These are surface mount LED modules, not bulbs. I checked one out. At 700 mA @12V (8.4W) gives 1040 lumens - approximately as much as a 70-watt incandescent - in a square 7mm on a side. This is only 123 lumens per watt. Max current is 1250 mA, so you could conceivably get a lot more light out of one, and presumably 1W is where the 200 Lumens/W kicks in, but that's only about a 25W incandescent equivalent - still pretty respectable considering the size. They cost about $10 in quantity 500. ROI is about 6 months vs. incandescent, or 18 months at the 200 lumens/W level.
I think I could see some interesting applications for this one. At 1040 lumens 18% of the electrical energy is converted to light, so around 6.9 W of heat. It's also too bright to look directly at.
Yes, it's a slashvertisement / press release. But LED lighting has/. common interests energy, technology, and so on. Progress is progress.
If they can just improve the efficiency a little more these might be interesting not only as a light source but as a means for spacecraft propulsion.
Since I've been charged with the question not just by you but a respondent also, I would go with no, don't turn your geek card in. You've got nerd enough for both of us.
It is often said that in the simplest art ineffable complexity can be found. Is that the work of the Artist, or a fabrication of the viewer's mind? And in inducing the question does not the Art transcend to a higher plane?
I, or people under my instruction and direct supervision, have installed ("imaged") Windows over 100,000 times. 45 times just today, coincidentally. I am quite the prolific Windows guy despite my feelings on the matter. I build golden images. I even give guidance to Microsoft on things like Autorun and their deployment tools. From here. I am entitled to express a professional opinion, or even a personal one as an expert with over 30 years in the field and over ten years presence here.
And you are an Anonymous Coward, with no right to say anything you don't have immediate proof for.
Yes, and I get the early versions too. Compare and contrast Windows 3.0:Windows 8 change vs. 1991 Linux:2012 Linux change. If you cannot see a relative delta favoring Linux then you are impaired.
I'm not a W7 hater but in the narrow scope of your question the relative deltas are not anywhere near debatable.
Of course. Linux is the sort of dangerous tool that will chew you up and spit you out. It is the wood-chipper of operating systems. Just installing it can abrade your brain's pleasure center until your greatest goal is to lick Richard Stallman's flaky toes. Unless you can control it. If you can do that, it can make you the master of the Universe. So. Do you feel lucky?
We don't have a choice about accepting code. We're (currently) structured as an internal service provider, so our responsibility is only the infrastructure. If people can't use that properly, that's not our problem.
The problem is the guy's development methods haven't changed in the thirty years he's been here. So according to him, SANs don't work, virtualisation doesn't work, indeed, any sort of shared infrastructure except network and power, it seems) is just something that makes his performance "inconsistent".
This person can't be moved, retrained, or relocated. They are politically untouchable. A couple of months back we lost tens of millions of dollars because his software fell over (in fairness, probably the biggest outage its ever had) and he barely even got a "please explain". His excuse ? "The new load balancers let too much traffic in, too fast.".
The point here is that while hardware may well be a done deal, there's a lot more work that needs to be done on the software side before there aren't any more problems to solve. Specific to infrastructure, the management tools around most aspects of managing infrastructure are still woeful.
The point here is that while hardware may well be a done deal, there's a lot more work that needs to be done on the software side before there aren't any more problems to solve.
No. You quite clearly lay out how the problem you have relates to the Human Resources department, and then blame the technology. I am confused by your confusion. This is not a technology problem in any way. The technology is available. Hell, if this programmer was skilled in the art when he was hired 30 years ago he wouldn't have this impediment. I was, and I was still in high school. He didn't know it then, and has refused to learn it since, and he is still employed. Back in the day lots of fools managed to work their way into senior positions without any significant understanding of the technology, and still haven't been replaced because: seniority.
This is not a tech problem at all. This is a management not having balls problem. You know, it's OK to "promote" programmers who have reached their dotage into "Senior technical advisory" positions where they hold talks in the cafeteria once a month about "the way things used to be" until they're ready to go fishing forever, and reorganize their desk ornaments the rest of the time. So that the the people with modern skills and real education can get back to work. If he's too clever for that, task him to securely reimplement Zencart or some other plausibly useful thing. If he's senior enough, give him some assistants. The worst that can happen is he actually achieves the objective.
That may be the solution to your problem.
Your problem doesn't weigh at all on the premise that I put up. You have another issue, and you wanted me to solve it for you and I have.
Of all these so far I give you the most points. You have found the error in my metaphor. Your reply was overwrought, but if you wanted to attack the premise this was the tack to take. Nicely done. You have potential.
