What is the definition of a Mainframe? A big fast machine with a shitload of features. High IO, bunch of memory. What's to stop any competitor from building their own mainframes? You can find systems that run the gamut from minicomputer to supercomputer and all points in between from all kinds of vendors.
Antitrust law is a relic of the Standard Oil/US Steel days and it's turned into a logically inconsistent hobgoblin used by competitors to whine about their competition.
First, a monopoly should be supply-side limited, not demand side. If there are 5 products of roughly type Widget available but consumers overwhelmingly choose Widget A, it's not a monopoly.
Second, monopoly law should be applied to physically limited resources that are judged sufficiently "important" to merit govt interference in consensual business. Oil, water, food, air, power, that sort of thing.
Third, frilly features or over-specific classifications should not define a monopoly. "Oooh whaaa! I want a Widget with features X, Y, Z that comes in RED and only vendor X offers it! Monopoly! Monopoly!"
In the words of H Ross Perot, folks it's simple. If there is nothing stopping a competitor from releasing a similar product or if there are already similar products it's not, by definition, a monopoly.
Roger that. What next, is there going to be a captivating article about how most Republicans didn't vote for Obama or how more people will cell phones don't have land-lines than people without cell phones?
Don't confuse our insurance/availability/payment system with the quality of available care. If you have good coverage or can afford it, there are very few illnesses where you won't get the best possible treatment in the world from the US.
Yeah, just like those magic cars everyone just knows "they" have but that the big mean oil companies managed to stop. And all those wonderful herbal remedies to cancer that those "fat cats" don't want us to use and that cure cancer in a mere few weeks.
You think "physics GPU acceleration" is a special market. There are tons of ways to do physics acceleration, and having one of the slightly faster ways doesn't give you a "monopoly". It's a gimmick anyway, nobody gives a shit about physics acceleration in games and there are lots of faster options if you're in HPC.
For the record, there's no reason game developers or anyone else can't use the ATI GPU API to implement physics processing.
Being the only current provider to provide an API for your hardware to perform physics processing when your competitors hardware is just as capable does not make you a monopoly, and only a dipshit "Johhny Trustbuster" would think it does.
Or maybe you're just too technically illiterate to realize this is just an API on top of NVidia's stream processors? Do you think NVidia has some special magic pixie dust in their product that nobody else can use?
People always focus on charge capacity and energy usage, but charging speed is just as important. If they can make batteries that charge in a few minutes (or hell, 30 seconds) I wouldn't mind at all if the battery only lasts 6 hours under heavy use. Put some research into that.
All you SlashDot posters run together to me, so my points may not have been 100% directed at you.
My point is to question the assumption that anything that sounds "markety" is necessarily just a meaningless, made up term for something that already exists.
We see the same thing with "Web 2.0". Sure, it gets used and abused but it means something. It's not just "the same as the Web/HTML". It's more interactive, doesn't rely on full page post/redraw cycles, etc...
Everything that's networked in modern computing is fundamentally the client server model if you tilt your head a bit. I don't see the value in (some posters, maybe not you) claiming that "cloud computing" is just hand-waving and market-speak for "client/server" when it's not.
It's really the ecosystem of client/server systems provided by many different vendors which together form "the cloud". That's the other part of this - there was originally supposed to be one cloud. Meaning it would be Internet based. Now it's getting diluted and people are applying the same concepts inside a private network.
But again, considering these are networked systems "client server" seems a bit redundant. Like calling client/server "computer networked client/server".
First and foremost, interoperability and standards. Was there a hosting service "in the 1970's" (apparently when everyone likes to pretend something non-new was _really_ invented_) where you could switch providers for storage, software as a service, manageability, etc...?
Elasticity. Was there a notorious 1970's service where I could dynamically allocate network bandwidth, storage, virtual computers, etc... and choose from multiple vendors to do so? And old timers, don't bore me with claims about mainframes. I know, there were all that and a bowl of chicken. Nobody cares.
If all this shit is _sooo_ 1970, why is it that almost all companies still have big computer rooms, pay for the power, pay for specialized support, support their own software, etc...?
I'm not saying it's the newest thing since sliced bread - not at all. Like most technologies or business process improvements it's aggregative (if that were a word) and incremental. It is a term for something, however, and it's not just "client server".
