mate - i can see you've got a bunch of these other questions but one more favor to ask of you. would you mind ranking irish wolfhounds on your "intelligence scale"?
In some way it makes financial sense, by cutting bandwidth costs
That was absolutely true, up until the point where the decision got the site posted onto slashdot. Whatever financial savings they hoped to make have been eliminated and probably reversed by now...
Mike Prettejohn, president of Netcraft, speculated that the blocking decision was taken to
cut costs, and traffic, in the run-up to the election on 2 November.
Until, of course, the decision got the site posted onto slashdot:)
The real conspiracy theorists amongst us will argue that's exactly why he did it though... though it strikes me as a bit too clever for a site bearing the name georgewbush.com:)
You got modded troll, but I think it's a fair comment. The man's invaded Iraq, invaded Afghanistan, and at length talked about the importance of alliance support.
Why shouldn't the rest of the world see what's on his website? If Iraq's important enough for him to invade, it's important enough for him to spend a few extra $$$ for the people of Iraq (and the RoW) to see what his re-election policies are.
The other thing that shits me about this is that it is setting a nasty precedent for the web - and this is a high profile site. I'd hate to see a whole lot of other sites all around the world taking this approach to blocking foreign access. It would ruin the 'net.
Now that the upgrade is complete, System X is being used for scientific research. Varadarajan said Virginia Tech researchers and several outside groups are using it for research into weather and molecular modeling. Typically, System X runs several projects simultaneously, each tying up 400 to 500 processors.
If there's a Wired article, and a Cnet article, go with the Wired article every time. It's written by people who love tech.
currently the ranking seem to consist of a couple of stars, few big ones(this computer among them) and a huge group of third category, and then the "used to be great" computers
That's an interesting way of looking at it, but I think so far most of the commentators have failed to pick up what makes this system so incredible. Srinidhi Varadarajan, the designer of the system:
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).
"We will keep the price-performance crown," he said. "We don't know anyone who's within a factor of two even of our system. We'll probably keep the price-performance lead until someone else shows up with another Mac-based system."
Think about that for a second. The system isn't just in the top 5 (or at least top 10), but it's the cheapest by a factor of at least 2. What's even funnier from a tech standpoint is that the creator doesn't expect it to be beaten until another Apple system is built - which puts a very interesting spin on the old "Apple's more expensive".
Anyway as to in/out of the top 5, Varadarajan reckons there's another 10-20% in optimisations left in the tank...
Data taken from the recent Wired Article on the subject.
Basically, we took one of our superchips that go into superservers, with a gitastic cache and frontside bus, stripped it down a bit so we don't cut into our own market, and gave it a new name. Isn't that cool?
For us Apple users - you bet!
Well, except for the fact that the processor's so hot, but you know what I mean:)
well, if you're talking about computer human interface (which we are, because this is about Jef Raskin), what you've said is not true. that's not what a review by Anand said when he reviewed his new PowerMac G5.
The fundamental difference between OS X and Windows is how applications and windows are handled. What OS X has going for it is uniformity between applications and windows; for example, the keyboard shortcut for the preferences dialog in any OS X application is Command and the "," key. So, regardless of what application you're in, the same keystroke combination will have the same expected effect - pretty useful.
Check the whole article out. There are some things he's got wrong, but not surprising for anyone whose just switched to a totally new platform.
You assume I know nothing about the whole controversy, when in fact I do. I've met RMS, I've heard him speak about what drives him.
The quip at the start was meant to be humour. You asked why they're using creative commons - I said because RMS is a hippy-looking MIT drop-out (using the second definition of the word), which is all true.
Now, without wanting to disturb you up there on your soap box, what matters when picking sides over this for most people isn't reality. It's perception. Laurence Lessig is the foremost authority on electronic IP right now, known widely amongst the community for his ideals. RMS is known mostly only within the IT fraternity, and even then people think of him as some smelly monk whose interesting but for the most part to be avoided.
So, assume you're a Joe Blow (no law degree or PhD, as you quite proudly boast) and you have to pick a license. Do you: a) pick the guy who has stood up in front of the supreme court fighting for the prevention of copyright extensions, and who developed the licence that The Beastie Boys have released work under; or b) pick the guy that quit MIT, is in serious need of a haircut/shave and who gets up on his soapbox regularly about it should be GNU/Linux, not just Linux?
Doesn't matter about whose right or whose wrong. It's just how it's perceived. I admire RMS, I think the world needs people like him, but I think that what he's proposing is flawed. I think that Linus's philosophy is much more realistic than RMS's semi-communist approach, and in trying to create freedom for the users he denies freedom for the developers - the people whose software it is.
