Better yet buy a DC-3 to learn about flight dynamics. Truth is, old is old. There are practical limits to what you can learn from it because what THEY knew about when they built it was limited or in some ways flawed outright.
LBA's SOT - yet another Fedora based distro geared for business desktops is one of the best out-of-the-box distros. Great fit and finish. Excellent installation.
Well there here is what people need to do. Implement real engineering discipline into their SW development. Make those hard choices up front - create a lifecycle management scheme INCLUDING a sunset plan and stick with it. You're right, halfassed is as halfassed does and Theo is absolutely right when he says a priori that scrimping on quality is a horrendous choice in the long run. But that's an abstract argument to make. OK, HOW MUCH crappiness is bad? As much as is contained in BSD? Maybe the missions that BSD is typically used for can't afford even a little slipshod deployment? Like the old world of SS7 telephony switch network, device failure was not an option. It absolutely had to work instantly every time all the time no matter what. Wow was that hard to do and man oh man was it expensive. Maybe that level of quality is what BSD is good for. We agree that openBSD is a great fit for security hardness where your ass hangs out in the internet swamp all day. But it's entirely possible that the cost benefit trade off for other applications isn't worth it. You'd spend all day polishing your spear and never get around to using it. With the lifespan of most enterprise apps somewhere in the 1-2 year range I'm hard pressed to understand why we would spend more than 30% of that lifecycle time on QA.
Seriously what people should worry about is the fact that something on their own computers can land them in jail while everyone upstream who had a hand in helping to place that material there gets away scott free. If the Government wants to regulate something then let them address that inequity.
No you can't build quality abstractly. You have to build it in relation to your needs and what you can afford. If the economic benefit of near perfection is less than the cost of near perfection then it would silly to try. The problem with patches is a problem of complexity not quality. You have to make a decision about how much complexity to embrace, how many patches to apply and how urgently you have to do it. You have to quantitatively understand what the risks of not doing something are instead of blindly doing whatever you possibly can do.
That's the thing that all you nerds fail to grasp. Crappy is good enough. C minus is adequate. You have it quick, you have it good you can have it cheap. Pick TWO. But unless and until my crappy HR web application needs to run orbital reinsertion computations for the space shuttle I'm not going to worry about 6 sigma anything.
Because clearly, Blackberries only exist so that your bosses boss can send you an email with a sig at the bottom that says "sent from Mr. Big's Blackberry (while rolling down the hgwy in his Z4).
Mac on Intel is the same thing as Mac on PPC from the perspective of open source code. Mac is still closed either way.
If John means this will kill of PPC ports of open source - well Duh! but so what? That's tiny. I can sort of see his point though when developers start writing their own apps for Mac running on Intel as opposed to Linux on PPC or Linux on Intel though - almost.
I mean will Mac on Intel kill desktop Intel Linux? I can't see how - Mac or MS Windows are still closed source platforms. No one is really going to bother writing a new Linux desktop OS for Mac flavored hardware on Intel - at least not right away but that's no different than the zero people who're writing Linux for a regular Mac box today. It still makes no rational sense to bother writing Linux for a miniMac for example regardless of what hardware is under the covers. In fact Apple would have to be crazy to promote a lot of open source development for Mac on Intel in the first place? Why lose control over what is already a narrowly held platform?
$50,000 or more is for a Torah that is used every day. A truly ancient e.g. more than 5 or 6 hundred years old scroll or a Torah from eastern Europe before 1800 would literally be priceless. Pick a large number, double it, add 4 zeros, double it again.
Theft is not a huge problem but it is a problem because scrolls are so expensive and some shuls simply can't afford them. So they look for one of questionable provenance. Also scrolls do wear out and have to be buried and replaced eventually.
And it will abandon the entire high margin hardware based segment of their business. Which means that Apple will either become a branding company that farms out almost everything, like iPod or it will become the next Sony and will abandon computing altogether.
Nowhere is anyone claiming that Macs will run on Pentium chips. Apple is switching sourcing of their CPUs from IBM to Intel. In other words the 'next gen' PPC will be built by Intel. Just like Apple did when they moved from Motorola to IBM.
I won't believe it till I see some biomechanically-genetically enhanced NBA baller on Cribs with a Bot that is supposed to serve Crytall but playa never figured out how to power it up so it sits in the corner with a hat on sideways.
Thank the fat smiling baby jesus that our President is poised to kill off NASA and give it a new mission - space based weapons. In a thousand years we will be the Planet of the Apes.
