What holds no water? Are my demographics wrong or my conclusions wrong? Do you really think this is about religion and not money/power/desperation?
If you want to argue my facts then go for it, I might be wrong about a few of them. But what about my conclusions? Do you really think if these people were rich they'd be blowing themselves up to the same extent they are now?
You might see a very small amount of religious terrorism if these people had economically decent lives (economically advantaged Christians have shot abortion doctors after all), but you wouldn't see anything like you see in the Middle East today. Osama, Hamas and other groups find huge numbers of people who'll pick strapping on a bomb over living in despair. They wouldn't find nearly as much support if the choice was strapping on bomb or driving an SUV to the Sizzler.
Although you make very strong points on this, and I agree that it's a bad practice, I have to ask whether or not it matters in this particular case.
Bare with me here. These guys have pattended a licensing method that does not conflict in any way with the licensing methodes used to promote free exchanges of information. The only people this affects is other proprietary information horders.
It's kind of like if Microsoft's gaming division sued their office products division for a bullshit patent. It's bad, but who cares?
It's not a religious war. These people live in desperate conditions. From their perspective, the only real resource they have to help them out of these conditions (oil) is virtually given to the west while the occupants of the land see very little tangible bennefit. We stay rich and they stay poor.
Look at the people of palistine: poor Look at people of Iraq: poor Look at the people of Afganistan: poor
The only rich countries in the region are the ones we're not fighting.
Saudi Arabia: allies Kuwait: allies
Look, the "haves" like to think that they're clean and good. Part of the way they do this is by misinterpretting the problem. Instead of seeing that they have a position of privelege and that they've set up the system so they'll always win, they see that the "have nots" are lawbreakers. It's easy to keep oppressing a lawbreaker. A murderer. A Zelot. Why should someone like that have rights? It's much harder to acknowledge that you've set up a system to where you pick which brand of HDTV you like while they're deciding between food and lights.
So you've decided that they're "Jihadists" and "murderers". Wrong choice. That will get you exactly the same place as Israel, decade after painful decade of war. If you would have decided that these are needy people lashing out in desperation and maybe backed Iraqi oil going to Iraqi labor unions instead of Haliberton you might have had a fighting chance.
You're only half right at best. Some of the players are using the weapons you mention, the crude ones, but other players are using very sophisticated weapons. State of the art weapons haven't made war unwinable, they've just made it unwinable if you happen to posses them and use them (thought I forgot the don't? Didn't.).
It's the classic story of the haves and the have nots. The haves (the ones with the state of the art weapons) sqeeze everything they can get away with from the have nots. Then they hang the have nots for daring to look at their women. It can go on like this for centuries until the have nots decide that they've had enough.
The English in India. The American South early last century. South Africa 30 years ago. The peasants in France pre-revolution. The workers in Russia pre-revolution. Linux giving away software as it's only weapon against Microsoft.
Today looks very similar. The trodden can only take so much before it doesn't matter how crude their weapons are... they fight anyway. And that war, as it turns out, is rarely winnable by the people with the state of the art weapons. Because you can't kill off _all_ of the people that do your laundry, buy your software, work in your mines and grow your food. When enough of them rise up, they find that even the crudest of weapons will do.
The only way to win against the crudest weapons is to assimilate the ways of the oppressed. China is winning because they're embracing many parts of capitalism. The Soviet Union won when their countries started holding elections. The only way the current overlords can hope to win is if they start showing respect to the lives of the people they're fighting against. As long as we consider them to be "evil" their crude weapons will carry the day.
Actually, considering the instability they say they get at this speed, they're quite likely to finish that infinite loop well before a non-overclocked 3.6 Ghz system.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Apple does not "just work". If a person is used to Windows and Unix, moving to an Apple (even OS X) is a frustrating experience. Nothing just works. You have to re-learn everything about the GUI metaphor.
You are so right. I wish more people would acknowledge this fact. If you're unsure of what he means here folks then I have a little exercise for you.
1. Go to a Mac and open a web browser. 2. Go to a page with a text for like, say, the Slashdot Post Comment form. 3. Enter a bunch of text. 4. Highlight the text and hit ctrl-C, the widely-used Windows keyboard shortcut for copying text.
What happens to your text? That's right, the copy command basically ends up deleting your text (actually replaced with an unintended symbol) with no copy being made. Your work is gone with no backup.
