Honestly, I have no idea how these folks thought that we need these things. Its great technology and a rather good job of engineering but most people need to walk more not less. And where can you use them? Not too many places. Like Steve Jobs said in the future cities will be designed around these. Well they aren't now and so its really a techno brag instead of being useful.
As for other markets, when I worked in a industrial plant in the Netherlands, the foreman and others who had to go a long distance had bikes with banana seats. Very low tech but usable.
And I don't think that too many folks in the NE of the US are going to be able to use theirs for several weeks.
Attention Science Blog - We have things called protocols and such. Please use specific terms.
Maybe I am just a lowly CCNP but is this all just a theory paper about the problems with "routing" or were there specifics about current routing protocols that should be updated or current practices that should be changed. Please help, everyone knows that the current routing could be better but theory stuff just does not help us much.
Re:Etiology still pending
on
Goodbye, Dolly
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
But the problem is that they have no idea what really did her in and what they did wrong. I really love the nuts that thinks the first time they try to clone a human it will work perfectly. Ha. About as likely as... fill the blank... But seriously, it was a stroke of genious to think that when we can't figure out how protiens fold and what most of the junk inside cells do, that we could move some DNA around in a rather clumsy way and voila have a perfect clone. Next thing they are going to start talking about error free coding... yada yada yada. Dolly is dead and we don't have a clue and won't for a long long time. And when we do successful cloning we won't have a clue about what we did right, what we did wrong or what the difference is between the two.
Both your points (efficiency and cost) are really only one point
No they are really quite distinct. The issue of effeciency is that some appliations are only possible where there is enough energy converted. Thus the Sunraycer had to have a really long tail to absord enough energy. So we aren't going to have solar powered cars in any meaningful way with the current effeciency regardless of the cost. So the point also is that most commercial buildings will have a tough time producing their enough energy from solar even in AZ or NM.
As for cost that is really the thing that is keeping widespread implemenation from occuring in the sunny climates.
And as for Lomborg's idea about Moore's Law, the breakthrough will come when the price makes it effective even if the prices drop after your purchase. Just look at computers, we buy them even though they are dropping at an even faster rate. You make a calculation and if it makes sense then buy. After that point it is a sunk cost.
1. The panels are only usable in some applications due their overall effeciency (quoted as 11% for this stuff) that you can only use it in very sunny places.
2. The cost per kilowatt hour is still not compariable to some very environmentally unfriendly stuff.
So its nice that they have stuff that the architects like for curved surfaces but for the rest of us with smooth flat roofs and commercial buildings with flat sides and roofs, it would be nice to get some panels that have higher effeciency and have lower cost per kilowatt hour.
The reason that Nexis Lexis and Westlaw don't allow libraries to sign up is the obvious theft that will occur. They have product and they produce and sell it profitably but the library business is a loser.
And sure you can put up your own version if you have lots of money for servers and bandwidth. It would be an interesting exercise to see how far computer prices and bandwidth would have to come down before you could have a Google like service or one that would be a flat rate.
Just read the first one and you know they are invalid - privacy enhanced database. Maybe I am shooting in the dark but I thought this was implemented in - maybe - 1986 or even 1970. The only reason that some folks are paying up is to let someone else take on NCR and invalidate it. So this is really just another story about how the Patent Office screwed the pooch and gave patents for the equivelant of a doorknob. Yeah nobody patented it cause it was obvious once it was in use.
You can't stop the future, you can only simulate it by stopping progress.
Last time I tried software RAID under Linux, it was less than optimal. (about a year ago) But the idea that somebody wrote a book about RAID under Linux and only spends 10 pages on software RAID is amazing - in a bad way. Hardware RAID as many have pointed out is the way to go if the state of software RAID has not progressed.
And why would I buy this book or any book on RAID if I am going to use a hardware solution. If I have hardware then I am going to just make sure it has support & instructions for Linux and be done with it.