None the less - when they are screaming for people to start counting paper clips, lavishing executives with 10's and 100's of millions of dollars is not a wise business decision. Let's not forget that the largest IBM site in the world now is in India and by next year India will have more IBM employees than any other. While they 'leverage' employee costs by a factor of 9:1 compared to the US and Europe, AND stock price continues to fall and fall and fall, awarding executives with ridiculously increasing compensation out of all measure of actual performance is a joke.
While I fully appreciate the Techno-Libertarians who defend and support the executive class of which they themselves will never occupy, it's simply bad business no matter how ideologically whipped into a frenzy they get.
$13 million in the proceeds of a stock grant sale and options exercize to J. Bruce Harreld alone.
Bruce Harreld came from Boston Market several years ago where he also helped drive that company straight into the shitter.
Most IBM employees got no annual increase last year and variable pay e.g. bonuses which is what most people count on, were cut to the bone - average awards were half what they were the year before and about one fifth of the people got them. This year IBM suspended annual increases to executives but stock and other equity awards were not frozen. In the meantime the employees are bracing for another year of no increases and no variable pay. Simultaneously, benefits cost were increased about 15-20% to employees. Moreover any employees sitting on options that were awarded after 1998 have worthless paper - priced around $132 which is where the stock was headed in 1999 before it had its relentless crash since then ($76 as of today). And there is a strong push to force employees to work from home so IBM can sell their real estate. Employees are expected to give up one room of their house to for a home office and the reimbursement of their office supplies to the employee is now imputed income.
Quality doesn't matter There is no loyalty Deep education is worthless You are a pair of hands A monkey could probably do it good enough for us Our bankers want to oursource
We all have smocks and we all work for a company that's more like Walmart with pocketprotectors than anything else.
Slashdot Mirror
Better yet buy a DC-3 to learn about flight dynamics. Truth is, old is old. There are practical limits to what you can learn from it because what THEY knew about when they built it was limited or in some ways flawed outright.
LBA's SOT - yet another Fedora based distro geared for business desktops is one of the best out-of-the-box distros. Great fit and finish. Excellent installation.
OK so the the Op Ed page will just be whatever the loudest assholes say it is.
Well there here is what people need to do. Implement real engineering discipline into their SW development. Make those hard choices up front - create a lifecycle management scheme INCLUDING a sunset plan and stick with it. You're right, halfassed is as halfassed does and Theo is absolutely right when he says a priori that scrimping on quality is a horrendous choice in the long run. But that's an abstract argument to make. OK, HOW MUCH crappiness is bad? As much as is contained in BSD? Maybe the missions that BSD is typically used for can't afford even a little slipshod deployment? Like the old world of SS7 telephony switch network, device failure was not an option. It absolutely had to work instantly every time all the time no matter what. Wow was that hard to do and man oh man was it expensive. Maybe that level of quality is what BSD is good for. We agree that openBSD is a great fit for security hardness where your ass hangs out in the internet swamp all day. But it's entirely possible that the cost benefit trade off for other applications isn't worth it. You'd spend all day polishing your spear and never get around to using it. With the lifespan of most enterprise apps somewhere in the 1-2 year range I'm hard pressed to understand why we would spend more than 30% of that lifecycle time on QA.
The needle went all the way to the red, bent on the stop peg and shattered into a cloud of sparks.
Who the fuck does Walmart think they are? Someone needs to start killing Walmart decision makers.
Seriously what people should worry about is the fact that something on their own computers can land them in jail while everyone upstream who had a hand in helping to place that material there gets away scott free. If the Government wants to regulate something then let them address that inequity.
No you can't build quality abstractly. You have to build it in relation to your needs and what you can afford. If the economic benefit of near perfection is less than the cost of near perfection then it would silly to try. The problem with patches is a problem of complexity not quality. You have to make a decision about how much complexity to embrace, how many patches to apply and how urgently you have to do it. You have to quantitatively understand what the risks of not doing something are instead of blindly doing whatever you possibly can do.
That's the thing that all you nerds fail to grasp. Crappy is good enough. C minus is adequate. You have it quick, you have it good you can have it cheap. Pick TWO. But unless and until my crappy HR web application needs to run orbital reinsertion computations for the space shuttle I'm not going to worry about 6 sigma anything.
I think it's funny - just ignore all those humorless assholes.
