That'd be funny if it weren't for the fact that I'm not a Linux guy, but instead develop for the Windows world, often using Visual Studio.NET. However I can recognize that in general this isn't a very Microsoft-loving sort of place, so I do find that ad to be very oddly placed...
Re:hrm, somethings amiss, me thinks
on
Itanium Problems
·
· Score: 1
Oh, really? Tell me then, is the economy 1/5 the size that it was 2 years ago when the Nasdaq composite index was at 5000? Of course it isn't. Indeed, in actual metrics the economy has expanded in the past 2 years! The stock market is a gigantic pyramid scheme and it relies upon an endless stream of suckers feeding it money, and the end of the bubble came when the pool of available fools who wish to be parted with their money expired, leading to a collapse. Literally, compare most momentum investing ("next big thing") with a pyramid scheme, and the parallels are overwhelming.
Re:hrm, somethings amiss, me thinks
on
Itanium Problems
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
there are fewer and fewer jobs
There are always certain industries going through upheavals. Right now the.com world is continuing to cause pain to the entire technology sector. In such cases, the people in the middle always presume the entire planet is going through the same thing. A constant stream of steelworkers, farmers, textile workers, etc, all telling us that the world is going to hell in a handbasket.
When people don't have jobs, or fear losing their job, they stop spending money. When they stop spending money, companies can't sell goods. It's one of those trickle down things.
No, it's one of those "self fulfilling prophecy" things. When people run around with their heads cut off because pets.com can't sell $3 of kitty litter with $20 shipping, then indeed consumer spending can collapse. But you know what? It hasn't happened. People have gotten wary of the media's constant "next big depression" bullshit (and the pessimists who run around proclaiming it whenever they can), and consumer spending has remained tremendously high. Most people have come to realize that, as mentioned, life goes on. The stock market, a completely ridiculous pyramid scheme that has little bearing on reality, crashed? Big deal. Most of us aren't retiring this year, and it always comes back: Nothing to panic about.
Re:One good reason for 64-bit
on
Itanium Problems
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Usually because of VM mapping software is limited to 2GB. With Windows you can up that to 3GB by buying Enterprise Edition. Mind you there are already "high memory" style hacks (just like the good old DOS days with EMM, etc) to access extra memory in servers.
Ah okay I don't get that banner (and never have, lucky me). It is ironic that a large sponsor as of late has also been Microsoft with Visual Studio.NET: Not exactly the best target base...
Uh, are you talking about the Intel logo that Slashdot uses for Intel related stories? It's not a "banner" nor an ad dude.
Re:hrm, somethings amiss, me thinks
on
Itanium Problems
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I guess the larger companies don't get it. Corporations are struggling. Companies are in holding patterns, waiting for the mess, erm, economy, to level off.
Many large organizations are spending as much on IT this year as they were spending two years ago. Life goes on. Indeed, in actual terms the economy continues to expand rather than contract, and the total IT spending is increasing.
Panicky "end of the world stop everything!" thinking is the hallmark of someone who watches a little too much Dateline and 20/20.
I believe that the general beliefs is that surface organic matter is a closed system (presuming you don't totally destroy it) : You burn a tree and it releases carbon that is absorbed by other trees to..well..make a tree. Of course trees do much more than just releasing and absorbing carbon: They nicely filter the air of lots of other toxins, so there is no doubt that lots of trees is better than no trees (excluding surface erosion, barriers against high winds, etc).
Every hobbyist industry has the silver spooners that want to be a part of the group, but doesn't want to "waste" the time or effort. I suspect that the people who would buy a "riced out" computer of that sort is largely of that type.
The point is twice the hard drive performance. Of course failure is a concern (doubling the failure rate), but given the high reliability of modern hard drives and the ability to backup actually important data (i.e. not applications) on a CD-R, it seems viable.
The exact same airborne obstacles to a laser "going up" apply to it coming down, though. I guess if you mean that the laser would be effective A2A, then that is logical, but if it's being shot at a ground target then the advantage is pretty much equalized.
You just mentioned SAMs -- ask yourself, what's the difference between rocket-based weapons and lasers?
