Wealth is limitless? Fantastic! Why don't we just give some (why not lots?) to the people starving so they can go and buy some food? I have a computer because I don't have to spend all I earn on food, clothes and water. The raw materials for the things I own (including the computer) were gathered by people who do not have to be paid very much so it is economic for me to buy them. Wealth may or may not be a zero sum game, that's one for the economists, but it certainly behaves like one. Talking about wealth being 'open-ended, limitless, and not [a] zero-sum game' does not explain why people are starving and dying of thirst and will not make them feel any better.
In what way does tyhe history of the industrial revolution in europe help your argument? Regarding blacks exploiting blacks i've no doubt that some members of the regions/countries exploited their own kind but the West did it on a massive scale with ships, machines and superior weapons and as part of programmes of national expansion. A bit different. Nothing was stopping them 'dragging themselves out of the stone age'. It might have taken hundreds of years but they would have been better off if we'd left them alone. Anyway, they weren't stone age in any way (not their society or technology or culture) and using that kind of language just shows your ignorance, or that you are trolling. My point is still the same: we are well off because our forefathers gained advantage from other people in other countries, we've left them in a mess and our very nice lifestyles are supported by lots of other people having crappy ones.
They didn't get the chance to 'drag themselves out of the stone age' dude, we came along and took over. Then left them to it having imposed our industry, adgriculture and culture on them. Then we started selling them weapons! I don't feel guilty because I wasn't around then but I am aware that the only reason I can afford a computer (as well as a house, car, enough food, healthcare etc) is that lots people not that different to myself have to do without these things (and indeed, shoes, education, clean water etc). That's why I attempt to do something about it. The fact that you posted your views and the strength of the language you use suggests a certain amount of guilt, despite what you say. Either that or it makes you look very simple.
It's nice of Mr Soros to attempt to share his wisdom with us. He undoubtedly knows a lot about the advantages of globalism; he's done very well from it! Computing *might* provide the answer to helping developing countries improve their lot, or at least part of the answer. A big part of the answer would be the developed countries being nicer to them. Don't lets forget though that the only reason we can have computers (as well as cars, TVs, healthcare, education, etc.) is that a great many people don't have these things or, in plenty of regions, shoes, enough food or clean water. It's a pyramid, dudes, we're at the top and George Soros is standing on the top and no amount of navel gazing from him is going to change a blasted thing.
Who says the military/Feds/CIA/Aliens haven't already hijacked SET@Home? Do you *know* that the data your computer is going through is from Arecibo? Are you *sure* the calculations are for something as innocent (and probably pointless) as looking for ET? I let it run anyway, it's a cool screensaver;-)
Hang on a minute, is 80GB/sec any use without RAM that is at least as fast? Wouldn't there just be a huge bottleneck? Or is it the case that there is some technology that makes this irrelevant? Or is the drive put to some use that the RAM speed doesn't matter? Is the RAM in CRAY's computers faster than 80GB/sec? Or is this storage a product of 'blue sky' research and doesn't have an application yet? Sorry about all the questions, thinking into the keyboard!
Very impressive though!
In order for a transfer rate of 80 GB/sec to be useful doesn't RAM have to be capable of a higher transfer rate? Wouldn't you just get a huge bottleneck? Or is there some technology or use that this drive is put to that makes this irrelevant? If not, do Cray's computers have ram that is faster than 80GB/sec?
Agreed, advertising can backfire sometimes. I'm not having a go at Microsoft because I don't like them (at least, not this time:-) but because I don't like negative advertising. I hope it does make 'em look like silly.
I think Microsoft more or less have to do this kind of negative advertising. With Linux already popular and going from strength to strength and now the Mac is essentially a UNIX machine the OS world is a very different place from just a couple of years ago and it must feel like half the hardware and software companies in the world are ganging up on them. Now who's painted themselves into a corner? Microsfoft is looking (and behaving) like a trapped animal. Watch those teeth! Arrgh!!
