"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." -- John. F. Kennedy
Things are going to change, people are fed up with the lies from the administration, and the lap dog press that lets them get away with it. If things don't get changed in a peaceful manner, it will get ugly.
Oh great, more contracts for Verint A.K.A. Comverse InfoSys, the Israeli company suspected of leaving backdoors for themselves. How much more can be possibly do to make ourselves puppets for other nations?
"SUpporting two OS's and two different versions of Offices? I don't know sounds EXPENSIVE. "
Well, unless I'm really mistaken, isn't Office:mac just the thing you think they can't do? How different is OS-X (a unix derivative) from Linux, really?
I apparently see things a little differently that most of the/. crowd. It's obvious to me, even though I'm not a Lawyer, that he gave it away in the middle of the interview...
"I could easily see IBM, HP, Sun, and many of the other large hardware players solving this problem tomorrow by settling the dispute with SCO and maybe even taking the entire code base and
donating it into the public domain."
The real goal here is to strip the GPL away from Linux. Once its free of the severe restrictions of the GPL, they can take it, and start work on MS-Linux.
Remember the tactical situation in which Microsoft finds itself right now. Most of their money is being made selling copies of Microsoft Office, and copies of Windows to run it on. The two are viewed almost as a monolith by the public, because the cost of Windows is usually hidden in a new computer.
They find themselves with stuck with the results of 20 years of marketing driven development as their code base. Any new system has to be backward compatible to the point where most MS-DOS 2.1 programs still work. This severely limits design flexiblity.
With a switch to Linux, they could drop all of their bugs, grab a nice clean codebase from the public domain, and start fresh. They could blame any bugs on the Linux people, and claim their professional team of developers is working to enhance the stability and security of the software to meet the needs of corporate America. (oh, the Irony of it)
What member of the public wouldn't jump at the chance to buy MS-Linux? They would see it as the latest technology, with the Microsoft seal of approval. (We don't want those undesireable "hacker" types writing our software, do we?)
Once they have MS-Linux firmly in place, they can then extend their true monopoly (Microsoft Office) into the Linux space.
I assume this is obvious to some of you, but I wrote this just in case someone hasn't woken up yet to the reality.
To sum up, as long as the GPL holds, we can have a free (as in speach and beer) set of working software to build and share. Once the GPL gets breeched, we're fscked! (Just spend the $1000/machine, and pay for MS-Linux with Office)
I might be able to emulate 4 or even 16 cells in an FPGA, but that's about it. I've considered building a cludge of some RAM chips and logic to serially emulate the dang thing, but that's a lot of work.
Utilities generally supply a product, and have no inputs. This is a very bad analogy to use with computing.
First, you have to reduce computation resources to commodities. They have to be uniform, and interchangable. Any unit of computation has to be a known quantity for all parties involved. This could be done for computation, provided that a sufficient security protocol is in place. Once this is done, the analogies start to fall in place.
Computing project as construction project.
Design / Architect == Programmers
Transportation == Internet
Raw materials == Source Data
Construction == Computation
Finish product == Results
The use of "utility" as a description is wrong... generic, containerized, commodity, unit are all nice adjectives to describe it, but not "utility".
Heck, even the analogy of computation as Automobile manufacturing, works much better.
Ok... at least one moderator thought the idea was interesting... who wants to actually build the damned thing? I've been playing with this idea since the 80's... just need someone who can actually get the chip made.
QoS is a technical hack to fix what is essentially an economic problem. Its going to cost more than its worth if it ever really takes off. Think troubleshooting got harder when everyone started filtering ping? Imagine the problems when some random system manager decides your traffic isn't as important as everyone elses, or some application starts using QoS data to increase the allocation of bandwith with the "evil" bit set?
Need to make sure you don't get lagged? Get a bigger pipe, or throttle the file transfers at the firewall. Don't make the rest of us suffer because you got cheap!
I was sure you where wrong about IP and ports... so I went and looked it up... and you're right.... the RFC defining Internet Protocol (IO) doesn't mention ports at all! It's when you get to UDP and TCP that ports come in to play.