While I doubt the original post's logic as well, there is a very large difference between SA missiles and SA lasers : SA lasers reach their target at 300,000km/second, versus maybe 4000km/h. The former means that lasers really don't have to "maneuver".
So if the US doesn't investigate it, the world will remain ignorant of laser technology? Do you not think that there are people right now throughout the globe trying to figure out how to use lasers as weapons?
Anyways, all they need to do is spring for the chrome option when they pick up their JSF at the showroom.
The ISP makes the same claim to the judge about changing the TOS anytime they want. The judge states that the TOS that *I* signed doesn't contain any clause about changing the TOS at ALL, and dismisses the claim entirely.
The flip side of this is that a lot of TOS/service contract type agreements do state that they can be changed at any time without agreement or even formal notice (you were lucky, or informed, that this one didn't). Personally I find that hard to fathom as being legal: If a contract is signed, there should be no method that it can be altered without both parties resigining a new contract.
They look for increasingly hard to explain phenomena, with no regard for the larger, more patternistic (or evolutionarily "behaved") systems out there, then refute the entire theory of evolution by pointing wildly at their red herrings
What isn't scientific about finding faults in a theory? It seems to me that that is the very definition of science. You call these examples "red herrings", as if you think its more appropriate to simple wave your hand and proclaim "evolution works for most cases, therefore it is the final answer". Have you ever heard of "great mambo chicken"? If you haven't, it goes something like this: They put some chicken in a centrifuge and spun them at 1.5G or some such speed for several generations of chickens. At the end, the chickens (the grandchildren or what have you of the original chicken) had significantly larger bones, less fat, larger hearts, etc. They had evolved to facilitate the new environment. Was it the survival of the strong, as evolution would have us believe? No, the survival rate was close to 100% (i.e. there wasn't strong and weak chickens, and only the top 20% of the strong chickens survived). Instead the offspring had the DNA that told their bodies to grow appropriately for the environment. This is an alternative possibility to evolution that our bodies (which we barely comprehend) intentionally manipulate the DNA of reproduction to best survive the current environment. Much of the same proof for evolution holds true for intentional, err, auto-manipulation.
This may be hard for you true believers (which many "believers" of science are. Some hashed together proof and semi-valid theories are enough. Have you ever listened to a religion nut go on about the "proof" proving religion, creation, etc?) to understand, there are a lot of us whose logic cortex yells "Does not compute!" when presented with the theory of evolution as all encompassing, who are not religious at all.
They generally don't put these machines in hidden rooms where you can do what you want, but instead in a public area where anyone can see if someone has a picture stuck to their face. Is it 100% secure? Not even close. Is the current system secure? Not even remotely: We operate based upon pieces of paper and intuition. I'll take iris scanners over commonly duplicated passports thank you.
Yeah, creationists often use the complexity of some organs to refute the supposed incremental nature of evolution.
I'm most certainly not a creationist, yet I find fault in the gradual evolutionary model when applied to non-reduceable systems (and this beetle is only one of countless examples). I've found that many "evolutionist" proponents could be better described as "anti-creationists" : Creationism is absurd to them, so therefore the current evolutionary model is right regardless of gaps of logic. Just believe. It's ironically almost exactly the same sort of thought process of those that they dispute (Creationists). I'm neither for nor against evolution, and in many cases it makes sense, but in others it fails.
While natural selection makes some sense, and can clearly describe extreme survival abilities (for instance the common example is bacteria and antibacterial agents, and the eventually immunity thereof), in a lot of natural cases it doesn't offer a complete explanation. I'm not a man of religion myself, but I do find there to be some giant "leaps of faith" in the belief of the current explanation of evolution, and many of those who fervently put it forth as the one-true-way are no different than cultists.
Mind you this "pent up evoloution" really doesn't make sense for non-reducable systems: If evolution is trial and error, then how would evolution know what to queue up? It could be a queued up sequence of disastrous changes. Or are we to believe that evolution queued up random delta logs in every creature, and an infinite number of changes leads to the Bombardier Beetles defensive system as one random lucky draw?
