All it takes is one critical capacitor, or several not-so critical capacitors to fail. There are quite a few caps on a motherboard, and the motherboard should typically fail before the average capacitor time.
example, the following demostrates a set of 5 capacitors, and the average fail time is 3 years...
cap - life 1 - 2 years (2) 2 - 2 years, 3 months (2.25) 3 - 2 years, 6 months (2.5) 4 - 3 years (2) 5 - 5 years, 3 months (5.25)
total lifespan: 15 years, average lifespan 15 years/5 = 3 years
The average lifespan is 3 years for the caps, but it's quite likely the board will die by 2 years, 6 months (over half the caps gone).
I guess what I'm saying, is on average, a board usually will have *less* than the average lifespan of it's capacitors, or any given component where there are multiple copies.
Given the statistics involved with a large number of capacitors - chances are many boards will die before their half-lives are up. I've worked at a place with hundreds of computers, and much less than 10% of the boards went after 3-4 years (we never determined the causes, we just knew they needed replaced - but this does say that at least 90% of the machines didn't have their capacitors die after 3-4 years), which leads me to suspect that the electrolytic capacitors have easily more than a 3-4 year average lifespan.
I guess your friends were just unlucky and got hit by a bad batch.
it starts at $1000, which given it's also a decently powerful modern computer (something you forgot to add to the list), isn't too bad.
and given that some of the stuff amounts to high end computers, like the notebook listed, the $3000 piece isn't too unreasonable.
Still, if I want to make a multimedia machine, I'll go Intel. Actually, if I want anything right now, I'd go Intel. Was an AMD fan starting at the K6-III and ending with the Core 2, but... well, the Core 2 just owns. Actually even a P4 would have tempted me over AMD for a multimedia machine.
Believe it or not, I understand what you are saying and where you are coming from. I understood it before you said it. Now try to understand the other side of the coin. Because I did *NOT* state anything worth such a respons. I may have been a bit emphatic in my wondering about the purpose of such a project, but I did not say that it should be abandoned.
My biggest problem with so much of open source is that there are a large number of "half-done" quality projects, and so few "fully done" quality projects. I do think that the effort spent on this project could instead be spent on improving the shortcomings of one system or the other, rather than combining the shorcomings into one system.
I'm sure they have a logic for what they are doing, but I just don't see it.
indirectly: Technically, they are supposed to follow the license of software that they use. Now, if someone wanted to be a jerk and say "You aren't following the license for my software!" it could cause trouble. This could seriously kill development and apps. By working it out before hand, it makes sure your software has a longer and happier development lifespan.
while technically it is wired, I do agree with the sentement. If it still requires one or more physical connections between the object and the outlet, with no non-physical connections it's annoying. I wouldn't mind if it reduced the wires, I'd rather remove them completely.
the energy efficiency is a good point, so there are a lot of factors that go into it, I agree. In this cas, at night you might loose roughly 50% of your computing power.
Matt and Mindy in marketing use Windows. Fred and Francine in Financial Management use VMS on their little alpha workstations (they are old fashioned). Dan and Donna in development use Linux, while David and Denise in development use BSD
Now, Oscar and Oliva in operations use the mainfram (accessing it through their windows boxes).
What they don't know is that their mainframe is actually a distributed operating system running on Matt's, Mindy's, Fred's, Francine's, Dan's, Donna's, David's, Denise's, and their machines, just using up the spare cycles and splitting the data.
any compiled tasks (C, C++, D, etc) have to be compiled separately for each arch, true, though scripted (python, ruby, perl, etc) only need to be compiled once. All the spare CPU power is utlized.
It's kindof like TFA, except that it can be integrated into any architecture, and that mainframe would still be ustilized in mainstream work.
Basically the users would actually run "splitter programs", which would split the tasks, then send commands to the OS. The OS would then split these commands amongst the nodes as it sees fit, the commands themsevles would do all the processing.