Regardless, the original quip was meant humourously (note the smiley). So just relax a bit, ok?:)
Because Lawrence Lessig is cool Stanford Professor that argued in front of the Supreme Court about copyright extensions, and Richard Stallman is hippy-looking MIT drop-out that argues with geeks about Linux really being GNU/Linux?:)
Related to topic (and more related to my field of study) is the question of journal articles. Most journals are contributed to by academics, and the academics don't get paid to write in the journals. However, the journals are copyrighted to the teeth, and for an academic/researcher/scientist trying to get access to the journals you have to pay.
That seems like quite an outdated method to me, but it hangs on because of the prestige associated with the older journals (MISQ is a big one in Information Systems). I hope to soon see some prestigious journals coming along with something like a creative commons license, or even better (though much less likely for financial reasons), a big journal swapping all their content over to creative commons.
It just seems ludicrous that these publishers, who no longer serve a purpose, get paid as the gatekeepers to knowledge in so many fields when it would otherwise be free. Most of the Editors of the Journals are luminaries that get paid nothing, and the contributors to the field get paid nothing as well. With web access meaning you can hit a huge audience virtually instantly at a low cost, why not free the information?
It is useful for a lot of research. Even though it is not as good as a new one, why not keep in it action?
At a guess, after 40 years of the pressure it's been subject to it may be cheaper to replace that guarantee structural integrity.
Anyway, I hope "retire" is accurate and not a euphemism for scrap (which unfortunately happens sometimes). It deserves a pastures in a museum somewhere, at the very least.
Because it never existed in the first place. They are just making things up now, and there is no reason to believe anything they say, especially with all the egg coating on their integrity.
Well, maybe, and I hope you're right, but what if IBM actually did do what they've been accused of? Is it that long a bow to draw?
The other thing is, if it were MS, people would be running around in circles and burning effigies of Bill Gates (me too, probably;).
I've just been fearing that there is some merit to behind all the SCO bluster, and this makes me fear it just a little bit more...
that's the hallmark of a number of awesome inventions - the aim was simplicity at the outset. That's not say it won't get complicated later on, but when you start out complicated more often the complication (and the associated cost) takes over from the crux of the idea.
you're right, until of course until silicon literally replaces manpower.
Not commenting on whether the act was right or wrong, but in the latest attack against Hamas militants the Israelis used an unmanned drone to launch ordinance. Think about that for a second - the pilot was sitting back in some air conditioned room somewhere. I think that's the future of battle-tech - silicon taking the heat out on the battlefield, whilst humans control the technology, sometimes at a one-machine to one-person level, behind the battlefield.
as for the title of this story, "how technology failed in Iraq". My first reaction was - "how everything failed in Iraq"...:)
Never mind the fact that Bush just got endorsed by Iran; the link is in my.sig. In fact, Iran and Russia are the only countries that seem to be supporting Bush. The rest of the world loves America, but wants Bush out.
isn't obvious? by opening the source, you can see how the "rigs" might work!
right now, how the hell do you know that the software that collects votes isn't adding one vote to kerry's count when someone votes for bush, and one vote for bush when someone votes for kerry?
you don't - but if the source was open, you would!
it's the same reason that spyware isn't in linux, and is in Windows. MS can hide it because it's closed, Linux can't because it's not.
I have the utmost respect for the guys that do this kinda stuff, because unlike virtually every other industry, there are no chances for a trial run, and zero margin for fuck ups.
The one thing I wonder is how extensively they make use of simulations. I'm wondering whether soon they'll be able to run through an entire mission, speed it up and slow it down around problems, so they can find/fix problems before launch.
We *know* computers can count very well. That's what they were designed for. The problem with the test they ran is that they tried to have a normal, successful election. Try this test: try to rig it. So it succeeds at the easy part, that proves nothing. I hope TrueVoteMD manages to flog the state on this one.
I'll tell you an even better "right" test - open source the damn thing. I cannot think of a better application of open source than the opening of electoral software. The concepts of honesty, transparency and so on are crucial for democratic elections - so why is the software to count votes being closed?
It is UNACCEPTABLE. Write to your congressman, make a fuss, do whatever it takes - there should be open, transparent software!
While the UK is lucky in that it always rains (you can afford to make jokes about it!), Australia isn't so. We're effectively a desert continent with green patches around the outside. Water is a very scarce resource here, and right now, most of our major cities have water restrictions on them (can't wash cars, can't water except during restricted hours, can't hose down paved areas).
How do we solve this? Well, one Australian state is doing what the Singaporeans are doing - they're recycling the water. But a number of other Australian states are afraid to follow the lead of Victoria and South Australia, simply on the "yuk" factor of recycled water.
The problem is that if something isn't done soon for the rest of us - we're going to be turning the taps on, but nothing will be coming out.