Client/server is a characteristic used in almost any networked system today. I'm using client/server if I use BitTorrent. Is it useful or descriptive to just call BitTorrent "Client/server"? Isn't "P2P" more descriptive?
The point of the cloud isn't even technical - it's a business process. Instead of paying for your own "client" and "server" you let someone else pay for and host the "server", "network", "platforms", and/or "software".
Client server is so implicit in pretty much everything computing and network related that it is meaningless to say "but, durr, that's just client/server!". Of fucking course it is. It's also "computer networking", "silicon", "bits and bytes". No shit!
Let's just call web services TCP/IP services. What point is there in informing, via a term, the implications of protocol, openness, security, etc...
If it makes you feel better you can use such sophistry to claim they are the same thing. I'm not clear if you're being intentionally dense or just don't understand.
My point about just calling it "computer networking" is that it certainly is "computer networking". It's also "client server". And it's also "cloud computing". They all add meaning. It's not even that hard to grasp.
I'm using "client server" if I have a few hundred netapps in a computer room and use NFS to expose the data to my client machines. I'm not using cloud computing.
If I use Amazon's storage resources and Amazon's virtual computing infrastructure to host my services then I'm using the cloud.
Of course it's client/server. Almost any system that uses a network could be termed client/server, even e.g. P2P. What's your point?
Client/server is a communications model. Cloud computing is a business model, a management model, a deployment model, etc... You might as well say "networking" is the real concept, and that fancy "cloud computing" is just a PHB term for "networking". Let's just call cloud "computer networking!".
Cloud computing isn't about a "client" and a "server". It's about moving more of your data and business processes off systems and software you support and letting someone else do it.
Cloud computing will have client server components. So what? When I use my Xbox 360 to play games over the internet should I tell people I'm using a "client/server system" or that I'm playing my god damn Xbox 360?
It's fun to mock the Latest Thing, and sometimes it deserves it, but cloud computing is not just a fancy name for Client/Server.
"cloud computing" is the "client/server" model like the iPhone is the "rotary phone" model. I certainly agree with your premise that people like to hype things, and this is just a lens with a fancy name. But "cloud computing" is a long-distant descendant of the "client server" model. They aren't the same thing anymore than a nuclear bomb is just "a really strong TNT bomb".
If insurance companies want to use limited, incomplete "science" to claim diet soda is unhealthy they can do so. The "studies" you refer to are at best questionable and indicate more work needs to be done. I have a simple explanation for the diet soda findings - fat people tend to drink more of it, so there's a correlation (but no causation) between diet soda and the findings.
Can I do a study indicating eating too much Tofu (soy protein is estrogenic) is harmful even in slightly elevated amounts and then tax hippes more for eating it?
There are ideas from Republicans. I agree most of them just hate the current President, and some smallish number of them it's clearly just thinly veiled racism. But they have proposed some ideas and they're a lot better than a complete overhaul.
Our system isn't that bad. First, contrary to one of the many lies going around, there aren't 40 million uninsured. The number of completely uninsured people is far less. But regardless, we can come up with a plan to extend medicaid, add tax breaks for health care, increase competition across state borders, and put in a time bomb law that if the cost and coverage of health care doesn't improve by X amount in 5 years, the government steps in with harsher regulations on the industry.
We don't need a complete overhaul, we need patches.
This argument assumes the "purpose" of the people in the society affected exist for the benefit of society.
They don't. And this is why taxing on this basis is a stepping stone to evil. If I exist to provide for the economy, to prevent health care issues for the govt, etc... then for what other purposes am I beholden to the government? Shit, I guess I also exist to contribute "according to my abilities", huh? And I exist to consume no more resources than "I need".
Slashdot Mirror
Did Netgear claim it was an _only_ open source router, meaning everything in it is open source? I don't recall them claiming such a thing.
So...strawman.
And way for the Open Source community to encourage vendors to use OS. Shrill complaints are always helpful.
What is the definition of a Mainframe? A big fast machine with a shitload of features. High IO, bunch of memory. What's to stop any competitor from building their own mainframes? You can find systems that run the gamut from minicomputer to supercomputer and all points in between from all kinds of vendors.
Antitrust law is a relic of the Standard Oil/US Steel days and it's turned into a logically inconsistent hobgoblin used by competitors to whine about their competition.
