It's no longer the plan. You'll soon need to flip it around.
Solaris is now a great tool to help Oracle force people to one and only one vendor (Oracle) for just about everything. That's the new plan. And Linux fits in that plan right now, but probably won't in a few years, if they can get people to trust them as hardware vendors, and they can keep the quality of Solaris testing up.
Oracle sees Sun as a company with a LOT of great stuff, but both weak and incompetent, since it didn't squeeze cash out of people on every single thing it did. Oracle is right now in an orgasmic frenzy to take everything Sun had and monetize it -- some at the start, though that's less important, but EVERYTHING must bring in cash via support and updates. Furthermore, expect to see every piece slowly being changed slightly to push you towards coupling with other Oracle tools.
Which is why open systems, like Linux, don't help Oracle in the long run. Open systems give you flexibility, and flexibility is bad. Oracle is pushing to get the whole enterprise, from soup to nuts. In the words of an IBM rep I was talking to about this: "We tried that 15 years ago, and it almost killed the company."
Oracle started doing Linux not because they like open systems (they don't), but because A. they could control it a little through their own distro and B. they could get the support contracts, instead of the money going to Red Hat. Now they have Solaris. They'll push that like crazy and move people onto it, since they can certainly control it a lot better than they can control Linux, and instead of some of the support dollars going to Oracle, ALL of the support dollars will go to them.
Re:sign everybody up for veterans' healthcare
on
Health Care Reform
·
· Score: 1
It would be over burdened, because it's a physical system. Better to sign them up for medicare, which is a payment system with very low overhead. The VA does specialized work for amputees, explosives victims and such which is relatively hard to find elsewhere. We don't want to saturate it with millions of new patients.
Because GP appointments are less profitable. The more money we spend on healthcare in a private system, the more people profit -- even the insurers (counter-intuitively), since they can justify higher rates based on the increase in costs, which gives them a larger capital pool to play with.
We talk and talk about providing basic health-care so that big ticket fix-it-at-the-end procedures aren't necessary and as a method of saving money. (A dollar on prenatal care saves X dollars on treating premature babies through life, etc. etc.) But why would we want to save money? That only benefits the consumer. Since when has he mattered? All the people who matter are getting rich, here, thank you very much.
And after all, so long as the consumer keeps buying it, it must be perfect for him. That's free enterprise. If American health care didn't work, consumers wouldn't buy it. RIGHT?
So let's not change anything, because that would inconvenience the important people.
Weirdly, it's possible that punishment is something he needs right now. Punishment by an external entity might make it possible for him to live with himself.
Thank you for the only response to my point which showed any thought.
So if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that
A. Density isn't really improving that much, here, because we're talking a lot more about backplane space and more than chip sizes.
B. There's also a price issue -- the optics necessary for the interfaces hasn't come down that much, and if they made the system much more powerful, it might not hit the specified (by marketing) price point.
That seems completely reasonable.
But your title is "big diff is 100Gbps ethernet" -- what did the CRS-1 have? If we're going up in terms of density on the fiber, I have to say I'm still scratching my head on this. Less fibers used for more bandwidth should pull the space needed for the thing down and the picture I've seen for the CRS-1 seems to be exactly the same as the CRS-3 (Maybe they just used a picture of the 1 on their 3 literature, since it's new).
In ISPs and telcos in general, the most expensive thing in the data center (in the long run) are the floor tiles -- that is, space. Equipment which is 6 years newer is usually much smaller, and has higher-density inputs. So there's a desire to reduce size. Cisco didn't (or so the pictures seem to show).
That leaves me thinking your point about price is the main big consideration that keeps them from making an expected reduction in size or increase in performance.
Have you heard of anyone using a CRS-1 for anything other than pushing packets with as little inspection as possible? After six years, you really should be able to do a lot more with the space on a controller card, unless this router has no attempt to move the packets through processors at all.
"At full scale, the CRS-3 has a capacity of 322Tbit/sec., roughly three times that of the CRS-1, which was introduced in 2004."
That was six years ago and we're only tripling the speed? Is it cheaper? Smaller?
Moore's law (which doesn't work in every way, but it certainly works for the computing processors in this thing) would suggest that this thing has a lot more CPU power than the CRS-1. (In six years we'd expect somewhere between 8 and 32 times the oomph.) And yet they only encumbered it with three times the bandwidth.
I'm worried that a lot more processor power is going into filtering. Cisco is one of the big anti-network neutrality advocates. They want to sell the machines to impose the rules.
If this machine isn't lower power or smaller or cheaper or just built incompetently, then the real story here isn't it's bandwidth -- it's its power for adjusting traffic for increased profits.