Not actually surround sound, but rather just an example of good sound, but "Silent Service" on the Commodore 64 way back when was incredibly exhilerating when the pings were getting closer and closer...and then the engine running overhead. Could have been on the Atari ST. Those days sort of blur together now.
Its really become quite clear, as I said originally: Those such as yourself, think clock rate is performance. And a "benchmark" that measures clock rate is what you will then use.
Uh huh. And that would explain why a 1Ghz Itanium2 comes close to the P4 2.8Ghz in specint, and surpasses it in specfp. You're a moron, and claims of your great historical knowledge are ridiculously misplaced.
My earlier post used "high-availability" and "zero-error" not "fastest on the planet" with respect to Sun (even though the UltraSPARC III does do well on the benchmarks).
Somehow your post read in my mind as a composite of several other posts, and I misinterpreted. Mea culpa. Indeed you did mention reliability. Sorry about that.
That was exactly the sort of sales pitch that Microsoft has been using for Windows for years: The skills are so basic and so accessible, that labor is plentiful and cheap. The flip side of this is that many organizations did exactly what Microsoft recommended: Bob, the guy who "knows stuff about computers" became the corporate IT technologist, and the rest is history (i.e. Countless worms, exploits, etc. For all of Microsoft's security faults, most would have been a footnote in history if people patched when possible, but instead we live in a world where Klez is still making the rounds). Over time the exact same thing is going to happen to Linux (already we're seeing that...there is an exploit making the rounds, and it's exploiting long patched holes).
FACT: Most motherboards now come with 4 channel IDE, giving you support for 8 IDE devices, however anyone and everyone puts but one device on each chain. Hell, serialATA is just eliminating device contention and signal sharing, and is making a single device per drop a standard. Therefore each drive has up to 133MB/s of bandwidth. Of course the best hard drive in the world can't saturate that, making excess wasted headroom.
FACT: Given that any modern system puts one drive per chain, most of your other points are moot.
FACT: Hard drives are slow. "Tagged queuing" (which Promise IDE controllers have) makes sense if the CPU is so burdened down that it can't keep up with the burdensome task of controlling a hard drive and is distracted and the hard drive fiddles its thumbs waiting for the next command, but in modern era that is unbelievably irrelevant. A database server running on a modern system would do just as well with an IDE subsystem, ignoring that modern IDE chipsets have queuing, quite simply because the software hard drive driver can do a much better job of queuing and prediction than the hard drive ever can. That's one of the benefits of faster processors.
SCSI has some historic advantages: You don't see external IDE connections to tape drives, and you don't drop 7 devices off an IDE chain. Do you want to anymore, though? Nope. We've got firewire and USB2 for that, both far cleaner and more appropriate for those tasks. SCSI was nice in the 386 days as well due to the queuing. Does it matter today, though? Nope. Are there implementations of SCSI that beat implementations of IDE? Absolutely? As I mentioned: If the original poster mentioned that someone could get a benefit from a 7 disk RAID5 array of 15K RPM drives versus a single IDE drive, then sure, that's true. But simply saying "SCSI beats IDE!" is just dumb, and it's an argument from 1988.
They won't be trying to scan, edit and compress 10 gigs of high quality video/audio data.
Who says they won't? The majority of video cameras on the shelves at my local electronic store these days are firewire equipped dv cameras, and for those who've tried using these with a PC, and the massive amounts of data and processing involved, no PC is fast enough. This is completely average stuff that everyday Joe wants to do. I have an Athlon XP1800+ in my "media" machine with a TV tuner card, and regarding realtime at close to NTSC resolution MPEG2 takes about 95% of my processor (if I do anything else it stutters to a halt). Imagine trying to record HDTV 1080i resolution...or using a better codec like MPEG4? (Preferrably I'd rather have an add-in compression card with a hyper-fast specialized compression chip, but I've yet to see a MPEG4 one at a consumer level price).
I really don't get your post anyways. Intel prices their latest and greatest processor quite heavily, putting a large R&D tax on the early adopters, and over a period of time (usually short) the processor comes to "Joe Sixpack" pricing and appears in Walmart PCs. Isn't that exactly what you're asking for?