This is not a flaw in the Mac, it's how they're designed to work, but it's an excellent example of how Macs DONT "just work" if you're used to working with Windows.
This guy is not bashing Macs. He's making a very important observation. Mac lovers need to grow up and realize that just 'cause it's easy for them (they already know about the command key) doesn't mean it's going to be easy for others.
Imagine the fun you could have recreating computer golf, pool or even chess! My little secret is that I own a completely mechanical way to reproduce "Solitare", but I must confess I didn't build it myself.
People get reprimanded, punished and fired all the time for misuse of physical keys. Everyone intuitively knows that they can't can't leave the physical keys to the physical building on a cardboard box on the sidewalk without suffering serious consequences. So how come it's called a "scorcehd earth approach" when the same thing is suggested for an RSA key fob?
Basic logical security policy must be be able to be enforced to at least the same level as basic physical security if we want to have a fighting chance of keeping intruders out of our systems.
Question: You have bank. The bank has a vault. The vault has a combination. The bank manager writes the combination down on a slip of paper and tapes it to the vault door. Do you still keep him employed?
If your company gave the same answer you just gave to all these "techheads" getting their laptops stolen (with keyfob and password no less) your problems would cease within the first three terminations. I gaurantee it.
Any company foolish enough to entrust their keys to foolish people deserves what it gets. Any company foolish enough to do it twice.... well, that's something no security system will be able to fix.
In a court case like this, the two sides are expected to retain and pay expert witnesses to advise the court.
Yes they are, but juries are also expected to closely examine the testimony and the motivation for giving it. If slashdotters were good jury members they'd be wise to at least take this into account. Why aren't slashdotters questioning the financial relationship? Why aren't the asking to see the modifications the doctor made to the open-source programs he used? Why aren't they asking anything at all?
You want to believe Dr. Davis and I want to believe him, but when a megacorp pays someone to back them up I'm sure as hell going to take a closer look before dancing in the streets.
This sucks. I've been hoping for years now that someday I would have relief. After suffering through epI and II I was really really looking forward to the day when I could put that home theater system to good use for the origninals.
But that lines says it all. It's not what I'm looking for. Lucas has heard our cry that we don't want to drink mud and has given us stagnant pond water as an alternative. Let me know when he decides to offer the pure spring water to his thirsty fans.
Am I the only one that noticed that this study was paid for by IBM? I'm certainly not saying it's incorrect, but it's certainly not a near death blow either.
In fact, it's nothing more than the defendant saying black to the accuser's white.
Before you say I'm full of it, please look at your own opinion of certain studies paid for by Microsoft. Thought so. The fact that they paid for it means a lot.
Columbus didn't build the ships or man the sails or oars. He just acquired the funding and led the expeditions. He has an entire holiday named after him.
Bill Gates does a similar job. By just about everyone's recconing, he points Microsoft in the direction he thinks it should go and the people under him make it happen. That's leadership. For that reason, and the fact that Windows is in use on 80%-90% + or the worlds personal computers, he absolutely deserves credit as one of the most influential information technology leaders ever.
Put another way, if he gets blamed for Windows problems without having coded them, shouldn't he also get credit for it's successes?
No matter how purified the element is, it can certainly be re-diluted to a concentration similar to that found in nature. If it's been transformed into an element that isn't found in nature it can still be diluted to a concentration unlikely to cause great harm.
After it's diluted, what better place is there to put it than back in the mines it came from? You say it'll get in the groundwater, but wasn't that a risk in it's natural state already? That's the equivalent of bitching about radiation release when the amount released is less harmful than sunshine. How can someone be accountable for putting it back in essentially its natural state?
You didn't say, but a lot of people might say that it's expensive. Well shouldn't that be factored into the cost of the power?
Microsoft does have a directly competing product. They have Windows 2000/2003 Data Center Edition. It spawns off virtual machines. If MS wanted to do an apples to apples comparison, that's the box they need to test.
When my ex was going to college she was a teacher's assistant for an art class. As a TA she sometimes reviewed papers for the professor before he did the final grading.
Many of the students had written a paper on a local work of art called US and THEM. the work of art was basically a flat map of the world with the United States in white with US written on it (get it, US = U.S.? nevermind) and the rest of the world in red with "THEM" written on it. She called me over to look at the papers because she couldn't believe what she was reading. No less than three of the students (four year university, not a junior college) had commented on the fact that Alaska had US written on it and wondered why the artist had chosen to do that.
