I think most of the people commenting here have no experience on the leadership side of a large, complex software project (from either side of the table, consultant or customer). Let alone, what's involved in an RFP or vendor/consultant selection process (again, from either side).
A project like this will stress the capabilities of even the most competent management and execution teams, and are simply beyond the capabilities of any one person (yes, even the armchair experts posting here).
Technology is rarely the issue (these problems get solved). Things like the internal politics and culture are among the real problems - they are hard to manage, and are always unique in each organization.
To boil this down to "SAP Sucks" or "Consultants Suck" is ridiculous and unhelpful.
MES = Manufacturing Execution Systems. MES systems connect ERP systems (such as SAP) to Plant Floor Control Systems (typically implemented using PLC or DCS systems, and a wide array of configurable off-the-shelf software applications.)
SematicIT, specifically, is a sequence and logic engine that is typically installed across several servers. You use the SematicIT logic to join systems that don't know/understand each other. I can buy a Blender from Manufacturer A, and connect it to a Weigh-Scale from Manufacturer B, and use SematicIT to make them work together (say, transfer setpoints and collect/store report data and then send that information up to SAP to update my inventory and WIP).
The ECU is just an embedded system. Siemens has experience with embedded systems because of the other components they manufacture (such as the PLCs that do actual plant floor control) as well as numberous consumer products.
As many people know, Microsoft has been moving towards embedded systems for years. This is just another step. Automotive companies have used racing as a way to develop and imporve technology for years -- it's good and interesting to see software companies trying the same thing.
I know this may seem crazy, but I am going to actually discuss the contents of the article . So far, only about 3 posts have been on topic. A new low.
The court is being asked to interpret "obviousness" as it applies to COMBINATIONS of EXISTING DEVICES/TECHNOLOGIES (Specifically, off the shelf products).
So, 10 years ago, people started selling TVs with Built in VCRs. Both underlying products (TVs and VCRs) are effectively public domain (in concept, some implementation details may not be -- not that it matters for this case), but by assembling them into one package have I created a new and patentable invention?
I personally feel the answer is NO. I think most Slashdot readers would agree. The Software companies are on the GOOD side of this one. Software, perhaps more than any other industry, is all about adding and combining existing tech.
The Drug Companies are against this sort of thing because it reduces their ability to maintain patents. They like being able to patent new methods of delivery existing drugs, for example.
To me, a patent should protect an underlying technology that was difficult to develop/invent. Combining two things, even if combining them ISN'T obvious, doesn't (IMHO) warrant protection because there was no technological risk, no R&D, etc...
I don't think they wired article's point is that the candidates are at fault. The candidates are simply gaming the system.
Media companies have shifted towards news-entertainment and in doing so have moved away from Journalistic integrity and their very important role (or duty) in an open society.
This shift, combined with media consolidation, affects what we see, and thus what (and how) we think.
Media companies know that if they play ball, they get interviews, if they get interviews then they get ratings and make money. In the case of a neutral media company, the result is bland coverage with zero scrutiny. In the case of a biased media company, the result is just that: bias. An informercial rather than real news and real critique.
The game is broken.
Politcal parties and media companies are self-interest groups. They lobby the public for votes and money. The problem is the people. If people refused to watch news-entertainment, then media companies would be forced to produce real news. If real news existed, and the public paid attention to it, then real issues would be debated -- not fluff.
The problem is, you need to build a better voter. You do that through the education system and it takes a generation.
My grade 7 teacher told me that it is critical for a person to learn to be a "careful consumer of information"
It took a long time, but I now see how right he was.
If you change COM/DCOM you affect almost everything that runs in Windows. Changing DCOM and tightening up the port control/firewall has the potential to affect every application that uses networking (i.e., everything internet related)
Sophisticated users will be able to deal with the reconfiguration/security issues, but the average user (grandma) won't.
MS used to leave the OS "fully enabled" as a default, which would cause the fewest application problems but left the system vulnerable. Now they are starting to move the other way. You have to choose because you can't have both: Fully secured but more admin intensive, or unsecured and vulnerable.
DARPA and the military aren't interested in rebuilding the internet, they are interested in rebuilding IP.
They want to rebuild IP because they have a need for a better system. They need secure, reliable, ad hoc networking so that battle groups can communicate with each other.
These are private WANs. Not the Internet! The Military is not going to send real time battlefield data across the public internet, and real time battlefield data is what this thing is all about. The military launches and rents satellites for that sort of thing, they don't send it across uunet.
When they create a WAN, they have to have some mechanism to talk. Right now it might be IP, but in the future they want it to be something else. Something better for THEM.
The US Military couldn't care less if the rest of the world, or the internet itself, started to use whatever they come up with.
As far as those attacking technical limitations, when they started working on the original internet I'm sure everyone was saying, "Fault tolerant distributed networking with dynamic routing? That's impossible, why are they bothering" The point of DARPA is to do science and advance the field beyond current knowledge.
They may succeed, and they may fail. But they shouldn't just not try.
He's saying 2/3rds of the NON-SUITE software would be rendered incompatible with the Unix/Linux based solution because of the OPERATING SYSTEM shift.
If my company tried to switch to Linux tomorrow, our business would stop working because of driver issues, custom software, and third-party software that would no longer run.
I'm sorry if reality is getting in the way of your stupidity.
Thermal Conductivity of Glass: 0.8 W/m K Thermal Conductivity of Copper: 385 W/m K
I'd like to know on what grounds you consider glass to be an "excellent" conductor of heat.
Also, while I'm flaming, he said there is a VERY HIGH correlation not a PERFECT correlation. He is correct. Heat Conductors tend to be Electrical Conductors because the conduction mechanics are similar.