It seems complex at first, but it's basically modular programming with the "splitter program" being the interface, and the logic control segment (except much of the logic control is handled by the OS saving time and effort), and the commands are the calculating programs. Some control programs (like the compression example) would simply be passthroughs and have no actual logic except to take the command, spit out progress reports, and say "done".
It would not neces to change the entire operating system, though some programs would require varying levels of rewrites, and most programs would require some amount of network programming.
I'm trying to look them up right now, my other question is, can they run on an extremely hetrogenous network (i.e. multiple processor architechtures, multiple system performance speeds/data-storage size, and multiple operating systems all on the same network as base nodes?)
The idea is that instead of a company buying a $50k server, it can instead use the $50k of desktops it has for it's employees to be the server, saving them all of that money, and potentially giving them better performance, redundancy, stability and IO.
Consider an virual operating system, that can run on one or more other operating systems. This operating system is actually a set of nodes, one node per machine (or one node per CPU), with command nodes and worker nodes.
Command nodes distribute the workload and exist for redundancy. If one goes down, all others have a backup of it's data and state, and the next most senior node takes over.
Worker nodes then take the tasks and interface with the users via a standard shell.
Files can be distributed amongst the nodes for speed and redundancy, and if a node that needs a file doesn't have it, ant can request the file and temporarily have it locally. Each node will have a list of what files exist, and where they exist.
UI tasks are written to run solely on the machine of the user, but data crunching tasks are written to be split between nodes.
Thus, a person just goes to his or her machine, and interacts with it like a normal machine, except, rather than having a logon for his machine, he or she will have a logon for the multiframe.
Also, because of this setup, a multifram could work on top of multiple operating systems (say an office that is 50% windows for the normal users, and then 35% Linux for the devs, 10% FreeBSD for other devs, 5% HPUX/Sun for some server, and all machines coudl contribute to the multiframe.
The multifram could also have recorded statistics of uptimes and drops for various nodes, performance statistics for load balancing, etc.
The caveat to this system is that it would need some pretty heavy networking, even if optimised, and there could be latency issues. Still, I like this idea better than a mainframe.
It is one of the default parts of the GPL2, I never liked it myself, and I would knock it out of anything, if I had decided to put it in GPL2.
To me, it seems like this clause being put in the GPL2 is one of those little things to try to encourage trust via the way the mind handles logical inconsitancies, even if these inconsistancies were due to accident and not intent. Either that or sheer arrogance.
I do program, but in the english language, when used in this context, or has a different meaning.
It means they want to stop both methods, and insinuates that both are likely to occure. English isn't like programming - it doesn't follow completely logical patterns, and there is a log of connotation and insinuation that goes beyond the obvious of the text.
My computer has no emotions, and robots should not have emotions, it's too dangerous.
The basis of rights is to prevent unfair stress or hassle to individuals. Until computers can perceve these, then they should not guranteed any rights.
And when they can perceive emotions, they should only be guranteed the right not to have to - they are designed as a work force, they shouldn't have to deal with emotions that make their purpose in life unpleasant.
My computer has the right to sit down, shut up, and do whatever the hell I tell it to. That's the way it is and that's the way it always should be.
A lot more hardware supports Windows than Mac OS. In my experience, it seems that a lot more hardware is even supported under Linux through independant/OSS drivers, than is supported under Apple. Admittedly the Apple support is more often through first party drivers, which are probably going to be more stable, in general it seems Linux still has more available drivers for hardware that didn't necessarily come with the computer.
I got my toshiba, about the same specs as a mac, much lower price (both use intel GMA graphics, not ATi), and I'm quite happy with it. Aside from the fact that
(A) It's not a tablet, didn't have the money for one at the time (B) Video out is VGA, not DVI
I run FreeBSD on it and am quite happy with it. I can't see spending the extra to get a mac and not getting anything more useful with the extra money.
I see Macs as the machine to get more because of marketing than anything else. I'd rather have a Toshiba, Lenovo or Dell myself.