The importance of water recycling can't be overstated. It can help avoid dams (which just kill the environment); because the water that is used just keeps going round in a virtually endless cycle. Rivers can start running free again. We won't be held captive to the rain gods.
So, next time you're about to make a joke about water recycling, spare a thought for those of us not living in the British Isles, with its endless wet season;)
Slashdot Mirror
mate - i can see you've got a bunch of these other questions but one more favor to ask of you. would you mind ranking irish wolfhounds on your "intelligence scale"?
thanks!
-- james
That was absolutely true, up until the point where the decision got the site posted onto slashdot. Whatever financial savings they hoped to make have been eliminated and probably reversed by now...
Until, of course, the decision got the site posted onto slashdot
The real conspiracy theorists amongst us will argue that's exactly why he did it though... though it strikes me as a bit too clever for a site bearing the name georgewbush.com
You got modded troll, but I think it's a fair comment. The man's invaded Iraq, invaded Afghanistan, and at length talked about the importance of alliance support.
Why shouldn't the rest of the world see what's on his website? If Iraq's important enough for him to invade, it's important enough for him to spend a few extra $$$ for the people of Iraq (and the RoW) to see what his re-election policies are.
The other thing that shits me about this is that it is setting a nasty precedent for the web - and this is a high profile site. I'd hate to see a whole lot of other sites all around the world taking this approach to blocking foreign access. It would ruin the 'net.
in the forthcoming Star Wars(TM) Monopoly(TM) board game, the player who chooses the Greedo token automatically gets first go.
Their site is out of date then: http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,65476,00.htm
If there's a Wired article, and a Cnet article, go with the Wired article every time. It's written by people who love tech.
That's an interesting way of looking at it, but I think so far most of the commentators have failed to pick up what makes this system so incredible. Srinidhi Varadarajan, the designer of the system:
Think about that for a second. The system isn't just in the top 5 (or at least top 10), but it's the cheapest by a factor of at least 2. What's even funnier from a tech standpoint is that the creator doesn't expect it to be beaten until another Apple system is built - which puts a very interesting spin on the old "Apple's more expensive".
Anyway as to in/out of the top 5, Varadarajan reckons there's another 10-20% in optimisations left in the tank...
Data taken from the recent Wired Article on the subject.
For us Apple users - you bet!
Well, except for the fact that the processor's so hot, but you know what I mean
well, if you're talking about computer human interface (which we are, because this is about Jef Raskin), what you've said is not true. that's not what a review by Anand said when he reviewed his new PowerMac G5.
p.3 and p. 4 are particularly pertinent:
The fundamental difference between OS X and Windows is how applications and windows are handled. What OS X has going for it is uniformity between applications and windows; for example, the keyboard shortcut for the preferences dialog in any OS X application is Command and the "," key. So, regardless of what application you're in, the same keystroke combination will have the same expected effect - pretty useful.
Check the whole article out. There are some things he's got wrong, but not surprising for anyone whose just switched to a totally new platform.
If you read the article, you actually find out that it rain on the planet is posited to be liquid methane.
what I want to know is, does this mean if it's raining heavily that it's "pissing down" or it's "shitting down"
man, when it comes to Apple, too much is never enough ;)
maybe not, but what will be is the DMCA lawsuit coming your way for reverse engineering the story write up
You assume I know nothing about the whole controversy, when in fact I do. I've met RMS, I've heard him speak about what drives him.
:)
The quip at the start was meant to be humour. You asked why they're using creative commons - I said because RMS is a hippy-looking MIT drop-out (using the second definition of the word), which is all true.
Now, without wanting to disturb you up there on your soap box, what matters when picking sides over this for most people isn't reality. It's perception. Laurence Lessig is the foremost authority on electronic IP right now, known widely amongst the community for his ideals. RMS is known mostly only within the IT fraternity, and even then people think of him as some smelly monk whose interesting but for the most part to be avoided.
So, assume you're a Joe Blow (no law degree or PhD, as you quite proudly boast) and you have to pick a license. Do you:
a) pick the guy who has stood up in front of the supreme court fighting for the prevention of copyright extensions, and who developed the licence that The Beastie Boys have released work under; or
b) pick the guy that quit MIT, is in serious need of a haircut/shave and who gets up on his soapbox regularly about it should be GNU/Linux, not just Linux?
Doesn't matter about whose right or whose wrong. It's just how it's perceived. I admire RMS, I think the world needs people like him, but I think that what he's proposing is flawed. I think that Linus's philosophy is much more realistic than RMS's semi-communist approach, and in trying to create freedom for the users he denies freedom for the developers - the people whose software it is.
Regardless, the original quip was meant humourously (note the smiley). So just relax a bit, ok?
