Practically speaking, I have to agree that the PS3 is pretty terrible for 'OtherOS', the GPU being relegated to a dumb framebuffer was enough to send me screaming the other direction when considering it as a HTPC-similar environmnet. While the Cell processor has some interesting characteristics, for home usage it cannot reasonably make up for the fact that the GPU isn't intended to be usable. OtherOS with GPU unlocked or Homebrew access to 'the' os might have been interesting, but as it was it was pretty useless. In principle, it was a dick move.
And it seems that Cell is just dying a slow death in general since, like always, PEOPLE DON'T PUSH THEIR OWN STUFF.
Cell isn't dying a slow death, it died a pretty quick death and the PS3 is just a zombie being the sole product with a sales lifespan demanding the Cell processor continue. It wasn't a matter of advertising, cell's interesting capabilities were marginal to begin with (good performance with difficult programming and sufficiently niche to not encourage high volume). Then CUDA/OpenCL yields most of the Cell benefits but on a part with a wider market to amortize the cost over. Cell as a solution just wasn't compelling regardless of the advertising push behind it.
You'd probably even be better off just buying a SPARC, or making a cluster of Raspberry Pi boards or something else, if it is the multicore design you are after.
Probably best off with an AMD Fusion APU based system if looking for a entertainment-system appropriate solution with servicable GPU capabilities. I'm personally waiting to see if the Trinity APUs can be 'crossfire'd with the 7750.
Also, Sony has been pretty hit and miss on quality. For example, their receivers have lots of reports of inadequate thermal design and solder failures. Generally lots of cases of Sony obviously trying to cut costs and sell on reputation, and that measure has come back to erode reputation.
So we are left with a company that is making shoddy products, has a poor security record, is pretty anti-consumer in various technologies, and charging a premium on top of all of that. Sony has to do some drastic moves to stay relevant.
There really should be a good three or so viable projects in any given space. The way some people talk it's like they really really want no choice in the matter.
Sometimes one size fits all cannot cover an entire market.
Also, specifically, OpenStack is servicable for some things, but it is far from perfect and has real limitations. For most openstack users the limitations are no big deal, but the limitations can be a dealbreaker for some scenarios. It has a lot of hype and attention behind it, moreso than any of the former leading favorites, but there is certainly room in the world for alternatives.
Of course, if you are saying VTOL is a must due to practical considerations, then at what point is it practical? A vehicle that VTOL might still be unable to lift itself out of a traffic jam because it would need more area around it clear to really get off the ground than the nearby cars would afford it.
Seemingly, though I would've thought that MS could've argued they never touched on the '~1' '~2' name collision coping in those discussions. They didn't really say anything one way or another on any of those. It seems an obvious extension of that thinking if they proceeded and ran into that, but not explicitly documented.
DHCP needs 4 consecutive packets to get through OK,
Eh? It needs 4 packets to get through, but doesn't require them all to be consecutive. Lose a dhcp request and the client will retransmit without going back to discover...
My problems with Gnome 3: -Extensions are a very awkward approach to what should be simple config changes. For example, there are two hotcorners by default, upper-left and lower-right. Rather than offering a straightforward configuration to disable it, you have to dig through extensions and find either the extension to disable upper-left, the different one to do lower-right, or the third one that disables both. This accumulates quite atrociously with all the settings. -Because of the extensions being particularly invasive and pretty much required, the 'oh no' screen is easy to hit. -In the event of an 'oh no' screen, gnome shell does not care that your apps are still running and could conceivably be used if gnome-shell would just let you restart without logout. It just says 'screw you, log out and kill all your applications'. I've tried starting metacity and it will run, but I can't get rid of the 'on-top' oh no screen. -No window title search, like has been in Compiz scale and KDE for a very long time. Very hostile to large window count scenarios. -No way to show all windows belonging to an application in activities view exclusive of other windows -The application button is sloppy-focus unfriendly
What I like about gnome 3: -Hot-plugged multi-display is handled pretty well (one of my biggest reasons to lean toward gnome away from KDE, less work when I dock my laptop). -I actually do like the new alt-tab,alt-above-tab. Having two tiers helps that be almost useful (had given up on alt-tab as unscalable without this) -Nominally having all task switching/launch elements hidden, but taking over the full screen when you want to switch or launch applications. Keeps my workspace cleaner and doesn't limit the real estate used to facilitate task switching/launching to some small corner of the screen when it is the only thing I am thinking about while that is happening.