OK, a couple of things in the article and the youtube videos referenced in comments above imply (or directly state) that at least one of these objects has a flexible screen.
Anybody seen anything flex here? In the video it's all static and under glass so that people can't touch it, and the photos are completely static of course.
Are they touting a new tech or did I miss a big announcement of commonly available flexible displays?
Very much agreed. My brother still drives my old Saturn, and gets almost 40 mpg. It's a boring car, and without air conditioning it's like an oven under the sun, but it's efficient, and simple and runs.
KDE, Gnome, Linux, OpenOffice, etc. ARE written in assembly language, for the purposes of this bizarre argument.
The media is taking what's in essential a high-level language (MATLAB and/or other code builders) and counting the source lines it creates to get a huge number.
When we write in C or Java, it creates source lines at a level below that (assembly or VM opcodes). And YES, YES, all those programs are in at least only off the 100 million lines of code by one order of magnitude.
But let's just say one opcode is one byte. It's not, but let's say that for yucks that it is, then OpenOffice would need to be 100 megabytes to possibly have that many lines. OpenOffice writer is only 7MB, but we know it uses libraries and other packages, and so, adding all that crap in willy nilly, we probably get up to at least 100MB, and thus (in silly-think) 100 million lines of code.
But let's step back a second. Let's ask ourselves (and I KNOW that there are people who read this who know the answer) "how big is the PROM/ROM/CMOS RAM whatever on the Toyota car computer?" If it's 128MB then this silliness is (for what it's worth) correct-ish. If it's 64MB, it's INSANE. If it's a lot less, it's just mindlessly wrong.
I always despair of this young'uns who ask about their programming careers while talking about a particular language. Until you're close to language agnostic, you don't have a programming career.
Go learn why Java sucks. Go learn why every programming language sucks in some (or many) ways, so you can choose the right language for the task.
Then use some other languages to actually do things.
The kid graduates two years early, and gets a job for a few years so as to claim independence for financial aid. Colleges are gonna love this. (HA!)
But high school's not primarily about learning, anyhow: It's about sitting on kids until their hormones stop making them insane. This way they don't waste two years doing almost nothing.
The question is, how do we keep them from going to college right away, lacking the social skills needed to get much beyond academics out of the experience?
HA. The farmers were happy because they got the drippings. ADM got the potroast. Yes, this means farmers are doing much better, but it's ADM which is getting the bulk of the cash, directly and indirectly.
This is off topic, but I hear this a lot and it frustrates me.
"In a week in Chicago, I was able to get almost everywhere except for the Navy Pier and the Museum of Science & Technology via mass transit..."
You can get everywhere that rich white people want to go, except the suburbs. You can get to some areas with blacks and hispanics, but not most. The trains are on a hub and spoke model -- as you get further from the hub, property values go down, and residents happen to be poorer, and perfectly coinciding with this, the areas between the hubs get wider and wider.
You can get to everywhere if you're willing to put up with very long, irritating bus rides, including Navy Pier and the Museum of Science and Technology. But if you want to hop on a train and get somewhere with good soul food, forget it. If you want a reliable way to take a train to your job with a short commute time, you have to be pretty lucky, geographically speaking, unless you live in the white yuppie corridor, in which case your convenience is relatively assured.
If gas prices go up, yes, public transport gets better -- for the people who "matter". The poor and less powerful don't get better transport.
I don't say this to demand cheap gas. I want VERY, VERY expensive gas and an end to bad fuel economy vehicles, polluted air, high medical costs due to asthma, etc. But let's not delude ourselves in the process. Supply and demand is only half the battle.
I'd read the book (and the National Lampoon parody Doon, which is EXCELLENT) before the movie and was annoyed that Lynch had cooked up unnecessary things, but I still loved the movie. It's beautiful and moody and the images do stick in your mind in a way that very few movies achieve.
But on the subject of the utterly unwatchable TV version, I'd like to point out a rule of film/TV analysis which is almost always correct and places blame where it should be placed: When one actor delivers a bad performance in a movie, that's a bad actor. When everyone does, that's bad directing.
A good director can get bad actors to deliver excellent performances. A bad director gets crap out of even good actors.
Slashdot Mirror
My coworker suggests that the process involves a roughly six month process of pretty nasty drugs, which makes the money a lot less attractive.
Are these offers generally for a few eggs, for fifty, for one which implants properly, for one which comes to term, etc?
I'm sure 18 people here can tell me without much effort the answer to this:
Are cosmic rays so high energy that they pass right through a steel car hood?
Or are the components in question placed somewhere in the car where they are not well shielded?