Slashdot Mirror
That'd be funny if it weren't for the fact that I'm not a Linux guy, but instead develop for the Windows world, often using Visual Studio.NET. However I can recognize that in general this isn't a very Microsoft-loving sort of place, so I do find that ad to be very oddly placed...
Oh, really? Tell me then, is the economy 1/5 the size that it was 2 years ago when the Nasdaq composite index was at 5000? Of course it isn't. Indeed, in actual metrics the economy has expanded in the past 2 years! The stock market is a gigantic pyramid scheme and it relies upon an endless stream of suckers feeding it money, and the end of the bubble came when the pool of available fools who wish to be parted with their money expired, leading to a collapse. Literally, compare most momentum investing ("next big thing") with a pyramid scheme, and the parallels are overwhelming.
there are fewer and fewer jobs
.com world is continuing to cause pain to the entire technology sector. In such cases, the people in the middle always presume the entire planet is going through the same thing. A constant stream of steelworkers, farmers, textile workers, etc, all telling us that the world is going to hell in a handbasket.
There are always certain industries going through upheavals. Right now the
When people don't have jobs, or fear losing their job, they stop spending money. When they stop spending money, companies can't sell goods. It's one of those trickle down things.
No, it's one of those "self fulfilling prophecy" things. When people run around with their heads cut off because pets.com can't sell $3 of kitty litter with $20 shipping, then indeed consumer spending can collapse. But you know what? It hasn't happened. People have gotten wary of the media's constant "next big depression" bullshit (and the pessimists who run around proclaiming it whenever they can), and consumer spending has remained tremendously high. Most people have come to realize that, as mentioned, life goes on. The stock market, a completely ridiculous pyramid scheme that has little bearing on reality, crashed? Big deal. Most of us aren't retiring this year, and it always comes back: Nothing to panic about.
Usually because of VM mapping software is limited to 2GB. With Windows you can up that to 3GB by buying Enterprise Edition. Mind you there are already "high memory" style hacks (just like the good old DOS days with EMM, etc) to access extra memory in servers.
Ah okay I don't get that banner (and never have, lucky me). It is ironic that a large sponsor as of late has also been Microsoft with Visual Studio.NET: Not exactly the best target base...
Uh, are you talking about the Intel logo that Slashdot uses for Intel related stories? It's not a "banner" nor an ad dude.
I guess the larger companies don't get it. Corporations are struggling. Companies are in holding patterns, waiting for the mess, erm, economy, to level off.
Many large organizations are spending as much on IT this year as they were spending two years ago. Life goes on. Indeed, in actual terms the economy continues to expand rather than contract, and the total IT spending is increasing.
Panicky "end of the world stop everything!" thinking is the hallmark of someone who watches a little too much Dateline and 20/20.
I believe that the general beliefs is that surface organic matter is a closed system (presuming you don't totally destroy it) : You burn a tree and it releases carbon that is absorbed by other trees to..well..make a tree. Of course trees do much more than just releasing and absorbing carbon: They nicely filter the air of lots of other toxins, so there is no doubt that lots of trees is better than no trees (excluding surface erosion, barriers against high winds, etc).
Every hobbyist industry has the silver spooners that want to be a part of the group, but doesn't want to "waste" the time or effort. I suspect that the people who would buy a "riced out" computer of that sort is largely of that type.
The point is twice the hard drive performance. Of course failure is a concern (doubling the failure rate), but given the high reliability of modern hard drives and the ability to backup actually important data (i.e. not applications) on a CD-R, it seems viable.
The exact same airborne obstacles to a laser "going up" apply to it coming down, though. I guess if you mean that the laser would be effective A2A, then that is logical, but if it's being shot at a ground target then the advantage is pretty much equalized.
You just mentioned SAMs -- ask yourself, what's the difference between rocket-based weapons and lasers?
While I doubt the original post's logic as well, there is a very large difference between SA missiles and SA lasers : SA lasers reach their target at 300,000km/second, versus maybe 4000km/h. The former means that lasers really don't have to "maneuver".
