I heard a story how SAP bought a business from a guy in one European country. With changed names, it could be exactly the same like it was in Chicago in 20s-30s. "We want to buy your company; if you don't want to sell, we will create our product and we will force you out of business." Irony is that the guy was their business partner! The guy literally cried after that "friendly offer".
After this story, do you still find their OS attitude strange?
Use 44.1 KHz of bandwith, transmit CD quality sound, and you can get 44.1 KHz * 16 bits/Hz out of it.
I am an EE, but my major is Power Engineering. But IIRC from my (short) telecomunication theory course, there is some limit of bits per hertz you can get. I really doubt if 44.1kHz bandwitdh could give you 44.1kHz*16bits.
Is there such bitrate/bandwidth limit or I am wrong?
When I see how eagerly RIAA tries to prevent unpreventable evolution (i.e. P2P networks) I wander, if RIAA was so active couple of decades ago, they would probably try to ban digital coding of information, since it is now their main source of problems. I could bet that they cry for those old times when vinil was one and only. There was no sub-50$ vinil-burner then.
It would be very nice if Google could find them. Unfortunately, even with Linux cluster of 100,000+ PCs, several hundred PhDs and all, some of missing USA nukes simply cannot be found.
Why are people obsessed with measuring everything?
Most people like to count their money and feed their family.
My point was most people like to count their money instead to spent that time to feed their families.
Calculating expences is very complex task. My brother works in company that makes software for such purposes, and I can tell you that even in best case calculation will be very arbitrary. We pay rent for the office. We have products A and B, and we want to know how much each of them costs us. How much of the rent should be added to product A and how much to product B? And so on.
It is next to impossible to calculate how much money we spend on server A, B or C. Yes they cost money, but if there is nothing I can do about them, I really don't want to waste my time about it.
If I use BSD machine as firewall/router, Linux as web server and other Linux as file/print server and Windows server for crappy win-only application which I cannot replace in any reasonable sceanario, I am very confident that if I am not in optimal point, I am very close to it. No need for making expensive and imprecise calculation just to find out the obvious thruth.
To make this long story short: from logical point - if you don't know what is something it does not imply it is bad. And that was DiDio's point I cited and the point I tried to prove as obviously wrong. As most obvious example there was my office where we cannot move to any other architecture, so it was optimal by default.
I agree that measuring is good, but it is not good always, since it costs money, and some results are simply unuseful.
Chances are,... because ignorance of the core TCO tenets means that your business is not getting the most out of its networks.
Why are people obsessed with measuring everything? Why does she believes that if something is unknown that it is suboptimal by default.
For example: we have 3 servers (all Windows) in my company. Do we use them optimally? Probably, since we cannot replace them with any other software (to my great sorrow). Do we know how much each server costs us? No, and we will never be able to calculate that. Niether we care, as long as they do their job.
Why should I measure something which is hardly measurable just to be able to say that I use something in right way?
This is typical article where highly payed "analysts" try to spit obvious things in order to sound smart. As usual, they spit crap, but being so "well" informed about the subject, they even don't notice that.
'it's got to get the final tier of reliability and predictability that I'm going to bet a multi-billion dollar corporation's future on.'
In other words "no one got fired for purchasing from [instert name of some big company here]".
Now, when his boss asks why system does not work, he'll be able to say "you know, it is Microsoft", and boss will conclude that if multi-billion company cannot make it better, it is best you can get in the world.
That sounds logical, but our experience teach us that it is not the truth.
(Sligtly OT, I would really like that someone who is paid millions to do his (its) job decently. That would make this world much better place to live in.)
And sure enough, when the Intel compiler thought our AMD was a Genuine Intel certain functions increased dramatically.
How did you make it believe it was Intel, not AMD?
My company writes some code that depends on SSE2 instructions. We bought one AMD (64-bit) machine, but code was slower on Athlon64 3200 than on P4 3000 (under WinXP, not on some 64-bit system). We heavily depend on every tact, so I would really like to know how to trick Intel's compiler to believe that AMD is P4.
I use basically 3 different layouts. Most of my time I spend using standard US English keyboard. It is, when I'm working, I'm either coding, or I'm writing something in English, so it requires me to use US-EN keyboard. (For some odd reason, even if I'm coding something where comments and identifier names are in Serbian, I still use US-EN keyboard.) When I write in Serbian, I use standard Serbian keyboard. Problem with it is swapped y-z keys, and a lot of interpunction marks misplaced. Plus, Serbian has letters sz. And finally, when I chat or when I write non-important emails, I type in Serbian on US-EN keyboard. And point of this story is that everything could be used almost simoultaniously without big effort. It is somewhat problematic in first day, but you get used to it after a while.
And it seems quite stupid that it is easier to me to change keyboard layouts on my keyboard and in my head instead to use right-alt-key to access [] and {} (all other English letters and keys are, naturally, accessible from Serbian keyboard; these four, |, \and @ require right alt key + respective key from the keyboard).