Slashdot Mirror
I think most of the people commenting here have no experience on the leadership side of a large, complex software project (from either side of the table, consultant or customer). Let alone, what's involved in an RFP or vendor/consultant selection process (again, from either side).
A project like this will stress the capabilities of even the most competent management and execution teams, and are simply beyond the capabilities of any one person (yes, even the armchair experts posting here).
Technology is rarely the issue (these problems get solved). Things like the internal politics and culture are among the real problems - they are hard to manage, and are always unique in each organization.
To boil this down to "SAP Sucks" or "Consultants Suck" is ridiculous and unhelpful.
In the interest of accuracy, this is not MES.
MES = Manufacturing Execution Systems. MES systems connect ERP systems (such as SAP) to Plant Floor Control Systems (typically implemented using PLC or DCS systems, and a wide array of configurable off-the-shelf software applications.)
SematicIT, specifically, is a sequence and logic engine that is typically installed across several servers. You use the SematicIT logic to join systems that don't know/understand each other. I can buy a Blender from Manufacturer A, and connect it to a Weigh-Scale from Manufacturer B, and use SematicIT to make them work together (say, transfer setpoints and collect/store report data and then send that information up to SAP to update my inventory and WIP).
The ECU is just an embedded system. Siemens has experience with embedded systems because of the other components they manufacture (such as the PLCs that do actual plant floor control) as well as numberous consumer products.
As many people know, Microsoft has been moving towards embedded systems for years. This is just another step. Automotive companies have used racing as a way to develop and imporve technology for years -- it's good and interesting to see software companies trying the same thing.
I know this may seem crazy, but I am going to actually discuss the contents of the article . So far, only about 3 posts have been on topic. A new low.
The court is being asked to interpret "obviousness" as it applies to COMBINATIONS of EXISTING DEVICES/TECHNOLOGIES (Specifically, off the shelf products).
So, 10 years ago, people started selling TVs with Built in VCRs. Both underlying products (TVs and VCRs) are effectively public domain (in concept, some implementation details may not be -- not that it matters for this case), but by assembling them into one package have I created a new and patentable invention?
I personally feel the answer is NO. I think most Slashdot readers would agree. The Software companies are on the GOOD side of this one. Software, perhaps more than any other industry, is all about adding and combining existing tech.
The Drug Companies are against this sort of thing because it reduces their ability to maintain patents. They like being able to patent new methods of delivery existing drugs, for example.
To me, a patent should protect an underlying technology that was difficult to develop/invent. Combining two things, even if combining them ISN'T obvious, doesn't (IMHO) warrant protection because there was no technological risk, no R&D, etc...
Media companies have shifted towards news-entertainment and in doing so have moved away from Journalistic integrity and their very important role (or duty) in an open society.
This shift, combined with media consolidation, affects what we see, and thus what (and how) we think.
Media companies know that if they play ball, they get interviews, if they get interviews then they get ratings and make money. In the case of a neutral media company, the result is bland coverage with zero scrutiny. In the case of a biased media company, the result is just that: bias. An informercial rather than real news and real critique.
The game is broken.
Politcal parties and media companies are self-interest groups. They lobby the public for votes and money. The problem is the people. If people refused to watch news-entertainment, then media companies would be forced to produce real news. If real news existed, and the public paid attention to it, then real issues would be debated -- not fluff.
The problem is, you need to build a better voter. You do that through the education system and it takes a generation.
My grade 7 teacher told me that it is critical for a person to learn to be a "careful consumer of information"
It took a long time, but I now see how right he was.
Err,
If you change COM/DCOM you affect almost everything that runs in Windows. Changing DCOM and tightening up the port control/firewall has the potential to affect every application that uses networking (i.e., everything internet related)
Sophisticated users will be able to deal with the reconfiguration/security issues, but the average user (grandma) won't.
MS used to leave the OS "fully enabled" as a default, which would cause the fewest application problems but left the system vulnerable. Now they are starting to move the other way. You have to choose because you can't have both: Fully secured but more admin intensive, or unsecured and vulnerable.
DARPA and the military aren't interested in rebuilding the internet, they are interested in rebuilding IP.
They want to rebuild IP because they have a need for a better system. They need secure, reliable, ad hoc networking so that battle groups can communicate with each other.
These are private WANs. Not the Internet! The Military is not going to send real time battlefield data across the public internet, and real time battlefield data is what this thing is all about. The military launches and rents satellites for that sort of thing, they don't send it across uunet.
When they create a WAN, they have to have some mechanism to talk. Right now it might be IP, but in the future they want it to be something else. Something better for THEM.
The US Military couldn't care less if the rest of the world, or the internet itself, started to use whatever they come up with.
As far as those attacking technical limitations, when they started working on the original internet I'm sure everyone was saying, "Fault tolerant distributed networking with dynamic routing? That's impossible, why are they bothering" The point of DARPA is to do science and advance the field beyond current knowledge.
They may succeed, and they may fail. But they shouldn't just not try.
OMG you're an idiot.
He's saying 2/3rds of the NON-SUITE software would be rendered incompatible with the Unix/Linux based solution because of the OPERATING SYSTEM shift.
If my company tried to switch to Linux tomorrow, our business would stop working because of driver issues, custom software, and third-party software that would no longer run.
I'm sorry if reality is getting in the way of your stupidity.
Duh:
Thermal Conductivity of Glass: 0.8 W/m K
Thermal Conductivity of Copper: 385 W/m K
I'd like to know on what grounds you consider glass to be an "excellent" conductor of heat.
Also, while I'm flaming, he said there is a VERY HIGH correlation not a PERFECT correlation. He is correct. Heat Conductors tend to be Electrical Conductors because the conduction mechanics are similar.
How can someone sell a laptop, specifically one for gamers, and not provide any details on the screen? No size, no resoloution, nothing.