Silicon Alley Insider recently calculated that the New York Times could save more than $300 million a year by shutting down its presses and buying every subscriber a Kindle
Nothing can save the New York Times. Well, ok, maybe Nationalization, or a taxpayer bailout, or, God forbid, wholesale conversion into a politically conservative paper.
They need to replace it with a network that is designed to survive a nuclear attack. Oh wait, hang on....
Wish I had mod points today. Parent should already be SCORE:5 Funny. Apparently not enough Slashdotters know the history/evolution of the net.
If you're referring to the myth that the Internet was "designed to withstand nuclear attack", perhaps Slashdotters know more than you think.
The Internet was designed to allow distributed control, and to withstand telephone company malice and incompetence. This was a much more useful goal than withstanding nuclear attack.
One of the early arguments made by DARPA folks to politicians, in order to secure continued federal funding for packet switched network development, was the ability of the network to route around failed or destroyed nodes. They made this argument in the context of the cold war, of nuclear war.
It reality, as you state, this argument had little practical impact on the technical development or evolution of the the network. However, it most certainly did have an impact on the commitment of federal/military funding. This is the origin of the "surviving nuclear attack" lore of the development of DARPANET. It's not a myth. It's real.
Take Obama's current stimulus package as a parallel example. It's not going to solve the recession, but it's being sold as such. And the congress bought into it. Just as this stimulus bill isn't what it's being sold as, most likely DARPANET wouldn't have really given us what it was sold as at one point. Nonetheless, it was sold as such, thus creating the lore that you call myth.
I can't tell you which Debian version I'm running. I use Debian for my (headless) mail server. I installed Woody from boot disks years ago and have done at least 1, maybe two distribution upgrades via apt, IIRC.
The name or the distro rev means less to me than the functionality I get from Debian. I guess this is obvious since I can't name which rev I'm using. I don't even know how to check for it.
Gamers. Sure, most would rather go out and buy a totally new box, but if someone just wanted to upgrade a CPU, AMD would let them do it. It may seem illogical for hardware vendors to target a small portion of the hardware buying community, but both AMD and Intel are trying their best to get the gamer's money.
Not illogical at all. Lower volume + higher margin has always been successful in any business segment. Apple Computer Corp, love em or hate em, has successfully implemented this strategy more than any other company, over a fairly long period of time.
Companies who don't go after the high margin areas, no matter how small they may be, are leaving money on the table.
Suppose someone creates a very minimalist linux distro which includes a very good package management system. Suppose this package management system includes nearly all popular linux software packages.
Now suppose it were rather easy for anyone to install any number of those packages, bundle them together into one meta-package keyword, and call that a distro.
Then Linux would be as simple as installing the minimalist distro, then doing "apt-get install smartphone-system" for a distro customized for smartphones, or "media-system" for a distro customized for mediacenter PCs, etc.
I think this would be a superior option to having many completely independent distributions, and it would allow for faster innovation and easier support.
Spoken like a true Debian man. This sounds like a fabulous idea, actually.
And the USA claims that it wants all of that information about who is on airplanes in its airspace so that it can combat terrorism. If they knew about him on a simple stop over then it seems that there is a lot of 'mission creep' on the use of passenger information.
That's one stated reason. Another stated reason is to prevent communicable disease from entering the country. And, btw, it ain't just the US TSA doing this. Nearly every western democracy, and even some of the despotic nations, collect airline passenger manifests for the above, and other reasons. In the case of this thread, Italy obviously does. I don't see you decrying Italy, only the US.
And, BTW, with what crime did this prosecutor charge the boys who perpetrated the actual harassment? My guess is they were suspended from school for a few days, and never charged criminally.
My opinion is that this prosecutor is completely politically motivated. He's seeking personal gain for his career advancement.
More important than how well OpenChange will function/perform after deployed is having a seamless migration from the currently deployed Exchange server(s).
If mailboxen and address books, calenders and distribution lists, aren't intact and seamlessly usable after the migration, this FOSS team may be wasting their time. My point is, as much, if not more, time should be spent on developing the server migration tools and processes as on the actual OpenChange server code.
If the server migration can't be successfully and seamlessly achieved in a few hours on a weekend, this project is likely for not. Especially in organizations who make heavy use of OWA. Oh, and has OWA integration been addressed by the OpenChange team? Yes, most of us would say OWA sucks, but that doesn't change the fact that it is very widely used.
We need a pricing model where the consumer pays only for the sum total cost of the atoms contained within a product. Wow, iPods and laptops and digital music and movies are now cheaper than a gallon of gasoline. But, boy did it just get really expensive to travel.
