Right on. But I don't think science and medicine have been 'inadvertant' about lengthening our lives. That's more or less the goal of medicine...and laws about seatbealts.
Cloning is not a relaxed moral standing. It is a new thing we, as a society, are trying to find a standing on. Time travel back 200 years and ask the Vatican for an opinion on cloning, they wouldn't have one since they wouldn't know what it is.
Your assumption that we would implement euthanasia on unhealthy clones needs explanation. Why would we euthanaise unhealthy clone babies and not unhealthy 'normal' babies? When you say killing of old people, do you mean the doctor walking up and saying, you're sick and then killing the person or legalizing doctor assisted suicide? One appeals to our sense of mercy over our sense of preserve life at all (human) costs. The appeals to some superiority complex. Same goes for the uncurable diseases arguement. Frankly, if my body is wracked with pain and I will die, I would like the option of saying, "it's been a good life, I'm done." We give dying dogs the dignity of a quiet death with minimal pain once they go lame, we should give people that option as well.
Excuse that last stump. Anyway, please answer the following questions:
1) How is cloning (which Italy said was bad) truly a relaxation of our moral views? What traditional moral view has changed?
2) Why will we use euthanasia on unhealthy clone babies when we don't for unhealthy natural babies?
3) Are we killing old people or helping old people kill themselves? If the later, why is this bad?
4) How do you justify the logic of if(cloning) society = Hitler.
5) Isn't the real "cleansing" issue going to be genetic engineering out of 'bad' traits or persecution based on DNA (ala Gataca)?
6) How did such slippery slope logic get modded as Insightful?
Cheaper does always win, if you're getting the same goods. Sure, my pc is cheaper than an IBM mainframe but if I need mainframe oomph, I go to IBM. So, if the extras are worth the money the box can be a bit more expensive.
Also, Sun is talking about selling x86 boxen for linux. So the hardware is not going to cost Sun particularly more than it would cost someone else.
They are totally admitting that Linux is chewing up their low end. That's why they've decided to get serious about Sun Linux which is a fairly standard linux distro with Sun interop built seriously. They take their big Sun wide initives, for instance N1 and port them into a linux distro. Then they push Sun Linux boxen (probably x86) to cover the datacenter fringe. They can sell these at a bit of a premium because they will work so nicely with the big Sun hardware deep in the datacenter. Sun protects is lower flank with it's own Linux distro while continueing to attack IBM with Solaris and Sparc at the high end.
Furthermore, I think your assumption that MS will bring Win2K up to Solaris quality at the very high end is probably optimistic. Sun has breathed big server OSes for years, MS has failed miserably with datacenter approaches. They might pull it off, but this is an issue Sun has a long time to deal with. The other question is what box are you going to put MS on in the datacenter? Itanium? That's flopped so far, but it will be interesting to see if it improves.
While Sun may be outmarketted by MS, they have an odd ally. IBM is also a Java fan and does have the budget to go head to head with Wintel. While their R&D budget might be relatively small, they can focus on building a scaleable kick butt architecture while Intel has to try and build big servers and compete with AMD in the $600 computer market. With the Alpha engineers Sun swiped from a disarrayed HP-paq, they should be able to make it interesting.
I don't think they are really playing too much of catch up on the mindshare front either. I would imagine if you counted the number of Java developers and the number or.Net developers, java would be ahead by leaps and bounds. Meanwhile, MS has recognized that it is hated by recent graduates who are flocking in droves to Java. Server-side Java and J2EE has an install base which makes.Net look like a weak late comer. The MS marketting machine kicks ass, so Sun has a run for it's money, but again it's got allies like IBM, BEA and Oracle. Many of these companies compete with eachother fiercely (IBM has got to be in Sun's top 3 competitors) but can align to try and create a bigger non-Wintel pie. Then they'll fight tooth and nail for pieces of that pie.
Yeah, Sun is in a tough spot, but historically that's when it has done its best work. I've become a big sun fan of late, and am really interested to see where they will go. The company needs to reinvent itself somewhat (mostly to kick butt in software and storage) but it has done that often enough before. It should be fun. Sun's an aggressive enough company that it won't go down without a fight, so again, it'll be fun to watch.
Proprietary unix may or may not be dying, but unix as a whole is alive and well. Linux is unix. It's rise is not most important because it's killing unixes but because it is enlarging the total unix pie. Unix server companies like IBM and Sun are setting up to smash Wintel ones. Linux on the fringe (or the mainframe if you're ibm) is a key tool to beating MS out of the datacenter and from there out of the workgroup.