Now I have to pay attention to TLDS - agggh
on
.NAME at a Crossroads
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
The fundemental problem that.NAME faces along with the rest of the internet is no garbage collection. These new TLD are pretty useless when you have to make sure that people remember the ext. When it once was default that if you worked for a company, your email was some variation of your name, the at sign and some variation of the company name and then you assumed the.com. If you worked for the gov or an organization, it was pretty clear what its end was. (At least in the US.) But now you have all these bloody domain names that everyones significant email and web address is now 4 or 5 characters longer.
Next they will try a TLD with umlauts and maybe some of the cyrilic letters.
A failed program is one that is not accepted by the customer as meeting their needs. The problem is usually that the processes are weak and thus bad requirements are given which lead to bad design which lead to bad coding. But the only real result comes to show for it is bad coding.
My major point is that thinking with a black box mentality in most situations will allow somebody to stick it to the programmer when things go bad. So for your own job security and satisfaction, it is important to either deal effectively with a poorly structured environment or make sure you are in a place that has a good development methodology.
And no I have not written 100% solid code but I have worked in a lot of poorly organized shops and the programmers usually were to blame for accepting the poor docs given to them be not understanding their ultimate responsibility for giving the customer what they needed.
There is only so much time, money, etc. People find something they like and recommend it. Some things become popular. System is not fair any more.
Hey give me a break, this is expected and unless you want to read, listen and weblog 24 hours a day, you will find a way to consume what you can. Thanks for analyzing another "phenomenon" that is pretty much expected.
I think that the programmer who thinks of things in a black box mentality is usually going to be involved in failed program. I have run into so many programmers who know nothing of the many parts that their program touches. They seem to believe that their software does not work within a wider system and a wider world.
The problem with these programmers is that they rarely understand what can and does go wrong with the outside world. It is always amazing to me that there are people out there that assume that everyone has a 100BaseT Ethernet hub between the front end and the back end or other stupid assumptions.
The issue that crops up most when programmers think in black box terms is that today's software is not spec'd out enough so that the end user does not get what they wanted but the programmer did not solve it by asking. Too often the problem is very fuzzy and thus the programmer is there to help clarify not just implement.
Without a well rounded programmer looking at the overall system (or his/her boss), you will wind up with chatty, buggy applications that was what the user asked for but not what they needed.
Here is the real deal about Moore's law and what it means. If you don't take Moore's law into account, it will eventually change the dynamics of your industry and cause great problems for most companies.
Example 1 - Intel - This company continues to pump out faster and faster processors. They can't stop making new processors or AMD or someone else will. The costs of making each processor goes up but the premium for new, faster processors continues to drop as fewer people need the absolute high end. So if you look at Intel's business 5 years ago, they always had a healthy margin for the high end. That is no longer the case and if you exprapolate out a few years, it is tough to imagine that Intel will be the same company it is today.
Example 2 - Sun - These guys always did a great job of providing tools to companies that needed the absolute fastest machines to make it work. Unfortunately, Moore's law caught up and made their systems a luxury compared to lots of other manufacturers.
The basic problem that all these companies have is that Moore's Law eventually changes every business into a low end commodity business.
You can't stop the future. You can only simulate it by stopping progress
OK, its great that Intel and other can make a 64 bit processor. Its great that they are making faster and faster 32 bit processors. But the big question is where is the market? And I don't mean that there is nothing that needs the speed. There is plenty but compared the previous market where any new processor would be scooped up and would have a 10% market share. Then it got that computers were so cheap that Intel and everyone else thought that since everyone was buying more high end systems that the trend would go on forever.
Well, the trend broke in 2001 when people started to notice that the machines needed for this generation of software was not the fastest but the slowest machines on the market. That most users did not need a top end machine and instead could buy the slowest processor out there. During 2002, the same came true for lap tops. Now everyone is swimming in so much wasted CPU power that it is going to finally crush those that can't adapt to radically lower needs compared to what Intel and their competitors are churning out. Ask someone who runs a computer room and they will tell you that they are quickly consolidating old servers that cost $250K three years ago to a server that costs $15K and only takes up a quarter of the room.
Intel is in real danger of not surviving because it does not understand where we will be in 5 years. 5 years ago when they were in the middle of this effort they did not see our need for speed slowing dramticly and are now producing a chip that has such a limited market that it will never be profitable with all the investment that was in put in.