Subject says it all.
It's $93, at today's conversion rate for euros to dollars.
Yes, that was certainly the plan a year ago.
It's no longer the plan. You'll soon need to flip it around.
Solaris is now a great tool to help Oracle force people to one and only one vendor (Oracle) for just about everything. That's the new plan. And Linux fits in that plan right now, but probably won't in a few years, if they can get people to trust them as hardware vendors, and they can keep the quality of Solaris testing up.
Oracle sees Sun as a company with a LOT of great stuff, but both weak and incompetent, since it didn't squeeze cash out of people on every single thing it did. Oracle is right now in an orgasmic frenzy to take everything Sun had and monetize it -- some at the start, though that's less important, but EVERYTHING must bring in cash via support and updates. Furthermore, expect to see every piece slowly being changed slightly to push you towards coupling with other Oracle tools.
Which is why open systems, like Linux, don't help Oracle in the long run. Open systems give you flexibility, and flexibility is bad. Oracle is pushing to get the whole enterprise, from soup to nuts. In the words of an IBM rep I was talking to about this: "We tried that 15 years ago, and it almost killed the company."
Oracle started doing Linux not because they like open systems (they don't), but because A. they could control it a little through their own distro and B. they could get the support contracts, instead of the money going to Red Hat. Now they have Solaris. They'll push that like crazy and move people onto it, since they can certainly control it a lot better than they can control Linux, and instead of some of the support dollars going to Oracle, ALL of the support dollars will go to them.
It would be over burdened, because it's a physical system. Better to sign them up for medicare, which is a payment system with very low overhead. The VA does specialized work for amputees, explosives victims and such which is relatively hard to find elsewhere. We don't want to saturate it with millions of new patients.
Because GP appointments are less profitable. The more money we spend on healthcare in a private system, the more people profit -- even the insurers (counter-intuitively), since they can justify higher rates based on the increase in costs, which gives them a larger capital pool to play with.
We talk and talk about providing basic health-care so that big ticket fix-it-at-the-end procedures aren't necessary and as a method of saving money. (A dollar on prenatal care saves X dollars on treating premature babies through life, etc. etc.) But why would we want to save money? That only benefits the consumer. Since when has he mattered? All the people who matter are getting rich, here, thank you very much.
And after all, so long as the consumer keeps buying it, it must be perfect for him. That's free enterprise. If American health care didn't work, consumers wouldn't buy it. RIGHT?
So let's not change anything, because that would inconvenience the important people.
YES! That article is definitely interesting. Thanks for posting that.
It wouldn't be the first. It wouldn't even be the second.
Weirdly, it's possible that punishment is something he needs right now. Punishment by an external entity might make it possible for him to live with himself.
Thank you for the only response to my point which showed any thought.
So if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that
A. Density isn't really improving that much, here, because we're talking a lot more about backplane space and more than chip sizes.
B. There's also a price issue -- the optics necessary for the interfaces hasn't come down that much, and if they made the system much more powerful, it might not hit the specified (by marketing) price point.
That seems completely reasonable.
But your title is "big diff is 100Gbps ethernet" -- what did the CRS-1 have? If we're going up in terms of density on the fiber, I have to say I'm still scratching my head on this. Less fibers used for more bandwidth should pull the space needed for the thing down and the picture I've seen for the CRS-1 seems to be exactly the same as the CRS-3 (Maybe they just used a picture of the 1 on their 3 literature, since it's new).
In ISPs and telcos in general, the most expensive thing in the data center (in the long run) are the floor tiles -- that is, space. Equipment which is 6 years newer is usually much smaller, and has higher-density inputs. So there's a desire to reduce size. Cisco didn't (or so the pictures seem to show).
That leaves me thinking your point about price is the main big consideration that keeps them from making an expected reduction in size or increase in performance.
Have you heard of anyone using a CRS-1 for anything other than pushing packets with as little inspection as possible? After six years, you really should be able to do a lot more with the space on a controller card, unless this router has no attempt to move the packets through processors at all.
"At full scale, the CRS-3 has a capacity of 322Tbit/sec., roughly three times that of the CRS-1, which was introduced in 2004."
That was six years ago and we're only tripling the speed? Is it cheaper? Smaller?
Moore's law (which doesn't work in every way, but it certainly works for the computing processors in this thing) would suggest that this thing has a lot more CPU power than the CRS-1. (In six years we'd expect somewhere between 8 and 32 times the oomph.) And yet they only encumbered it with three times the bandwidth.
I'm worried that a lot more processor power is going into filtering. Cisco is one of the big anti-network neutrality advocates. They want to sell the machines to impose the rules.