The thing is, we tech "geeks" who actually know what we're talking about like Apple's products for the most part. Apple products also have some very tangible advantages, and Macs are clearly the most flexible computers on the market.
The majority of knowledgeable geeks I know of don't really think that way. More of them think that way than the non-geeks, as a rough percentage, but the lack of hardware, the lack of software and the overall closed-platform that they had been stuck on for so long makes them less than desireable. That are not clearly one of the most flexible computers, they have a lot of limitations along with their advantages.
Apple expects peoples wants and needs to adapt to their computers, you find that is a lot less common in the PC world.
1) You can build your own PC, can't do that with an Apple 2) Until recently, you could put MacOS and maybe wiggle a few flavors of *Nix or *Nix clones on a Mac, PCs had pretty much everything but MacOS, and some industrial-grade operating systems available for them. 3) There's a lot more software avialable for Windows for Apple, you can also find more or at least comparable amounts for Linux and BSD as well. 4) The majority of hardware/peripherials you find is labeled for Windows. While you can often use them on other operating systems (Linux, BSD, MacOS), the stuff that works on Macs is still a lot less common, probably even less common than that which will work on Linux.
Wow quite a jump from january to june, but I still don't think they can keep it up, not without something really innovative, or at least taking in some of the not-so-innovative but still nice ideas.
I suspect 2007 will be the year the Tablet really hits off, because of it's convinience, if Apple makes a tablet, they might have chance.
If Apple makes a tablet with a DVI port, they might even have me as a buyer, although OS would be replaced by FreeBSD before the day is out.
I have trouble beliving that, moving up 8% in a year, basically, increasing their sales by 66% of their current market share? They've been around too long, people have their minds too set on what Apple is and isn't.
With a very few exceptions, most of the people I knwo think Macs are silly and useless computers with limited capabilities. And most of my friends aren't tech geeks. They pretty much laugh at the Apple commercials as misleading and lies (which isn't horribly inaccurate IMO).
Year o' the Laptop
Half of all new computers sold in 2007 will be laptops and 20 percent of those will be Apple's MacBooks.
With the popularity of notebooks, I can see this, except for the 20% by Apple, I doubt they'll surpass 10-15% at best.
Print to Web
A major newspaper gives up printing on paper to publish exclusively online.
Not sure that this'll happen, unless you want to stretch the definition of "a major newpaper".
HD-DVD Wins
HD-DVD is the clear winner over Blu-ray in the DVD format wars. Oh yeah, and the PS3 is a bust.
The latter was more-or-less already true before 2007 started. The former... It's too early to tell, never underestimate the power of marketing dweebs at selling crap.
Implantable Contact Lenses
Synthetic corneas will be approved by the Food and Drug Administration, allowing the shortsighted to have artificial contact lenses transplanted right into their eyes. No more popping out!
Not really a surprise or news. I thought it had already been done, but I guess I could be wrong. Not like it'd be the first time.
No More Dads
Artificial gametes made from female eggs are sold over the internet, making fathers biologically irrelevant.
Still 5+ years off. Also it's not really an online type thing until they get a USB medicomaitc or something like that. It's still going to require the wom(an|en) in question to go to a lab and/or doctors office.
PaedoSpace
Sex offenders start their own social networking service. It's popular on Capitol Hill.
That's hardly insightful or news. Already done, it's called congress.
DNA Database for Athletes
To stamp out doping, the Olympic Committee orders all athletes to submit DNA samples to a global database, which matches blood found in doping forensics to cheats. Forensics include needles, tubes, bags of blood and skin cells on stacks of 100-euro notes seized at doping clinics.
Got bridge? Want one? This won't happen.
Online Sitcom Picked Up by Network
Encouraged by the news, the internet becomes home to 5,000 clones of Friends, shot by friends using their friends but unwatched even by their friends.
Wired, meet youtube, youtube meet wired.