Dang, steak just got really expensive too...might have to rethink this equality model.
So, sheeple don't exist, is that your point? Remind me of your position on the very day Windows PCs cease being infected my malware and ratware; the malware and ratware currently being installed because sheeple just must have their porn, or just must respond to that phishing scam promising $8,000,000 USD.
The flaw in your argument, if it could even be classified as such, is that you're ignoring *all* of the evidence that proves the existence of sheeple. Want an example with a catchy tune, to help you remember it?
Follow the funding trail. Most of the small single cabinet systems are "seed" machines, loaned by Cray at no cost. They do this, especially for brand new unproven architectures, in the hopes that 'early users' will find the machine is great and spread the word. *Then* Cray actually starts selling them. It's very difficult to get people to spend millions of dollars on a brand new architecture. NSA did. They had staff interfacing with Cray staff during development of the XMT. NSA has a huge budget, and the human resources to dedicate to making this new architecture hum. This is the point I was making. NSA bought whilst everyone else was borrowing the XMT machines. Maybe one or two of the small ones were actually purchased, but most were loaned. Those loans can turn into purchases.
The single cabinet systems in those articles you link to are likely seed machines on loan, not purchased. The $900k mentioned in that NSF grant is awfully small to cover a single cabinet XMT *AND* the salaries of the principal researchers who won the grant.
Did you know that the only customer to ever buy an XMT is the United States National Security Agency, commonly known as the NSA? And they have more than one. They're listed as "classified government agency" in the SEC 10K filings for system sales.
Did you happen to read what this particular architecture really excels at? Pattern matching. Now, where do you think all those "illegally" obtained phone company records got dumped into for analysis?
The move towards commodity processors in supercomputing wasn't some kind of accident, it occurred because that's what currently gets the best results.
You are totally misinformed. COTS clusters and the move toward x86 commodity CPUs in MPPs is the direct result of CPLANT, and it was all about initial hardware acquisition cost, not performance:
CPLANT is the father of all current cluster supercomputers, which make up over 90% of all supers in the world. Anyone find it interesting that the CPU architecture that started the move to COTS supercomputers was actually Alpha, not x86? What's that saying? "Truth is often stranger than fiction"?
This is a result of the class action lawsuit over "Vista Ready", nothing more. Low end systems are getting newer faster CPUs at a rate greater than the increased performance of low end integrated GPUs.
This is MS's effort to get a "Windows 7 Ready" logo on just about every PC without fear of more class action lawsuits. Call it hedging their bets. They believe that even low end multi-core CPUs are a better way to get decent Aero performance than cheap integrated GPUs.
I understand the moral conflict, but it's not like I could buy a complete set of open hardware, and even if I could, I'd just be compromising on a different front.
Look at "Total" and "Total IBM Discounts*" toward the end of page 3. Total list price is $35,263,161. Total "IBM Discounts" are $20,273,753.
IBM is willing to give *anyone* purchasing this configuration nearly a 60% discount right off the bat. Obviously, any company giving an immediate $20 million discount has their shit overpriced by $20 million.
And this is before negotiations even begin, which would likely net the buyer another $7 million or so in savings.
Slashdot Mirror
Silicon Alley Insider recently calculated that the New York Times could save more than $300 million a year by shutting down its presses and buying every subscriber a Kindle
Nothing can save the New York Times. Well, ok, maybe Nationalization, or a taxpayer bailout, or, God forbid, wholesale conversion into a politically conservative paper.
"No, I better not look, I just might be in there..." - Fogorn Leghorn
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjLfkTbZ0V0
They need to replace it with a network that is designed to survive a nuclear attack. Oh wait, hang on....
Wish I had mod points today. Parent should already be SCORE:5 Funny. Apparently not enough Slashdotters know the history/evolution of the net.
If you're referring to the myth that the Internet was "designed to withstand nuclear attack", perhaps Slashdotters know more than you think.
The Internet was designed to allow distributed control, and to withstand telephone company malice and incompetence. This was a much more useful goal than withstanding nuclear attack.
One of the early arguments made by DARPA folks to politicians, in order to secure continued federal funding for packet switched network development, was the ability of the network to route around failed or destroyed nodes. They made this argument in the context of the cold war, of nuclear war.
It reality, as you state, this argument had little practical impact on the technical development or evolution of the the network. However, it most certainly did have an impact on the commitment of federal/military funding. This is the origin of the "surviving nuclear attack" lore of the development of DARPANET. It's not a myth. It's real.