When I see someone testing port 25 or 80, it's usually nothing more than a liveness test. Not worth the overhead of writing a program to open a socket and read and write data. perl/python is a tad more accessible, but still for a once in a blue moon use is generally more trouble than it's worth.
Basically they go into some detail about the ascii art representation, and at the end acknowledge that you need to securely get the keys to know what to expect. If you have a secure means of getting the ascii art, you have a secure means of getting the key. The only exception I can think of is if you have someone cell-phone picturing the local console, which could be helpful.
The real useful thing would be for people to do DNSSEC and SSHFP records.
There is a point where 'more democratic' can become a liability. Sure, you don't want leaders going off half-cocked without the correct information or being in tune with what their teams can realistically achieve, but I have observed the other extreme, project leadership paralyzed by indecision while trying to pursue consensus that isn't going to happen.
I've also noted that leadership on the extreme end of listening and honoring the views of the teams unfortunately frequently fails to convey the business needs for fear of seeming too pushy or not trusting of the employee judgement. An employee faced with more work than be possibly acheived by the deadline is sometimes asked to make the call themselves without knowing the relative business impact of the choices.
In short, sometimes overly democratic leaders tend to not lead at all.
1. I think tehir first hand experience told them that if it were possible, they weren't going to be the ones to do it, so they already knew the risk/reward wasn't going to pan out. 2. Which is a lower technical burden of 1, and while they didn't acheive sufficient market success, they did at least pove they have the technical chops to do a hell of a lot on their own. 3. I think the risk is underestimated here and presumes that MS will inevitably succeed in this space, despite over a decade and counting of evidence to the contrary.
This would be different if they had hedged their bets with the ability to ditch Android or MS on the more profitable path taking off, but they put everything on the MS option.
those who use the WP platform see it as a rising star
That may be true, but then again if userbase fanatacism were significant, then WebOS would've been considered an overwhelming success. It however was not despite having some of the most dedicated fans.
This is where licensing is key. In the Google case, if Google screws you, it is perfectly feasible to go it your own. You do lose critical things like the market, but many vendors are in fact growing their own (e.g. Amazon).
With MS, when you get screwed, you don't have much choice in the matter.
I am willing to believe that Google datacenter guys might be afflicted by a touch of hubris and their partners are kicked out the door as fast as they can possibly do it even before it is the prudent course of action, but as a standardized mobile OS provider, the contingency plans don't get much better than open source.
Maybe, but Yahoo's lunch was pretty thoroughly already being eaten before they started instituting changes, largely to follow the lead of the competitors they were losing out to...
Was pets.com ever a company dominating any particular field? It was an over-funded endeavor with a business plan not befitting the scale of investment and expenditure. They didn't obsolete an advantage they held, they aggressively acquired and spent money beyond any reasonable projection of potential revenue.
It depends. If there is a segment of the population that has *exactly* the mean intelligence, then most people would be average *or* below. If talking mean and no one is exactly the mean, then you are correct. If median, then 'average or below' would again comprise the majority.
When I was in school, citing encyclopedias was forbidden. If an encylopedia was used, it was only as a tool to find 'real' references.
Since I was out of school long before online sources became acceptable for citing, I have no idea how that was handled, but I wouldn't imagine Wikipedia being off limits is really different than how encyclopedias were used.
'begging the question' aside, the reason is pretty straightforward and plagues most all established institutions. An institution knows its place and its place is good given a reality they are used to. Seeing a new paradigm starting to emerge is generally something to be feared and avoid risk of accelerating it. This generally means said institution is outmanuevered by some upstart with nothing to lose while the established organization fights tooth and nail to keep the market they demonstrably know how to dominate.
Occasionally an institution adapts in time, but very very frequently they will refuse to correct course until it is too late.
I'm trying to think of the opposite example, of a company that too aggressively pushed a shift in the state of things that directly obsoleted their advantage in the market without a real threat to answer, but I can't think of one off hand.
compiler could error any time it saw a situation where the variable could be
That implies to me that at compile time you detect all the potential states. In terms of detecting at runtime, I don't see any language feature being less verbose or beter behaved than 'assert()' and 99% of the time you want something a tad more application specific than assert to detect/report/recover from such scenarios.
In the video he covers that as well. Well, at least he conceptually says its covered, I disagree...