So if the US doesn't investigate it, the world will remain ignorant of laser technology? Do you not think that there are people right now throughout the globe trying to figure out how to use lasers as weapons?
Anyways, all they need to do is spring for the chrome option when they pick up their JSF at the showroom.
The ISP makes the same claim to the judge about changing the TOS anytime they want. The judge states that the TOS that *I* signed doesn't contain any clause about changing the TOS at ALL, and dismisses the claim entirely.
The flip side of this is that a lot of TOS/service contract type agreements do state that they can be changed at any time without agreement or even formal notice (you were lucky, or informed, that this one didn't). Personally I find that hard to fathom as being legal: If a contract is signed, there should be no method that it can be altered without both parties resigining a new contract.
They look for increasingly hard to explain phenomena, with no regard for the larger, more patternistic (or evolutionarily "behaved") systems out there, then refute the entire theory of evolution by pointing wildly at their red herrings
What isn't scientific about finding faults in a theory? It seems to me that that is the very definition of science. You call these examples "red herrings", as if you think its more appropriate to simple wave your hand and proclaim "evolution works for most cases, therefore it is the final answer". Have you ever heard of "great mambo chicken"? If you haven't, it goes something like this: They put some chicken in a centrifuge and spun them at 1.5G or some such speed for several generations of chickens. At the end, the chickens (the grandchildren or what have you of the original chicken) had significantly larger bones, less fat, larger hearts, etc. They had evolved to facilitate the new environment. Was it the survival of the strong, as evolution would have us believe? No, the survival rate was close to 100% (i.e. there wasn't strong and weak chickens, and only the top 20% of the strong chickens survived). Instead the offspring had the DNA that told their bodies to grow appropriately for the environment. This is an alternative possibility to evolution that our bodies (which we barely comprehend) intentionally manipulate the DNA of reproduction to best survive the current environment. Much of the same proof for evolution holds true for intentional, err, auto-manipulation.
This may be hard for you true believers (which many "believers" of science are. Some hashed together proof and semi-valid theories are enough. Have you ever listened to a religion nut go on about the "proof" proving religion, creation, etc?) to understand, there are a lot of us whose logic cortex yells "Does not compute!" when presented with the theory of evolution as all encompassing, who are not religious at all.
They generally don't put these machines in hidden rooms where you can do what you want, but instead in a public area where anyone can see if someone has a picture stuck to their face. Is it 100% secure? Not even close. Is the current system secure? Not even remotely: We operate based upon pieces of paper and intuition. I'll take iris scanners over commonly duplicated passports thank you.
Yeah, creationists often use the complexity of some organs to refute the supposed incremental nature of evolution.
I'm most certainly not a creationist, yet I find fault in the gradual evolutionary model when applied to non-reduceable systems (and this beetle is only one of countless examples). I've found that many "evolutionist" proponents could be better described as "anti-creationists" : Creationism is absurd to them, so therefore the current evolutionary model is right regardless of gaps of logic. Just believe. It's ironically almost exactly the same sort of thought process of those that they dispute (Creationists). I'm neither for nor against evolution, and in many cases it makes sense, but in others it fails.
The iris scanning devices detect if the eyeball is dead or not, thwarting would be immitators.
While natural selection makes some sense, and can clearly describe extreme survival abilities (for instance the common example is bacteria and antibacterial agents, and the eventually immunity thereof), in a lot of natural cases it doesn't offer a complete explanation. I'm not a man of religion myself, but I do find there to be some giant "leaps of faith" in the belief of the current explanation of evolution, and many of those who fervently put it forth as the one-true-way are no different than cultists.
Mind you this "pent up evoloution" really doesn't make sense for non-reducable systems: If evolution is trial and error, then how would evolution know what to queue up? It could be a queued up sequence of disastrous changes. Or are we to believe that evolution queued up random delta logs in every creature, and an infinite number of changes leads to the Bombardier Beetles defensive system as one random lucky draw?
Not actually surround sound, but rather just an example of good sound, but "Silent Service" on the Commodore 64 way back when was incredibly exhilerating when the pings were getting closer and closer...and then the engine running overhead. Could have been on the Atari ST. Those days sort of blur together now.