Now I rewrite it for you:
You say Linux is a spinning saw, and tell people to embrace it?
Do you see how this works my metaphor against me in the way you intended, and implies that I'm encouraging people to deliberate personal injury, in only a few words? How you could not see that post but read it all? No complex, unusual words nor odd grammar. How it talks down to neither the audience nor me? How it gives a visual and visceral? This is the sort of work that would raise your astroturfing to a high art. Good astroturfing is poetry: you need to distill the emotive content to the simplest, shortest and most basic words in order to convey your idea in a timeless way.
But as I said, well done. At least you found the error. That's far better than your peers could do.
That's a rather hard comparison to make, as windows improved in different ways than linux.
That's a rather hard comparison to make, as windows improved in different ways than linux.
Not really.
In 1991 Linux was a stone bitch requiring high voodoo just to get it to run - and then only on a perfect clone of Linus' box, only at the command line and with an distressingly short subset of unixland apps. The quality, utility and reliability were appalling to someone versed in SVR II/III, and nobody in corporate took it seriously. Now Linux powers watches and the world's largest supercomputer, and everything in between - effortlessly and with grace. Instead of being slow with drivers, Linux driver development now usually starts in the design phase for the device - because it's the thing you can test in a simulator to tweak the features of your device. By this facility device (and processor or architecture) developers can prove their device or architecture change works in the simulator before they do an expensive silicon run. Linux now supports both more devices and more architectures than any other OS ever. You buy a Linux/Android device, turn it on, log in and it automatically has all the apps you paid for ready to reinstall - usually with your data too. In that span Linux has gone from "not useful to anybody, not even Linus" to powering the global Internet economy including Google, Facebook, Twitter - and even Microsoft, providing you universal access to all your apps and data and people - in your pocket. From only being able to run for a few days to being the OS NASA puts in satellites.
In 1991 we were already on Windows 3.0, so it already at least had a GUI. So Windows started from a higher level and to have improved as much would need to have become truly outstanding by now. But it hasn't. They still haven't even solved the malware problem yet, and they were five years into it at that time. Windows is the OS that only Iran is dumb enough to run their nuclear research on. It takes 4 hours of expert service to take a Windows machine from "retail" to "usable" condition. After that it takes an indeterminate amount of time and expense to reinstall - and usually re-buy - the apps you used to have in the prior version and recover your data. Only then can you begin to relearn where they've moved the buttons. It's deliberately incompatible with every OS that isn't Windows and all applications that compete with Microsoft's. It has an upgrade treadmill that requires you to replace perfectly serviceable gear and software every time they refresh the OS. It has a built-in fragmentation where it's even not compatible with the oldest versions of itself, and while new features and their own applications like the browser could be backported older versions are not to keep the treadmill moving. And yet for giving up your devices and apps what does this new version give you? A UI that didn't sell on phones, so they're trying to push it to desktops and servers to make it familiar so as to sell the phones that 99% of everybody doesn't want. The client OS is designed to induce dependence on both the server OS and their own-brand apps, and this design is mutual. Apps are built on their platform-of-the-day, so developers have to relearn their entire skillset as often as Microsoft remembers that they lacked forethought and have to burn it all down again and start over. And it's from Microsoft, so knowing their long history I doubt any of these things are going to change ever. It's failtacular. A festival of fail. It's got recursive levels of failure built-in that make it a failure fractal. And yet it's got a cult with selective recurrent amnesia.
In '91 Unix with X was technically as far ahead of Windows as Windows was ahead of Linux at that time. And now Unix is pretty much dead: the legacy software stack is owned by Attachmate, who is legendary for making VT-100 terminal emulators that integrate with Microsoft Office
There is no way that any new software we would accept could suck so hard that this hardware wouldn't serve it fast.
So. Did you accept the code? I'm a programmer too, and I'm well aware there are stupid programmers everywhere who don't understand - and think they don't need to understand - underlying technologies that run their code. Anybody who needs this explained twice should be retrained, perhaps to work they're more suited for, like management.
I have no doubt that in addition to using "black box" hardware he didn't understand he was also "leveraging" several entire software layers inappropriate to the task at hand to "speed application development". And doing it poorly. Or just plain using algorithms inappropriate to the problem. I have seen that a lot.
This is all real cool, but it doesn't require anything special either on the server or client end. The stuff you're talking about is software, the running of which we're well past "good".
I think you are understimating peoples' abilities to find innovative new uses for future hardware improvements.
