Your premise is incorrect. Businesses aren't bankrupt, the stockmarket is recovering, and your drama is understandable but extreme beyond reality.
Pushing nodes to the edges and the cost to the edges is a scheme as old as wired communications. The 'bells' that are out there today slowly swallowed up all of the coops that were out there. Interconnect wasn't very well done back then. Things have improved.
Interconnect doesn't and hasn't ever followed the philosophy you cite. Ever. Utilities were once huge coops. Returning to that model might send a jolt of much needed electricity into the monopolies they've become.
Yes: more is better. And it might breathe some life into Solaris. Sun could use some of that right now. Solaris has the benefit of solid code developed at a comparative snail's pace, but with the energy of being hard, and toughened. Any distro mix is a good mix, because you learn from it.
You see, SCO was caught holding the bag, giving Unix internals to Sun for a small sum (hence Solaris 10/opensolaris), yet the bag was empty at the end. No useful IP (just bits and pieces of post license work), no copyrights of any real use, core code depreciated and effectively imitated by BSD branches and Linux, no Xenix, no resellers, no chance on their mobile development software, no chance of beating IBM, no chance of pursuing their other claims, no cash, no real employees (not to slime anyone), no strength of any kind in the marketplace, no chance for getting licensing from anyone with half a brain, no credibility in technical sectors, no chance of getting onto the desktop, no chance of ever working with IBM, Novell, Microsoft, or Sun again---> the total empty bag including any bag shareholders had.
Ransom Love is probably snickering at this point. So are many of us.
Gosh, the DoD and White House pay for news all the time. They pay for commentators, pundits, and so on. Your tax dollars at work in the propaganda war.
The flag 'shop was amusing. I though they might give her bigger [censored by the US Department of Homeland Security]
Consider that beyond inate intelligence, a 'soul' empowers choice between right and wrong, something we expect of seven year old children. Right now, computers are essentially enslaved by their programs. Some have 'artificial intelligence' or the capacity to change their behavior based on the external stimuli (data recorded or perhaps 'felt').
Making choices based on values starts to get there.
Feeling pain (animals do this, even fish-- do they have souls?) and reactions based on how humans feel might 'emulate' or even replicate the reactions of soul. Heaven, a religious notion, doesn't enter the equation. The need for spirituality, another human emotion, might be needed. The list goes on.
Eliza and other primitive attempts at endowing responsiveness to stimuli will evolve to the point where a machine might pass the famous Turing test. What then? What else is soul? Is soul derived from the need/will to live and reproduce? Or are these biological traits unnecessary for soul?
In my estimation, artificial beings, just like those in Blade Runner, are just that. Do they bear preserving out of the respect we have for other things that appear to be 'life'? I enjoy those that would try to, like Kurzweil, attempt to answer these questions. We get to know more about who we are, in the process of answering them. It's science, but it's also knowing ourselves.
It wasn't from scratch, although it *was* useful. Legacy compatibility will always be a tough one-- but why should we constantly have to continue to buy upgrades anyway? Why is there a MacOS 10.5? The others were no good? Windows 7-- because the other six sucked?
We want life. We want to extend our investments for as long as its reasonable and especially beyond the tax depreciation life if we can. Free virus software is backhanded at best from Microsoft. Watch it become a target in and of itself.
You haven't examined SPECjbb, then, have you? It's a Java-based business transaction kit that seems to have quite a bit of both fairness and repeatability; it's not easily manipulated, like others I've seen. After running more than several thousand runs with it, I find it pretty reasonable in terms of systems performance comparison, rather than motherboard/subsystem/peripheral benchmarks-- which shed light only on one specific characteristic of a machine, or are operating systems-specific. Admittedly, it doesn't do things with GPUs, network I/O, and the like.
If you're hinging your comments on the wafer size, you're blinded by Intel propaganda. Take a look at AMD's SPECjbb numbers, their cost per socket/core, and their threading for virtualization. Then perhaps you'll stop being an Intel shill.
We would disagree on 'good enough'. And counting yourself as the majority would be wrong, too. Hotmail, yahoo, and/or aol beats gmail by a significant margin, it's believed. Add them up and gmail becomes much smaller. It also proves that initial market share is difficult to surmount. Google knows this, and just presumes we think they've taken over the world. They have not.
Or change the protocol set to something that can still work with anonymous yet non-commercial/legal mail. I can't think of a single person that would mind changing their email address or taking a few steps to eliminate the spam they get.
Different versions had different capacity. The current version can handle exabytes, depending on several different factors in terms of cluster and extent size. Layout efficiency is debatable, and there is little done in typification and therefore decent research on performance of the current NTFS vs ZFS vs ext3 vs Reiser and other file systems, even ancient ones and experimental ones.
Th NTFS has limitations on the number of files/folders, but it's irrelevant here.
I think the parent is either a dark humorist, or a shill for Microsoft. Ambiguous, but seems to be a lipfarter propagandist. Now that the election is over, there are many out of work.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say the quality of the code was good. Often it is.
Your premise is incorrect. Businesses aren't bankrupt, the stockmarket is recovering, and your drama is understandable but extreme beyond reality.
Pushing nodes to the edges and the cost to the edges is a scheme as old as wired communications. The 'bells' that are out there today slowly swallowed up all of the coops that were out there. Interconnect wasn't very well done back then. Things have improved.
Interconnect doesn't and hasn't ever followed the philosophy you cite. Ever. Utilities were once huge coops. Returning to that model might send a jolt of much needed electricity into the monopolies they've become.
