"Investors are not COMPLETE idiots...at $200 a share, few other than institutional investors"
Ok, so if I'm wrong the only way to interpret the above quote is that instuitional investors ARE COMPLETE idiots while your "average joe" is much more savvy. That isn't helping your case that his argument was coherent.
Either way, the grandparent was saying that I was recommending GOOG, which I NEVER did. I don't know why you responded to that post and never addressed it.
Anyway, I was more responding to the general sentiment on/. that google should do a stock split in order to lower the price. This would have no affct on the VALUE (not price) of the underlying stock.
"you can't typically buy only 10 shares of a stock"
I have bought under 5 shares many times personally. In fact not only was I "allowed" to buy the shares, but I had a guarantee that the transaction would be complete in under 10 seconds. Most ebrokers will make this guarantee.
Please show one shred of evidence that you have to buy "typical" 50 shares.
"Looking at Apple's web site now, I see that same model going for $3,999"
I see a node going for $2,999, so if you are going to get technical, I was closer to being right. The fact that you chose the non node model proves you don't understand what I was talking about. Why would you have a DVD superdrive on a cluster node? That makes no sense at all. I referred to the submitter explcitly referencing a CLUSTER. I said I hoped the submitter was joking, yet my entire statement was about a cluster, no colocation. I made no mention of colocation or the submitters mention of colocation. I think it was obvious what the subject of the post was.
"Wow, if you don't understand why you shouldn't spend $200/share on Google, you really need to not be giving investment advice to, like, anybody."
Wow, you don't know how to read. No where in my post did I mention, recommend, or suggest that one SHOULD buy shares of Google. In fact if you had read my post you would see I merely responded to a comment that said because a given share of stock X is priced at $200, it is only accesible to institutional investestors. This statement is false.
"But for small businesses even a single Xserve may be excessive."
Then it wouldn't exactly be a cluster, would it? It would be a single server. My entire post was in regards to a CLUSTER (see the title of my post, it doesn't say colocated server)
I've heard from several locations how desireable it would be to have a Mac Mini cluster. I hope the submitter was joking because does that make any sense? For one the maximum amount of RAM you can have is 1GB, the processor is not 64bit and gigabit ethernet is not available. I'm not saying a sub $500 Dell is the way to go. You can by an Xserve dual 2.3Ghz G5 machine for $2300. I bet one of those would outperform five Mac Minis.
"and at $200 a share, few other than institutional investors would consider GOOG."
Have you ever invested anything in the stock market? I don't know where you invest but commonly it costs $10~$20 for a single transaction of any stock for the private (non-institutional) investor. I'm sorry, but if you don't have $200 to invest, you shouldn't be buying ANY stock. Put it in a nice CD and collect interest. Let's say you buy 10 shares of $10 stock, with a $10 commision you are down 10% from the start. 10% is the historical return for the stock market for an entire YEAR. Not to mention you are going to have to sell this stock to make any profit (anther $10 fee). If you can't afford to invest $200, you can't afford to lose ANY money and you shouldn't be in the stock market to begin with.
"The jobs aren't going to India -- they're being eliminated completely."
Oh the horror. Won't you join my steam boat operator and hand cloth weaver's union. Protect jobs at all cost!!!
"by limiting the hype over firefox, there may be room left for his own ideas"
Uhh...since he is the chairman of the Mozilla Foundation board what makes you think his own ideas aren't in Firefox? Chandler is not another browser.
"...I would be pretty scared to carry around a laptop with that much energy potential in it"
You can't have it both ways. People are complaining how batteries haven't increased in perfomance significantly in the past few years. The main reason for this is that there are physical limitations in the energy density of a traditional battery.
The work around for this is to go from batteries to fuel cells. This is why automobile manufacturers have all but given up on a battery powered car and are working on few cell cars.
As is generally the case, the higher the energy density, the higher the *possibility* for danger. If you take this argument to its logical conclusion, the highest energy density occurs in "nuclear" devices, which also happens to be the most dangerous, if not designed properly.