First, a monopoly should be supply-side limited, not demand side. If there are 5 products of roughly type Widget available but consumers overwhelmingly choose Widget A, it's not a monopoly.
Second, monopoly law should be applied to physically limited resources that are judged sufficiently "important" to merit govt interference in consensual business. Oil, water, food, air, power, that sort of thing.
Third, frilly features or over-specific classifications should not define a monopoly. "Oooh whaaa! I want a Widget with features X, Y, Z that comes in RED and only vendor X offers it! Monopoly! Monopoly!"
In the words of H Ross Perot, folks it's simple. If there is nothing stopping a competitor from releasing a similar product or if there are already similar products it's not, by definition, a monopoly.
Roger that. What next, is there going to be a captivating article about how most Republicans didn't vote for Obama or how more people will cell phones don't have land-lines than people without cell phones?
Don't confuse our insurance/availability/payment system with the quality of available care. If you have good coverage or can afford it, there are very few illnesses where you won't get the best possible treatment in the world from the US.
Yeah, just like those magic cars everyone just knows "they" have but that the big mean oil companies managed to stop. And all those wonderful herbal remedies to cancer that those "fat cats" don't want us to use and that cure cancer in a mere few weeks.
Paranoia for the win!
You're fucking stupid.
You think "physics GPU acceleration" is a special market. There are tons of ways to do physics acceleration, and having one of the slightly faster ways doesn't give you a "monopoly". It's a gimmick anyway, nobody gives a shit about physics acceleration in games and there are lots of faster options if you're in HPC.
For the record, there's no reason game developers or anyone else can't use the ATI GPU API to implement physics processing.
Being the only current provider to provide an API for your hardware to perform physics processing when your competitors hardware is just as capable does not make you a monopoly, and only a dipshit "Johhny Trustbuster" would think it does.
Or maybe you're just too technically illiterate to realize this is just an API on top of NVidia's stream processors? Do you think NVidia has some special magic pixie dust in their product that nobody else can use?
Yeah, they're _doomed_ because of the massive backlash from the 50 people in the world who would give a shit about this limitation. Doomed I tells ya!
Yes. ATI. Various custom providers. General purpose CPUs. Supercomputers.
It's laughable to claim NVidia has a monopoly on anything.
You're a retard. You haven't used the product but you _know_ it sucks. Right.
Opinion: Dismissed.
What security hole? There is no security hole involved when someone downloads a file and executes it. You're confused or disingenuous.
True dat. I guess you'd need a non-charging battery, e.g. hydrogen or some other technology where the potential isn't recharged with electricity.
People always focus on charge capacity and energy usage, but charging speed is just as important. If they can make batteries that charge in a few minutes (or hell, 30 seconds) I wouldn't mind at all if the battery only lasts 6 hours under heavy use. Put some research into that.
All you SlashDot posters run together to me, so my points may not have been 100% directed at you.
My point is to question the assumption that anything that sounds "markety" is necessarily just a meaningless, made up term for something that already exists.
We see the same thing with "Web 2.0". Sure, it gets used and abused but it means something. It's not just "the same as the Web/HTML". It's more interactive, doesn't rely on full page post/redraw cycles, etc...
Everything that's networked in modern computing is fundamentally the client server model if you tilt your head a bit. I don't see the value in (some posters, maybe not you) claiming that "cloud computing" is just hand-waving and market-speak for "client/server" when it's not.
It's really the ecosystem of client/server systems provided by many different vendors which together form "the cloud". That's the other part of this - there was originally supposed to be one cloud. Meaning it would be Internet based. Now it's getting diluted and people are applying the same concepts inside a private network.
But again, considering these are networked systems "client server" seems a bit redundant. Like calling client/server "computer networked client/server".
First and foremost, interoperability and standards. Was there a hosting service "in the 1970's" (apparently when everyone likes to pretend something non-new was _really_ invented_) where you could switch providers for storage, software as a service, manageability, etc...?
Elasticity. Was there a notorious 1970's service where I could dynamically allocate network bandwidth, storage, virtual computers, etc... and choose from multiple vendors to do so? And old timers, don't bore me with claims about mainframes. I know, there were all that and a bowl of chicken. Nobody cares.