Send enough flights into space and EVENTUALLY one will come down profitably.
cuz mine has the red A in the circle, and yours doesn't, see?
Exactly what I thought too. Except I pictured a volcano with numbers flying out the top.
Because clearly, Blackberries only exist so that your bosses boss can send you an email with a sig at the bottom that says "sent from Mr. Big's Blackberry (while rolling down the hgwy in his Z4).
Bank on it.
Mac on Intel is the same thing as Mac on PPC from the perspective of open source code. Mac is still closed either way.
If John means this will kill of PPC ports of open source - well Duh! but so what? That's tiny. I can sort of see his point though when developers start writing their own apps for Mac running on Intel as opposed to Linux on PPC or Linux on Intel though - almost.
I mean will Mac on Intel kill desktop Intel Linux? I can't see how - Mac or MS Windows are still closed source platforms. No one is really going to bother writing a new Linux desktop OS for Mac flavored hardware on Intel - at least not right away but that's no different than the zero people who're writing Linux for a regular Mac box today. It still makes no rational sense to bother writing Linux for a miniMac for example regardless of what hardware is under the covers. In fact Apple would have to be crazy to promote a lot of open source development for Mac on Intel in the first place? Why lose control over what is already a narrowly held platform?
$50,000 or more is for a Torah that is used every day. A truly ancient e.g. more than 5 or 6 hundred years old scroll or a Torah from eastern Europe before 1800 would literally be priceless. Pick a large number, double it, add 4 zeros, double it again.
Theft is not a huge problem but it is a problem because scrolls are so expensive and some shuls simply can't afford them. So they look for one of questionable provenance. Also scrolls do wear out and have to be buried and replaced eventually.
And it will abandon the entire high margin hardware based segment of their business. Which means that Apple will either become a branding company that farms out almost everything, like iPod or it will become the next Sony and will abandon computing altogether.
Nowhere is anyone claiming that Macs will run on Pentium chips. Apple is switching sourcing of their CPUs from IBM to Intel. In other words the 'next gen' PPC will be built by Intel. Just like Apple did when they moved from Motorola to IBM.
I won't believe it till I see some biomechanically-genetically enhanced NBA baller on Cribs with a Bot that is supposed to serve Crytall but playa never figured out how to power it up so it sits in the corner with a hat on sideways.
Thank the fat smiling baby jesus that our President is poised to kill off NASA and give it a new mission - space based weapons. In a thousand years we will be the Planet of the Apes.
None the less - when they are screaming for people to start counting paper clips, lavishing executives with 10's and 100's of millions of dollars is not a wise business decision. Let's not forget that the largest IBM site in the world now is in India and by next year India will have more IBM employees than any other. While they 'leverage' employee costs by a factor of 9:1 compared to the US and Europe, AND stock price continues to fall and fall and fall, awarding executives with ridiculously increasing compensation out of all measure of actual performance is a joke.
While I fully appreciate the Techno-Libertarians who defend and support the executive class of which they themselves will never occupy, it's simply bad business no matter how ideologically whipped into a frenzy they get.
http://www.marketwatch.com/tools/quotes/insiders.a sp?symb=IBM&vc=0&siteid=mktw&dist=dropmenu
$13 million in the proceeds of a stock grant sale and options exercize to J. Bruce Harreld alone.
Bruce Harreld came from Boston Market several years ago where he also helped drive that company straight into the shitter.
Most IBM employees got no annual increase last year and variable pay e.g. bonuses which is what most people count on, were cut to the bone - average awards were half what they were the year before and about one fifth of the people got them. This year IBM suspended annual increases to executives but stock and other equity awards were not frozen. In the meantime the employees are bracing for another year of no increases and no variable pay. Simultaneously, benefits cost were increased about 15-20% to employees. Moreover any employees sitting on options that were awarded after 1998 have worthless paper - priced around $132 which is where the stock was headed in 1999 before it had its relentless crash since then ($76 as of today). And there is a strong push to force employees to work from home so IBM can sell their real estate. Employees are expected to give up one room of their house to for a home office and the reimbursement of their office supplies to the employee is now imputed income.
See the thing is this:
Quality doesn't matter
There is no loyalty
Deep education is worthless
You are a pair of hands
A monkey could probably do it good enough for us
Our bankers want to oursource
We all have smocks and we all work for a company that's more like Walmart with pocketprotectors than anything else.
Straight up protectionism is what this is and if we could get away with it we would.