MySpace Spaces Out
MySpace splinters as teens head for niche sites. New services that control profiles across multiple social networking sites begin to take off.
Possible, but I doubt it. Most people are too lazy to move.
Slashdot Mirror
The trick is the "average" part though...
All it takes is one critical capacitor, or several not-so critical capacitors to fail. There are quite a few caps on a motherboard, and the motherboard should typically fail before the average capacitor time.
example, the following demostrates a set of 5 capacitors, and the average fail time is 3 years...
cap - life
1 - 2 years (2)
2 - 2 years, 3 months (2.25)
3 - 2 years, 6 months (2.5)
4 - 3 years (2)
5 - 5 years, 3 months (5.25)
total lifespan: 15 years, average lifespan 15 years/5 = 3 years
The average lifespan is 3 years for the caps, but it's quite likely the board will die by 2 years, 6 months (over half the caps gone).
I guess what I'm saying, is on average, a board usually will have *less* than the average lifespan of it's capacitors, or any given component where there are multiple copies.
Given the statistics involved with a large number of capacitors - chances are many boards will die before their half-lives are up. I've worked at a place with hundreds of computers, and much less than 10% of the boards went after 3-4 years (we never determined the causes, we just knew they needed replaced - but this does say that at least 90% of the machines didn't have their capacitors die after 3-4 years), which leads me to suspect that the electrolytic capacitors have easily more than a 3-4 year average lifespan.
I guess your friends were just unlucky and got hit by a bad batch.
Hey! Just because it violates thermodynamics by producing more energy in heat than it takes in via electricity...
UGH, I would sport the extra $50 to get a GeForce ?200 or ?300 card over the GMA... The price isn't that big of a difference at that range.
it starts at $1000, which given it's also a decently powerful modern computer (something you forgot to add to the list), isn't too bad.
and given that some of the stuff amounts to high end computers, like the notebook listed, the $3000 piece isn't too unreasonable.
Still, if I want to make a multimedia machine, I'll go Intel. Actually, if I want anything right now, I'd go Intel. Was an AMD fan starting at the K6-III and ending with the Core 2, but... well, the Core 2 just owns. Actually even a P4 would have tempted me over AMD for a multimedia machine.
Believe it or not, I understand what you are saying and where you are coming from. I understood it before you said it. Now try to understand the other side of the coin. Because I did *NOT* state anything worth such a respons. I may have been a bit emphatic in my wondering about the purpose of such a project, but I did not say that it should be abandoned.
My biggest problem with so much of open source is that there are a large number of "half-done" quality projects, and so few "fully done" quality projects. I do think that the effort spent on this project could instead be spent on improving the shortcomings of one system or the other, rather than combining the shorcomings into one system.
I'm sure they have a logic for what they are doing, but I just don't see it.
directly:
it doesn't affect you, at all
indirectly:
Technically, they are supposed to follow the license of software that they use. Now, if someone wanted to be a jerk and say "You aren't following the license for my software!" it could cause trouble. This could seriously kill development and apps. By working it out before hand, it makes sure your software has a longer and happier development lifespan.
not to mention it's the worst of both worlds...
I've used several versions of Linux as well as FreeBSD...
In my experience, although it requires a lot of typing and less GUI, FreeBSD has been, by far, the easiest to administrate.
Linux has had much better driver support however.
So... It's a system with the base (and hence driver support) of BSD, and the administrative tools of Linux?
That just sounds painful and unnecessary.
while technically it is wired, I do agree with the sentement. If it still requires one or more physical connections between the object and the outlet, with no non-physical connections it's annoying. I wouldn't mind if it reduced the wires, I'd rather remove them completely.
the energy efficiency is a good point, so there are a lot of factors that go into it, I agree. In this cas, at night you might loose roughly 50% of your computing power.
So instead of an OS/hardware loc, you have an application-environment lock (java). My thought is to get rid of even that.
Not quite. The idea would be that
Matt and Mindy in marketing use Windows.
