"And for some strange reason your theory seems to please you?"
Not at all. I'm not sure what makes you think so. Maybe it's just because my description is so grim/bleak/stark, but that's merely a sincere reflection of my perceptions.
In fact I'm extremely unhappy about this prospect, and about the failure (IMO) of other people to see it coming, because nothing will improve the outlook until sufficient people come to the same conclusion. With too many people inertia and denial prevail.
"Programmers may be the first hit, but I doubt they will be the last."
ANYTHING which is knowledge-based, and which doesn't absolutely require an on-site physical presence, is off-shore-able. It's ALREADY happening in financial services and in some law and medical services.
Most of the eventual victims -- including most slashdot readers -- are standing on a railroad track with a train coming down the track, and don't even realize it.
And NOTHING short of protectionism can save more than a small fraction of them, because there won't be enough jobs left worth having. The remaining vocations worth having will have their compensation forced downward by on-shore competition. And the few vocations which aren't ruined by that process, will be ruined when there are no longer sufficient potential on-shore customers who can afford their services.
Start getting used to the idea that the combined GNP of the world will be re-distributed to non-first-world countries, bringing most first-world inhabitants down toward their level. It will *eventually* be corrected by the increasing modernization and productivity of the third-world, but not in time to help at least two generations of current workers who'll be impoverished.
"The US could do the same as the EU, and prohibit export of personal data to jurisdictions which do not have equal or better privacy protections as ours."
Yeah, that worked really well for protecting EU citizens from having their travel histories handed over to the USA, didn't it?
The only genuine protection is the absolute unflinching integrity of national leaders. And I don't see any Jimmy Carters who are running for office right now.
"same arguement that I heard at the beginning of the migration from 5.25 to 3.5...at some point, 2.5" drives will become the standard."
Well, it's not really the same argument. I'm not saying that businesses will (or should) shun the new *technology*. I'm just saying that TFA doesn't realistically demonstrate that the reported 200% price premium is overcome by any conjectured savings in floor-space, electricity, etc.
When 2.5 *does* become "standard", the prices will become reasonable. Until then,a prudent cost-conscious buyer will want to see concrete real-world numbers in a cost/benefit analysis, which TFA fails to provide.
I don't question that the smaller drives can save rack-space, and therefore save floor-space, and therefore save on costs for real estate, cooling, construction, etc.
I DO question that they will save enough to pay for a 200% premium in the price of the drives -- until someone shows me some concrete real-world numbers.
"How are those Quantum Bigfoots working out at your company?"
Unintentionally, you've made my point for me: companies don't let their hardware get so outdated, so they won't own these long enough to recover the extra cost compared to 3.5" drives.
Or maybe you think that all 3.5" drives will stop production? In that case, the 2.5" price will have already come down.
Bottom line: as long as 2.5" carries such a large price premium over other *non-obsolete* drives, it's not worth it.
The only substantial savings with a potential dollar-value is space (there's no demonstrable monetary saving for reduced noise in a commercial server-farm).
I did RTFA -- at least the beginning and end -- and found no basis to believe that either (a) the very slight reduction in electricity-usage, or (b) the saving in floor-space, will *ever* compensate for a 200% price premium -- especially when you consider (a) the low bulk rates likely to be paid for electricity by a large hoster, and (b) the likely in-service life in a business environment.
...(for some purposes) is seruku.com, which *selectively* (on/off button) indexes/caches everything you've browsed. Sadly, just for IE still (I think).
Everyone is posting about how this is bogus because it's really not the same game as PD.
But even if you don't agree with that view, another important question is: in what meaningful sense is this new strategy a "victory"? After all, it achieves "victory" for half of the cooperators, at the cost of sacrificing the other half.
To use one nuclear-war analogy, it's a choice between strategy "A", where you acquiesce to the death of half of your populace, with the reward that the remaining populace is completely unaffected -- and strategy "B", with the guaranteed result that no one dies but everyone is injured.
Which populace would *you* choose to join on the eve of war?
.. that Gagne has written this book without any of the cute chef/cuisine/cooking metaphors he uses in his magazine columns. It makes his columns unreadable for me.
...but is there any reason that someone who already owns a PC-capable burner would want to spend another $300 for this?
In fact, it seems to me that this product is only for people who don't own ANY kind of burner, not even a non-PC set-top DVR: if you already own a set-top DVR, and you have $300 to burn, wouldn't you rather spend it on a more capable PC-based burner (e.g., faster, multi-format, etc.)?
"The best reason I can think of is that all the things I'd want to use a Mac for, are almost totally not CPU bound...best of both worlds in one box...Mac for everything internet/creativity related"
creativity-apps not cpu-bound? Photoshop and other dtp? video composition?
"We're growing cattle for their meat anyway, why waste the leather?"
1. Every additional consumer purchase contributes to the economic viability of the producer. EVEN IF you disagree with the animal rights activists, this is simple math.