Its really become quite clear, as I said originally: Those such as yourself, think clock rate is performance. And a "benchmark" that measures clock rate is what you will then use.
Uh huh. And that would explain why a 1Ghz Itanium2 comes close to the P4 2.8Ghz in specint, and surpasses it in specfp. You're a moron, and claims of your great historical knowledge are ridiculously misplaced.
My earlier post used "high-availability" and "zero-error" not "fastest on the planet" with respect to Sun (even though the UltraSPARC III does do well on the benchmarks).
Somehow your post read in my mind as a composite of several other posts, and I misinterpreted. Mea culpa. Indeed you did mention reliability. Sorry about that.
That was exactly the sort of sales pitch that Microsoft has been using for Windows for years: The skills are so basic and so accessible, that labor is plentiful and cheap. The flip side of this is that many organizations did exactly what Microsoft recommended: Bob, the guy who "knows stuff about computers" became the corporate IT technologist, and the rest is history (i.e. Countless worms, exploits, etc. For all of Microsoft's security faults, most would have been a footnote in history if people patched when possible, but instead we live in a world where Klez is still making the rounds). Over time the exact same thing is going to happen to Linux (already we're seeing that...there is an exploit making the rounds, and it's exploiting long patched holes).
Are you the "Fact Girl" from Kids in the Hall?
FACT: Most motherboards now come with 4 channel IDE, giving you support for 8 IDE devices, however anyone and everyone puts but one device on each chain. Hell, serialATA is just eliminating device contention and signal sharing, and is making a single device per drop a standard. Therefore each drive has up to 133MB/s of bandwidth. Of course the best hard drive in the world can't saturate that, making excess wasted headroom.
FACT: Given that any modern system puts one drive per chain, most of your other points are moot.
FACT: Hard drives are slow. "Tagged queuing" (which Promise IDE controllers have) makes sense if the CPU is so burdened down that it can't keep up with the burdensome task of controlling a hard drive and is distracted and the hard drive fiddles its thumbs waiting for the next command, but in modern era that is unbelievably irrelevant. A database server running on a modern system would do just as well with an IDE subsystem, ignoring that modern IDE chipsets have queuing, quite simply because the software hard drive driver can do a much better job of queuing and prediction than the hard drive ever can. That's one of the benefits of faster processors.
SCSI has some historic advantages: You don't see external IDE connections to tape drives, and you don't drop 7 devices off an IDE chain. Do you want to anymore, though? Nope. We've got firewire and USB2 for that, both far cleaner and more appropriate for those tasks. SCSI was nice in the 386 days as well due to the queuing. Does it matter today, though? Nope. Are there implementations of SCSI that beat implementations of IDE? Absolutely? As I mentioned: If the original poster mentioned that someone could get a benefit from a 7 disk RAID5 array of 15K RPM drives versus a single IDE drive, then sure, that's true. But simply saying "SCSI beats IDE!" is just dumb, and it's an argument from 1988.
They won't be trying to scan, edit and compress 10 gigs of high quality video/audio data.
Who says they won't? The majority of video cameras on the shelves at my local electronic store these days are firewire equipped dv cameras, and for those who've tried using these with a PC, and the massive amounts of data and processing involved, no PC is fast enough. This is completely average stuff that everyday Joe wants to do. I have an Athlon XP1800+ in my "media" machine with a TV tuner card, and regarding realtime at close to NTSC resolution MPEG2 takes about 95% of my processor (if I do anything else it stutters to a halt). Imagine trying to record HDTV 1080i resolution...or using a better codec like MPEG4? (Preferrably I'd rather have an add-in compression card with a hyper-fast specialized compression chip, but I've yet to see a MPEG4 one at a consumer level price).
I really don't get your post anyways. Intel prices their latest and greatest processor quite heavily, putting a large R&D tax on the early adopters, and over a period of time (usually short) the processor comes to "Joe Sixpack" pricing and appears in Walmart PCs. Isn't that exactly what you're asking for?