You are thinking of a finite number of nines. I'm thinking of an infinite number of nines.
You missed the parent's point that just because two things are infinite, doesn't make them equal. Some of them approach infinity at different rates, or are clearly larger or smaller than another. Infinity's just a handy notation, it is NOT an actual specific value.
There's a whole wonderful, nasty math of infinities out there for you to do a graduate degree in mathematics on. Saddle up and ride.
What if? Ancedotal evidence leads me to believe that's the maximum possible figure. Most of my friends/co-workers are of the mind that "yeah, sometimes I want to post, but if I read the comments it's usually already been said, so whatever."
Although I finally impressed one of them with the customized slashboxes...he's also a big ars headline reader. Who want's to visit two sites when you can do it with one? Pfff.
For a while I was regularly seeing the "Welcome to Windows Terminal Server" dialog box on the Ottawa city bus electronic time schedules. They had never even unchecked the "show me on startup box". Tuned that software to the gills, I tell ya.
I agree with the sentiment, but you'd have to be a fool to think the game developers are going to listen to a pathetically tiny fraction of their audience. Particularly when Direct3D has new effects and other fuckery to show off.
Newsflash - OpenGL is extensible WITHOUT releasing a new version, and they do update fairly often.
Note that our Slashdot Lord John Carmack writes all of his engines (which many a game then proceed to license) in OpenGL. So don't tell me that OGL doesn't have new effects and fuckery.
Ahhh, thank you. I have very little faith in the guy who advanced that point to me, and it kind of sounded like bullshit. Thanks for setting me straight.
No. The telcos invested big time to keep the phone system in the 9's. I'm going out on a limb here, but I'll bet anyone who had an old-fashion, line-powered telephone still had a dial tone (and I'm not talking about one of those whiz-bang cordless phones).
Damn straight. Although to be fair my cable modem worked just fine once the power came back on. Unfortunately My roommate f'ed up his UPS so we couldn't test it during the outage.
Re:Origins of the Internet - no power, no work ?
on
Network Blackout
·
· Score: 1
Silly question: Will IPv6 make the Internet more stable? Will it allow the tier 2 providers to trade routes more easily?
I think his point is the decision is political, not technical. It doesn't matter if IPv6 makes it easier, because the Tier 1 guys don't want it to happen. But, you know, privatized telecom is good for us, ain't it?
2. Will water introduce hotter running, shorter-lived systems? This, of course, would lead to higher computer turnover and higher $$$$s for the computer makers.
No, it will just introduce systems that die even quicker (as in milliseconds instead of tenths of seconds) in the even of critical cooling failure.
Systems are already running about as hot as they can to avoid the transistors breaking down.
This will allow them to introduce systems that use more power, thereby hitting your electricity bill, but all that heat is going to be channeled away from your system and into your room (thereby hitting your electricity bill in the form of a/c), because the CPUs better not be getting any hotter.
So basically, the CPU's won't be getting any hotter, but the amount of heat being ejected into your room will definitely go up.
Also Keep in mind that not ALL that power is going to be dissipated as heat. Most, but not all. Some of that power has to be moving the actual electrons around.
People who aren't hardcore about there overclock are starting to get annoyed by all that racket. I know a friend of mine who upgraded his CPU just to get a quieter fan with the upgrade.
Creative Labs is also keen on marketing 'whisper quiet' cases so people can actually hear those ridiculous SNR values they claim.
I mean: people seem blind to the fact that by moving jobs overseas, yes, they're lowering their bottom line, but they're ALSO PUTTING PEOPLE OUT OF WORK.
i.e. One job lost, one job gained. Yes, the person getting the job is making less money, but the stuff they get to buy is less overpriced. So people are still getting paid, products are still getting bought.
The problem (in your eyes) is that people here are losing jobs because someone else can offer the same service cheaper. Uhhh...free market, hello? NAFTA? World trade? Those weren't India's ideas.
This is when it's your job to INNOVATE. Free Software means you can start up your new company with very little capital, in your basement. Use all those free software tools to design a nifty little gadget, patent it, go nuts. Shoot a movie like The Blair Witch, write an album like The Strokes. Be an American. Shape up. Do something they haven't. It's unamerican to whine about other's good fortune, but you wouldn't guess it now (did everyone else miss the irony that you shat on the country that gave you the damn Statue of Liberty for exercising their free (as in libre) choice to not fight in a war they didn't believe in?).
But greed is the key, right? YOUR greed to hang onto your cushy job when someone else can do it cheaper, apparently. You made your free market, now lie in it.
How many people do you think actually do that through? Perhaps you belong to a particularly moral group of friends, and you really think to yourselves..