Anyway, I just wanted to point out the humor of the karma system when you're hanging out at 50. You write something and it gets boosted to 5. Then someone knocks it down to 4. Total effect? Your karma goes from 50 to 49 for something moderated from 2 to 4. Good thinking team:)
A series of short shots of a number of people saying, "I believe in Unix." While this could include big companies which buy unix hardware, the add should also have these people: Jobs, McNeally, new guy at IBM, Linus. It'd be fun.
Here's the problem with that. Sun's marketting budget is nothing compared to that of MS. They can do a few adds but IBM has the big bucks to do an add war.
Not at my university. For most engineers, they labs they use are Win2K or even Mac. Freshmen CS majors may get stuck with a class that has recitation in one of these labs, but after that, it's all Unix all the time. The lab has a variety of Solaris, BSD and Linux machines, although it is getting to the point where a fesh infusion would be great.
You're right that they Oscar awards sometimes go to people who have put in a string of very good performances rather than a single outstanding one. However, I'm not nearly as angry about it as you are. People who do consistant great work deserve to be recognized and if they are nominated as perhaps doing the best job in a given year, taking the past into consideration isn't evil. For instance, I agree with you about Neuman's song; I heard it and thought "isn't this the song from toy story?" However, if you get nominated 16 times, there's some injustice in not ever being able to take home a little gold statue.
That would be up the organization:) Seriously though, you get the developers in a room and break up what needs to be done into tasks that take roughly a half day or a day as you guess. That's a chunk. Basically you guess at how long something should take an average developer and use that as your benchmark. In cases where things went wrong, you'd need a way to split up chunks.
In place of (# of Programs written) you need some sort of standard chuck size. It would be unfair to compare the "productivity" of someone who had to write tic-tac-toe to someone who had to write Microsoft Word all by themselves. There should be an attempt to break the programs into small tasks of approxiametly equal sizes. Also, I would put much more emphasis on hours worked, vs code spat out. Really small code is not always easier to maintain, no matter what it does for the programmer's ego. I'd put forward something like:
In other words, how much work you do minus the work your problems cause other people per amount of time spent is productivity. There is also some QualityMetric factor which should be between 0 and 1 to represent the maintainability of your code. This would include things like comments, code style, and proper compactness.
This would address the case presented in the article since the Chunk(s) the creative developer were assigned got completed, likely with fewer problems created and with a high maintainability score. It also addresses the case where a developer "completes" one thing, but causes 5 days of work for other people. Instead of saying he's less productive (the 833 lines thing) it says he has negative productivity which may be more accurate.
DEC had at least competitive hardware, you're right. Maybe better. But my point was DEC was no a case where Sun developed superior hardware and was beat.
2x the performance can be worth 10x or more the price in some circumstances. If that performance gain means a 5% productivity gain for an engineer that costs your company 100K a year, $3400 starts to sound cheap. If it improves the framerate in your video games, it's damn expensive. It's all about what gain you're going to get out of the 2x performance gain.
Sun couldn't beat Digital? I'm confused, I thought digital was getting beat, got bought out and their new parent company killed them. Intel has just started to enter the server market it a serious way, so your suggestion that Sun has already lost to them seems unfounded at best. Microsoft has a tiny share of the high end server market which Sun prefers, so I think the jury is still out on that as well. Is your whole arguement based on the fact that Sun isn't dominating the home computer market?
The article basically said there was 340 MB of various types of RAM onboard the graphics unit. Judging from that, the XVR is for high end graphics work which is why everyone is saying this is a challenge to SGI. The SunBlade 2000 is signicantly cheaper and is more of a normal engineer's workstation. So no, not a whole lot of ppl will get the 35K one. But those that do are probably in the habit of spending big chunks of change on graphics workstations.
I'm not convinced this is a problem.
on
Google Juice
·
· Score: 2
Let me get this straight. A large number of people who run webpages that some people read for some reason, all link to a source because they think its good. Then google assumes it's good. Isn't this more or less how things are supposed to work? If my and a bunch of my friends think Joe's webpage is a good place to find out about a talentless hack, great. Ok, Google is getting manipulated a bit, but I still don't think we have a serious problem.
Recently I heard an interview with one of the main guys at Disney who has been with Tron. He described it as being similar to the early "Bill Gates story." Bear with me. The MCP is the classic big iron central computer of the time. It was controlling and monolithic, like say.. IBM. It locks up programs and does mean things to users. In comes a rogue force which strikes back at the monolith. By going inside (like MS getting IBM's contract) it finds the weakness of the monolith and destroys it. This brings happiness to the programs and the users. While I don't think they really intended it to be the "Bill Gates story" (how could they at the time) the themes that made MS successful early on resonate soundly. Tron is a entertaining when you watch it with that perspective.
No, Sun's arguement about Java in XP is that Java used to be distributed by Netscape. Netscape was illegaly killed by MS. This protected MS's monopoly against Java. In order to redress this, MS should have to carry Java. I haven't read Sun's docs, but I imagine it goes down something like that.