It was a dark day for my view of my fellow citizens.
People always say convergence doesn't matter, and it doesn't, but it really does.
Lemme explain.
I would have bought the PS/2 for the same price if it didn't have the DVD player built in. Most people would have. But when I was getting a console, the fact that it had a DVD player built in mattered to my view of the value I'd get from the purchase. It made me feel good about it.
Now that we've used the PS/2 for a while, we find that we use that DVD player all the time. It's not the best DVD player on the planet, but it sure beats the VHS sitting next to it that we ignore. Because of that use, once again I feel I got good value for my money on the purchase. I think it's much more 'worth it' than I would if it didn't have a DVD player built in. It makes me feel good about buying more stuff from Sony, because I know they try to give me more than just the basic function listed on the box.
Contrast this with the ill-fated DVR version of the PS/2. With the regular PS/2, the DVD was a 'gift'. It was added value that I did't feel I was paying anything extra for. The new super box, on the other hand, was a lot more expensive. I would be paying for everything. And, because I already have a PS/2, I'd end up with actually less value then what is listed on the box.
So, to summerize:
Convergence is great if you get more than you pay for and it doesn't cost the manufaturer much more to give it to you (sony was using DVD as the media anyway. The DVD movie player cost them almost nothing to bundle in). It's great because the consumer feels he's getting good value for the money.
Convergence is bad if the consumer feels he's paying extra for a bunch of redundant stuff he'll never use.
I sure hope manufaturers are paying attention to this post:-)
What if our situation is unique or we are the first?
The idea that we are the first is very intriguing. If you assume the big bang theory is accurate then there is a leading time for it to be possible for life to exist. Furthermore there is a leading time for it to be likely that life exists. Has anyone made any attempt to find those leading times?
For example, you can assume that planets made out of elements more complex than hydrogen and helium are necessary to support life. When is it theorized that these elementally-complex planets were possible? How long ago was that compared to when Earth was formed? If it was a long time before earth was formed, then we can go about making some calculations about how many other civilizations might have existed before/with us. If it was around the same time that Earth was formed, then there is the very real possiblity that we are on the "front wave" of life in our universe.
It may in fact be very unlikely that we are first. But someone wins the lottery every week. People must remember that unlikely events are almost guarenteed to happen to someone if the numbers involved are big enough. In this case, even if we aren't first, it's a certainty that some civillizaion was.
If there's a high-end application for this technology, great, but getting rid of high-end hardware is one of the biggest reasons people are also getting rid of Sun...
Actually the article references a big supercomputer bakeoff in 2010. Supercomputers would most definately count as a high-end application where motherboards would be worth repairing, especially if it was a simple procedure and the cost was low, as Sun is proposing this would be.
so basically they want to stack the chips? umm, heat?
Re-read article. It's not a stack. They make reference to scrabble tiles as a comparison.
Even if it were a stack liquid cooling built directly into the stack, ala the internal combustion engine, could handle the heat effectively. Probably more effectively then our current heat sink technology.
The current situation is bad for manufacturers because bargaining power is concentrated in a handful of service providers. If they sold to consumers, there would be more room for product differentiation, marketing, and profit.
So why should I care? Should I want them to "differntiate, market and profit" so they can get more of my hard-earned cash for esentially the same product?
The translation of this whole article is that cell phones have entered commodity status, which is an sign of a healthy, mature market, and they're bringing other consumer electronics with them.
Us consumers: should be rejoicing. This is good for us and good for the industry.
The manufaturers: Are just pissed that they have to work harder for their money. Although they're making less profit individually, the lean businesses this model requires are a sign of a healthier, more mature industry in the long run.
Never fall for it when business say they can't make money. The worst that can happen is that they'll be replaced by someone that knows how to make a profit selling the same thing.
There's a symbiotic relationship between hardware vendors and software vendors that make resource-intensive software.
id makes software that makes people go out to buy new geForce card >> nVidia makes lots of money.
nVidia tells everyone that Doom 3 is the greatest game to ever be seen on this planet >> id makes lots of money.
The software maker actually has an incentive to make a product that is percieved as a resource hog because of this positive feedback loop. It's kind an informal paid endorsement or kickback. The software vendor has to push the envelope just enough that people desire the hardware upgrade, but not enough that they alienate owners of slightly older equipment. id has done this perfectly in this case.