Yet another post Von Neuman architecture is to have a computing fabric. Imagine a grid of 1024x1024 single bit processors, each with its on state table (program) and inputs from each of its neighbors, and its own previous state. With 32 bits of RAM per cell, you can look up the new state, and output it. A grid of this nature, operating at a conservative 1GHz, could do amazing amounts of computation. Computation would become IO bound for quite a few tasks that bog down even the fastest intel servers.
Map the cells in the state tables to appear as conventional RAM to the host, and reprogramming becomes as easy as a memory write. Bad cell?, just route around it. The fact that it's all state driven allows you to build an automated rerouter almost trivially.
post Von Neuman computers are going to be wicked fast, if they can build IO to keep up with them.
BOTH ends of the M-16 are dangerous... the wimp ass bullet can kill you... and it can blow up in your face if you don't extract a misloaded round properly.
We lose rights if we don't exercise them. The price over liberty is eternal vigilance, and we're not vigilant. We lost control a long time ago, when the 14th amendment was used to give Citizenship to Corporations. How can we mere mortals compete with an Amoral, Immortal, purely greedy entities in a struggle for power?
We've got an educational system that pumps out standard model consumer units, instead of concerned Citizens. Only a few of us were fortunate enough to have a nasty childhood which had the benefit of distracting us from the brainwashing.
We unhappy few are pissed that we've got a system where the majority has been assimilated, and are willing to be sheep. We need to wake them up, or get them the hell out of the way, before this whole system implodes under its own weight... or as a last resort, figure out how to hunker down and ride out a rerun of Nazi Germany.
If I had a gun, and they wanted to illegally enter... I'd assume they were crooks, and act accordingly... empty the clip into them, and dive for cover while reloading.
The police aren't the law... WE are the law. We set this government up, and WE have the right to override/revise/replace it.
Its rapidly coming to a head, the fact is the corporate interests have declared war on the public. We the people lost the US, and now they want to make it official, and worldwide.
For the most blatent example, see the "free market" sell off of the assets of Iraq, completed before its people get a chance to react.
We have to weigh the costs, because we might not be able to afford the mission otherwise. Remember that this mission is preventative, and thus won't be seen as important (and worth of funding) until after it saves our collective ass.
A mass driver is a precision piece of machinery, which would have to work under high load for a long time... testing opprotunities aren't going to be very plentiful, unless we do it on the moon. You'll have large quantities of golf ball sized debris moving through the mass driver... it's inevitable that you'll create an problem with erosion of the mass driver hardware, that might even gum up in the presence of water. The notion of billions of space golf balls had high velocity isn't appealing either.
Consider instead a high power microwave source ionizing the mass that would have previously been cut into golf ball pieces, then using a particle accelerator instead of a mass driver. If the ion temperature is kept high enough, you'll only have pure ions to deal with, nice and conductive, and easier to control. You can then ship them out along the thrust vector of your choice, without the headaches of mechanical processing of materials.
Electrohydrodynamic accelleration of mass can be studied in labs on the ground, thus reducing R&D costs. It also offers the advantage of being throttled to any desired rate. In the hard vacuum of space, it should be feasible to keep the ions from contacting, and thus eroding the accelerator.
The mass will eventually condense back to solid matter, but will be quite dispersed by the time that happens, thus creating dust, instead of solid projectiles.
I think it's critical that we use a very secure computing system to control them, lest some "evil-doer" take them over for terrorist purposes.
It's worth considering that a monoculture of these space guardians might be a bad thing in terms of reliabilty, and weigh that against the costs of implementing multiple designs.
I think it's crucial to have redundancy in such an oviously critical mission such as saving humanity. It also offers mission flexibilty, allowing the allocation of resources in response to the threat vectors presented.
Slashdot Mirror
--Mike--
--Mike--
--Mike--
Well, unless I'm really mistaken, isn't Office:mac just the thing you think they can't do? How different is OS-X (a unix derivative) from Linux, really?
--Mike--
The real goal here is to strip the GPL away from Linux. Once its free of the severe restrictions of the GPL, they can take it, and start work on MS-Linux.
Remember the tactical situation in which Microsoft finds itself right now. Most of their money is being made selling copies of Microsoft Office, and copies of Windows to run it on. The two are viewed almost as a monolith by the public, because the cost of Windows is usually hidden in a new computer.