Lets start with his abstract example. His binary search on the surface looks straightforward and he wanted to portray it as magically finding bugs as he got a float in one instance and an infinite loop in another. However the infinite loop example was found because he *knew* what he was doing as he intentionally miswrote it to start with and intentionally changed the inputs in accordance with this knowledge. There are a few more possibilities that you have to *know* to try out. For example, he didn't try a value that was lower than the lowest (would have panned out), he didn't try a value omitted from the list but still higher than the lowest and lower than the highest (which also would have been fine) and he didn't try an unordered list (which is incorrect usage, but accounting for incorrect usage is a fact of life). He didn't try varying dataset sizes (in this algorithm doesn't matter, but he has to *know* that) and different types of data. You still have the fact that 'B' is smaller than 'a' and all sorts of 'non-intuitive' things inherent in the situation.
Now consider that binary search is a freshman level programming problem and therefore is pretty low in terms of the complexity a developer is going to deal with. Much of software development will deal with far more complicated scenarios than this, and the facility doesn't *really* cover even the binary search complexity.
I know I may sound more negative than is appropriate, but his enthusiasm and some people's buy-in can be risky. I've seen poor developers suckered in by various 'silver bullets' and produce lower quality code because they think that unit test or other mechanisms passed and they can reast easy. Using these tools is good, but always should be accompanied with some wariness to avoid overconfidence.
I think the counter is that some of us would be less comfortable if SMS messages cost money and we didn't know if the message we are about to send is going to cost money or not. If SMS doesn't cost us or our conversation partner incremental money, then we wouldn't care about the iMessage benefit. If SMS does cost incremental money, we'd rather go with a strategy guaranteed not to incur nor inflict any particular incremental charge and avoid any possibility of SMS.
Given, among the population there are people getting gouged by carriers on SMS and taking no measures to manage that expense, and Apple is helping them out in mitigating the damage they are doing to themselves, but a lot of us like a bit more predictability in our expenses and elect a channel that isn't bound by archaic phone numbers and is guaranteed to be no additional charge.
Slashdot Mirror
Practically speaking, I have to agree that the PS3 is pretty terrible for 'OtherOS', the GPU being relegated to a dumb framebuffer was enough to send me screaming the other direction when considering it as a HTPC-similar environmnet. While the Cell processor has some interesting characteristics, for home usage it cannot reasonably make up for the fact that the GPU isn't intended to be usable. OtherOS with GPU unlocked or Homebrew access to 'the' os might have been interesting, but as it was it was pretty useless. In principle, it was a dick move.
And it seems that Cell is just dying a slow death in general since, like always, PEOPLE DON'T PUSH THEIR OWN STUFF.
Cell isn't dying a slow death, it died a pretty quick death and the PS3 is just a zombie being the sole product with a sales lifespan demanding the Cell processor continue. It wasn't a matter of advertising, cell's interesting capabilities were marginal to begin with (good performance with difficult programming and sufficiently niche to not encourage high volume). Then CUDA/OpenCL yields most of the Cell benefits but on a part with a wider market to amortize the cost over. Cell as a solution just wasn't compelling regardless of the advertising push behind it.
You'd probably even be better off just buying a SPARC, or making a cluster of Raspberry Pi boards or something else, if it is the multicore design you are after.
Probably best off with an AMD Fusion APU based system if looking for a entertainment-system appropriate solution with servicable GPU capabilities. I'm personally waiting to see if the Trinity APUs can be 'crossfire'd with the 7750.
Also, Sony has been pretty hit and miss on quality. For example, their receivers have lots of reports of inadequate thermal design and solder failures. Generally lots of cases of Sony obviously trying to cut costs and sell on reputation, and that measure has come back to erode reputation.
So we are left with a company that is making shoddy products, has a poor security record, is pretty anti-consumer in various technologies, and charging a premium on top of all of that. Sony has to do some drastic moves to stay relevant.
There really should be a good three or so viable projects in any given space. The way some people talk it's like they really really want no choice in the matter.
Sometimes one size fits all cannot cover an entire market.
Also, specifically, OpenStack is servicable for some things, but it is far from perfect and has real limitations. For most openstack users the limitations are no big deal, but the limitations can be a dealbreaker for some scenarios. It has a lot of hype and attention behind it, moreso than any of the former leading favorites, but there is certainly room in the world for alternatives.
IT looks like it is at least STOL....