MS and Intel have been doing this for years. It's the reason why Intel doesn't throw it's weight fully behind Linux and why Microsoft is quite late with their AMD-64 OS. In theory neither MS or Intel should really care that much, but since AMD and the Linux community aren't really working members of the positive feedback loop, they're only given token praise. The Wintel feedback loop is even worse than usual because almost everyone buys an MS OS with their new computer so pushing hardware actually generates sales, not just endorsements, for Microsoft.
Also, we are not just talking about the "brand name" projects. We are talking about the unsexy, not-front-page projects. The things at risk are the ones without thousands of eyes looking at it. It's the ones with just dozens, or a handful of eyes, looking at it. Projects that make up stuff in the buildchain. Projects like filesystem drivers. Projects like device drivers. Compilers. Linkers. All of them would have to be validated and audited, for each change, for each version, on each platform. A malicious patch anywhere along the way can lead to a trojan. Even code that otherwise looks good could be poisoned. A single unchecked buffer. A single small simple looking error - big consequences.
But really you're talking about the same exact problem for closed sourse. In that 5-person dev team with 2 QA people in that 20-person company how closely are they checking the source for the type of stealth errors in question? Do they personally check the thousands or millions of lines of code in the build chain? Once a guy is hired, how much contact does he have with his boss? Does his boss even understand the code the "honest worker" is submitting?
I'm NOT saying the open source is "safe." I'm saying that closed source is every bit as unsafe but with the added hinderence of much fewer people haveing the ability to even look at the source if something goes wrong.
Can you honestly tell me that the government is going to hire a panel of people to check in in-depth source changes on OSS projects?
More to the point, will they do this with closed source projects? Getting a mole into Green Hills Software, Microsoft, etc is every bit as real of a threat as getting one into any open source project. In many cases it might even be easier because of the lack of good hiring practices and oversite at small defense companies.
Slashdot Mirror
What holds no water? Are my demographics wrong or my conclusions wrong? Do you really think this is about religion and not money/power/desperation?
If you want to argue my facts then go for it, I might be wrong about a few of them. But what about my conclusions? Do you really think if these people were rich they'd be blowing themselves up to the same extent they are now?
You might see a very small amount of religious terrorism if these people had economically decent lives (economically advantaged Christians have shot abortion doctors after all), but you wouldn't see anything like you see in the Middle East today. Osama, Hamas and other groups find huge numbers of people who'll pick strapping on a bomb over living in despair. They wouldn't find nearly as much support if the choice was strapping on bomb or driving an SUV to the Sizzler.
TW
Although you make very strong points on this, and I agree that it's a bad practice, I have to ask whether or not it matters in this particular case.
Bare with me here. These guys have pattended a licensing method that does not conflict in any way with the licensing methodes used to promote free exchanges of information. The only people this affects is other proprietary information horders.
It's kind of like if Microsoft's gaming division sued their office products division for a bullshit patent. It's bad, but who cares?
TW
It's not a religious war. These people live in desperate conditions. From their perspective, the only real resource they have to help them out of these conditions (oil) is virtually given to the west while the occupants of the land see very little tangible bennefit. We stay rich and they stay poor.
Look at the people of palistine: poor
Look at people of Iraq: poor
Look at the people of Afganistan: poor
The only rich countries in the region are the ones we're not fighting.
Saudi Arabia: allies
Kuwait: allies
Look, the "haves" like to think that they're clean and good. Part of the way they do this is by misinterpretting the problem. Instead of seeing that they have a position of privelege and that they've set up the system so they'll always win, they see that the "have nots" are lawbreakers. It's easy to keep oppressing a lawbreaker. A murderer. A Zelot. Why should someone like that have rights? It's much harder to acknowledge that you've set up a system to where you pick which brand of HDTV you like while they're deciding between food and lights.
So you've decided that they're "Jihadists" and "murderers". Wrong choice. That will get you exactly the same place as Israel, decade after painful decade of war. If you would have decided that these are needy people lashing out in desperation and maybe backed Iraqi oil going to Iraqi labor unions instead of Haliberton you might have had a fighting chance.
TW
You're only half right at best. Some of the players are using the weapons you mention, the crude ones, but other players are using very sophisticated weapons. State of the art weapons haven't made war unwinable, they've just made it unwinable if you happen to posses them and use them (thought I forgot the don't? Didn't.).