I don't think Sun is shooting for money. More likely they want to hurt MS. They are in a mindshare war between Java and.Net . If.Net prevails, we're talking very bad things. If.Net totally dies.. well Mr. Gates says he bet the company on it. The stakes are much much higher than Sun trying to collect some cash by piling on an extra lawsuit. They want to prevent MS from taking advantage of the gains they earned illegally. If MS hurt Netscape illegaly (and by association Java) and made major gains off that. Sun can seek to cripple those gains. We're talking IE to every App that could have been remade by a competitor as an Applet. Remember, Java over the browser had the potential to allow platform independant applications. In other words, applications which could undermine MS's big advantage (the desktop monopoly). MS killed this as a Java distribution platform when they illegally beat up Netscape. I could go own, but I think you get the point. Sun wants much, much more than a payoff.
Slashdot Mirror
yeah, good unless you're the screwed up kid or the family.
p.s. don't fear the trolls.
Your assumption that we would implement euthanasia on unhealthy clones needs explanation. Why would we euthanaise unhealthy clone babies and not unhealthy 'normal' babies? When you say killing of old people, do you mean the doctor walking up and saying, you're sick and then killing the person or legalizing doctor assisted suicide? One appeals to our sense of mercy over our sense of preserve life at all (human) costs. The appeals to some superiority complex. Same goes for the uncurable diseases arguement. Frankly, if my body is wracked with pain and I will die, I would like the option of saying, "it's been a good life, I'm done." We give dying dogs the dignity of a quiet death with minimal pain once they go lame, we should give people that option as well.
Excuse that last stump. Anyway, please answer the following questions:
1) How is cloning (which Italy said was bad) truly a relaxation of our moral views? What traditional moral view has changed?
2) Why will we use euthanasia on unhealthy clone babies when we don't for unhealthy natural babies?
3) Are we killing old people or helping old people kill themselves? If the later, why is this bad?
4) How do you justify the logic of if(cloning) society = Hitler.
5) Isn't the real "cleansing" issue going to be genetic engineering out of 'bad' traits or persecution based on DNA (ala Gataca)?
6) How did such slippery slope logic get modded as Insightful?
Also, Sun is talking about selling x86 boxen for linux. So the hardware is not going to cost Sun particularly more than it would cost someone else.
Furthermore, I think your assumption that MS will bring Win2K up to Solaris quality at the very high end is probably optimistic. Sun has breathed big server OSes for years, MS has failed miserably with datacenter approaches. They might pull it off, but this is an issue Sun has a long time to deal with. The other question is what box are you going to put MS on in the datacenter? Itanium? That's flopped so far, but it will be interesting to see if it improves.
While Sun may be outmarketted by MS, they have an odd ally. IBM is also a Java fan and does have the budget to go head to head with Wintel. While their R&D budget might be relatively small, they can focus on building a scaleable kick butt architecture while Intel has to try and build big servers and compete with AMD in the $600 computer market. With the Alpha engineers Sun swiped from a disarrayed HP-paq, they should be able to make it interesting.
I don't think they are really playing too much of catch up on the mindshare front either. I would imagine if you counted the number of Java developers and the number or
Yeah, Sun is in a tough spot, but historically that's when it has done its best work. I've become a big sun fan of late, and am really interested to see where they will go. The company needs to reinvent itself somewhat (mostly to kick butt in software and storage) but it has done that often enough before. It should be fun. Sun's an aggressive enough company that it won't go down without a fight, so again, it'll be fun to watch.
Proprietary unix may or may not be dying, but unix as a whole is alive and well. Linux is unix. It's rise is not most important because it's killing unixes but because it is enlarging the total unix pie. Unix server companies like IBM and Sun are setting up to smash Wintel ones. Linux on the fringe (or the mainframe if you're ibm) is a key tool to beating MS out of the datacenter and from there out of the workgroup.
Nicely done. I was thinking subtitles too but didn't say as much. I like your additions though.
-1 offtopic
:)
Anyway, I just wanted to point out the humor of the karma system when you're hanging out at 50. You write something and it gets boosted to 5. Then someone knocks it down to 4. Total effect? Your karma goes from 50 to 49 for something moderated from 2 to 4. Good thinking team
A series of short shots of a number of people saying, "I believe in Unix." While this could include big companies which buy unix hardware, the add should also have these people: Jobs, McNeally, new guy at IBM, Linus. It'd be fun.
Here's the problem with that. Sun's marketting budget is nothing compared to that of MS. They can do a few adds but IBM has the big bucks to do an add war.