2. Instead of asking, "Why waste the leather after the slaughter?", how about asking, why not use this process to *replace* the need for slaughter, i.e. why not work toward making this process an economically feasible substitute for producing meat?
Reminds me of that scene in Jurassic Park: "I know this...this is a Unix system!"
On the one hand... -- there are knowledge domains in which 3D is a genuine improvement -- likewise, there are domains in which collaboration is useful.
But the screenshots fail to demonstrate the need for merging the two, in the form of 3d-ization of the participants. -- as discussed in other recent/. stories, the benefit of a rotatable 3D rendering of a 2D object (like a browser window or an avatar) is dubious. -- a flat 2D presentation quite adequately handles "multi-user presence" or collaboration, for example a simple text list of who else is online, or 2D icons with 2D graphics to indicate their current state. I don't see the benefit of the cute rabbit avatars in 3D.
Think of it this way: when you're in a theatre watching a film, how important is it to you, to be able to *see* the people around you? And, as for collaborative business meetings where telepresence is important, isn't it more useful to use a conventional multi-camera video-conference with a robust white-board capability?
Summary: the screen-shots are kewl, but I see little here which is *simultaneously* new & useful.
"The first time I am walking down the street minding my own busisness and some cop tells me to show some ID or go to jail is the last time I ever carry ID"
I feel the same, but the bad news is that it has already happened.
'being included the debate has almost no effect in vote totals... being in the debate is nowhere close to being a "breakthrough event"...'
It's like the joke about working for ten years to become an "overnight success".
The "breakthrough" will come after voters get used to seeing the inclusion of additional parties as *normal*.
Do it often enough, for long enough -- with candidates who aren't bound by back-room CPD deals -- and people might start to regard the on-stage utterances of the non-traditional candidates as being more authentic, responsive, and interesting.
Slashdot Mirror
"And for some strange reason your theory seems to please you?"
Not at all. I'm not sure what makes you think so.
Maybe it's just because my description is so grim/bleak/stark, but that's merely a sincere reflection of my perceptions.
In fact I'm extremely unhappy about this prospect, and about the failure (IMO) of other people to see it coming, because nothing will improve the outlook until sufficient people come to the same conclusion.
With too many people inertia and denial prevail.
George Bush?
"According to the People's Daily's article on the subject nothing seems to have gone wrong."
Just like Iraq...
"Programmers may be the first hit, but I doubt they will be the last."
ANYTHING which is knowledge-based, and which doesn't absolutely require an on-site physical presence, is off-shore-able.
It's ALREADY happening in financial services and in some law and medical services.
Most of the eventual victims -- including most slashdot readers --
are standing on a railroad track with a train coming down the track, and don't even realize it.
And NOTHING short of protectionism can save more than a small fraction of them, because there won't be enough jobs left worth having.
The remaining vocations worth having will have their compensation forced downward by on-shore competition.
And the few vocations which aren't ruined by that process, will be ruined when there are no longer sufficient potential on-shore customers who can afford their services.
Start getting used to the idea that the combined GNP of the world will be re-distributed to non-first-world countries, bringing most first-world inhabitants down toward their level.
It will *eventually* be corrected by the increasing modernization and productivity of the third-world, but not in time to help at least two generations of current workers who'll be impoverished.
"The US could do the same as the EU, and prohibit export of personal data to jurisdictions which do not have equal or better privacy protections as ours."
Yeah, that worked really well for protecting EU citizens from having their travel histories handed over to the USA, didn't it?
The only genuine protection is the absolute unflinching integrity of national leaders.
And I don't see any Jimmy Carters who are running for office right now.
This isn't a "heads-up display" (HUD).
It's a "head-mounted display" (HMD).
... a replicator in my house.
"Tea, Earl Grey, hot."
"How is it we can get exact specs for Echelon, but not for Google?"
1. Google hires smarter people.
2. Google is a for-profit enterprise, and the power of money trumps everything else.
... right after 9/11:
"The terrorists win only if they change us, only if they make us change who we are and how we live."
By that standard, I'd say "Game Over".
"same arguement that I heard at the beginning of the migration from 5.25 to 3.5 ...at some point, 2.5" drives will become the standard."
Well, it's not really the same argument.
I'm not saying that businesses will (or should) shun the new *technology*.
I'm just saying that TFA doesn't realistically demonstrate that the reported 200% price premium is overcome by any conjectured savings in floor-space, electricity, etc.
When 2.5 *does* become "standard", the prices will become reasonable.
Until then,a prudent cost-conscious buyer will want to see concrete real-world numbers in a cost/benefit analysis, which TFA fails to provide.
I don't question that the smaller drives can save rack-space, and therefore save floor-space, and therefore save on costs for real estate, cooling, construction, etc.
I DO question that they will save enough to pay for a 200% premium in the price of the drives --
until someone shows me some concrete real-world numbers.