It's the classic story of the haves and the have nots. The haves (the ones with the state of the art weapons) sqeeze everything they can get away with from the have nots. Then they hang the have nots for daring to look at their women. It can go on like this for centuries until the have nots decide that they've had enough.
The English in India. The American South early last century. South Africa 30 years ago. The peasants in France pre-revolution. The workers in Russia pre-revolution. Linux giving away software as it's only weapon against Microsoft.
Today looks very similar. The trodden can only take so much before it doesn't matter how crude their weapons are... they fight anyway. And that war, as it turns out, is rarely winnable by the people with the state of the art weapons. Because you can't kill off _all_ of the people that do your laundry, buy your software, work in your mines and grow your food. When enough of them rise up, they find that even the crudest of weapons will do.
The only way to win against the crudest weapons is to assimilate the ways of the oppressed. China is winning because they're embracing many parts of capitalism. The Soviet Union won when their countries started holding elections. The only way the current overlords can hope to win is if they start showing respect to the lives of the people they're fighting against. As long as we consider them to be "evil" their crude weapons will carry the day.
TW
Actually, considering the instability they say they get at this speed, they're quite likely to finish that infinite loop well before a non-overclocked 3.6 Ghz system.
TW
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Apple does not "just work". If a person is used to Windows and Unix, moving to an Apple (even OS X) is a frustrating experience. Nothing just works. You have to re-learn everything about the GUI metaphor.
You are so right. I wish more people would acknowledge this fact. If you're unsure of what he means here folks then I have a little exercise for you.
1. Go to a Mac and open a web browser.
2. Go to a page with a text for like, say, the Slashdot Post Comment form.
3. Enter a bunch of text.
4. Highlight the text and hit ctrl-C, the widely-used Windows keyboard shortcut for copying text.
What happens to your text? That's right, the copy command basically ends up deleting your text (actually replaced with an unintended symbol) with no copy being made. Your work is gone with no backup.
This is not a flaw in the Mac, it's how they're designed to work, but it's an excellent example of how Macs DONT "just work" if you're used to working with Windows.
This guy is not bashing Macs. He's making a very important observation. Mac lovers need to grow up and realize that just 'cause it's easy for them (they already know about the command key) doesn't mean it's going to be easy for others.
TW
Imagine the fun you could have recreating computer golf, pool or even chess! My little secret is that I own a completely mechanical way to reproduce "Solitare", but I must confess I didn't build it myself.
TW
People get reprimanded, punished and fired all the time for misuse of physical keys. Everyone intuitively knows that they can't can't leave the physical keys to the physical building on a cardboard box on the sidewalk without suffering serious consequences. So how come it's called a "scorcehd earth approach" when the same thing is suggested for an RSA key fob?
Basic logical security policy must be be able to be enforced to at least the same level as basic physical security if we want to have a fighting chance of keeping intruders out of our systems.
TW
Question: You have bank. The bank has a vault. The vault has a combination. The bank manager writes the combination down on a slip of paper and tapes it to the vault door. Do you still keep him employed?
If your company gave the same answer you just gave to all these "techheads" getting their laptops stolen (with keyfob and password no less) your problems would cease within the first three terminations. I gaurantee it.
Any company foolish enough to entrust their keys to foolish people deserves what it gets. Any company foolish enough to do it twice.... well, that's something no security system will be able to fix.
TW
In a court case like this, the two sides are expected to retain and pay expert witnesses to advise the court.
Yes they are, but juries are also expected to closely examine the testimony and the motivation for giving it. If slashdotters were good jury members they'd be wise to at least take this into account. Why aren't slashdotters questioning the financial relationship? Why aren't the asking to see the modifications the doctor made to the open-source programs he used? Why aren't they asking anything at all?
You want to believe Dr. Davis and I want to believe him, but when a megacorp pays someone to back them up I'm sure as hell going to take a closer look before dancing in the streets.
TW
This isn't the trilogy you're looking for.
This sucks. I've been hoping for years now that someday I would have relief. After suffering through epI and II I was really really looking forward to the day when I could put that home theater system to good use for the origninals.
But that lines says it all. It's not what I'm looking for. Lucas has heard our cry that we don't want to drink mud and has given us stagnant pond water as an alternative. Let me know when he decides to offer the pure spring water to his thirsty fans.