For everyone who is complaining that this company wants to make money off of this, I believe there are two scenarios:
1. This company gets a patent, the drug is intially expensive and some people benefit from it immediately. Eventually the patent expires, generic forms are produced and nearly everyone benefits from it.
2. No one benefits from this drug...ever. The article states that this discovery was made by a team of 5 scientists. Figuring the costs of an employee is usually at least twice that of the salary, I'm guessing this company is spending over $1 million a year for labor alone (also consider lab costs, other non-scientists labor,etc.) If it feasible for non-profit groups to be making these types of discoveries, why do are they not?
I don't know about you, I definitely prefer the
Everything else being equal, is there a handy computational performance relationship between 64 and 32 bit systems(consider that one is no where near reaching the 4GB memory limit)? Such as if AMD will have a chip that can run either at 32 or 64, will it take X seconds on the 64 and nX seconds on the 32? Is n a constant? Is it not that simple?
You are right, Hyperterminal is terminal software, however it does exactly what I need it to do: log data that spews through a data port and is not application specific. I don't need a terminal though. So whatever symantics you won't to use I want to LOG DATA. If that is not called "data logging software", so be it(Hyperterminal logs data whatever you call it). This is what I use hyperterminal for and I would be content to have this exact functionality, however, it is not made for PocketPC.
Serial data is fine because I have the hardware to convert analog data to a serial stream.
So do you have any suggestions for the actual question?
"instead of playing delivery boys for satellites, which is a job that should be left for private companies"
------
The Space Shuttle hasn't been used to carry "satellites" for commercial use since the Challenger explosion. I put satellites in quotes because it is true than anything that doesn't leave earth orbit can be considered a satellite. Therefore,although scientific missions such as Hubble are satellites, these are not simple, straight out the box commercial satellites. Given the fact that nearly every mission involves projects that have never been done before, it is not too much to ask to require in orbit human intervention. If you think the Shuttle is expensive, how much it would cost to fix the Hubble telescope autonomously?
Slashdot Mirror
"Investors are not COMPLETE idiots...at $200 a share, few other than institutional investors"
/. that google should do a stock split in order to lower the price. This would have no affct on the VALUE (not price) of the underlying stock.
Ok, so if I'm wrong the only way to interpret the above quote is that instuitional investors ARE COMPLETE idiots while your "average joe" is much more savvy. That isn't helping your case that his argument was coherent.
Either way, the grandparent was saying that I was recommending GOOG, which I NEVER did. I don't know why you responded to that post and never addressed it.
Anyway, I was more responding to the general sentiment on
"you can't typically buy only 10 shares of a stock"
I have bought under 5 shares many times personally. In fact not only was I "allowed" to buy the shares, but I had a guarantee that the transaction would be complete in under 10 seconds. Most ebrokers will make this guarantee.
Please show one shred of evidence that you have to buy "typical" 50 shares.
"Looking at Apple's web site now, I see that same model going for $3,999"
I see a node going for $2,999, so if you are going to get technical, I was closer to being right. The fact that you chose the non node model proves you don't understand what I was talking about. Why would you have a DVD superdrive on a cluster node? That makes no sense at all. I referred to the submitter explcitly referencing a CLUSTER. I said I hoped the submitter was joking, yet my entire statement was about a cluster, no colocation. I made no mention of colocation or the submitters mention of colocation. I think it was obvious what the subject of the post was.
"Wow, if you don't understand why you shouldn't spend $200/share on Google, you really need to not be giving investment advice to, like, anybody." Wow, you don't know how to read. No where in my post did I mention, recommend, or suggest that one SHOULD buy shares of Google. In fact if you had read my post you would see I merely responded to a comment that said because a given share of stock X is priced at $200, it is only accesible to institutional investestors. This statement is false.
"But for small businesses even a single Xserve may be excessive."
Then it wouldn't exactly be a cluster, would it? It would be a single server. My entire post was in regards to a CLUSTER (see the title of my post, it doesn't say colocated server)
"Yeah, it may outperform, but it costs a lot more. Simple math, idoit."