Fred and Francine in Financial Management use VMS on their little alpha workstations (they are old fashioned).
Dan and Donna in development use Linux,
while
David and Denise in development use BSD
Now, Oscar and Oliva in operations use the mainfram (accessing it through their windows boxes).
What they don't know is that their mainframe is actually a distributed operating system running on Matt's, Mindy's, Fred's, Francine's, Dan's, Donna's, David's, Denise's, and their machines, just using up the spare cycles and splitting the data.
any compiled tasks (C, C++, D, etc) have to be compiled separately for each arch, true, though scripted (python, ruby, perl, etc) only need to be compiled once. All the spare CPU power is utlized.
It's kindof like TFA, except that it can be integrated into any architecture, and that mainframe would still be ustilized in mainstream work.
Basically the users would actually run "splitter programs", which would split the tasks, then send commands to the OS. The OS would then split these commands amongst the nodes as it sees fit, the commands themsevles would do all the processing.
It seems complex at first, but it's basically modular programming with the "splitter program" being the interface, and the logic control segment (except much of the logic control is handled by the OS saving time and effort), and the commands are the calculating programs. Some control programs (like the compression example) would simply be passthroughs and have no actual logic except to take the command, spit out progress reports, and say "done".
It would not neces to change the entire operating system, though some programs would require varying levels of rewrites, and most programs would require some amount of network programming.
I'm trying to look them up right now, my other question is, can they run on an extremely hetrogenous network (i.e. multiple processor architechtures, multiple system performance speeds/data-storage size, and multiple operating systems all on the same network as base nodes?)
The idea is that instead of a company buying a $50k server, it can instead use the $50k of desktops it has for it's employees to be the server, saving them all of that money, and potentially giving them better performance, redundancy, stability and IO.
ahh, ok, I'll have to look to see if BSD has something similar. My experiences administrating Linux has been less than pleasing.
So, do apps have to be written speciall for it?
I.E: an interface app is called, and it splits the work load up, and sends it to sub-apps on the various nodes?
what we need is "multiframes"
Consider an virual operating system, that can run on one or more other operating systems. This operating system is actually a set of nodes, one node per machine (or one node per CPU), with command nodes and worker nodes.
Command nodes distribute the workload and exist for redundancy. If one goes down, all others have a backup of it's data and state, and the next most senior node takes over.
Worker nodes then take the tasks and interface with the users via a standard shell.
Files can be distributed amongst the nodes for speed and redundancy, and if a node that needs a file doesn't have it, ant can request the file and temporarily have it locally. Each node will have a list of what files exist, and where they exist.
UI tasks are written to run solely on the machine of the user, but data crunching tasks are written to be split between nodes.
Thus, a person just goes to his or her machine, and interacts with it like a normal machine, except, rather than having a logon for his machine, he or she will have a logon for the multiframe.
Also, because of this setup, a multifram could work on top of multiple operating systems (say an office that is 50% windows for the normal users, and then 35% Linux for the devs, 10% FreeBSD for other devs, 5% HPUX/Sun for some server, and all machines coudl contribute to the multiframe.
The multifram could also have recorded statistics of uptimes and drops for various nodes, performance statistics for load balancing, etc.
The caveat to this system is that it would need some pretty heavy networking, even if optimised, and there could be latency issues. Still, I like this idea better than a mainframe.
It is one of the default parts of the GPL2, I never liked it myself, and I would knock it out of anything, if I had decided to put it in GPL2.
To me, it seems like this clause being put in the GPL2 is one of those little things to try to encourage trust via the way the mind handles logical inconsitancies, even if these inconsistancies were due to accident and not intent. Either that or sheer arrogance.
I do program, but in the english language, when used in this context, or has a different meaning.
It means they want to stop both methods, and insinuates that both are likely to occure. English isn't like programming - it doesn't follow completely logical patterns, and there is a log of connotation and insinuation that goes beyond the obvious of the text.