Imagine a situation where you have some crappy 128kbps Internet link at home, and flat 1.5Mbps at your work? Just like every normal guy, you start your P2P client every Friday and then you pray during the weekend that your download goes Ok. With some help of port forwarding you could access your work machine... except that you don't have PCAnywhere or anything similar installed on one of the points. But if you could have a web access to your download client... Wait a minute, some commercial software like Kazaa must have such feature! No, it doesn't have it?!? Wait a minute, where from eMule copied that idea then?!?
There is no conundrum...he caused a lot of damage and cost people a lot of time and money that could have been put to better uses. As soon as he decided to be an asshole, he lost his right to participate in society.
Fortunately for MS employees, your logic is not applied universally. Otherwise, they could only hope that there is no capital punishment in the state of Washington.
Is 'u' in 'confuzzled pronounced like in 'confused' or like in 'puzzled'?
Everyone in SW industry wants to get rich fast
on
McVoy Strikes Back
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I think that people in SW industry (or in IT in general) believe that 'get paid for time you spend working' is not good enough for them. Do they (we) identify themselves with big CEOs like Gates od Dell, or they just believe that current SW business model (develop once, sell n times) is God-given to make them instantly rich? What about good old 'working per hour, at defined rate'?
I believe that software is service. This guy complains that if you make some program easy to use, most of the users will never call you for service. Ok, they will not call you, but how they hurt him? They use his software, but does that takes money from his pocket? Did they burned his house using his product?
Let us make some example. Guy 'A' spends 1000 hours making some program, for general purpose. His software is somewhat complicate to use, so his user base is 1000 people, but every 10th has to call him to for some kind of support. It makes him, say, 100 x 2h x(his rate) per month of possible income. There is second guy with his own program, which is better, so only every 100th user needs some support. But as a result, his user base is larger, so he may have 100.000 users, so he may get more consulting hours. We cannot say for sure, but it may also happen to him to have actually less consulting hours comparing to the first guy. But as a result (not taking into account initial investment of time spend for writing code[*]) both of them get paid for time they spent working.
What's wrong with that concept? Why should I expect for someone to pay me for doing nothing? When they spend an hour for their costumers, costumers pays them. Is this guy McVoy too noble to be paid per workhour?
[*] Initial time investment could be significantly decreased if you use open source development model, as we know.
It is actually 4.1, as calculated by one/.-er above. But taking into account that 20 years ago it was about 0.0%, this is extremely large percent. It would be technically impossible to do such huge replacement with any other technology. Building any other kind of power station takes years. Being relatively small, wind power generators are build in factory lines, almost like comodity.
Germany invested a lot in reneable industry without actually any additial money (they added small tax to consumption of standard kWhs, and use that as subvention for green-produced kWhs). As a result, their industry is now world leader in that area. Once when rest of the world realise what is the benefit, German industry will probably take the largest part of the cake.
Altough it would be ridicilous today someone to be fired for speaking about legalizing prostitution, that would be actually a good reason to get fired in XIX century. Today, with all presure from **AAs and other IP lords it is a great herecy to speak about potentional legality of P2P networks, so you get fired.
Actually we haven't advanced a single step from the fake morality of XIX century.
Slashdot Mirror
Your code usually goes like this:
So it is quite easy to get the empty table if the collection is empty.
I heard a story how SAP bought a business from a guy in one European country. With changed names, it could be exactly the same like it was in Chicago in 20s-30s. "We want to buy your company; if you don't want to sell, we will create our product and we will force you out of business." Irony is that the guy was their business partner! The guy literally cried after that "friendly offer".
After this story, do you still find their OS attitude strange?
I am an EE, but my major is Power Engineering. But IIRC from my (short) telecomunication theory course, there is some limit of bits per hertz you can get. I really doubt if 44.1kHz bandwitdh could give you 44.1kHz*16bits.
Is there such bitrate/bandwidth limit or I am wrong?
I agree those thing are unresolved misteries: for instance, I need mod-point now to mod you up, but I have none.
When I see how eagerly RIAA tries to prevent unpreventable evolution (i.e. P2P networks) I wander, if RIAA was so active couple of decades ago, they would probably try to ban digital coding of information, since it is now their main source of problems. I could bet that they cry for those old times when vinil was one and only. There was no sub-50$ vinil-burner then.
Calculating expences is very complex task. My brother works in company that makes software for such purposes, and I can tell you that even in best case calculation will be very arbitrary. We pay rent for the office. We have products A and B, and we want to know how much each of them costs us. How much of the rent should be added to product A and how much to product B? And so on.
It is next to impossible to calculate how much money we spend on server A, B or C. Yes they cost money, but if there is nothing I can do about them, I really don't want to waste my time about it.
If I use BSD machine as firewall/router, Linux as web server and other Linux as file/print server and Windows server for crappy win-only application which I cannot replace in any reasonable sceanario, I am very confident that if I am not in optimal point, I am very close to it. No need for making expensive and imprecise calculation just to find out the obvious thruth.
To make this long story short: from logical point - if you don't know what is something it does not imply it is bad. And that was DiDio's point I cited and the point I tried to prove as obviously wrong. As most obvious example there was my office where we cannot move to any other architecture, so it was optimal by default.