No, I'm really not. I've been at this for over 30 years. This is a real thing. It's a new thing. It is totally different from anything you or I have ever seen. There is no way that any new software we would accept could suck so hard that this hardware wouldn't serve it fast.
Heh - I never gave a thought to the timing of criminalization of Mary J, that way.
I think the more important timing is, nylon rope became commercially available right about then. You know, the then new technology developed by DuPont. All that cordage that the Navy required prior to nylon rope was replaced by Nylon, which the DuPont companies had a monopoly on. Prior to uhhhh - was it 1942? farmers were actually REQUIRED to produce so much hemp each year. Hemp was a vital resource, and Uncle had plenty of regulations in place to ensure that he would never run out of that resource.
But, yes, I'm sure that your observation had some influence on passage of the criminalization laws. DuPont won, the prison industries won, and only dopeheads lost. That almost certainly swayed some undecided representatives who hadn't been bribed enough.
Thanks. Agree about the commercial interests. You glossed "the prison industries" too quick. You want to linger on that one for a while. There is a reason we call them "prison industries". Employees of the court, lawyers and "prison industries" are the self-centered "law and order" contingent that needs a legally oppressed legally criminal minority to maintain their quality of life. They have a profit motive. It falls down when they sentence a killer to 9 Months, and a weed dealer that never hurt anybody to five years.
A dispassionate economist would say that with surplus productivity the imprisoned minority help to serve the purpose of depleting the surplus productivity. We find arbitrary reasons to imprison otherwise productive folk to make jobs for courts, lawyers and jailers. But I haven't got the gut to be an economist.
Agree that the textile issue is important. Disagree that it is the prime motive. We humans have been using some method of depleting surplus productivity through oppressing a minority for a million years and more. It's literaly in our genes. It seems to be a part of what we are.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that it was designed to never run linux.
About as hard to resist as all the other Windows tablets that have gone before it in the last 15 years.
These are surface mount LED modules, not bulbs. I checked one out. At 700 mA @12V (8.4W) gives 1040 lumens - approximately as much as a 70-watt incandescent - in a square 7mm on a side. This is only 123 lumens per watt. Max current is 1250 mA, so you could conceivably get a lot more light out of one, and presumably 1W is where the 200 Lumens/W kicks in, but that's only about a 25W incandescent equivalent - still pretty respectable considering the size. They cost about $10 in quantity 500. ROI is about 6 months vs. incandescent, or 18 months at the 200 lumens/W level.
I think I could see some interesting applications for this one. At 1040 lumens 18% of the electrical energy is converted to light, so around 6.9 W of heat. It's also too bright to look directly at.
Yes, it's a slashvertisement / press release. But LED lighting has /. common interests energy, technology, and so on. Progress is progress.
If they can just improve the efficiency a little more these might be interesting not only as a light source but as a means for spacecraft propulsion.
Jesus. You can get a 7' Android 4.0 tablet for $80. I have six of them. In China and India they're $45 local money. How poor are you?
Jesus fucking Christ. Tell me you lied. Lie to me if you must. If there was one thing that would make me go Postal, this is it.
Since I've been charged with the question not just by you but a respondent also, I would go with no, don't turn your geek card in. You've got nerd enough for both of us.
It is often said that in the simplest art ineffable complexity can be found. Is that the work of the Artist, or a fabrication of the viewer's mind? And in inducing the question does not the Art transcend to a higher plane?
I, or people under my instruction and direct supervision, have installed ("imaged") Windows over 100,000 times. 45 times just today, coincidentally. I am quite the prolific Windows guy despite my feelings on the matter. I build golden images. I even give guidance to Microsoft on things like Autorun and their deployment tools. From here. I am entitled to express a professional opinion, or even a personal one as an expert with over 30 years in the field and over ten years presence here.
And you are an Anonymous Coward, with no right to say anything you don't have immediate proof for.
This year Android/Linux moved more devices than Windows did. By a good stretch. Next year by 3x at least. Looks like you guys are on the run.
How are Wordperfect, Lotus 123 and Pagemaker documents working for you these days?
Yes, and I get the early versions too. Compare and contrast Windows 3.0:Windows 8 change vs. 1991 Linux:2012 Linux change. If you cannot see a relative delta favoring Linux then you are impaired.
I'm not a W7 hater but in the narrow scope of your question the relative deltas are not anywhere near debatable.
Of course. Linux is the sort of dangerous tool that will chew you up and spit you out. It is the wood-chipper of operating systems. Just installing it can abrade your brain's pleasure center until your greatest goal is to lick Richard Stallman's flaky toes. Unless you can control it. If you can do that, it can make you the master of the Universe. So. Do you feel lucky?