I go back and forth on this one. I like to think that most people actually go and buy the stuff they like, then I hear about people queuing and downloading and burning whole albums sight unseen.
What I tend to think, though, is that the people who don't buy now are the same people who didn't buy before. I think we've all always known people who only bought one cd every two years, and people who buy one every two days. I don't think things have changed that much, except the ones who don't buy them get the music anyway. And maybe go to the concert.
the parent post is claiming that somehow indian programmers are more technically apt then other races; that is NOT the case. i'm sure there are some indian programmers that are better than british or american programmers, however, inversely, there are some british/american programmers that are better than thier indian counter parts - the real root of the problem is that british/american programmers are not legally allowed to work for the wages indian programmers earn - there are minimum wage laws in our countries.
I was claiming no such thing. You're right on target, and I agree with you completely. What my POINT was, is that if all this programming is going on in India, and that's where all the jobs are moving, they all of a sudden have the leverage to unionize, demand fair wage, etc., etc. Howerver, in actuality their wages are probably actually pretty good for them, considering the lower cost of living there. But inflation will march on.
This is how developing economies develop. Just because you got there first doesn't make it fair for Anglos to keep all the good jobs for ourselves. As they get better jobs they get better educated, and their country as a whole will become better off, more interested in human rights, etc., etc. It's not going to happen overnight, but it'll never happen if you try to deny them any sort of progression.
Keep in mind how the US didn't respect UK copyrights for about a hundred years, to kickstart their economy. And we all know how that turned out....
The problem is that you're making a Boolean argument where a quantitative argument is called for. It's not enough for the occasional OSS company to make a profit. Unless OSS companies in general can (on average) create an ROI of ~10% per year, investment in selling OSS is going to dry up.
I think your misunderstanding the scope of what's going on. Software companies as in companies that make entirely orignal software WILL fade into the background where they belong, just like all pure R&D (not knocking R&D, I do it myself, but it shouldn't be frontline). Software engineering companies, as in companies that put together well known parts to make a customized solution, will be who is making money on a regular basis.
Consider when humans started building shelters. It used to be all about finding the strongest stuff to make your hut out of (i.e. materials science). Eventually materials became well understood, and civil engineers started working out the trade-offs of each material, and when it was appropriate to use each one, and the materials scientists retreated to their labs in much smaller numbers. Occasionaly they'll come up with a revolutionary product, but they're not making a steady 10% ROI.
The money's going to be the meta problem, which is why free software is not a hinderence, any more than everyone using standard sizes of wood and screws is. It's how you put the pieces together to solve a particular problem that's important for steady income, not finding radical new ideas.
And they will be undercut by some other company that doesn't have this stipulation. The problem with your theory is you believe that customers are gullible rubes and will remain so forever.
Hello? Accounting for inflation, there's now a sucker born every ten seconds. And they're being cranked out faster than the old ones can wisen up. And there's a difference being gullible and wanting something that is guaranteed to work. Every business could saves tons of money by overclocking slower processors, but they don't. Because they are gullible rubes? Nope, because they run things at spec, so they have a right to complain when it doesn't 'just work'.
Then move to India, buy cheap products, start forming unions, make the standard of living rise, make salaries and prices go up until it's on par with the G7, then move home. Contrary to what dubya tells you, you have no God-given right to make more money, buy more stuff, etc. than the rest of the world. When the WORLD'S minimum wage problem is sorted out, then you can start whining about fair.
And don't give me any of that America innovates bullshit. The lionshre of America's innovation is coming from all the foreign grad students it hasn't labeled terrorists, who then start businesses, etc.
That's my point. IBM sells Linux support, not Linux software. You have to have added value if you're going to make money off free software.
The point is RedHat is not the one adding the value (at least the hardware value). They are selling free software to IBM, pure and simple. Selling to an end-user is NOT the only kind of sale you can make, hence the post title. I remember when Cisco first started putting out end-user routers, because all the peons buying their stock had never even seen one of their products, and they wanted to get their brand out.
I don't think we disagree. My only issue is that RMS keeps saying "it's ok to charge for free software", when it's obvious that nobody is going to make any money selling the software itself. It would be better if he pointed to viable business models like IBM's.
I wasn't pointing at IBM's model. I was pointing at how IBM enabled RedHat's model of selling free software through the cachet of their brand name.
Let me clarify, then. You said that Apple should be "leading the market". I assert that leading the market, and making money aren't necessarily the same thing. The original post provided logic that said you can make money selling a brand, and your rebuttal offered an interpretation that seemed to indicate that the original post had actually said that you should be able to lead the market by selling a brand. If this tenuous length of logic holds, I actually have to agree with both of you.