If this machine isn't lower power or smaller or cheaper or just built incompetently, then the real story here isn't it's bandwidth -- it's its power for adjusting traffic for increased profits.
OK, a couple of things in the article and the youtube videos referenced in comments above imply (or directly state) that at least one of these objects has a flexible screen.
Anybody seen anything flex here? In the video it's all static and under glass so that people can't touch it, and the photos are completely static of course.
Are they touting a new tech or did I miss a big announcement of commonly available flexible displays?
Thank you!
Thanks!
Can someone tell me why the ice doesn't just turn to gas and vent to space?
Very much agreed. My brother still drives my old Saturn, and gets almost 40 mpg. It's a boring car, and without air conditioning it's like an oven under the sun, but it's efficient, and simple and runs.
KDE, Gnome, Linux, OpenOffice, etc. ARE written in assembly language, for the purposes of this bizarre argument.
The media is taking what's in essential a high-level language (MATLAB and/or other code builders) and counting the source lines it creates to get a huge number.
When we write in C or Java, it creates source lines at a level below that (assembly or VM opcodes). And YES, YES, all those programs are in at least only off the 100 million lines of code by one order of magnitude.
But let's just say one opcode is one byte. It's not, but let's say that for yucks that it is, then OpenOffice would need to be 100 megabytes to possibly have that many lines. OpenOffice writer is only 7MB, but we know it uses libraries and other packages, and so, adding all that crap in willy nilly, we probably get up to at least 100MB, and thus (in silly-think) 100 million lines of code.
But let's step back a second. Let's ask ourselves (and I KNOW that there are people who read this who know the answer) "how big is the PROM/ROM/CMOS RAM whatever on the Toyota car computer?" If it's 128MB then this silliness is (for what it's worth) correct-ish. If it's 64MB, it's INSANE. If it's a lot less, it's just mindlessly wrong.
I always despair of this young'uns who ask about their programming careers while talking about a particular language. Until you're close to language agnostic, you don't have a programming career.
Go learn why Java sucks. Go learn why every programming language sucks in some (or many) ways, so you can choose the right language for the task.
Then use some other languages to actually do things.
The kid graduates two years early, and gets a job for a few years so as to claim independence for financial aid. Colleges are gonna love this. (HA!)
But high school's not primarily about learning, anyhow: It's about sitting on kids until their hormones stop making them insane. This way they don't waste two years doing almost nothing.
The question is, how do we keep them from going to college right away, lacking the social skills needed to get much beyond academics out of the experience?
HA. The farmers were happy because they got the drippings. ADM got the potroast. Yes, this means farmers are doing much better, but it's ADM which is getting the bulk of the cash, directly and indirectly.
This is off topic, but I hear this a lot and it frustrates me.
"In a week in Chicago, I was able to get almost everywhere except for the Navy Pier and the Museum of Science & Technology via mass transit..."
You can get everywhere that rich white people want to go, except the suburbs. You can get to some areas with blacks and hispanics, but not most. The trains are on a hub and spoke model -- as you get further from the hub, property values go down, and residents happen to be poorer, and perfectly coinciding with this, the areas between the hubs get wider and wider.
You can get to everywhere if you're willing to put up with very long, irritating bus rides, including Navy Pier and the Museum of Science and Technology. But if you want to hop on a train and get somewhere with good soul food, forget it. If you want a reliable way to take a train to your job with a short commute time, you have to be pretty lucky, geographically speaking, unless you live in the white yuppie corridor, in which case your convenience is relatively assured.
If gas prices go up, yes, public transport gets better -- for the people who "matter". The poor and less powerful don't get better transport.
I don't say this to demand cheap gas. I want VERY, VERY expensive gas and an end to bad fuel economy vehicles, polluted air, high medical costs due to asthma, etc. But let's not delude ourselves in the process. Supply and demand is only half the battle.
I'd read the book (and the National Lampoon parody Doon, which is EXCELLENT) before the movie and was annoyed that Lynch had cooked up unnecessary things, but I still loved the movie. It's beautiful and moody and the images do stick in your mind in a way that very few movies achieve.
But on the subject of the utterly unwatchable TV version, I'd like to point out a rule of film/TV analysis which is almost always correct and places blame where it should be placed: When one actor delivers a bad performance in a movie, that's a bad actor. When everyone does, that's bad directing.
A good director can get bad actors to deliver excellent performances. A bad director gets crap out of even good actors.
Finally, I can turn my life-size colonel Sanders cut-out into a data entry device.
Finally, I can make my life size cut out of Colonel Sanders white-board marker safe.