (e.g., quad core), can beat them. Heck, I would expect Fritz or Shredder on a typical PC to beat most GMs.
The first computer-program that actual can really play chess still has to be invented.
Perhaps that's true in the sense that computers don't really "think" or "understand" and the approach chess much differently than humans. However, computer programs that can routinely beat grandmasters can be run on your laptop.
Tightrope walking, juggling chainsaws, and making love 12 times in a day are also incredibly difficult physically, but just like synchronized swimming, they shouldn't be considered sports.
While the Itanium did not become the be-all, end-all for computers Intel hoped (they wanted to go to it because their cross licensing is for x86, not IA-64) it has not been a failure. People like to joke about it and rag on it but all it means is they've done little to no research. It is a competitive chip in the super high end market. When you need massive DB servers or the like, it is a real option and one that people use.
The only people running "massive DB servers" on Itanium are people who had HP-UX shops before PA-RISC went away and migrated to Itanium. I don't think I've ever met anyone who went out and bought HP-UX + Itanium and introduced it into their shop.
Itanium is a fine processor - but it solves all the wrong problems. It's fantastic for scientific compute apps - 64 64-bit registers, woo-hoo! - but it's not really a competitive solution for mainstream business use.
At any rate I wouldn't listen to anything Oracle says, particularly about competitors. They are not known for their truthfulness, or for their sense of fair play.
I don't think anyone has made better moves over the years that Oracle, in terms of understanding where the market is going and snapping up or eliminating competitors. They're brutal competitors and are not stupid.
Intel is strongly denying Oracle's claims that Itanium is near end-of-life. So it looks like more Oracle FUD, and probably intended to harm HP-UX rather than Intel.
That's a really silly analysis. Oracle could not care less about HP-UX because they don't compete in the proprietary Unix market. No one does. Yes, Oracle owns Solaris, but Ellison's smart enough to know that proprietary Unices only exist to sell the servers attached to them. There's no money in selling proprietary Unix operating systems by themselves.
Now that PA-RISC is gone, the only thing HP-UX runs on it Itanium. Already, you can't run any Microsoft or Red Hat on Itanium. And those are just companies that previously supported it - tons of companies simply never did. With Oracle out of the picture, Itanium is effectively dead. Yes, you can continue to run your in-house and specialty apps on it, but Oracle has a huuuuge presence in enterprise software, way beyond just databases.
I expect other remaining vendors to jump in - they have no love for supporting a operating system with a low market share.
HP is stuck and will either port HP-UX to x86 or migrate customers to Linux on x86.
Intel is obligated to continue developing Itanium, or HP sues them. Itanium isn't going anywhere, and Oracle is spreading FUD.
I'm highly skeptical of your argument. Are you saying that HP holds an iron-clad contract saying that Intel must develop Itanium for as long as HP wants?
Slashdot Mirror
Everything I have learned, as the sands of time have rolled on and on, I still put to good use today, and I make a pretty good living using them. Nothing has gone to waste.
Yeah, it's a snap finding those jobs supporting UUCP on Irix. Well, as long as they're COFF binaries and I can telnet or rsh into the box, it's not too bad. I just look at the K&R source with pcat.
Shouldn't the heading read Paul-Frank? Or is Barney just that much more fun to say?
That's some quality editing there, timothy.
Also, hope we free the thousands of prisoners.
It was a crime at the time...
This is one of the few times where I wish there was a bury option for stories, if not outright delete. The summary is the exact opposite of what is said in the story,is reported by everyone else, and even of what can be inferred through looking at Tesla's financials.
Fortunately, the crack team of Slashdot editors vets every submission before putting it on the front page.
Everyone will have some criticisms, that's only expected, but no-one who has worked on the device wants to see a criticism with a brush so broad that it covers their contribution or component
Dear people who worked on this device:
Your contributions were meaningless. Your device is already forgotten. You wasted your time.
The opinions expressed in this post are the official view of Nokia.
I surely can't be the only one praying that they do drop .NET?
Yes, you are. .NET is one of Microsoft's better ideas.
Or perhaps you're a VB6 man...?
This is dupe from last week. Just for Joel to get some visitors to his ad ridden .info site...
The number of ad revenue kickback relationships on Slashdot is surprising. Or not.
Seriously, half of the stories that get posted on /. now are from trolls,
...and the other half are Packt book reviews.
...why not keep both and develop a kind of common hardware reference platform...
You're equating IT with computer science.
Hypothetically, wouldn't things such as artificial intelligence be worth of a Nobel?
Some days the machines will award it to us, for Most Improved Human.
Indeed, other disciplines have found ways round this problem.
It's not a problem.
Actually, considering some of the people who've won the Peace Prize, winning a Nobel is tantamount to an insult.
Did someone just take freshman economics and want to dazzle us with his new vocabulary? Because, while technically correct, "basis points" is only commonly encountered when discussing finance. "Percentage points" fits in that sentence just fine.
And it's "basis points" not "basis point". Hat's off to Soulskill for the usual high quality editing.
Most posts so far insist that certs are useless, well I would only say that you can lie about your professional experience (I have found this while interviewing people) but you can't lie about your certifications.
However, certifications themselves are often a lie. Google for "(cert name) dumps" and you'll find the exact questions and answers for 90%+ of the major certs.
The reason that some certs are respected (CCIE, OCM) is that they have a live hands-on practicum. For lots and lots of other certs (MS certs, Cisco certs, Oracle certs, etc.), you can memorize the answer to 100 questions and go in and take the test with zero knowledge of the underlying knowledge.