We don't have a choice about accepting code. We're (currently) structured as an internal service provider, so our responsibility is only the infrastructure. If people can't use that properly, that's not our problem. The problem is the guy's development methods haven't changed in the thirty years he's been here. So according to him, SANs don't work, virtualisation doesn't work, indeed, any sort of shared infrastructure except network and power, it seems) is just something that makes his performance "inconsistent". This person can't be moved, retrained, or relocated. They are politically untouchable. A couple of months back we lost tens of millions of dollars because his software fell over (in fairness, probably the biggest outage its ever had) and he barely even got a "please explain". His excuse ? "The new load balancers let too much traffic in, too fast.". The point here is that while hardware may well be a done deal, there's a lot more work that needs to be done on the software side before there aren't any more problems to solve. Specific to infrastructure, the management tools around most aspects of managing infrastructure are still woeful.
The point here is that while hardware may well be a done deal, there's a lot more work that needs to be done on the software side before there aren't any more problems to solve.
No. You quite clearly lay out how the problem you have relates to the Human Resources department, and then blame the technology. I am confused by your confusion. This is not a technology problem in any way. The technology is available. Hell, if this programmer was skilled in the art when he was hired 30 years ago he wouldn't have this impediment. I was, and I was still in high school. He didn't know it then, and has refused to learn it since, and he is still employed. Back in the day lots of fools managed to work their way into senior positions without any significant understanding of the technology, and still haven't been replaced because: seniority.
This is not a tech problem at all. This is a management not having balls problem. You know, it's OK to "promote" programmers who have reached their dotage into "Senior technical advisory" positions where they hold talks in the cafeteria once a month about "the way things used to be" until they're ready to go fishing forever, and reorganize their desk ornaments the rest of the time. So that the the people with modern skills and real education can get back to work. If he's too clever for that, task him to securely reimplement Zencart or some other plausibly useful thing. If he's senior enough, give him some assistants. The worst that can happen is he actually achieves the objective.
That may be the solution to your problem.
Your problem doesn't weigh at all on the premise that I put up. You have another issue, and you wanted me to solve it for you and I have.
Of all these so far I give you the most points. You have found the error in my metaphor. Your reply was overwrought, but if you wanted to attack the premise this was the tack to take. Nicely done. You have potential.
Now I rewrite it for you:
You say Linux is a spinning saw, and tell people to embrace it?
Do you see how this works my metaphor against me in the way you intended, and implies that I'm encouraging people to deliberate personal injury, in only a few words? How you could not see that post but read it all? No complex, unusual words nor odd grammar. How it talks down to neither the audience nor me? How it gives a visual and visceral? This is the sort of work that would raise your astroturfing to a high art. Good astroturfing is poetry: you need to distill the emotive content to the simplest, shortest and most basic words in order to convey your idea in a timeless way.
But as I said, well done. At least you found the error. That's far better than your peers could do.
That's a rather hard comparison to make, as windows improved in different ways than linux.
That's a rather hard comparison to make, as windows improved in different ways than linux.
Not really.
In 1991 Linux was a stone bitch requiring high voodoo just to get it to run - and then only on a perfect clone of Linus' box, only at the command line and with an distressingly short subset of unixland apps. The quality, utility and reliability were appalling to someone versed in SVR II/III, and nobody in corporate took it seriously. Now Linux powers watches and the world's largest supercomputer, and everything in between - effortlessly and with grace. Instead of being slow with drivers, Linux driver development now usually starts in the design phase for the device - because it's the thing you can test in a simulator to tweak the features of your device. By this facility device (and processor or architecture) developers can prove their device or architecture change works in the simulator before they do an expensive silicon run. Linux now supports both more devices and more architectures than any other OS ever. You buy a Linux/Android device, turn it on, log in and it automatically has all the apps you paid for ready to reinstall - usually with your data too. In that span Linux has gone from "not useful to anybody, not even Linus" to powering the global Internet economy including Google, Facebook, Twitter - and even Microsoft, providing you universal access to all your apps and data and people - in your pocket. From only being able to run for a few days to being the OS NASA puts in satellites.