"How are those Quantum Bigfoots working out at your company?"
Unintentionally, you've made my point for me:
companies don't let their hardware get so outdated, so they won't own these long enough to recover the extra cost compared to 3.5" drives.
Or maybe you think that all 3.5" drives will stop production?
In that case, the 2.5" price will have already come down.
Bottom line:
as long as 2.5" carries such a large price premium over other *non-obsolete* drives, it's not worth it.
What's the point?
The only substantial savings with a potential dollar-value is space (there's no demonstrable monetary saving for reduced noise in a commercial server-farm).
I did RTFA -- at least the beginning and end -- and found no basis to believe that either
(a) the very slight reduction in electricity-usage, or
(b) the saving in floor-space,
will *ever* compensate for a 200% price premium --
especially when you consider
(a) the low bulk rates likely to be paid for electricity by a large hoster, and
(b) the likely in-service life in a business environment.
...are that we'll need a lot more tenors and sopranos to keep things balanced.
Maybe we can do an on-location production of Das Rheingold...
...(for some purposes) is seruku.com, which *selectively* (on/off button) indexes/caches everything you've browsed.
Sadly, just for IE still (I think).
Everyone is posting about how this is bogus because it's really not the same game as PD.
But even if you don't agree with that view, another important question is:
in what meaningful sense is this new strategy a "victory"?
After all, it achieves "victory" for half of the cooperators, at the cost of sacrificing the other half.
To use one nuclear-war analogy, it's a choice between strategy "A",
where you acquiesce to the death of half of your populace, with the reward that the remaining populace is completely unaffected --
and strategy "B", with the guaranteed result that no one dies but everyone is injured.
Which populace would *you* choose to join on the eve of war?
.. that Gagne has written this book without any of the cute chef/cuisine/cooking metaphors he uses in his magazine columns.
It makes his columns unreadable for me.
"You've never tried to encode two hours of Mpeg-4 video have ya?"
Well, I *did* ask if there's any reason.
You seem to have one.
So, educate me; what are the issues?
better read this before you start recommending Apex products. A lot of people hate this company.
...but is there any reason that someone who already owns a PC-capable burner would want to spend another $300 for this?
In fact, it seems to me that this product is only for people who don't own ANY kind of burner, not even a non-PC set-top DVR:
if you already own a set-top DVR, and you have $300 to burn, wouldn't you rather spend it on a more capable PC-based burner (e.g., faster, multi-format, etc.)?
"The best reason I can think of is that all the things I'd want to use a Mac for, are almost totally not CPU bound...best of both worlds in one box...Mac for everything internet/creativity related"
creativity-apps not cpu-bound?
Photoshop and other dtp? video composition?
"We're growing cattle for their meat anyway, why waste the leather?"
1. Every additional consumer purchase contributes to the economic viability of the producer.
EVEN IF you disagree with the animal rights activists, this is simple math.
2. Instead of asking, "Why waste the leather after the slaughter?", how about asking, why not use this process to *replace* the need for slaughter, i.e. why not work toward making this process an economically feasible substitute for producing meat?
Reminds me of that scene in Jurassic Park:
/. stories, the benefit of a rotatable 3D rendering of a 2D object (like a browser window or an avatar) is dubious.
"I know this...this is a Unix system!"
On the one hand...
-- there are knowledge domains in which 3D is a genuine improvement
-- likewise, there are domains in which collaboration is useful.
But the screenshots fail to demonstrate the need for merging the two, in the form of 3d-ization of the participants.
-- as discussed in other recent
-- a flat 2D presentation quite adequately handles "multi-user presence" or collaboration,
for example a simple text list of who else is online, or 2D icons with 2D graphics to indicate their current state. I don't see the benefit of the cute rabbit avatars in 3D.
Think of it this way: when you're in a theatre watching a film, how important is it to you, to be able to *see* the people around you?
And, as for collaborative business meetings where telepresence is important, isn't it more useful to use a conventional multi-camera video-conference with a robust white-board capability?
Summary: the screen-shots are kewl, but I see little here which is *simultaneously* new & useful.
"The first time I am walking down the street minding my own busisness and some cop tells me to show some ID or go to jail is the last time I ever carry ID"
I feel the same, but the bad news is that it has already happened.
U.S. Supreme Court: Public Anonymity No Right
"I'm not american, and we do have national ID cards, we've had them forever and no one ever gave a damn about it"
Which country are you talking about?
'being included the debate has almost no effect in vote totals... being in the debate is nowhere close to being a "breakthrough event"...'
It's like the joke about working for ten years to become an "overnight success".
The "breakthrough" will come after voters get used to seeing the inclusion of additional parties as *normal*.
Do it often enough, for long enough -- with candidates who aren't bound by back-room CPD deals -- and people might start to regard the on-stage utterances of the non-traditional candidates as being more authentic, responsive, and interesting.