Of course, if you are saying VTOL is a must due to practical considerations, then at what point is it practical? A vehicle that VTOL might still be unable to lift itself out of a traffic jam because it would need more area around it clear to really get off the ground than the nearby cars would afford it.
Actually, there's an interesting question. How long before the first car chase where one of these guys flips on his takeoff mode....
Seemingly, though I would've thought that MS could've argued they never touched on the '~1' '~2' name collision coping in those discussions. They didn't really say anything one way or another on any of those. It seems an obvious extension of that thinking if they proceeded and ran into that, but not explicitly documented.
DHCP needs 4 consecutive packets to get through OK,
Eh? It needs 4 packets to get through, but doesn't require them all to be consecutive. Lose a dhcp request and the client will retransmit without going back to discover...
But that doesn't rid me of the 'oh no screen', but a logout and login does...
My problems with Gnome 3:
-Extensions are a very awkward approach to what should be simple config changes. For example, there are two hotcorners by default, upper-left and lower-right. Rather than offering a straightforward configuration to disable it, you have to dig through extensions and find either the extension to disable upper-left, the different one to do lower-right, or the third one that disables both. This accumulates quite atrociously with all the settings.
-Because of the extensions being particularly invasive and pretty much required, the 'oh no' screen is easy to hit.
-In the event of an 'oh no' screen, gnome shell does not care that your apps are still running and could conceivably be used if gnome-shell would just let you restart without logout. It just says 'screw you, log out and kill all your applications'. I've tried starting metacity and it will run, but I can't get rid of the 'on-top' oh no screen.
-No window title search, like has been in Compiz scale and KDE for a very long time. Very hostile to large window count scenarios.
-No way to show all windows belonging to an application in activities view exclusive of other windows
-The application button is sloppy-focus unfriendly
What I like about gnome 3:
-Hot-plugged multi-display is handled pretty well (one of my biggest reasons to lean toward gnome away from KDE, less work when I dock my laptop).
-I actually do like the new alt-tab,alt-above-tab. Having two tiers helps that be almost useful (had given up on alt-tab as unscalable without this)
-Nominally having all task switching/launch elements hidden, but taking over the full screen when you want to switch or launch applications. Keeps my workspace cleaner and doesn't limit the real estate used to facilitate task switching/launching to some small corner of the screen when it is the only thing I am thinking about while that is happening.
When I see someone testing port 25 or 80, it's usually nothing more than a liveness test. Not worth the overhead of writing a program to open a socket and read and write data. perl/python is a tad more accessible, but still for a once in a blue moon use is generally more trouble than it's worth.
Basically they go into some detail about the ascii art representation, and at the end acknowledge that you need to securely get the keys to know what to expect. If you have a secure means of getting the ascii art, you have a secure means of getting the key. The only exception I can think of is if you have someone cell-phone picturing the local console, which could be helpful.
The real useful thing would be for people to do DNSSEC and SSHFP records.
Not all of the LM9600, only the 84 inch.
There is a point where 'more democratic' can become a liability. Sure, you don't want leaders going off half-cocked without the correct information or being in tune with what their teams can realistically achieve, but I have observed the other extreme, project leadership paralyzed by indecision while trying to pursue consensus that isn't going to happen.
I've also noted that leadership on the extreme end of listening and honoring the views of the teams unfortunately frequently fails to convey the business needs for fear of seeming too pushy or not trusting of the employee judgement. An employee faced with more work than be possibly acheived by the deadline is sometimes asked to make the call themselves without knowing the relative business impact of the choices.
In short, sometimes overly democratic leaders tend to not lead at all.
1. I think tehir first hand experience told them that if it were possible, they weren't going to be the ones to do it, so they already knew the risk/reward wasn't going to pan out.
2. Which is a lower technical burden of 1, and while they didn't acheive sufficient market success, they did at least pove they have the technical chops to do a hell of a lot on their own.
3. I think the risk is underestimated here and presumes that MS will inevitably succeed in this space, despite over a decade and counting of evidence to the contrary.
This would be different if they had hedged their bets with the ability to ditch Android or MS on the more profitable path taking off, but they put everything on the MS option.
those who use the WP platform see it as a rising star
That may be true, but then again if userbase fanatacism were significant, then WebOS would've been considered an overwhelming success. It however was not despite having some of the most dedicated fans.
This is where licensing is key. In the Google case, if Google screws you, it is perfectly feasible to go it your own. You do lose critical things like the market, but many vendors are in fact growing their own (e.g. Amazon).