Slashdot Mirror
Wealth is limitless? Fantastic! Why don't we just give some (why not lots?) to the people starving so they can go and buy some food? I have a computer because I don't have to spend all I earn on food, clothes and water. The raw materials for the things I own (including the computer) were gathered by people who do not have to be paid very much so it is economic for me to buy them. Wealth may or may not be a zero sum game, that's one for the economists, but it certainly behaves like one. Talking about wealth being 'open-ended, limitless, and not [a] zero-sum game' does not explain why people are starving and dying of thirst and will not make them feel any better.
In what way does tyhe history of the industrial revolution in europe help your argument? Regarding blacks exploiting blacks i've no doubt that some members of the regions/countries exploited their own kind but the West did it on a massive scale with ships, machines and superior weapons and as part of programmes of national expansion. A bit different. Nothing was stopping them 'dragging themselves out of the stone age'. It might have taken hundreds of years but they would have been better off if we'd left them alone. Anyway, they weren't stone age in any way (not their society or technology or culture) and using that kind of language just shows your ignorance, or that you are trolling. My point is still the same: we are well off because our forefathers gained advantage from other people in other countries, we've left them in a mess and our very nice lifestyles are supported by lots of other people having crappy ones.
They didn't get the chance to 'drag themselves out of the stone age' dude, we came along and took over. Then left them to it having imposed our industry, adgriculture and culture on them. Then we started selling them weapons! I don't feel guilty because I wasn't around then but I am aware that the only reason I can afford a computer (as well as a house, car, enough food, healthcare etc) is that lots people not that different to myself have to do without these things (and indeed, shoes, education, clean water etc). That's why I attempt to do something about it. The fact that you posted your views and the strength of the language you use suggests a certain amount of guilt, despite what you say. Either that or it makes you look very simple.
It's nice of Mr Soros to attempt to share his wisdom with us. He undoubtedly knows a lot about the advantages of globalism; he's done very well from it! Computing *might* provide the answer to helping developing countries improve their lot, or at least part of the answer. A big part of the answer would be the developed countries being nicer to them. Don't lets forget though that the only reason we can have computers (as well as cars, TVs, healthcare, education, etc.) is that a great many people don't have these things or, in plenty of regions, shoes, enough food or clean water. It's a pyramid, dudes, we're at the top and George Soros is standing on the top and no amount of navel gazing from him is going to change a blasted thing.
Who says the military/Feds/CIA/Aliens haven't already hijacked SET@Home? Do you *know* that the data your computer is going through is from Arecibo? Are you *sure* the calculations are for something as innocent (and probably pointless) as looking for ET? I let it run anyway, it's a cool screensaver ;-)
Hang on a minute, is 80GB/sec any use without RAM that is at least as fast? Wouldn't there just be a huge bottleneck? Or is it the case that there is some technology that makes this irrelevant? Or is the drive put to some use that the RAM speed doesn't matter? Is the RAM in CRAY's computers faster than 80GB/sec? Or is this storage a product of 'blue sky' research and doesn't have an application yet? Sorry about all the questions, thinking into the keyboard! Very impressive though!
In order for a transfer rate of 80 GB/sec to be useful doesn't RAM have to be capable of a higher transfer rate? Wouldn't you just get a huge bottleneck? Or is there some technology or use that this drive is put to that makes this irrelevant? If not, do Cray's computers have ram that is faster than 80GB/sec?
Very impressive though.
Agreed, advertising can backfire sometimes. I'm not having a go at Microsoft because I don't like them (at least, not this time :-) but because I don't like negative advertising. I hope it does make 'em look like silly.
I think Microsoft more or less have to do this kind of negative advertising. With Linux already popular and going from strength to strength and now the Mac is essentially a UNIX machine the OS world is a very different place from just a couple of years ago and it must feel like half the hardware and software companies in the world are ganging up on them. Now who's painted themselves into a corner? Microsfoft is looking (and behaving) like a trapped animal. Watch those teeth! Arrgh!!