On the other hand, the big volumes of math research are done in the US, UK and a few other places which did not score as high as for example the Koreans. The US system is very good for the excellent mathematicians and the weak ones -- there are special classes for both groups. But for the vast middle group, there is not much rigor.
I noticed that India was missing from the list. Having grown up there and having passed the Joint Entrance Exam (for admission to IITs), I can tell you that lots of people who get through know the mechanics but not the beauty of the math. I learned that long afterwards, when I had finished my doctorate in CS and was asked to teach a section of discrete math.
Carrying on this thread, is it not the case that our educational system is outsourced to the poorer countries? Why spend billions on our schools when you can get the best and brightest from other countries to come to our grad schools on a scholarship, and stay on after they finish?
Offshoring IT only makes customers unhappy in the end my service quality in the UK from service providers using indian call centers is crappy. I have nothing much against indians but when they dont understand the english language thats a huge issue that they need to over come regardless of if they know the product.
Now, judging from the quality of the writing above, there may be something lacking in the ability of the listener to comprehend what is being spoken by a non-English speaker of English.
When Gartner predicts that one half of the IT jobs will disappear, how reliable can they be? They are
reasoning with incomplete data, IMHO.
Four years ago, they predicted massive losses due to the Y2K problem. Countries like Italy and Japan
without benefit of the predicition came through without harm, even though they did low-magnitude
preparations for Y2k. (Come to think of it, did
Gartner get the start of the millenium correct?)
So, instead of debating the consequences, let's figure out whether the premises are right first.
We need to ask several categories of questions instead of bashing Apple or the folks at Va Tech for their accomplishment, or for that matter one another.
First: What is the exact nature of the connection between Apple and the processor. Let's compare Apples to IBMs and G5s (which are not designed or produced by Apple but rather by IBM and Motorola) to Itaniums or Opterons or Fooballs.
Second: What OS does it use? If it is BSD or Mach underlying the GUI, then we need to compare that to Linux/UNIX/ Foo or whatever. Separate the UI from the parallel machine because that is not being used.
Third: What are the exact nature of the cost in terms not used in marketer-speech. Does hardware get donated or sold at a discount? Are salaries included and if so what kinds (college kids vs. someone who has a mortgage and a car and a few moderately inexpensive vices)? What about fixed costs (i.e. is depreciation on the building included, and what about profit margins?)?
My basic point is that early instances of these monsters are not intended for profit or public consumption. They are somewhere just past the proof-of-concept stage. The "mine-is-bigger-than-yours" comparisons only go a short distance. After that, one has to see the true contribution to the theory and practice of parallel computing. Let's hear from the parallel computing community.
Varadarajan said competing systems cost $20 million and up, compared to System X's approximately $5.8 million price tag ($5.2 million for the initial machines, and $600,000 for the Xserve upgrade).
Cray and other commercial companies have fixed costs (buildings and grounds, benefits, salaries, depreciation) that work their way into the cost of a machine. At a public university, these dont show up in the cost of a machine. I would think that $5.8 Million would be only the h/w cost, and not the total cost. Additionally, we see that Apple built special chips for this purpose and that would imply another price break.
Price crown aside, the machine has plenty of merit. Maybe more should be built so that average users can run the GUI for Longhorn.
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, the big volumes of math research are done in the US, UK and a few other places which did not score as high as for example the Koreans. The US system is very good for the excellent mathematicians and the weak ones -- there are special classes for both groups. But for the vast middle group, there is not much rigor. I noticed that India was missing from the list. Having grown up there and having passed the Joint Entrance Exam (for admission to IITs), I can tell you that lots of people who get through know the mechanics but not the beauty of the math. I learned that long afterwards, when I had finished my doctorate in CS and was asked to teach a section of discrete math. Carrying on this thread, is it not the case that our educational system is outsourced to the poorer countries? Why spend billions on our schools when you can get the best and brightest from other countries to come to our grad schools on a scholarship, and stay on after they finish?
When Gartner predicts that one half of the IT jobs will disappear, how reliable can they be? They are reasoning with incomplete data, IMHO. Four years ago, they predicted massive losses due to the Y2K problem. Countries like Italy and Japan without benefit of the predicition came through without harm, even though they did low-magnitude preparations for Y2k. (Come to think of it, did Gartner get the start of the millenium correct?) So, instead of debating the consequences, let's figure out whether the premises are right first.
We need to ask several categories of questions instead of bashing Apple or the folks at Va Tech for their accomplishment, or for that matter one another.
First: What is the exact nature of the connection between Apple and the processor. Let's compare Apples to IBMs and G5s (which are not designed or produced by Apple but rather by IBM and Motorola) to Itaniums or Opterons or Fooballs.
Second: What OS does it use? If it is BSD or Mach underlying the GUI, then we need to compare that to Linux/UNIX/ Foo or whatever. Separate the UI from the parallel machine because that is not being used.
Third: What are the exact nature of the cost in terms not used in marketer-speech. Does hardware get donated or sold at a discount? Are salaries included and if so what kinds (college kids vs. someone who has a mortgage and a car and a few moderately inexpensive vices)? What about fixed costs (i.e. is depreciation on the building included, and what about profit margins?)?
My basic point is that early instances of these monsters are not intended for profit or public consumption. They are somewhere just past the proof-of-concept stage. The "mine-is-bigger-than-yours" comparisons only go a short distance. After that, one has to see the true contribution to the theory and practice of parallel computing. Let's hear from the
parallel computing community.
All the best to all of the best!
Varadarajan said competing systems cost $20 million and up, compared to System X's approximately $5.8 million price tag ($5.2 million for the initial machines, and $600,000 for the Xserve upgrade). Cray and other commercial companies have fixed costs (buildings and grounds, benefits, salaries, depreciation) that work their way into the cost of a machine. At a public university, these dont show up in the cost of a machine. I would think that $5.8 Million would be only the h/w cost, and not the total cost. Additionally, we see that Apple built special chips for this purpose and that would imply another price break. Price crown aside, the machine has plenty of merit. Maybe more should be built so that average users can run the GUI for Longhorn.