With MS, when you get screwed, you don't have much choice in the matter.
I am willing to believe that Google datacenter guys might be afflicted by a touch of hubris and their partners are kicked out the door as fast as they can possibly do it even before it is the prudent course of action, but as a standardized mobile OS provider, the contingency plans don't get much better than open source.
Maybe, but Yahoo's lunch was pretty thoroughly already being eaten before they started instituting changes, largely to follow the lead of the competitors they were losing out to...
Was pets.com ever a company dominating any particular field? It was an over-funded endeavor with a business plan not befitting the scale of investment and expenditure. They didn't obsolete an advantage they held, they aggressively acquired and spent money beyond any reasonable projection of potential revenue.
It depends. If there is a segment of the population that has *exactly* the mean intelligence, then most people would be average *or* below. If talking mean and no one is exactly the mean, then you are correct. If median, then 'average or below' would again comprise the majority.
When I was in school, citing encyclopedias was forbidden. If an encylopedia was used, it was only as a tool to find 'real' references.
Since I was out of school long before online sources became acceptable for citing, I have no idea how that was handled, but I wouldn't imagine Wikipedia being off limits is really different than how encyclopedias were used.
'begging the question' aside, the reason is pretty straightforward and plagues most all established institutions. An institution knows its place and its place is good given a reality they are used to. Seeing a new paradigm starting to emerge is generally something to be feared and avoid risk of accelerating it. This generally means said institution is outmanuevered by some upstart with nothing to lose while the established organization fights tooth and nail to keep the market they demonstrably know how to dominate.
Occasionally an institution adapts in time, but very very frequently they will refuse to correct course until it is too late.
I'm trying to think of the opposite example, of a company that too aggressively pushed a shift in the state of things that directly obsoleted their advantage in the market without a real threat to answer, but I can't think of one off hand.
Not if it is digital
I was thinking more C/C++ where failed assert statements generally mean pretty fatal behavior.
From the parent poster:
compiler could error any time it saw a situation where the variable could be
That implies to me that at compile time you detect all the potential states. In terms of detecting at runtime, I don't see any language feature being less verbose or beter behaved than 'assert()' and 99% of the time you want something a tad more application specific than assert to detect/report/recover from such scenarios.
In the video he covers that as well. Well, at least he conceptually says its covered, I disagree...
Lets start with his abstract example. His binary search on the surface looks straightforward and he wanted to portray it as magically finding bugs as he got a float in one instance and an infinite loop in another. However the infinite loop example was found because he *knew* what he was doing as he intentionally miswrote it to start with and intentionally changed the inputs in accordance with this knowledge. There are a few more possibilities that you have to *know* to try out. For example, he didn't try a value that was lower than the lowest (would have panned out), he didn't try a value omitted from the list but still higher than the lowest and lower than the highest (which also would have been fine) and he didn't try an unordered list (which is incorrect usage, but accounting for incorrect usage is a fact of life). He didn't try varying dataset sizes (in this algorithm doesn't matter, but he has to *know* that) and different types of data. You still have the fact that 'B' is smaller than 'a' and all sorts of 'non-intuitive' things inherent in the situation.
Now consider that binary search is a freshman level programming problem and therefore is pretty low in terms of the complexity a developer is going to deal with. Much of software development will deal with far more complicated scenarios than this, and the facility doesn't *really* cover even the binary search complexity.
I know I may sound more negative than is appropriate, but his enthusiasm and some people's buy-in can be risky. I've seen poor developers suckered in by various 'silver bullets' and produce lower quality code because they think that unit test or other mechanisms passed and they can reast easy. Using these tools is good, but always should be accompanied with some wariness to avoid overconfidence.
I think the counter is that some of us would be less comfortable if SMS messages cost money and we didn't know if the message we are about to send is going to cost money or not. If SMS doesn't cost us or our conversation partner incremental money, then we wouldn't care about the iMessage benefit. If SMS does cost incremental money, we'd rather go with a strategy guaranteed not to incur nor inflict any particular incremental charge and avoid any possibility of SMS.
Given, among the population there are people getting gouged by carriers on SMS and taking no measures to manage that expense, and Apple is helping them out in mitigating the damage they are doing to themselves, but a lot of us like a bit more predictability in our expenses and elect a channel that isn't bound by archaic phone numbers and is guaranteed to be no additional charge.