Take Obama's current stimulus package as a parallel example. It's not going to solve the recession, but it's being sold as such. And the congress bought into it. Just as this stimulus bill isn't what it's being sold as, most likely DARPANET wouldn't have really given us what it was sold as at one point. Nonetheless, it was sold as such, thus creating the lore that you call myth.
They need to replace it with a network that is designed to survive a nuclear attack. Oh wait, hang on....
Wish I had mod points today. Parent should already be SCORE:5 Funny. Apparently not enough Slashdotters know the history/evolution of the net.
greer:/# cat /etc/issue
Debian GNU/Linux 4.0 \n \l
Looks like I'm apparently up to Etch. So I was somewhat current after all.
I can't tell you which Debian version I'm running. I use Debian for my (headless) mail server. I installed Woody from boot disks years ago and have done at least 1, maybe two distribution upgrades via apt, IIRC.
The name or the distro rev means less to me than the functionality I get from Debian. I guess this is obvious since I can't name which rev I'm using. I don't even know how to check for it.
Dogs would be useful but it'd be a lot more fun if we could get a pterodactyl out there hunting the birds.
But then you introduce the possibility of pterodactyl strikes, which do far more damage than geese.
Gamers. Sure, most would rather go out and buy a totally new box, but if someone just wanted to upgrade a CPU, AMD would let them do it. It may seem illogical for hardware vendors to target a small portion of the hardware buying community, but both AMD and Intel are trying their best to get the gamer's money.
Not illogical at all. Lower volume + higher margin has always been successful in any business segment. Apple Computer Corp, love em or hate em, has successfully implemented this strategy more than any other company, over a fairly long period of time.
Companies who don't go after the high margin areas, no matter how small they may be, are leaving money on the table.
Maybe not. At least, not exactly.
Suppose someone creates a very minimalist linux distro which includes a very good package management system. Suppose this package management system includes nearly all popular linux software packages.
Now suppose it were rather easy for anyone to install any number of those packages, bundle them together into one meta-package keyword, and call that a distro.
Then Linux would be as simple as installing the minimalist distro, then doing "apt-get install smartphone-system" for a distro customized for smartphones, or "media-system" for a distro customized for mediacenter PCs, etc.
I think this would be a superior option to having many completely independent distributions, and it would allow for faster innovation and easier support.
Spoken like a true Debian man. This sounds like a fabulous idea, actually.
And the USA claims that it wants all of that information about who is on airplanes in its airspace so that it can combat terrorism. If they knew about him on a simple stop over then it seems that there is a lot of 'mission creep' on the use of passenger information.
That's one stated reason. Another stated reason is to prevent communicable disease from entering the country. And, btw, it ain't just the US TSA doing this. Nearly every western democracy, and even some of the despotic nations, collect airline passenger manifests for the above, and other reasons. In the case of this thread, Italy obviously does. I don't see you decrying Italy, only the US.
And, BTW, with what crime did this prosecutor charge the boys who perpetrated the actual harassment? My guess is they were suspended from school for a few days, and never charged criminally.
My opinion is that this prosecutor is completely politically motivated. He's seeking personal gain for his career advancement.
My home network server names?
Ryan, Ramius, and Greer. I'm *positive* no one will figure out this theme. :-P
And I'm as equally sure no one can guess the role of my machine named gffx. :-P
More important than how well OpenChange will function/perform after deployed is having a seamless migration from the currently deployed Exchange server(s).
If mailboxen and address books, calenders and distribution lists, aren't intact and seamlessly usable after the migration, this FOSS team may be wasting their time. My point is, as much, if not more, time should be spent on developing the server migration tools and processes as on the actual OpenChange server code.
If the server migration can't be successfully and seamlessly achieved in a few hours on a weekend, this project is likely for not. Especially in organizations who make heavy use of OWA. Oh, and has OWA integration been addressed by the OpenChange team? Yes, most of us would say OWA sucks, but that doesn't change the fact that it is very widely used.
$.99 per atom.
Molecules are $9.99
ipod nano compatible.
We need a pricing model where the consumer pays only for the sum total cost of the atoms contained within a product. Wow, iPods and laptops and digital music and movies are now cheaper than a gallon of gasoline. But, boy did it just get really expensive to travel.
Dang, steak just got really expensive too...might have to rethink this equality model.
I bet recovering data off an atom could prove...... Difficult. :s
Nah, you just ride those little waves dude. Surf's up.