1.) 1 X 2300 5*500
2.) when calling someone an "idoit", it would be best to spell it correctly
I've heard from several locations how desireable it would be to have a Mac Mini cluster. I hope the submitter was joking because does that make any sense? For one the maximum amount of RAM you can have is 1GB, the processor is not 64bit and gigabit ethernet is not available. I'm not saying a sub $500 Dell is the way to go. You can by an Xserve dual 2.3Ghz G5 machine for $2300. I bet one of those would outperform five Mac Minis.
"and at $200 a share, few other than institutional investors would consider GOOG." Have you ever invested anything in the stock market? I don't know where you invest but commonly it costs $10~$20 for a single transaction of any stock for the private (non-institutional) investor. I'm sorry, but if you don't have $200 to invest, you shouldn't be buying ANY stock. Put it in a nice CD and collect interest. Let's say you buy 10 shares of $10 stock, with a $10 commision you are down 10% from the start. 10% is the historical return for the stock market for an entire YEAR. Not to mention you are going to have to sell this stock to make any profit (anther $10 fee). If you can't afford to invest $200, you can't afford to lose ANY money and you shouldn't be in the stock market to begin with.
"The jobs aren't going to India -- they're being eliminated completely." Oh the horror. Won't you join my steam boat operator and hand cloth weaver's union. Protect jobs at all cost!!!
"by limiting the hype over firefox, there may be room left for his own ideas" Uhh...since he is the chairman of the Mozilla Foundation board what makes you think his own ideas aren't in Firefox? Chandler is not another browser.
I don't think you understand what that word means.
Huzzah, the pdf is free and doesn't look to shabby. Some interesting articles on OS X and live CD's. I hope their advertising model holds up.
"...I would be pretty scared to carry around a laptop with that much energy potential in it" You can't have it both ways. People are complaining how batteries haven't increased in perfomance significantly in the past few years. The main reason for this is that there are physical limitations in the energy density of a traditional battery. The work around for this is to go from batteries to fuel cells. This is why automobile manufacturers have all but given up on a battery powered car and are working on few cell cars. As is generally the case, the higher the energy density, the higher the *possibility* for danger. If you take this argument to its logical conclusion, the highest energy density occurs in "nuclear" devices, which also happens to be the most dangerous, if not designed properly.
For everyone who is complaining that this company wants to make money off of this, I believe there are two scenarios: 1. This company gets a patent, the drug is intially expensive and some people benefit from it immediately. Eventually the patent expires, generic forms are produced and nearly everyone benefits from it. 2. No one benefits from this drug...ever. The article states that this discovery was made by a team of 5 scientists. Figuring the costs of an employee is usually at least twice that of the salary, I'm guessing this company is spending over $1 million a year for labor alone (also consider lab costs, other non-scientists labor,etc.) If it feasible for non-profit groups to be making these types of discoveries, why do are they not? I don't know about you, I definitely prefer the
Everything else being equal, is there a handy computational performance relationship between 64 and 32 bit systems(consider that one is no where near reaching the 4GB memory limit)? Such as if AMD will have a chip that can run either at 32 or 64, will it take X seconds on the 64 and nX seconds on the 32? Is n a constant? Is it not that simple?
You are right, Hyperterminal is terminal software, however it does exactly what I need it to do: log data that spews through a data port and is not application specific. I don't need a terminal though. So whatever symantics you won't to use I want to LOG DATA. If that is not called "data logging software", so be it(Hyperterminal logs data whatever you call it). This is what I use hyperterminal for and I would be content to have this exact functionality, however, it is not made for PocketPC. Serial data is fine because I have the hardware to convert analog data to a serial stream. So do you have any suggestions for the actual question?
"instead of playing delivery boys for satellites, which is a job that should be left for private companies" ------ The Space Shuttle hasn't been used to carry "satellites" for commercial use since the Challenger explosion. I put satellites in quotes because it is true than anything that doesn't leave earth orbit can be considered a satellite. Therefore,although scientific missions such as Hubble are satellites, these are not simple, straight out the box commercial satellites. Given the fact that nearly every mission involves projects that have never been done before, it is not too much to ask to require in orbit human intervention. If you think the Shuttle is expensive, how much it would cost to fix the Hubble telescope autonomously?