Because Lawrence Lessig is cool Stanford Professor that argued in front of the Supreme Court about copyright extensions, and Richard Stallman is hippy-looking MIT drop-out that argues with geeks about Linux really being GNU/Linux? :)
Related to topic (and more related to my field of study) is the question of journal articles. Most journals are contributed to by academics, and the academics don't get paid to write in the journals. However, the journals are copyrighted to the teeth, and for an academic/researcher/scientist trying to get access to the journals you have to pay.
That seems like quite an outdated method to me, but it hangs on because of the prestige associated with the older journals (MISQ is a big one in Information Systems). I hope to soon see some prestigious journals coming along with something like a creative commons license, or even better (though much less likely for financial reasons), a big journal swapping all their content over to creative commons.
It just seems ludicrous that these publishers, who no longer serve a purpose, get paid as the gatekeepers to knowledge in so many fields when it would otherwise be free. Most of the Editors of the Journals are luminaries that get paid nothing, and the contributors to the field get paid nothing as well. With web access meaning you can hit a huge audience virtually instantly at a low cost, why not free the information?
At a guess, after 40 years of the pressure it's been subject to it may be cheaper to replace that guarantee structural integrity.
Anyway, I hope "retire" is accurate and not a euphemism for scrap (which unfortunately happens sometimes). It deserves a pastures in a museum somewhere, at the very least.
Well, maybe, and I hope you're right, but what if IBM actually did do what they've been accused of? Is it that long a bow to draw?
The other thing is, if it were MS, people would be running around in circles and burning effigies of Bill Gates (me too, probably
I've just been fearing that there is some merit to behind all the SCO bluster, and this makes me fear it just a little bit more...
These things have a scientific name in meatspace - they're known as "wives".
that's the hallmark of a number of awesome inventions - the aim was simplicity at the outset. That's not say it won't get complicated later on, but when you start out complicated more often the complication (and the associated cost) takes over from the crux of the idea.
you're right, until of course until silicon literally replaces manpower.
:)
Not commenting on whether the act was right or wrong, but in the latest attack against Hamas militants the Israelis used an unmanned drone to launch ordinance. Think about that for a second - the pilot was sitting back in some air conditioned room somewhere. I think that's the future of battle-tech - silicon taking the heat out on the battlefield, whilst humans control the technology, sometimes at a one-machine to one-person level, behind the battlefield.
as for the title of this story, "how technology failed in Iraq". My first reaction was - "how everything failed in Iraq"...
On the subject of partisan sniping, I particularly like Bush's new ads, the one's with all the wolves circling the camera, implying that the terrorists want Kerry to win.
.sig. In fact, Iran and Russia are the only countries that seem to be supporting Bush. The rest of the world loves America, but wants Bush out.
Never mind the fact that Bush just got endorsed by Iran; the link is in my
I hope it is made so on the 2nd.
isn't obvious? by opening the source, you can see how the "rigs" might work!
right now, how the hell do you know that the software that collects votes isn't adding one vote to kerry's count when someone votes for bush, and one vote for bush when someone votes for kerry?
you don't - but if the source was open, you would!
it's the same reason that spyware isn't in linux, and is in Windows. MS can hide it because it's closed, Linux can't because it's not.
I have the utmost respect for the guys that do this kinda stuff, because unlike virtually every other industry, there are no chances for a trial run, and zero margin for fuck ups.
The one thing I wonder is how extensively they make use of simulations. I'm wondering whether soon they'll be able to run through an entire mission, speed it up and slow it down around problems, so they can find/fix problems before launch.
I'll tell you an even better "right" test - open source the damn thing. I cannot think of a better application of open source than the opening of electoral software. The concepts of honesty, transparency and so on are crucial for democratic elections - so why is the software to count votes being closed?
It is UNACCEPTABLE. Write to your congressman, make a fuss, do whatever it takes - there should be open, transparent software!
While the UK is lucky in that it always rains (you can afford to make jokes about it!), Australia isn't so. We're effectively a desert continent with green patches around the outside. Water is a very scarce resource here, and right now, most of our major cities have water restrictions on them (can't wash cars, can't water except during restricted hours, can't hose down paved areas).
;)
How do we solve this? Well, one Australian state is doing what the Singaporeans are doing - they're recycling the water. But a number of other Australian states are afraid to follow the lead of Victoria and South Australia, simply on the "yuk" factor of recycled water.
The problem is that if something isn't done soon for the rest of us - we're going to be turning the taps on, but nothing will be coming out.
The importance of water recycling can't be overstated. It can help avoid dams (which just kill the environment); because the water that is used just keeps going round in a virtually endless cycle. Rivers can start running free again. We won't be held captive to the rain gods.
So, next time you're about to make a joke about water recycling, spare a thought for those of us not living in the British Isles, with its endless wet season
-- james
It sounded to me like a contender for the Emperor's New Clothes :)