I agree. Keeping such games out of the hands of minors, unless the minors have parent approval is a very good thing.
I see emotions all day in people and animals.
My computer has no emotions, and robots should not have emotions, it's too dangerous.
The basis of rights is to prevent unfair stress or hassle to individuals. Until computers can perceve these, then they should not guranteed any rights.
And when they can perceive emotions, they should only be guranteed the right not to have to - they are designed as a work force, they shouldn't have to deal with emotions that make their purpose in life unpleasant.
My computer has the right to sit down, shut up, and do whatever the hell I tell it to. That's the way it is and that's the way it always should be.
No, I wasn't
A lot more hardware supports Windows than Mac OS.
In my experience, it seems that a lot more hardware is even supported under Linux through independant/OSS drivers, than is supported under Apple. Admittedly the Apple support is more often through first party drivers, which are probably going to be more stable, in general it seems Linux still has more available drivers for hardware that didn't necessarily come with the computer.
I got my toshiba, about the same specs as a mac, much lower price (both use intel GMA graphics, not ATi), and I'm quite happy with it. Aside from the fact that
(A) It's not a tablet, didn't have the money for one at the time
(B) Video out is VGA, not DVI
I run FreeBSD on it and am quite happy with it. I can't see spending the extra to get a mac and not getting anything more useful with the extra money.
I see Macs as the machine to get more because of marketing than anything else. I'd rather have a Toshiba, Lenovo or Dell myself.
The majority of knowledgeable geeks I know of don't really think that way. More of them think that way than the non-geeks, as a rough percentage, but the lack of hardware, the lack of software and the overall closed-platform that they had been stuck on for so long makes them less than desireable. That are not clearly one of the most flexible computers, they have a lot of limitations along with their advantages.
Apple expects peoples wants and needs to adapt to their computers, you find that is a lot less common in the PC world.
1) You can build your own PC, can't do that with an Apple
2) Until recently, you could put MacOS and maybe wiggle a few flavors of *Nix or *Nix clones on a Mac, PCs had pretty much everything but MacOS, and some industrial-grade operating systems available for them.
3) There's a lot more software avialable for Windows for Apple, you can also find more or at least comparable amounts for Linux and BSD as well.
4) The majority of hardware/peripherials you find is labeled for Windows. While you can often use them on other operating systems (Linux, BSD, MacOS), the stuff that works on Macs is still a lot less common, probably even less common than that which will work on Linux.
Wow quite a jump from january to june, but I still don't think they can keep it up, not without something really innovative, or at least taking in some of the not-so-innovative but still nice ideas.
I suspect 2007 will be the year the Tablet really hits off, because of it's convinience, if Apple makes a tablet, they might have chance.
If Apple makes a tablet with a DVI port, they might even have me as a buyer, although OS would be replaced by FreeBSD before the day is out.
I have trouble beliving that, moving up 8% in a year, basically, increasing their sales by 66% of their current market share? They've been around too long, people have their minds too set on what Apple is and isn't.
With a very few exceptions, most of the people I knwo think Macs are silly and useless computers with limited capabilities. And most of my friends aren't tech geeks. They pretty much laugh at the Apple commercials as misleading and lies (which isn't horribly inaccurate IMO).
I guess I just don't see that switch happening.
Not sure that this'll happen, unless you want to stretch the definition of "a major newpaper".
The latter was more-or-less already true before 2007 started. The former... It's too early to tell, never underestimate the power of marketing dweebs at selling crap.
Not really a surprise or news. I thought it had already been done, but I guess I could be wrong. Not like it'd be the first time.
Still 5+ years off. Also it's not really an online type thing until they get a USB medicomaitc or something like that. It's still going to require the wom(an|en) in question to go to a lab and/or doctors office.
That's hardly insightful or news. Already done, it's called congress.
Got bridge? Want one? This won't happen.
Wired, meet youtube, youtube meet wired.
Possible, but I doubt it. Most people are too lazy to move.