Comment I think my docking station is a desktop (Score 1) 430
Header says it all. With the attached big screen and wired internet I keep forgetting it is not a desktop. Also the profile makes it run faster when it is docked.
Header says it all. With the attached big screen and wired internet I keep forgetting it is not a desktop. Also the profile makes it run faster when it is docked.
Not completely true. The most interesting jobs (high tech dev) don't pay anywhere as well as commerical dev crap.
Sigh.
Yes. Coding, and partying. With occastional vacations to nice spots like Thailand or Greece. Kind of like how I spent my 20's
I would do visualization projects of various kinds - all with some heavy math component.
The opinions here are what one would expect unfortunately.
I have been using Win7 - it is pleasently fast and I know someone who put it on a netbook, worked as well as XP.
It still looks kind of unpolished.
One of Vista's weak points was the AppCompat - the new security model broke too many apps and caused big companies a lot of pain, some to the point where they gave up. But for them Linux or Mac is simply not an option.
It remains to be seen if Win7 offers relief there. I suspect it does not offer much on that front, but even if it were just a little better it would be enough for many big companies to skip Vista.
I love SpaceX, and think they are doing a great job, but I don't know where you got this idea that they continually deliver on their claims on time. If NASA of the 60's had a SpaceX kind of record we would have landed on the moon in something like 1979, not 1969.
Some examples are the 3 Falcon 1 failures and this annoncment from 2005; http://www.spacequest.com/Articles/The%20SpaceX%20Falcon%20Will%20Challenge%20Orbital%20Sciences%20.doc/
However I can only agree that SpaceX seems far superior to the rest of the NASA/Aerospace complex who aren't even willing to look at an idea without spending 100s of million's first.
I imagine that when NASA launches a Falcon 9, they will manage to spend hundreds of millions on themselves somehow as well (you know, planning it, managing it, quality control, etc). Fixed and sunk costs that are now considered to be in the Space Shuttle launch, but will now be transfered to SpaceX and Oribital Sciences.
In fact if I know my NASA, I bet in the end they will somehow make these launches even more expensive than the Shuttle is/was, especially with the economic downturn conveniently justifying practically any expenditure.
And no, sadly I am not making a joke.
In a lot of big orgs it is amazing how expensive it can be to upgrade your hardware, or add to an existing farm. Not because of the hardware cost, but because of all the overhead involved in designing/specifying the setup,ordering, waiting for it to come, getting space for it, installation, patching, backing up, etc.
In fact I've seen several orgs where the cost of a "Virtual Server" is almost as much as a physical one because the cost of all this servicing it is so high. Whether or not this is necessary I don't want to debate here, but it is undeniably the case.
So I think the case for throwing hardware at issues is not as clear cut as this article implies.
"I've seen it. It's rubbish." -- Marvin the Paranoid Android