I carry an extra (old) cell phone with me. That way, when I get really pissed off while talking on the phone, I can throw the *old* one at the wall, and still have a working phone!
BS. Someone fucked up, and this should be exposed. I'd like to see names.
I don't enjoy paying for these fuckups at NASA for their incompetance. I wonder how much other data is recorded off of miscalibrated/switched/etc instruments.
>>This isn't journalism, this is headline mongering.
No, this is exposing the slackers & losers who work at NASA. Pathetic, that is what NASA has become, and *that* is the real story here.
To me, the answers are clear, especially when taking history into account.
Is it more profitable for certain people to start wars and control oil than to do something good for the entire humanity?
Yes. If it weren't profitable, I think it would be much less prevalent. What would be the incentive for the initiating party?
I blame people who vote for immoral politicians. In democracy people can have exactly the government they want.
I also blame the immoral politicians, and the people who fund them. BTW, exactly which democracy are you referring to? Surely not one in which there are moneyed interests involved in manipulating said "democracy", right?
The cynic in me would like to agree wholeheartedly with you. Even if this is only a negotiating ploy, it's still overall a good thing IMO. In the end, Microsoft will profit less, all the while spreading the word (or introducing people to the existence) of OSS.
Note that I have no problem with Microsoft making money; it just seems like using their software (and the ensuing upgrade treadmill) in a Gov setting seems fiscally irresposible, not to even mention the security implications.... but I digress
Speaking as a resident of suburban Chicago (I also work in the city), these types of ignorant abuses are not unusual. As always with Chicago, just follow the money...
In other news, Linux users & developers claim that "Microsoft Securtity a Myth". A lot of people make a lot of claims. Then there are the facts.
I, for one (and there's many more like me), will listen to the claims, research the facts, and use the correct solution. And that solution rarely, if ever, involves the marketing company known as Microsoft. Microsoft can preach to the choir till the cows come home, but in the end, that's all they're doing.
In closing, it is not surprising to see MS resort to these tactics. What I mean is, if you can't provide a working, secure, flexible solution and you want to stay in business, you have to lie to your customers.
Well, firstly, where in the world do you get the idea that I'm resisting the move to SMP
I didn't mean to imply that YOU were resisiting anything, I just decided to use your thread to jump in and post some views. Although you're correct about the lack of SMP-aware apps in general, there are valid uses today for SMP boxes today ie true multitasking. As soon as multi-core CPU's are the norm on mid-to high-end desktops (and they will be), the software will follow. I guess those were my main points.
It was not my intention to single you out in any way:)
Once again, I'm not saying dual-core is bad. I'm saying the exact opposite; dual-core is GOOD. WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT THE SOFTWARE INDUSTRIES NEED TO GET OFF THEIR LAZY ASSES AND START WRITING CODE THAT WILL EFFECTIVELY SCALE ON THE NEXT GENERATIONS OF PROCESSORS.
I agree whole-heartedly. As we've seen, software typically trails hardware, so the sooner the hardware is pervasive, the sooner the software will follow.
Frankly, I'm bewildered at the responses here resisting the change to SMP. I've never understood the focus on pure MHz as opposed to parallelism and MHz. Anyone on an SMP box that is multitasking sees the benefits of SMP immediately. You can work with a completely responsive system even when you have a compute-intensive non-SMP-aware process hogging a CPU. This is not the case with single CPU sysems.
What we have here is simply the fact that, as always, software is years behind the hardware it runs on. This is a classic chicken-and-the-egg situation. "There's no SMP software, so why by a dual?" vs. "Nobody has SMP hardware, so why write SMP-aware apps?".
Thankfully, there are many SMP-aware apps available, not even getting to the fact that with single-threaded apps on SMP you can for example encode video and do other CPU-intensive tasks simultaneously and at their "native" speeds.
Games are probably the worst example to use for touting SMP benefits because they are written with the single-CPU mindset. This is a software shortcoming, yet many posters see this is a flaw of SMP? Silly. If you're using games as an SMP detraction, then you're not the target for SMP until the software is written to take advantage of SMP. Again, this is a software shortcoming, not a hardware flaw.
Then we have the "well office-type users have no need for SMP". Well, that may be true, but so is the fact that office use does not require >1GHz CPU's, yet offices are filled with >1GHz machines. The nature of the "CPU business" is such that your products must constantly improve, or you will soon become irrelevant. You can only make CPU's run so fast in the physical world, so after you've wrung all the easy MHz gains out of a process, what's the next "easy" gain? Parallelism. We don't expect Intel, AMD, et al to just say "Well, that's it, we can make them no faster", do we? Heck no. Instead of more MHz, we now have more cores. The software will follow, and in the meantime the hardware is usuable now.