In 1991 we were already on Windows 3.0, so it already at least had a GUI. So Windows started from a higher level and to have improved as much would need to have become truly outstanding by now. But it hasn't. They still haven't even solved the malware problem yet, and they were five years into it at that time. Windows is the OS that only Iran is dumb enough to run their nuclear research on. It takes 4 hours of expert service to take a Windows machine from "retail" to "usable" condition. After that it takes an indeterminate amount of time and expense to reinstall - and usually re-buy - the apps you used to have in the prior version and recover your data. Only then can you begin to relearn where they've moved the buttons. It's deliberately incompatible with every OS that isn't Windows and all applications that compete with Microsoft's. It has an upgrade treadmill that requires you to replace perfectly serviceable gear and software every time they refresh the OS. It has a built-in fragmentation where it's even not compatible with the oldest versions of itself, and while new features and their own applications like the browser could be backported older versions are not to keep the treadmill moving. And yet for giving up your devices and apps what does this new version give you? A UI that didn't sell on phones, so they're trying to push it to desktops and servers to make it familiar so as to sell the phones that 99% of everybody doesn't want. The client OS is designed to induce dependence on both the server OS and their own-brand apps, and this design is mutual. Apps are built on their platform-of-the-day, so developers have to relearn their entire skillset as often as Microsoft remembers that they lacked forethought and have to burn it all down again and start over. And it's from Microsoft, so knowing their long history I doubt any of these things are going to change ever. It's failtacular. A festival of fail. It's got recursive levels of failure built-in that make it a failure fractal. And yet it's got a cult with selective recurrent amnesia.
In '91 Unix with X was technically as far ahead of Windows as Windows was ahead of Linux at that time. And now Unix is pretty much dead: the legacy software stack is owned by Attachmate, who is legendary for making VT-100 terminal emulators that integrate with Microsoft Office
a matter of Months
Yeah. About -9 months.
If Windows had improved as much since 1991 as Linux has, I might actually like it now - if it came from a decent company.
Some people really should avoid attempting to use power tools, for risk of self injury. I would recommend you try a Mac.
There is no way that any new software we would accept could suck so hard that this hardware wouldn't serve it fast.
So. Did you accept the code? I'm a programmer too, and I'm well aware there are stupid programmers everywhere who don't understand - and think they don't need to understand - underlying technologies that run their code. Anybody who needs this explained twice should be retrained, perhaps to work they're more suited for, like management.
I have no doubt that in addition to using "black box" hardware he didn't understand he was also "leveraging" several entire software layers inappropriate to the task at hand to "speed application development". And doing it poorly. Or just plain using algorithms inappropriate to the problem. I have seen that a lot.
Is this story not trite already? "Child's electronic gift with porn" runs every year at this time.
This is all real cool, but it doesn't require anything special either on the server or client end. The stuff you're talking about is software, the running of which we're well past "good".
We love APK but now and then he goes off his meds and has to post this stuff. He's a local character.
APK, take your meds please. You're scaring the tourists.
Yes, I too am in favor of regulating the distribution of Bath Salts. Or at least a tax.
I think you are understimating peoples' abilities to find innovative new uses for future hardware improvements.
No, I'm really not. I've been at this for over 30 years. This is a real thing. It's a new thing. It is totally different from anything you or I have ever seen. There is no way that any new software we would accept could suck so hard that this hardware wouldn't serve it fast.
Heh - I never gave a thought to the timing of criminalization of Mary J, that way.
I think the more important timing is, nylon rope became commercially available right about then. You know, the then new technology developed by DuPont. All that cordage that the Navy required prior to nylon rope was replaced by Nylon, which the DuPont companies had a monopoly on. Prior to uhhhh - was it 1942? farmers were actually REQUIRED to produce so much hemp each year. Hemp was a vital resource, and Uncle had plenty of regulations in place to ensure that he would never run out of that resource.
But, yes, I'm sure that your observation had some influence on passage of the criminalization laws. DuPont won, the prison industries won, and only dopeheads lost. That almost certainly swayed some undecided representatives who hadn't been bribed enough.
Thanks. Agree about the commercial interests. You glossed "the prison industries" too quick. You want to linger on that one for a while. There is a reason we call them "prison industries". Employees of the court, lawyers and "prison industries" are the self-centered "law and order" contingent that needs a legally oppressed legally criminal minority to maintain their quality of life. They have a profit motive. It falls down when they sentence a killer to 9 Months, and a weed dealer that never hurt anybody to five years.
A dispassionate economist would say that with surplus productivity the imprisoned minority help to serve the purpose of depleting the surplus productivity. We find arbitrary reasons to imprison otherwise productive folk to make jobs for courts, lawyers and jailers. But I haven't got the gut to be an economist.
Agree that the textile issue is important. Disagree that it is the prime motive. We humans have been using some method of depleting surplus productivity through oppressing a minority for a million years and more. It's literaly in our genes. It seems to be a part of what we are.