If all this shit is _sooo_ 1970, why is it that almost all companies still have big computer rooms, pay for the power, pay for specialized support, support their own software, etc...?
I'm not saying it's the newest thing since sliced bread - not at all. Like most technologies or business process improvements it's aggregative (if that were a word) and incremental. It is a term for something, however, and it's not just "client server".
Client/server is a characteristic used in almost any networked system today. I'm using client/server if I use BitTorrent. Is it useful or descriptive to just call BitTorrent "Client/server"? Isn't "P2P" more descriptive?
The point of the cloud isn't even technical - it's a business process. Instead of paying for your own "client" and "server" you let someone else pay for and host the "server", "network", "platforms", and/or "software".
Client server is so implicit in pretty much everything computing and network related that it is meaningless to say "but, durr, that's just client/server!". Of fucking course it is. It's also "computer networking", "silicon", "bits and bytes". No shit!
Let's just call web services TCP/IP services. What point is there in informing, via a term, the implications of protocol, openness, security, etc...
If it makes you feel better you can use such sophistry to claim they are the same thing. I'm not clear if you're being intentionally dense or just don't understand.
My point about just calling it "computer networking" is that it certainly is "computer networking". It's also "client server". And it's also "cloud computing". They all add meaning. It's not even that hard to grasp.
I'm using "client server" if I have a few hundred netapps in a computer room and use NFS to expose the data to my client machines. I'm not using cloud computing.
If I use Amazon's storage resources and Amazon's virtual computing infrastructure to host my services then I'm using the cloud.
Of course it's client/server. Almost any system that uses a network could be termed client/server, even e.g. P2P. What's your point?
Client/server is a communications model. Cloud computing is a business model, a management model, a deployment model, etc... You might as well say "networking" is the real concept, and that fancy "cloud computing" is just a PHB term for "networking". Let's just call cloud "computer networking!".
Cloud computing isn't about a "client" and a "server". It's about moving more of your data and business processes off systems and software you support and letting someone else do it.
Cloud computing will have client server components. So what? When I use my Xbox 360 to play games over the internet should I tell people I'm using a "client/server system" or that I'm playing my god damn Xbox 360?
It's fun to mock the Latest Thing, and sometimes it deserves it, but cloud computing is not just a fancy name for Client/Server.
"cloud computing" is the "client/server" model like the iPhone is the "rotary phone" model. I certainly agree with your premise that people like to hype things, and this is just a lens with a fancy name. But "cloud computing" is a long-distant descendant of the "client server" model. They aren't the same thing anymore than a nuclear bomb is just "a really strong TNT bomb".
Yeah.. right. Because it's so hard to put all your documents in one area (I shall call it, My Documents) and backup/restore that data.
If insurance companies want to use limited, incomplete "science" to claim diet soda is unhealthy they can do so. The "studies" you refer to are at best questionable and indicate more work needs to be done. I have a simple explanation for the diet soda findings - fat people tend to drink more of it, so there's a correlation (but no causation) between diet soda and the findings.
Can I do a study indicating eating too much Tofu (soy protein is estrogenic) is harmful even in slightly elevated amounts and then tax hippes more for eating it?
Same with cigarettes. Personal choice. The only caveat is insurance companies should be able to charge smokers more.
Yeah... about that. They had film and it was well documented what went down.
Yeah...about that.... No.
There are ideas from Republicans. I agree most of them just hate the current President, and some smallish number of them it's clearly just thinly veiled racism. But they have proposed some ideas and they're a lot better than a complete overhaul.
Our system isn't that bad. First, contrary to one of the many lies going around, there aren't 40 million uninsured. The number of completely uninsured people is far less. But regardless, we can come up with a plan to extend medicaid, add tax breaks for health care, increase competition across state borders, and put in a time bomb law that if the cost and coverage of health care doesn't improve by X amount in 5 years, the government steps in with harsher regulations on the industry.
We don't need a complete overhaul, we need patches.
This argument assumes the "purpose" of the people in the society affected exist for the benefit of society.
They don't. And this is why taxing on this basis is a stepping stone to evil. If I exist to provide for the economy, to prevent health care issues for the govt, etc... then for what other purposes am I beholden to the government? Shit, I guess I also exist to contribute "according to my abilities", huh? And I exist to consume no more resources than "I need".