The fact of the matter is this: there are real, physical limitations to the manufacture of ever higher speed CPU's. We're going to hit the brick wall shortly using current processes, so the next logical step is to parallelize the CPU. If you can't make 'em faster, then you divide and conquer.
As someone who runs a few SMP systems, I, for one, welcome our dual-core overlords. So I can run dual-core? Heck no, that's for the gamers and office-workers;). I'll settle for no less than dual dual-cores, getting more accomplished in a shorter frame of time with little to no effort on my part.
This will lower the barrier of entry for SMP use for the masses. After they are dragged, kicking and screaming to SMP, people will notice a smoother, more productive computing environment. Also, us dual-CPU folk can now move up to quad cores with relatively little additional expense. As SMP moves into the mainstream, the software will follow. Any programmer worth his salt knows that it is trivial to parallelize many compute intensive tasks such as media encoding/manipulation, imaging, rendering etc. Now that the hardware is (almost) here, the apps will follow.
I am sincerely interested in hearing any response to these points I've made.
Slashdot Mirror
Tank girl is in it?
No, but they're in negotiations with Tub girl
(No, I'm not going to link it...)
He's no nerd. If he were, he would not have had Data using the contraction "I'm". Data would say "I am".
Ummm, and I'm not a nerd either...
Your logic is flawed, but your conclusion is correct.
it's funny how 'us pirates' have our own keen sense of morality.. and i think it's valid to be discussing or negotiating this, seriously.
What's really funny is that you consider yourself a "pirate", when you are nothing of the sort.
I don't care *what* they call it. If I can get 15mb/s for ~45/mo, they can call it OC3 for all I care...
As long as you have enough money you are above the law?
No, you must be male also. However, you no longer need to be white, just male. Ask OJ and Martha, they'll tell 'ya.
I carry an extra (old) cell phone with me. That way, when I get really pissed off while talking on the phone, I can throw the *old* one at the wall, and still have a working phone!
That Apple's OS updates follow the same naming conventions as Wehrmacht tanks?
There's a "Think Different" joke in there somewhere, but I'm not touchin' it...
BS. Someone fucked up, and this should be exposed. I'd like to see names.
I don't enjoy paying for these fuckups at NASA for their incompetance. I wonder how much other data is recorded off of miscalibrated/switched/etc instruments.
>>This isn't journalism, this is headline mongering.
No, this is exposing the slackers & losers who work at NASA. Pathetic, that is what NASA has become, and *that* is the real story here.
IMHO
>>they would just stop producing newer and faster chips?
No, but the rate of innovation would slow to a snail's pace, but you knew that. Right?
Well put, madstork2000.
Last year, a street survey found that more than 70% of people would reveal their password for a bar of chocolate.
That's nothing; you should see what they'll do for a Klondike Bar!
Well Episodes I and II look worthwhile if you don't have to listen to the dialogue.
I respectfully disagree. That is all.
This is something I seriously cannot understand.
/cynic
;)
To me, the answers are clear, especially when taking history into account.
Is it more profitable for certain people to start wars and control oil than to do something good for the entire humanity?
Yes. If it weren't profitable, I think it would be much less prevalent. What would be the incentive for the initiating party?
I blame people who vote for immoral politicians. In democracy people can have exactly the government they want.
I also blame the immoral politicians, and the people who fund them. BTW, exactly which democracy are you referring to? Surely not one in which there are moneyed interests involved in manipulating said "democracy", right?
So I ask: why do people want wars?
Follow the $...
Off to RTFA
The cynic in me would like to agree wholeheartedly with you. Even if this is only a negotiating ploy, it's still overall a good thing IMO. In the end, Microsoft will profit less, all the while spreading the word (or introducing people to the existence) of OSS.
Note that I have no problem with Microsoft making money; it just seems like using their software (and the ensuing upgrade treadmill) in a Gov setting seems fiscally irresposible, not to even mention the security implications.... but I digress
Mod parent up.
Speaking as a resident of suburban Chicago (I also work in the city), these types of ignorant abuses are not unusual. As always with Chicago, just follow the money...
>> ...because Bush saying something and a local municipality's school district have a LOT in common, dipshit. ...Shut the fuck up.
Your arguments are very persuasive, and your prose is just beautiful. Enjoy your ingnorance, because we sure do!
>>Thus, there is a very definite connection between speeding and drug dealing
Get a fucking clue.
You had it right the first time; ignore the other replies ;)
I've always seen this as a major flaw with the software business; the vast majority of the product sold is flawed, yet there's no accountability.