TW
Am I the only one that noticed that this study was paid for by IBM? I'm certainly not saying it's incorrect, but it's certainly not a near death blow either.
In fact, it's nothing more than the defendant saying black to the accuser's white.
Before you say I'm full of it, please look at your own opinion of certain studies paid for by Microsoft. Thought so. The fact that they paid for it means a lot.
TW
Columbus didn't build the ships or man the sails or oars. He just acquired the funding and led the expeditions. He has an entire holiday named after him.
Bill Gates does a similar job. By just about everyone's recconing, he points Microsoft in the direction he thinks it should go and the people under him make it happen. That's leadership. For that reason, and the fact that Windows is in use on 80%-90% + or the worlds personal computers, he absolutely deserves credit as one of the most influential information technology leaders ever.
Put another way, if he gets blamed for Windows problems without having coded them, shouldn't he also get credit for it's successes?
TW
I love that game. It's one of the few flying games that gets it that fun is more important than realism. Sounds like this movie gets it too.
TW
Still, the idea is sound.
No matter how purified the element is, it can certainly be re-diluted to a concentration similar to that found in nature. If it's been transformed into an element that isn't found in nature it can still be diluted to a concentration unlikely to cause great harm.
After it's diluted, what better place is there to put it than back in the mines it came from? You say it'll get in the groundwater, but wasn't that a risk in it's natural state already? That's the equivalent of bitching about radiation release when the amount released is less harmful than sunshine. How can someone be accountable for putting it back in essentially its natural state?
You didn't say, but a lot of people might say that it's expensive. Well shouldn't that be factored into the cost of the power?
TW
Microsoft does have a directly competing product. They have Windows 2000/2003 Data Center Edition. It spawns off virtual machines. If MS wanted to do an apples to apples comparison, that's the box they need to test.
TW
When my ex was going to college she was a teacher's assistant for an art class. As a TA she sometimes reviewed papers for the professor before he did the final grading.
Many of the students had written a paper on a local work of art called US and THEM. the work of art was basically a flat map of the world with the United States in white with US written on it (get it, US = U.S.? nevermind) and the rest of the world in red with "THEM" written on it. She called me over to look at the papers because she couldn't believe what she was reading. No less than three of the students (four year university, not a junior college) had commented on the fact that Alaska had US written on it and wondered why the artist had chosen to do that.
It was a dark day for my view of my fellow citizens.
TW
People always say convergence doesn't matter, and it doesn't, but it really does.
:-)
Lemme explain.
I would have bought the PS/2 for the same price if it didn't have the DVD player built in. Most people would have. But when I was getting a console, the fact that it had a DVD player built in mattered to my view of the value I'd get from the purchase. It made me feel good about it.
Now that we've used the PS/2 for a while, we find that we use that DVD player all the time. It's not the best DVD player on the planet, but it sure beats the VHS sitting next to it that we ignore. Because of that use, once again I feel I got good value for my money on the purchase. I think it's much more 'worth it' than I would if it didn't have a DVD player built in. It makes me feel good about buying more stuff from Sony, because I know they try to give me more than just the basic function listed on the box.
Contrast this with the ill-fated DVR version of the PS/2. With the regular PS/2, the DVD was a 'gift'. It was added value that I did't feel I was paying anything extra for. The new super box, on the other hand, was a lot more expensive. I would be paying for everything. And, because I already have a PS/2, I'd end up with actually less value then what is listed on the box.
So, to summerize:
Convergence is great if you get more than you pay for and it doesn't cost the manufaturer much more to give it to you (sony was using DVD as the media anyway. The DVD movie player cost them almost nothing to bundle in). It's great because the consumer feels he's getting good value for the money.
Convergence is bad if the consumer feels he's paying extra for a bunch of redundant stuff he'll never use.
I sure hope manufaturers are paying attention to this post
TW
What if our situation is unique or we are the first?
The idea that we are the first is very intriguing. If you assume the big bang theory is accurate then there is a leading time for it to be possible for life to exist. Furthermore there is a leading time for it to be likely that life exists. Has anyone made any attempt to find those leading times?