When you look at how a company responds to the typical S curve of development, they may make the first curve but often that screws up their timing on the second curve and they just go off the cliff.
I think that AOL, MSN and every other ISP would have a lot higher churn if it was easy to get stuff forwarded. Since your email address is really the only way that people can get hold of you, it makes the switch difficult. And since every company wants to spend as little as possible on support, there are lots of unhappy people out there who just don't want to go through the hassle.
As a former AOL employee, I still have an AOL account even though I find the service has ticked me off more than a few times but my wife can't really change her email address at this tmie. So we are like so many who just are waiting for the right time.
You can't stop the future, you can only simulate it by stopping progress
This story is so old and lame, it makes me sick. If you can't compete then too bad, cause the future is coming even if you don't like it. Progress in communications, transportation and standardization means that distance itself is no longer an insurmountable barrier.
So I am afraid about all the jobs going elsewhere? NO
Am I making sure that I understand the changes that globalization will bring whether I like it or not? YES
You can't stop the future. You can only simulate it by stopping progress.
Learn to adapt or you will not be in a good place.
What was the point of that article?
on
Immortal Code
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I read it and it says that people buy assets of failed companies and sometimes those assets are - oh mi ga - software code. Well I was as suprised as I have ever been that you could buy the software code assets of failed companies.
Come on guys this is not a story at all. Good code gets bought and reused. Thats not news thats anti-news (it would be news if people didn't do it). So thanks for alerting me to another article that doesn't matter about anti-news.
1. Most web users (and unfortunately lots of admins) don't understand DNS at a theory level also don't understand a lot of other stuff like security but...
2. The amount of time it takes to set up DNS correctly and effeciently with the existing products, especially BIND, is a lot more than it takes to just get them functioning.
3. The research would have been more interesting if they had gone and looked at say 1000 random requestors who where doing things screwed up and find out why and how they were screwed up.
4. It would be nice if the local DNS servers had a list of valid top level domains so that it would kill requests to non-existant ones.
Yeah it uses 32 kg of water but most of the plant have water recylcing plants now. At least in the US. And what about the other stuff mentioned (except for the energy needed to run manufacturing), how much of these are recycled? Please spare us headlines that are alarmist and wrong - there are plenty that are alarmist and right. Don't confuse the issue.
Get it folks. They designed a format and have some tools but have decided that they want to tap into the great pool of OSS talent. Who says this is not a dark side ploy?
If all goes as planned all the great OSS software will be written to output this format in no time.
Then we don't have anything to worry about except the large legal bills that everyone on the other side will have. After all he did such a great job with MS that they have been broken up and are now several companies that compete with each other. (oh yeah that was how it was supposed to end.)
I dealt with the PARC on their AI products and when they tried to commercialize their extensive work. (mid-80's)
From my dealings with the people there, it was clear that they had the whole research and development thing down. They inspired their people to build things that were unbelievable. But the marketing and sales folks all came from the copier side of the business whenever they wanted to roll things out. Although Xerox folks were great people, they could not bridge the gap between their experience and the future. (See Clayton Christensen's Innovator's Dilemma.)
As time went on Xerox say more and more that they were not capturing the benefits of the PARC developed technology and got desperate. So all good things come to an end.
Hey maybe you can all use one of them fancy time-reversal antenna to pick up the copyrighted material before its copyrighted and copyright it first for the public domain then you will really screw with the mouse, etc. It's so crazy it might just work.
Or you could use existing technology
on
Reflections
·
· Score: 1
OK, so there is a technology that increases the throughput by 4. Wow!
But the electronics don't exist and it might be years away and it does not work yet with celluar frequencies and it might just be easier cheaper and all around make more sense to just use existing technology but pump up the number/amount of frequencies.
Or maybe you should look at it as they used an average of 21% of 550,000,000 cycles per second to serve 4 pages. = 115,500,000 cycles for 4 pages or 28,000,000 cycles per page. WOW! With performance like that I am worried.