Exactly. Nowhere did I say that branding would make you the market leader, just that you could make money. Which the original poster was saying you can never do. Just look at Apple's commercials. Or VW's or the Gap, for that matter.
Also, it's hard to assert Microsoft isn't selling a brand, either. With their rollerblading butterfly people, and turning the CN Tower into the world's tallest free-standing advertisement.
Take, for instance, IBM. IBM wants to make money selling rack after rack of servers. Now, they need a good OS to run on these servers, or else people won't want them. So they want Linux.
Now, people buying servers want an OS they know they can get compatible software with, etc, etc (see the whole Oracle approved distro debacle). So they have an incentive to support (i.e. give money to) a popular distro (i.e. RedHat) so RedHat doesn't go tits up and leave them searching for something else.
And that doesn't even get into bundling proprietary software with the known free software.
So, basically you can make money selling something that's available for free by selling your brand. Sure, people could buy the systems bare and install software themselves, because it's free, but then IBM can just put support terms in their contract saying stuff like 'you need to have bought x.x version from us, or we laugh in your face', because they can make more money by selling a complete package.
It's all about branding and package, dude. Step into the new millenium. Just like it doesn't matter if you're a popular artist getting jacked by your record company, if you can sell your cool/sexy/creepy old man image to Pepsi. There is nothing left to sell except your own mark of quality and authenticity. Which can't be taken away from you even if people copy you/your software.
There you have it. If DirecTV is not licensed to broadcast in Canada, what the hell are their signals doing here, in the air all around me? They're broadcasting whether or not anyone happens to be receiving it. Their signal is passing through my body right now (tree falling in the woods, tree falling in the woods, tree falling in the woods). If I have the brains to build something to demodulate it, why should I be prevented from doing so? If they don't want me to receive it, they should not be pointing it at me.
Slashdot Mirror
If 0.99999... is truly less than 1, then please name me a number that falls in between these two.
I'm not saying you're wrong - I in fact agree with you - I'm just saying your proof was a little sketchy.
You are thinking of a finite number of nines. I'm thinking of an infinite number of nines.
You missed the parent's point that just because two things are infinite, doesn't make them equal. Some of them approach infinity at different rates, or are clearly larger or smaller than another. Infinity's just a handy notation, it is NOT an actual specific value.
There's a whole wonderful, nasty math of infinities out there for you to do a graduate degree in mathematics on. Saddle up and ride.
What if? Ancedotal evidence leads me to believe that's the maximum possible figure. Most of my friends/co-workers are of the mind that "yeah, sometimes I want to post, but if I read the comments it's usually already been said, so whatever."
Although I finally impressed one of them with the customized slashboxes...he's also a big ars headline reader. Who want's to visit two sites when you can do it with one? Pfff.
No man....."Hadoken" is the fireball, and actually sounds somewhat right when he says it.
"Tat-tet-tet-oruken" is definitely what the spin kick sounds like, but is not at all what he's supposed to say.
Personally I always thought the dragon punch sounded like "Allllllll you-can".
For a while I was regularly seeing the "Welcome to Windows Terminal Server" dialog box on the Ottawa city bus electronic time schedules. They had never even unchecked the "show me on startup box". Tuned that software to the gills, I tell ya.
I agree with the sentiment, but you'd have to be a fool to think the game developers are going to listen to a pathetically tiny fraction of their audience. Particularly when Direct3D has new effects and other fuckery to show off.
Newsflash - OpenGL is extensible WITHOUT releasing a new version, and they do update fairly often.
Note that our Slashdot Lord John Carmack writes all of his engines (which many a game then proceed to license) in OpenGL. So don't tell me that OGL doesn't have new effects and fuckery.
Ahhh, thank you. I have very little faith in the guy who advanced that point to me, and it kind of sounded like bullshit. Thanks for setting me straight.
Apparently Quebec runs on 60.25 Hz, in typical freaky frenchmen fashion, so they're in a crazy isolated power zone.
No. The telcos invested big time to keep the phone system in the 9's. I'm going out on a limb here, but I'll bet anyone who had an old-fashion, line-powered telephone still had a dial tone (and I'm not talking about one of those whiz-bang cordless phones).
Damn straight. Although to be fair my cable modem worked just fine once the power came back on. Unfortunately My roommate f'ed up his UPS so we couldn't test it during the outage.
Silly question: Will IPv6 make the Internet more stable? Will it allow the tier 2 providers to trade routes more easily?
I think his point is the decision is political, not technical. It doesn't matter if IPv6 makes it easier, because the Tier 1 guys don't want it to happen. But, you know, privatized telecom is good for us, ain't it?