Not at my university. For most engineers, they labs they use are Win2K or even Mac. Freshmen CS majors may get stuck with a class that has recitation in one of these labs, but after that, it's all Unix all the time. The lab has a variety of Solaris, BSD and Linux machines, although it is getting to the point where a fesh infusion would be great.
You're right that they Oscar awards sometimes go to people who have put in a string of very good performances rather than a single outstanding one. However, I'm not nearly as angry about it as you are. People who do consistant great work deserve to be recognized and if they are nominated as perhaps doing the best job in a given year, taking the past into consideration isn't evil. For instance, I agree with you about Neuman's song; I heard it and thought "isn't this the song from toy story?" However, if you get nominated 16 times, there's some injustice in not ever being able to take home a little gold statue.
That would be up the organization
(ChunksCompleted - ProblemChunksCreated) * QualityMetric / TimeSpent
In other words, how much work you do minus the work your problems cause other people per amount of time spent is productivity. There is also some QualityMetric factor which should be between 0 and 1 to represent the maintainability of your code. This would include things like comments, code style, and proper compactness.
This would address the case presented in the article since the Chunk(s) the creative developer were assigned got completed, likely with fewer problems created and with a high maintainability score. It also addresses the case where a developer "completes" one thing, but causes 5 days of work for other people. Instead of saying he's less productive (the 833 lines thing) it says he has negative productivity which may be more accurate.
DEC had at least competitive hardware, you're right. Maybe better. But my point was DEC was no a case where Sun developed superior hardware and was beat.
2x the performance can be worth 10x or more the price in some circumstances. If that performance gain means a 5% productivity gain for an engineer that costs your company 100K a year, $3400 starts to sound cheap. If it improves the framerate in your video games, it's damn expensive. It's all about what gain you're going to get out of the 2x performance gain.
His message IS a legit question. Slap him back up to 1. Stupid moderation.
Sun couldn't beat Digital? I'm confused, I thought digital was getting beat, got bought out and their new parent company killed them. Intel has just started to enter the server market it a serious way, so your suggestion that Sun has already lost to them seems unfounded at best. Microsoft has a tiny share of the high end server market which Sun prefers, so I think the jury is still out on that as well. Is your whole arguement based on the fact that Sun isn't dominating the home computer market?
The article basically said there was 340 MB of various types of RAM onboard the graphics unit. Judging from that, the XVR is for high end graphics work which is why everyone is saying this is a challenge to SGI. The SunBlade 2000 is signicantly cheaper and is more of a normal engineer's workstation. So no, not a whole lot of ppl will get the 35K one. But those that do are probably in the habit of spending big chunks of change on graphics workstations.
Let me get this straight. A large number of people who run webpages that some people read for some reason, all link to a source because they think its good. Then google assumes it's good. Isn't this more or less how things are supposed to work? If my and a bunch of my friends think Joe's webpage is a good place to find out about a talentless hack, great. Ok, Google is getting manipulated a bit, but I still don't think we have a serious problem.
Maybe the Bill Gates of today, but not the Bill of 1980.
Recently I heard an interview with one of the main guys at Disney who has been with Tron. He described it as being similar to the early "Bill Gates story." Bear with me. The MCP is the classic big iron central computer of the time. It was controlling and monolithic, like say.. IBM. It locks up programs and does mean things to users. In comes a rogue force which strikes back at the monolith. By going inside (like MS getting IBM's contract) it finds the weakness of the monolith and destroys it. This brings happiness to the programs and the users. While I don't think they really intended it to be the "Bill Gates story" (how could they at the time) the themes that made MS successful early on resonate soundly. Tron is a entertaining when you watch it with that perspective.
That's the information for Sun's previous lawsuit against Microsoft not the current one.
No, Sun's arguement about Java in XP is that Java used to be distributed by Netscape. Netscape was illegaly killed by MS. This protected MS's monopoly against Java. In order to redress this, MS should have to carry Java. I haven't read Sun's docs, but I imagine it goes down something like that.
I don't think Sun is shooting for money. More likely they want to hurt MS. They are in a mindshare war between Java and .Net . If .Net prevails, we're talking very bad things. If .Net totally dies.. well Mr. Gates says he bet the company on it. The stakes are much much higher than Sun trying to collect some cash by piling on an extra lawsuit. They want to prevent MS from taking advantage of the gains they earned illegally. If MS hurt Netscape illegaly (and by association Java) and made major gains off that. Sun can seek to cripple those gains. We're talking IE to every App that could have been remade by a competitor as an Applet. Remember, Java over the browser had the potential to allow platform independant applications. In other words, applications which could undermine MS's big advantage (the desktop monopoly). MS killed this as a Java distribution platform when they illegally beat up Netscape. I could go own, but I think you get the point. Sun wants much, much more than a payoff.