They find themselves with stuck with the results of 20 years of marketing driven development as their code base. Any new system has to be backward compatible to the point where most MS-DOS 2.1 programs still work. This severely limits design flexiblity.
With a switch to Linux, they could drop all of their bugs, grab a nice clean codebase from the public domain, and start fresh. They could blame any bugs on the Linux people, and claim their professional team of developers is working to enhance the stability and security of the software to meet the needs of corporate America. (oh, the Irony of it)
What member of the public wouldn't jump at the chance to buy MS-Linux? They would see it as the latest technology, with the Microsoft seal of approval. (We don't want those undesireable "hacker" types writing our software, do we?)
Once they have MS-Linux firmly in place, they can then extend their true monopoly (Microsoft Office) into the Linux space.
I assume this is obvious to some of you, but I wrote this just in case someone hasn't woken up yet to the reality.
To sum up, as long as the GPL holds, we can have a free (as in speach and beer) set of working software to build and share. Once the GPL gets breeched, we're fscked! (Just spend the $1000/machine, and pay for MS-Linux with Office)
--Mike--
Empty conduit has the most bandwidth of all, except for that metaphorical station wagon loaded with backup tapes, of course.
--Mike--
Hmmm....
--Mike--
I think I'll try for a pc based emulator first.
--Mike--
First, you have to reduce computation resources to commodities. They have to be uniform, and interchangable. Any unit of computation has to be a known quantity for all parties involved. This could be done for computation, provided that a sufficient security protocol is in place. Once this is done, the analogies start to fall in place.
Computing project as construction project.
The use of "utility" as a description is wrong... generic, containerized, commodity, unit are all nice adjectives to describe it, but not "utility".
Heck, even the analogy of computation as Automobile manufacturing, works much better.
--Mike--
--Mike--
Need to make sure you don't get lagged? Get a bigger pipe, or throttle the file transfers at the firewall. Don't make the rest of us suffer because you got cheap!
--Mike--
Thanks for the lesson.
--Mike--
Map the cells in the state tables to appear as conventional RAM to the host, and reprogramming becomes as easy as a memory write. Bad cell?, just route around it. The fact that it's all state driven allows you to build an automated rerouter almost trivially.
post Von Neuman computers are going to be wicked fast, if they can build IO to keep up with them.
--Mike--
--Mike---
--Mike--
We've got an educational system that pumps out standard model consumer units, instead of concerned Citizens. Only a few of us were fortunate enough to have a nasty childhood which had the benefit of distracting us from the brainwashing.
We unhappy few are pissed that we've got a system where the majority has been assimilated, and are willing to be sheep. We need to wake them up, or get them the hell out of the way, before this whole system implodes under its own weight... or as a last resort, figure out how to hunker down and ride out a rerun of Nazi Germany.
--Mike--
The police aren't the law... WE are the law. We set this government up, and WE have the right to override/revise/replace it.
--Mike--
For the most blatent example, see the "free market" sell off of the assets of Iraq, completed before its people get a chance to react.
--Mike--
Didn't we all learn that prohibition doesn't work?
--Mike--
--Mike--
--Mike--
Nazis? - I hate Illinois Nazis
--Mike--
Consider instead a high power microwave source ionizing the mass that would have previously been cut into golf ball pieces, then using a particle accelerator instead of a mass driver. If the ion temperature is kept high enough, you'll only have pure ions to deal with, nice and conductive, and easier to control. You can then ship them out along the thrust vector of your choice, without the headaches of mechanical processing of materials.
Electrohydrodynamic accelleration of mass can be studied in labs on the ground, thus reducing R&D costs. It also offers the advantage of being throttled to any desired rate. In the hard vacuum of space, it should be feasible to keep the ions from contacting, and thus eroding the accelerator.
The mass will eventually condense back to solid matter, but will be quite dispersed by the time that happens, thus creating dust, instead of solid projectiles.
--Mike--
It's worth considering that a monoculture of these space guardians might be a bad thing in terms of reliabilty, and weigh that against the costs of implementing multiple designs.
--Mike--
--Mike--