Slashdot Mirror
As for other markets, when I worked in a industrial plant in the Netherlands, the foreman and others who had to go a long distance had bikes with banana seats. Very low tech but usable.
And I don't think that too many folks in the NE of the US are going to be able to use theirs for several weeks.
Maybe I am just a lowly CCNP but is this all just a theory paper about the problems with "routing" or were there specifics about current routing protocols that should be updated or current practices that should be changed. Please help, everyone knows that the current routing could be better but theory stuff just does not help us much.
But the problem is that they have no idea what really did her in and what they did wrong. I really love the nuts that thinks the first time they try to clone a human it will work perfectly. Ha. About as likely as ... fill the blank... But seriously, it was a stroke of genious to think that when we can't figure out how protiens fold and what most of the junk inside cells do, that we could move some DNA around in a rather clumsy way and voila have a perfect clone. Next thing they are going to start talking about error free coding... yada yada yada. Dolly is dead and we don't have a clue and won't for a long long time. And when we do successful cloning we won't have a clue about what we did right, what we did wrong or what the difference is between the two.
No they are really quite distinct. The issue of effeciency is that some appliations are only possible where there is enough energy converted. Thus the Sunraycer had to have a really long tail to absord enough energy. So we aren't going to have solar powered cars in any meaningful way with the current effeciency regardless of the cost. So the point also is that most commercial buildings will have a tough time producing their enough energy from solar even in AZ or NM.
As for cost that is really the thing that is keeping widespread implemenation from occuring in the sunny climates.
And as for Lomborg's idea about Moore's Law, the breakthrough will come when the price makes it effective even if the prices drop after your purchase. Just look at computers, we buy them even though they are dropping at an even faster rate. You make a calculation and if it makes sense then buy. After that point it is a sunk cost.
1. The panels are only usable in some applications due their overall effeciency (quoted as 11% for this stuff) that you can only use it in very sunny places.
2. The cost per kilowatt hour is still not compariable to some very environmentally unfriendly stuff.
So its nice that they have stuff that the architects like for curved surfaces but for the rest of us with smooth flat roofs and commercial buildings with flat sides and roofs, it would be nice to get some panels that have higher effeciency and have lower cost per kilowatt hour.
And sure you can put up your own version if you have lots of money for servers and bandwidth. It would be an interesting exercise to see how far computer prices and bandwidth would have to come down before you could have a Google like service or one that would be a flat rate.
You can't stop the future, you can only simulate it by stopping progress.
And why would I buy this book or any book on RAID if I am going to use a hardware solution. If I have hardware then I am going to just make sure it has support & instructions for Linux and be done with it.
Next they will try a TLD with umlauts and maybe some of the cyrilic letters.
My major point is that thinking with a black box mentality in most situations will allow somebody to stick it to the programmer when things go bad. So for your own job security and satisfaction, it is important to either deal effectively with a poorly structured environment or make sure you are in a place that has a good development methodology.
And no I have not written 100% solid code but I have worked in a lot of poorly organized shops and the programmers usually were to blame for accepting the poor docs given to them be not understanding their ultimate responsibility for giving the customer what they needed.
Hey give me a break, this is expected and unless you want to read, listen and weblog 24 hours a day, you will find a way to consume what you can. Thanks for analyzing another "phenomenon" that is pretty much expected.
The problem with these programmers is that they rarely understand what can and does go wrong with the outside world. It is always amazing to me that there are people out there that assume that everyone has a 100BaseT Ethernet hub between the front end and the back end or other stupid assumptions.
The issue that crops up most when programmers think in black box terms is that today's software is not spec'd out enough so that the end user does not get what they wanted but the programmer did not solve it by asking. Too often the problem is very fuzzy and thus the programmer is there to help clarify not just implement.
Without a well rounded programmer looking at the overall system (or his/her boss), you will wind up with chatty, buggy applications that was what the user asked for but not what they needed.
Example 1 - Intel - This company continues to pump out faster and faster processors. They can't stop making new processors or AMD or someone else will. The costs of making each processor goes up but the premium for new, faster processors continues to drop as fewer people need the absolute high end. So if you look at Intel's business 5 years ago, they always had a healthy margin for the high end. That is no longer the case and if you exprapolate out a few years, it is tough to imagine that Intel will be the same company it is today.