I agree that measuring is good, but it is not good always, since it costs money, and some results are simply unuseful.
For example: we have 3 servers (all Windows) in my company. Do we use them optimally? Probably, since we cannot replace them with any other software (to my great sorrow). Do we know how much each server costs us? No, and we will never be able to calculate that. Niether we care, as long as they do their job.
Why should I measure something which is hardly measurable just to be able to say that I use something in right way?
This is typical article where highly payed "analysts" try to spit obvious things in order to sound smart. As usual, they spit crap, but being so "well" informed about the subject, they even don't notice that.
(-2)+(-3)=+1
You have obviously received a lot of negative information before you started writing this 'math'.
Now, when his boss asks why system does not work, he'll be able to say "you know, it is Microsoft", and boss will conclude that if multi-billion company cannot make it better, it is best you can get in the world.
That sounds logical, but our experience teach us that it is not the truth.
(Sligtly OT, I would really like that someone who is paid millions to do his (its) job decently. That would make this world much better place to live in.)
My company writes some code that depends on SSE2 instructions. We bought one AMD (64-bit) machine, but code was slower on Athlon64 3200 than on P4 3000 (under WinXP, not on some 64-bit system). We heavily depend on every tact, so I would really like to know how to trick Intel's compiler to believe that AMD is P4.
I use basically 3 different layouts. Most of my time I spend using standard US English keyboard. It is, when I'm working, I'm either coding, or I'm writing something in English, so it requires me to use US-EN keyboard. (For some odd reason, even if I'm coding something where comments and identifier names are in Serbian, I still use US-EN keyboard.) When I write in Serbian, I use standard Serbian keyboard. Problem with it is swapped y-z keys, and a lot of interpunction marks misplaced. Plus, Serbian has letters sz. And finally, when I chat or when I write non-important emails, I type in Serbian on US-EN keyboard. And point of this story is that everything could be used almost simoultaniously without big effort. It is somewhat problematic in first day, but you get used to it after a while.
And it seems quite stupid that it is easier to me to change keyboard layouts on my keyboard and in my head instead to use right-alt-key to access [] and {} (all other English letters and keys are, naturally, accessible from Serbian keyboard; these four, |, \and @ require right alt key + respective key from the keyboard).
This is one story.
Imagine a situation where you have some crappy 128kbps Internet link at home, and flat 1.5Mbps at your work? Just like every normal guy, you start your P2P client every Friday and then you pray during the weekend that your download goes Ok. With some help of port forwarding you could access your work machine... except that you don't have PCAnywhere or anything similar installed on one of the points. But if you could have a web access to your download client... Wait a minute, some commercial software like Kazaa must have such feature! No, it doesn't have it?!? Wait a minute, where from eMule copied that idea then?!?
Is 'u' in 'confuzzled pronounced like in 'confused' or like in 'puzzled'?
I think that people in SW industry (or in IT in general) believe that 'get paid for time you spend working' is not good enough for them. Do they (we) identify themselves with big CEOs like Gates od Dell, or they just believe that current SW business model (develop once, sell n times) is God-given to make them instantly rich? What about good old 'working per hour, at defined rate'?
I believe that software is service. This guy complains that if you make some program easy to use, most of the users will never call you for service. Ok, they will not call you, but how they hurt him? They use his software, but does that takes money from his pocket? Did they burned his house using his product?
Let us make some example. Guy 'A' spends 1000 hours making some program, for general purpose. His software is somewhat complicate to use, so his user base is 1000 people, but every 10th has to call him to for some kind of support. It makes him, say, 100 x 2h x(his rate) per month of possible income. There is second guy with his own program, which is better, so only every 100th user needs some support. But as a result, his user base is larger, so he may have 100.000 users, so he may get more consulting hours. We cannot say for sure, but it may also happen to him to have actually less consulting hours comparing to the first guy. But as a result (not taking into account initial investment of time spend for writing code[*]) both of them get paid for time they spent working.
What's wrong with that concept? Why should I expect for someone to pay me for doing nothing? When they spend an hour for their costumers, costumers pays them. Is this guy McVoy too noble to be paid per workhour?
[*] Initial time investment could be significantly decreased if you use open source development model, as we know.
It doesn't look so shiny to me.
It is actually 4.1, as calculated by one /.-er above. But taking into account that 20 years ago it was about 0.0%, this is extremely large percent. It would be technically impossible to do such huge replacement with any other technology. Building any other kind of power station takes years. Being relatively small, wind power generators are build in factory lines, almost like comodity.
Germany invested a lot in reneable industry without actually any additial money (they added small tax to consumption of standard kWhs, and use that as subvention for green-produced kWhs). As a result, their industry is now world leader in that area. Once when rest of the world realise what is the benefit, German industry will probably take the largest part of the cake.
Altough it would be ridicilous today someone to be fired for speaking about legalizing prostitution, that would be actually a good reason to get fired in XIX century. Today, with all presure from **AAs and other IP lords it is a great herecy to speak about potentional legality of P2P networks, so you get fired.
Actually we haven't advanced a single step from the fake morality of XIX century.
What the hell is PE?