2. Will water introduce hotter running, shorter-lived systems? This, of course, would lead to higher computer turnover and higher $$$$s for the computer makers.
No, it will just introduce systems that die even quicker (as in milliseconds instead of tenths of seconds) in the even of critical cooling failure.
Systems are already running about as hot as they can to avoid the transistors breaking down.
This will allow them to introduce systems that use more power, thereby hitting your electricity bill, but all that heat is going to be channeled away from your system and into your room (thereby hitting your electricity bill in the form of a/c), because the CPUs better not be getting any hotter.
So basically, the CPU's won't be getting any hotter, but the amount of heat being ejected into your room will definitely go up.
Also Keep in mind that not ALL that power is going to be dissipated as heat. Most, but not all. Some of that power has to be moving the actual electrons around.
People who aren't hardcore about there overclock are starting to get annoyed by all that racket. I know a friend of mine who upgraded his CPU just to get a quieter fan with the upgrade.
Creative Labs is also keen on marketing 'whisper quiet' cases so people can actually hear those ridiculous SNR values they claim.
I mean: people seem blind to the fact that by moving jobs overseas, yes, they're lowering their bottom line, but they're ALSO PUTTING PEOPLE OUT OF WORK.
i.e. One job lost, one job gained. Yes, the person getting the job is making less money, but the stuff they get to buy is less overpriced. So people are still getting paid, products are still getting bought.
The problem (in your eyes) is that people here are losing jobs because someone else can offer the same service cheaper. Uhhh...free market, hello? NAFTA? World trade? Those weren't India's ideas.
This is when it's your job to INNOVATE. Free Software means you can start up your new company with very little capital, in your basement. Use all those free software tools to design a nifty little gadget, patent it, go nuts. Shoot a movie like The Blair Witch, write an album like The Strokes. Be an American. Shape up. Do something they haven't. It's unamerican to whine about other's good fortune, but you wouldn't guess it now (did everyone else miss the irony that you shat on the country that gave you the damn Statue of Liberty for exercising their free (as in libre) choice to not fight in a war they didn't believe in?).
But greed is the key, right?
YOUR greed to hang onto your cushy job when someone else can do it cheaper, apparently. You made your free market, now lie in it.
I'll continue to live in my Socialist Paradise where the Government employs people to write Free Software while your military foots the bill it. I love it.
How many people do you think actually do that through? Perhaps you belong to a particularly moral group of friends, and you really think to yourselves..
I go back and forth on this one. I like to think that most people actually go and buy the stuff they like, then I hear about people queuing and downloading and burning whole albums sight unseen.
What I tend to think, though, is that the people who don't buy now are the same people who didn't buy before. I think we've all always known people who only bought one cd every two years, and people who buy one every two days. I don't think things have changed that much, except the ones who don't buy them get the music anyway. And maybe go to the concert.
the parent post is claiming that somehow indian programmers are more technically apt then other races; that is NOT the case. i'm sure there are some indian programmers that are better than british or american programmers, however, inversely, there are some british/american programmers that are better than thier indian counter parts - the real root of the problem is that british/american programmers are not legally allowed to work for the wages indian programmers earn - there are minimum wage laws in our countries.
I was claiming no such thing. You're right on target, and I agree with you completely. What my POINT was, is that if all this programming is going on in India, and that's where all the jobs are moving, they all of a sudden have the leverage to unionize, demand fair wage, etc., etc. Howerver, in actuality their wages are probably actually pretty good for them, considering the lower cost of living there. But inflation will march on.
This is how developing economies develop. Just because you got there first doesn't make it fair for Anglos to keep all the good jobs for ourselves. As they get better jobs they get better educated, and their country as a whole will become better off, more interested in human rights, etc., etc. It's not going to happen overnight, but it'll never happen if you try to deny them any sort of progression.
Keep in mind how the US didn't respect UK copyrights for about a hundred years, to kickstart their economy. And we all know how that turned out....
The problem is that you're making a Boolean argument where a quantitative argument is called for. It's not enough for the occasional OSS company to make a profit. Unless OSS companies in general can (on average) create an ROI of ~10% per year, investment in selling OSS is going to dry up.
I think your misunderstanding the scope of what's going on. Software companies as in companies that make entirely orignal software WILL fade into the background where they belong, just like all pure R&D (not knocking R&D, I do it myself, but it shouldn't be frontline). Software engineering companies, as in companies that put together well known parts to make a customized solution, will be who is making money on a regular basis.