When I'm looking for work, the #1 thing that generates the most calls about my resume (by a long shot) is the one product certification I have, which is (and all of this is indicated plainly on my resume) something like six major versions behind on the software I was certified in, was 11 years ago, and I've never done a complete installation of the product.
And this mystery product is...?
I was with a group of middle-aged friends two weeks ago and someone mentioned that a particularly type of power adapter might be available at Radio Shack.
The subsequent conversation determined that
Talk about anemic marketing.
Thats how you know he is an engineer.
...even though he's really a consultant.
I don't disagree with this part. But analyzing logic for chessgames is really new btw. And it isn't they way programs like rybka and fritz win at the moment. It just isn't. I hope someday it will be, but at this point in time it just isn't.
Yes, that is exactly how rybka and fritz win. They have an opening book that gets them to a certain point, and beyond that, all moves are dynamically decided upon in-game.
You fundamentally do not understand computer chess. I recommend you stop posting about it and go read, then come back when you understand that information.
It's not about boo hoo. It's about the fact that every chessgame in the world that can beat me (and there are heaps of them) use databases. The program doesn't know how to play chess. It only knows the number of wins and losses after a position and move on the board.
Just like humans. What do you think GMs spend the vast majority of their time on? Opening preparation and endgames,which are simply putting databases in their head. Computers can just remember a lot more.
If you think pointing such a fact out is the same as crying about it, then what the hell are you doing on slashdot?
Your "fact" is not a fact. Computers do use databases, but that's hardly the only reason they win. The chess possible moves tree is too large for every eventuality. They also use search algorithms and scoring algorithms to determine best moves. Computers are excellent at remembering past play and also at looking a dozen plys ahead to find tactical traps. Indeed, computers generally find tactical traps that humans miss and that's why players use them to analyze games.
If you don't believe me, turn off the opening book on a strong chess program on strong hardware and play at tournament time controls. You'll find it still plays a very good game. It just thinks faster. Now you can argue that the "brains" is the guy who programmed the scoring algorithm, but the computer's the one seeing the moves.
They tried that. It almost worked. Almost. The computer won, but not all games.
Deep blue was 14 years ago, playing against the best player in the world and one of the best of all-time. And he knew he was playing a computer and specifically prepared for it. This is 14 years later, playing tournament chess in France. You'll see IMs and some GMs, not a prepared Kasparov.
Your typical International Master or average Grandmaster is not in Kasparov's league and your typical modern chess program (e.g., Rybka) played on strong hardware (e.g., quad core), can beat them. Heck, I would expect Fritz or Shredder on a typical PC to beat most GMs.
The first computer-program that actual can really play chess still has to be invented.
Perhaps that's true in the sense that computers don't really "think" or "understand" and the approach chess much differently than humans. However, computer programs that can routinely beat grandmasters can be run on your laptop.
I for one throught football was much more interesting in the days of the Oakland Raiders.
You're aware they're still around, right?
Tightrope walking, juggling chainsaws, and making love 12 times in a day are also incredibly difficult physically, but just like synchronized swimming, they shouldn't be considered sports.
While the Itanium did not become the be-all, end-all for computers Intel hoped (they wanted to go to it because their cross licensing is for x86, not IA-64) it has not been a failure. People like to joke about it and rag on it but all it means is they've done little to no research. It is a competitive chip in the super high end market. When you need massive DB servers or the like, it is a real option and one that people use.
The only people running "massive DB servers" on Itanium are people who had HP-UX shops before PA-RISC went away and migrated to Itanium. I don't think I've ever met anyone who went out and bought HP-UX + Itanium and introduced it into their shop.
Itanium is a fine processor - but it solves all the wrong problems. It's fantastic for scientific compute apps - 64 64-bit registers, woo-hoo! - but it's not really a competitive solution for mainstream business use.
At any rate I wouldn't listen to anything Oracle says, particularly about competitors. They are not known for their truthfulness, or for their sense of fair play.
I don't think anyone has made better moves over the years that Oracle, in terms of understanding where the market is going and snapping up or eliminating competitors. They're brutal competitors and are not stupid.
Unless of course they're telling the truth.
Intel is strongly denying Oracle's claims that Itanium is near end-of-life. So it looks like more Oracle FUD, and probably intended to harm HP-UX rather than Intel.
That's a really silly analysis. Oracle could not care less about HP-UX because they don't compete in the proprietary Unix market. No one does. Yes, Oracle owns Solaris, but Ellison's smart enough to know that proprietary Unices only exist to sell the servers attached to them. There's no money in selling proprietary Unix operating systems by themselves.
Now that PA-RISC is gone, the only thing HP-UX runs on it Itanium. Already, you can't run any Microsoft or Red Hat on Itanium. And those are just companies that previously supported it - tons of companies simply never did. With Oracle out of the picture, Itanium is effectively dead. Yes, you can continue to run your in-house and specialty apps on it, but Oracle has a huuuuge presence in enterprise software, way beyond just databases.
I expect other remaining vendors to jump in - they have no love for supporting a operating system with a low market share.
HP is stuck and will either port HP-UX to x86 or migrate customers to Linux on x86.
Intel is obligated to continue developing Itanium, or HP sues them. Itanium isn't going anywhere, and Oracle is spreading FUD.
I'm highly skeptical of your argument. Are you saying that HP holds an iron-clad contract saying that Intel must develop Itanium for as long as HP wants?
CmdrTaco has delusions of journalism? Trying to muscle in on CNN's territory? Given up on news for nerds?