>> Who is to say you're right, and he is wrong, or the other way around? Wisdom and common sense for starters. Any other questions?
In other news, Linux users & developers claim that "Microsoft Securtity a Myth". A lot of people make a lot of claims. Then there are the facts.
I, for one (and there's many more like me), will listen to the claims, research the facts, and use the correct solution. And that solution rarely, if ever, involves the marketing company known as Microsoft. Microsoft can preach to the choir till the cows come home, but in the end, that's all they're doing.
In closing, it is not surprising to see MS resort to these tactics. What I mean is, if you can't provide a working, secure, flexible solution and you want to stay in business, you have to lie to your customers.
Well, firstly, where in the world do you get the idea that I'm resisting the move to SMP
:)
I didn't mean to imply that YOU were resisiting anything, I just decided to use your thread to jump in and post some views. Although you're correct about the lack of SMP-aware apps in general, there are valid uses today for SMP boxes today ie true multitasking. As soon as multi-core CPU's are the norm on mid-to high-end desktops (and they will be), the software will follow. I guess those were my main points.
It was not my intention to single you out in any way
Once again, I'm not saying dual-core is bad. I'm saying the exact opposite; dual-core is GOOD. WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT THE SOFTWARE INDUSTRIES NEED TO GET OFF THEIR LAZY ASSES AND START WRITING CODE THAT WILL EFFECTIVELY SCALE ON THE NEXT GENERATIONS OF PROCESSORS.
I agree whole-heartedly. As we've seen, software typically trails hardware, so the sooner the hardware is pervasive, the sooner the software will follow.
I used to say that MS could pipe all their employee toilets into a packaging facility and sell Microsoft Excrement at a profit.
Yes, and thanks to you, they listened. And MS Office was "born", so to speak.
Frankly, I'm bewildered at the responses here resisting the change to SMP. I've never understood the focus on pure MHz as opposed to parallelism and MHz. Anyone on an SMP box that is multitasking sees the benefits of SMP immediately. You can work with a completely responsive system even when you have a compute-intensive non-SMP-aware process hogging a CPU. This is not the case with single CPU sysems.
;). I'll settle for no less than dual dual-cores, getting more accomplished in a shorter frame of time with little to no effort on my part.
What we have here is simply the fact that, as always, software is years behind the hardware it runs on. This is a classic chicken-and-the-egg situation. "There's no SMP software, so why by a dual?" vs. "Nobody has SMP hardware, so why write SMP-aware apps?".
Thankfully, there are many SMP-aware apps available, not even getting to the fact that with single-threaded apps on SMP you can for example encode video and do other CPU-intensive tasks simultaneously and at their "native" speeds.
Games are probably the worst example to use for touting SMP benefits because they are written with the single-CPU mindset. This is a software shortcoming, yet many posters see this is a flaw of SMP? Silly. If you're using games as an SMP detraction, then you're not the target for SMP until the software is written to take advantage of SMP. Again, this is a software shortcoming, not a hardware flaw.
Then we have the "well office-type users have no need for SMP". Well, that may be true, but so is the fact that office use does not require >1GHz CPU's, yet offices are filled with >1GHz machines. The nature of the "CPU business" is such that your products must constantly improve, or you will soon become irrelevant. You can only make CPU's run so fast in the physical world, so after you've wrung all the easy MHz gains out of a process, what's the next "easy" gain? Parallelism. We don't expect Intel, AMD, et al to just say "Well, that's it, we can make them no faster", do we? Heck no. Instead of more MHz, we now have more cores. The software will follow, and in the meantime the hardware is usuable now.
The fact of the matter is this: there are real, physical limitations to the manufacture of ever higher speed CPU's. We're going to hit the brick wall shortly using current processes, so the next logical step is to parallelize the CPU. If you can't make 'em faster, then you divide and conquer.
As someone who runs a few SMP systems, I, for one, welcome our dual-core overlords. So I can run dual-core? Heck no, that's for the gamers and office-workers
This will lower the barrier of entry for SMP use for the masses. After they are dragged, kicking and screaming to SMP, people will notice a smoother, more productive computing environment. Also, us dual-CPU folk can now move up to quad cores with relatively little additional expense. As SMP moves into the mainstream, the software will follow. Any programmer worth his salt knows that it is trivial to parallelize many compute intensive tasks such as media encoding/manipulation, imaging, rendering etc. Now that the hardware is (almost) here, the apps will follow.
I am sincerely interested in hearing any response to these points I've made.
Sounds great, but I was hoping for a "deadly game of cat and mouse". At least the "wrongfully accused" theme is there.
Also, this is very timely, as terrorists are really popular these days...