Example 2 - Sun - These guys always did a great job of providing tools to companies that needed the absolute fastest machines to make it work. Unfortunately, Moore's law caught up and made their systems a luxury compared to lots of other manufacturers.
The basic problem that all these companies have is that Moore's Law eventually changes every business into a low end commodity business.
You can't stop the future. You can only simulate it by stopping progress
Well, the trend broke in 2001 when people started to notice that the machines needed for this generation of software was not the fastest but the slowest machines on the market. That most users did not need a top end machine and instead could buy the slowest processor out there. During 2002, the same came true for lap tops. Now everyone is swimming in so much wasted CPU power that it is going to finally crush those that can't adapt to radically lower needs compared to what Intel and their competitors are churning out. Ask someone who runs a computer room and they will tell you that they are quickly consolidating old servers that cost $250K three years ago to a server that costs $15K and only takes up a quarter of the room.
Intel is in real danger of not surviving because it does not understand where we will be in 5 years. 5 years ago when they were in the middle of this effort they did not see our need for speed slowing dramticly and are now producing a chip that has such a limited market that it will never be profitable with all the investment that was in put in.
When you look at how a company responds to the typical S curve of development, they may make the first curve but often that screws up their timing on the second curve and they just go off the cliff.
As a former AOL employee, I still have an AOL account even though I find the service has ticked me off more than a few times but my wife can't really change her email address at this tmie. So we are like so many who just are waiting for the right time.
You can't stop the future, you can only simulate it by stopping progress
So I am afraid about all the jobs going elsewhere? NO
Am I making sure that I understand the changes that globalization will bring whether I like it or not? YES
You can't stop the future. You can only simulate it by stopping progress.
Learn to adapt or you will not be in a good place.
Come on guys this is not a story at all. Good code gets bought and reused. Thats not news thats anti-news (it would be news if people didn't do it). So thanks for alerting me to another article that doesn't matter about anti-news.
2. The amount of time it takes to set up DNS correctly and effeciently with the existing products, especially BIND, is a lot more than it takes to just get them functioning.
3. The research would have been more interesting if they had gone and looked at say 1000 random requestors who where doing things screwed up and find out why and how they were screwed up.
4. It would be nice if the local DNS servers had a list of valid top level domains so that it would kill requests to non-existant ones.
THAT would be stuff that matters!
Yeah it uses 32 kg of water but most of the plant have water recylcing plants now. At least in the US. And what about the other stuff mentioned (except for the energy needed to run manufacturing), how much of these are recycled? Please spare us headlines that are alarmist and wrong - there are plenty that are alarmist and right. Don't confuse the issue.
If all goes as planned all the great OSS software will be written to output this format in no time.
Then we don't have anything to worry about except the large legal bills that everyone on the other side will have. After all he did such a great job with MS that they have been broken up and are now several companies that compete with each other. (oh yeah that was how it was supposed to end.)
From my dealings with the people there, it was clear that they had the whole research and development thing down. They inspired their people to build things that were unbelievable. But the marketing and sales folks all came from the copier side of the business whenever they wanted to roll things out. Although Xerox folks were great people, they could not bridge the gap between their experience and the future. (See Clayton Christensen's Innovator's Dilemma.)
As time went on Xerox say more and more that they were not capturing the benefits of the PARC developed technology and got desperate. So all good things come to an end.
Hey maybe you can all use one of them fancy time-reversal antenna to pick up the copyrighted material before its copyrighted and copyright it first for the public domain then you will really screw with the mouse, etc. It's so crazy it might just work.
But the electronics don't exist and it might be years away and it does not work yet with celluar frequencies and it might just be easier cheaper and all around make more sense to just use existing technology but pump up the number/amount of frequencies.
Now that is news and it matters!
Or maybe you should look at it as they used an average of 21% of 550,000,000 cycles per second to serve 4 pages. = 115,500,000 cycles for 4 pages or 28,000,000 cycles per page. WOW! With performance like that I am worried.