For example, you can assume that planets made out of elements more complex than hydrogen and helium are necessary to support life. When is it theorized that these elementally-complex planets were possible? How long ago was that compared to when Earth was formed? If it was a long time before earth was formed, then we can go about making some calculations about how many other civilizations might have existed before/with us. If it was around the same time that Earth was formed, then there is the very real possiblity that we are on the "front wave" of life in our universe.
It may in fact be very unlikely that we are first. But someone wins the lottery every week. People must remember that unlikely events are almost guarenteed to happen to someone if the numbers involved are big enough. In this case, even if we aren't first, it's a certainty that some civillizaion was.
TW
Um...who repairs motherboards anymore?
If there's a high-end application for this technology, great, but getting rid of high-end hardware is one of the biggest reasons people are also getting rid of Sun...
Actually the article references a big supercomputer bakeoff in 2010. Supercomputers would most definately count as a high-end application where motherboards would be worth repairing, especially if it was a simple procedure and the cost was low, as Sun is proposing this would be.
TW
so basically they want to stack the chips? umm, heat?
Re-read article. It's not a stack. They make reference to scrabble tiles as a comparison.
Even if it were a stack liquid cooling built directly into the stack, ala the internal combustion engine, could handle the heat effectively. Probably more effectively then our current heat sink technology.
TW
The current situation is bad for manufacturers because bargaining power is concentrated in a handful of service providers. If they sold to consumers, there would be more room for product differentiation, marketing, and profit.
So why should I care? Should I want them to "differntiate, market and profit" so they can get more of my hard-earned cash for esentially the same product?
The translation of this whole article is that cell phones have entered commodity status, which is an sign of a healthy, mature market, and they're bringing other consumer electronics with them.
Us consumers: should be rejoicing. This is good for us and good for the industry.
The manufaturers: Are just pissed that they have to work harder for their money. Although they're making less profit individually, the lean businesses this model requires are a sign of a healthier, more mature industry in the long run.
Never fall for it when business say they can't make money. The worst that can happen is that they'll be replaced by someone that knows how to make a profit selling the same thing.
TW
There's a symbiotic relationship between hardware vendors and software vendors that make resource-intensive software.
id makes software that makes people go out to buy new geForce card >> nVidia makes lots of money.
nVidia tells everyone that Doom 3 is the greatest game to ever be seen on this planet >> id makes lots of money.
The software maker actually has an incentive to make a product that is percieved as a resource hog because of this positive feedback loop. It's kind an informal paid endorsement or kickback. The software vendor has to push the envelope just enough that people desire the hardware upgrade, but not enough that they alienate owners of slightly older equipment. id has done this perfectly in this case.
MS and Intel have been doing this for years. It's the reason why Intel doesn't throw it's weight fully behind Linux and why Microsoft is quite late with their AMD-64 OS. In theory neither MS or Intel should really care that much, but since AMD and the Linux community aren't really working members of the positive feedback loop, they're only given token praise. The Wintel feedback loop is even worse than usual because almost everyone buys an MS OS with their new computer so pushing hardware actually generates sales, not just endorsements, for Microsoft.
TW
Also, we are not just talking about the "brand name" projects. We are talking about the unsexy, not-front-page projects. The things at risk are the ones without thousands of eyes looking at it. It's the ones with just dozens, or a handful of eyes, looking at it. Projects that make up stuff in the buildchain. Projects like filesystem drivers. Projects like device drivers. Compilers. Linkers. All of them would have to be validated and audited, for each change, for each version, on each platform. A malicious patch anywhere along the way can lead to a trojan. Even code that otherwise looks good could be poisoned. A single unchecked buffer. A single small simple looking error - big consequences.
But really you're talking about the same exact problem for closed sourse. In that 5-person dev team with 2 QA people in that 20-person company how closely are they checking the source for the type of stealth errors in question? Do they personally check the thousands or millions of lines of code in the build chain? Once a guy is hired, how much contact does he have with his boss? Does his boss even understand the code the "honest worker" is submitting?
I'm NOT saying the open source is "safe." I'm saying that closed source is every bit as unsafe but with the added hinderence of much fewer people haveing the ability to even look at the source if something goes wrong.
TW
Can you honestly tell me that the government is going to hire a panel of people to check in in-depth source changes on OSS projects?
More to the point, will they do this with closed source projects? Getting a mole into Green Hills Software, Microsoft, etc is every bit as real of a threat as getting one into any open source project. In many cases it might even be easier because of the lack of good hiring practices and oversite at small defense companies.
TW