Consider when humans started building shelters. It used to be all about finding the strongest stuff to make your hut out of (i.e. materials science). Eventually materials became well understood, and civil engineers started working out the trade-offs of each material, and when it was appropriate to use each one, and the materials scientists retreated to their labs in much smaller numbers. Occasionaly they'll come up with a revolutionary product, but they're not making a steady 10% ROI.
The money's going to be the meta problem, which is why free software is not a hinderence, any more than everyone using standard sizes of wood and screws is. It's how you put the pieces together to solve a particular problem that's important for steady income, not finding radical new ideas.
And they will be undercut by some other company that doesn't have this stipulation. The problem with your theory is you believe that customers are gullible rubes and will remain so forever.
Hello? Accounting for inflation, there's now a sucker born every ten seconds. And they're being cranked out faster than the old ones can wisen up. And there's a difference being gullible and wanting something that is guaranteed to work. Every business could saves tons of money by overclocking slower processors, but they don't. Because they are gullible rubes? Nope, because they run things at spec, so they have a right to complain when it doesn't 'just work'.
Then move to India, buy cheap products, start forming unions, make the standard of living rise, make salaries and prices go up until it's on par with the G7, then move home. Contrary to what dubya tells you, you have no God-given right to make more money, buy more stuff, etc. than the rest of the world. When the WORLD'S minimum wage problem is sorted out, then you can start whining about fair.
And don't give me any of that America innovates bullshit. The lionshre of America's innovation is coming from all the foreign grad students it hasn't labeled terrorists, who then start businesses, etc.
That's my point. IBM sells Linux support, not Linux software. You have to have added value if you're going to make money off free software.
The point is RedHat is not the one adding the value (at least the hardware value). They are selling free software to IBM, pure and simple. Selling to an end-user is NOT the only kind of sale you can make, hence the post title. I remember when Cisco first started putting out end-user routers, because all the peons buying their stock had never even seen one of their products, and they wanted to get their brand out.
I don't think we disagree. My only issue is that RMS keeps saying "it's ok to charge for free software", when it's obvious that nobody is going to make any money selling the software itself. It would be better if he pointed to viable business models like IBM's.
I wasn't pointing at IBM's model. I was pointing at how IBM enabled RedHat's model of selling free software through the cachet of their brand name.
Let me clarify, then. You said that Apple should be "leading the market". I assert that leading the market, and making money aren't necessarily the same thing. The original post provided logic that said you can make money selling a brand, and your rebuttal offered an interpretation that seemed to indicate that the original post had actually said that you should be able to lead the market by selling a brand. If this tenuous length of logic holds, I actually have to agree with both of you.
Exactly. Nowhere did I say that branding would make you the market leader, just that you could make money. Which the original poster was saying you can never do. Just look at Apple's commercials. Or VW's or the Gap, for that matter.
Also, it's hard to assert Microsoft isn't selling a brand, either. With their rollerblading butterfly people, and turning the CN Tower into the world's tallest free-standing advertisement.
Take, for instance, IBM. IBM wants to make money selling rack after rack of servers. Now, they need a good OS to run on these servers, or else people won't want them. So they want Linux.
Now, people buying servers want an OS they know they can get compatible software with, etc, etc (see the whole Oracle approved distro debacle). So they have an incentive to support (i.e. give money to) a popular distro (i.e. RedHat) so RedHat doesn't go tits up and leave them searching for something else.
And that doesn't even get into bundling proprietary software with the known free software.
So, basically you can make money selling something that's available for free by selling your brand. Sure, people could buy the systems bare and install software themselves, because it's free, but then IBM can just put support terms in their contract saying stuff like 'you need to have bought x.x version from us, or we laugh in your face', because they can make more money by selling a complete package.
It's all about branding and package, dude. Step into the new millenium. Just like it doesn't matter if you're a popular artist getting jacked by your record company, if you can sell your cool/sexy/creepy old man image to Pepsi. There is nothing left to sell except your own mark of quality and authenticity. Which can't be taken away from you even if people copy you/your software.
There you have it. If DirecTV is not licensed to broadcast in Canada, what the hell are their signals doing here, in the air all around me? They're broadcasting whether or not anyone happens to be receiving it. Their signal is passing through my body right now (tree falling in the woods, tree falling in the woods, tree falling in the woods). If I have the brains to build something to demodulate it, why should I be prevented from doing so? If they don't want me to receive it, they should not be pointing it at me.
In Ottawa they even have small ones marked with a row of 3 dots that your bicycle can trip.
Our Brit at work is named Ivan, although I've worked with English Ians before. :)
It all comes down to how fast you're willing to be detected, if at all.
That being said, you can jam a 11b network quite effectively by turning on a bunch of microwaves in the near vicinity. Who wants lunch?