It gets cold in Korea.
Some of the best software has been developed in cold climates, like this Finnish kid that re-wrote Minix. Torvalds....
This is not to slime the Aussies, or anyone else. Computing is an indoor port, and so is gaming-- until a practical outdoor display works.
Computer games are an indoor sport. That it would be popular in areas that get mightily cold in winter is no surprise.
It gives new meaning to the old excuse: we were only following orders.
Yes: more is better. And it might breathe some life into Solaris. Sun could use some of that right now. Solaris has the benefit of solid code developed at a comparative snail's pace, but with the energy of being hard, and toughened. Any distro mix is a good mix, because you learn from it.
You see, SCO was caught holding the bag, giving Unix internals to Sun for a small sum (hence Solaris 10/opensolaris), yet the bag was empty at the end. No useful IP (just bits and pieces of post license work), no copyrights of any real use, core code depreciated and effectively imitated by BSD branches and Linux, no Xenix, no resellers, no chance on their mobile development software, no chance of beating IBM, no chance of pursuing their other claims, no cash, no real employees (not to slime anyone), no strength of any kind in the marketplace, no chance for getting licensing from anyone with half a brain, no credibility in technical sectors, no chance of getting onto the desktop, no chance of ever working with IBM, Novell, Microsoft, or Sun again---> the total empty bag including any bag shareholders had.
Ransom Love is probably snickering at this point. So are many of us.
And Three Cheers for Pamela Jones!!!!!
It's a small thing, but emblematic of the problem of deceipt.
Start at http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/006152.php
Move onto: http://surveycentral.org/forum/General/topic/6130.html
It was a huge story. It still is.
Or do you still believe in the WMD theory?
Gosh, the DoD and White House pay for news all the time. They pay for commentators, pundits, and so on. Your tax dollars at work in the propaganda war.
The flag 'shop was amusing. I though they might give her bigger [censored by the US Department of Homeland Security]
Consider that beyond inate intelligence, a 'soul' empowers choice between right and wrong, something we expect of seven year old children. Right now, computers are essentially enslaved by their programs. Some have 'artificial intelligence' or the capacity to change their behavior based on the external stimuli (data recorded or perhaps 'felt').
Making choices based on values starts to get there.
Feeling pain (animals do this, even fish-- do they have souls?) and reactions based on how humans feel might 'emulate' or even replicate the reactions of soul. Heaven, a religious notion, doesn't enter the equation. The need for spirituality, another human emotion, might be needed. The list goes on.
Eliza and other primitive attempts at endowing responsiveness to stimuli will evolve to the point where a machine might pass the famous Turing test. What then? What else is soul? Is soul derived from the need/will to live and reproduce? Or are these biological traits unnecessary for soul?
In my estimation, artificial beings, just like those in Blade Runner, are just that. Do they bear preserving out of the respect we have for other things that appear to be 'life'? I enjoy those that would try to, like Kurzweil, attempt to answer these questions. We get to know more about who we are, in the process of answering them. It's science, but it's also knowing ourselves.
It wasn't from scratch, although it *was* useful. Legacy compatibility will always be a tough one-- but why should we constantly have to continue to buy upgrades anyway? Why is there a MacOS 10.5? The others were no good? Windows 7-- because the other six sucked?
We want life. We want to extend our investments for as long as its reasonable and especially beyond the tax depreciation life if we can. Free virus software is backhanded at best from Microsoft. Watch it become a target in and of itself.
They're not your more ideal customer....
No, it's an instance of blind push advertising. It's like a Coke sign in a crack house.
You haven't examined SPECjbb, then, have you? It's a Java-based business transaction kit that seems to have quite a bit of both fairness and repeatability; it's not easily manipulated, like others I've seen. After running more than several thousand runs with it, I find it pretty reasonable in terms of systems performance comparison, rather than motherboard/subsystem/peripheral benchmarks-- which shed light only on one specific characteristic of a machine, or are operating systems-specific. Admittedly, it doesn't do things with GPUs, network I/O, and the like.
But to call it a lie is specious.
If you're hinging your comments on the wafer size, you're blinded by Intel propaganda. Take a look at AMD's SPECjbb numbers, their cost per socket/core, and their threading for virtualization. Then perhaps you'll stop being an Intel shill.
eventual authentication.
We would disagree on 'good enough'. And counting yourself as the majority would be wrong, too. Hotmail, yahoo, and/or aol beats gmail by a significant margin, it's believed. Add them up and gmail becomes much smaller. It also proves that initial market share is difficult to surmount. Google knows this, and just presumes we think they've taken over the world. They have not.
Great, another wizard that can't do the work.
proxy anonymity. someone will think it up and make it work.
No offense, but that's when gmail is working.
Or change the protocol set to something that can still work with anonymous yet non-commercial/legal mail. I can't think of a single person that would mind changing their email address or taking a few steps to eliminate the spam they get.
Different versions had different capacity. The current version can handle exabytes, depending on several different factors in terms of cluster and extent size. Layout efficiency is debatable, and there is little done in typification and therefore decent research on performance of the current NTFS vs ZFS vs ext3 vs Reiser and other file systems, even ancient ones and experimental ones.
Th NTFS has limitations on the number of files/folders, but it's irrelevant here.
So is the original post.
I think the parent is either a dark humorist, or a shill for Microsoft. Ambiguous, but seems to be a lipfarter propagandist. Now that the election is over, there are many out of work.
Imagine: a little molecular salt on that embryo, and we could make Johnny a genius and 7 feet tall!!