So, sheeple don't exist, is that your point? Remind me of your position on the very day Windows PCs cease being infected my malware and ratware; the malware and ratware currently being installed because sheeple just must have their porn, or just must respond to that phishing scam promising $8,000,000 USD.
The flaw in your argument, if it could even be classified as such, is that you're ignoring *all* of the evidence that proves the existence of sheeple. Want an example with a catchy tune, to help you remember it?
http://www.jibjab.com/originals/big_box_mart
Follow the funding trail. Most of the small single cabinet systems are "seed" machines, loaned by Cray at no cost. They do this, especially for brand new unproven architectures, in the hopes that 'early users' will find the machine is great and spread the word. *Then* Cray actually starts selling them. It's very difficult to get people to spend millions of dollars on a brand new architecture. NSA did. They had staff interfacing with Cray staff during development of the XMT. NSA has a huge budget, and the human resources to dedicate to making this new architecture hum. This is the point I was making. NSA bought whilst everyone else was borrowing the XMT machines. Maybe one or two of the small ones were actually purchased, but most were loaned. Those loans can turn into purchases.
The single cabinet systems in those articles you link to are likely seed machines on loan, not purchased. The $900k mentioned in that NSF grant is awfully small to cover a single cabinet XMT *AND* the salaries of the principal researchers who won the grant.
http://www.cray.com/products/XMT.aspx
Did you know that the only customer to ever buy an XMT is the United States National Security Agency, commonly known as the NSA? And they have more than one. They're listed as "classified government agency" in the SEC 10K filings for system sales.
Did you happen to read what this particular architecture really excels at? Pattern matching. Now, where do you think all those "illegally" obtained phone company records got dumped into for analysis?
The move towards commodity processors in supercomputing wasn't some kind of accident, it occurred because that's what currently gets the best results.
You are totally misinformed. COTS clusters and the move toward x86 commodity CPUs in MPPs is the direct result of CPLANT, and it was all about initial hardware acquisition cost, not performance:
http://www.cs.sandia.gov/cplant/
CPLANT is the father of all current cluster supercomputers, which make up over 90% of all supers in the world. Anyone find it interesting that the CPU architecture that started the move to COTS supercomputers was actually Alpha, not x86? What's that saying? "Truth is often stranger than fiction"?
The first time I read an article where I think Los Alamos was ordering a supercomputer with 8192 Pentium Pro processors in it, I was like WTF?
The system you're thinking of was called ASCI RED, and it was installed at Sandia, not Los Alamos:
http://www.sandia.gov/ASCI/Red/
http://www.top500.org/system/4428
The first time I read an article where I think Los Alamos was ordering a supercomputer with 8192 Pentium Pro processors in it, I was like WTF?
The system you're thinking of was called ASCI RED, and it was installed at Sandia, not Los Alamos:
http://www.sandia.gov/ASCI/Red/
http://www.top500.org/system/4428
The first time I read an article where I think Los Alamos was ordering a supercomputer with 8192 Pentium Pro processors in it, I was like WTF?
The system you're thinking of was called ASCI RED, and it was installed at Sandia, not Los Alamos:
http://www.sandia.gov/ASCI/Red/
http://www.top500.org/system/4428
This was also the first large lawsuit MS lost, to the tune of a $121 million jury award:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics
This is a result of the class action lawsuit over "Vista Ready", nothing more. Low end systems are getting newer faster CPUs at a rate greater than the increased performance of low end integrated GPUs.
This is MS's effort to get a "Windows 7 Ready" logo on just about every PC without fear of more class action lawsuits. Call it hedging their bets. They believe that even low end multi-core CPUs are a better way to get decent Aero performance than cheap integrated GPUs.
I understand the moral conflict, but it's not like I could buy a complete set of open hardware, and even if I could, I'd just be compromising on a different front.
Visiting here would be a good start:
http://www.coreboot.org/Supported_Motherboards
but "Enterprise" software is normally never sold at the list price...
Pretty much anything "Enterprise" is never sold at list price.
Case in point: TPC benchmark style systems
http://tpc.org/results/individual_results/IBM/IBM_595_20080610_ES.pdf
Look at "Total" and "Total IBM Discounts*" toward the end of page 3. Total list price is $35,263,161. Total "IBM Discounts" are $20,273,753.
IBM is willing to give *anyone* purchasing this configuration nearly a 60% discount right off the bat. Obviously, any company giving an immediate $20 million discount has their shit overpriced by $20 million.
And this is before negotiations even begin, which would likely net the buyer another $7 million or so in savings.