Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Hyrbid? What's Intel's production problem? (Score 5, Insightful) 136

32 GB of Optane for $77 is $2.40 per GB, Samsung 850 Pro 1 TB is $0.50 per GB. Intel is nearly 5x more expensive.

Hybrid storage systems are common in the enterprise SAN market, but generally to be useful they need something like 20% of capacity to be flash. At ratios of 1-3% of HDD capacity, I don't see the Intel use case as being especially useful.

I had a Seagate 2.5" years ago that was 32 GB flash plus 512GB and it only felt marginally faster than a standard disk drive. You didn't notice serious performance boosts until you went completely flash.

So does Intel have a yield problem or are they still ramping up production facilities to make these in quantity? It's hard to see a system more convoluted than straight SATA or NVMe flash disk being that big of a deal. I think in order to make this product competitive it has to be offered at $/GB competitive with ordinary flash disks or only a small premium.

Comment Re:Vigorous debate? Surely you jest (Score 1) 484

I've found the IT world (since I've worked full-time in it, about 1990) has always veered slightly libertarian, but not usually hard-core, more freedom oriented than dystopian libertarian.

Slashdot comments have degraded, but it's been years in the making, not a particularly recent phenomenon. IMHO there's too many politically oriented stories and maybe not enough real technology, but on the other hand I also think that real technology has been kind of idling over the last few years, too.

Comment Re: Time to switch (Score 1) 216

Bahaha, what's this full time Exchange admin you speak of? It's not 1998 and we're not struggling to keep a Exchange 5,5 box running on dedicated hardware anymore.

There is no Exchange admin anymore, at least not at any company under 1000 users or with fewer than a couple of servers. That work is done by the same admin team that manages AD, file sharing, etc, and is mostly part time.

If Exchange was your sample company's only server, then I totally agree O365 is ideal. But in most medium sized companies Exchange server isn't even a drop in the bucket anymore unless you're doing something really stupid with journaling. In the era of virtualization, the data center space, power, hardware, and nearly all the expertise is already purchased.

The marginal cost to run Exchange is trivial if you already have this infrastructure in place. The O365 math is based on these false ideas about "dedicated admins" and a bunch of dedicated hardware that went away years ago. In any organization not run by retards, running Exchange competently shouldn't be a major burden.

If you're running enough mailboxes/servers for Exchange that you can justify a dedicated admin (which I assume would be dozens of servers, many DAGs, a real complex mess) I'm not sure if O365 is a "fix" at that point, either, because now you're talking such a large userbase that the O365 licensing gets into real serious money.

Comment Re:Unintended consequences (Score 1) 484

The problem still remains that "over-abundance" will only apply to labor. It won't apply to capacity nor to raw resources. We'll have lots of humans with not enough to do, whereas Marxism remains a "classical" economic system which still thinks in terms of scarcity of labor.

I don't think the future is Communist, but neither do I think it is strictly capitalist. I think we're still going to have a fundamentally consumer society, still at its core free market, it's just that labor will no longer be an issue. It will mean adjusting precisely how it is that society as a whole profits from the means of production. And remember that Marxism was always more than merely an economic theory, but was fundamentally a socio-political theory. It was innovative in that it viewed economics as the very core, but it proposed a good deal more than simply "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", and involved revolution, dictatorship and what really does amount to a sort of single party state (because, after all, who needs more than one political movement when Marxism is perfect).

In the end, I expect we'll probably see a shift towards capital gains taxes, higher resource rents, transactional taxes (ie. taxes on the purchase or sale of bonds and shares) and other such mechanisms, and while lots of corporate interests will kick up a mighty storm, but there's little choice in the matter. At some point, robots will do a great deal of the work.

Comment Re: where does all this money come from? (Score 1, Insightful) 484

Just because people pay you for your services doesn't mean you create more than you consume. Perhaps you have some sort of serious illness, which means your health insurance provider may be paying you more than you are paying them. Perhaps you have enough write offs to heavily reduce your actual taxable income, meaning others are actually paying more tax than you.

But do you really pay enough money in taxes that it covers the building of the road past your house, pay for the wages and equipment of the firefighters who may have to put out your fire? There's an entire infrastructure out there that is paid for by the economic output of an entire society, and the idea that somehow anyone, even a billionaire, can claim responsibility for a significant fraction of it is absurd.

Comment Re: Ontario, largest subnational debtor on the pla (Score 1) 484

It's called taxes. We can debate which taxes would be best, but presumably if someone is making something, whether it be with human beings, robots or some combination, they also have sales, which means there are any number of financial transactions which can be taxed. Pick your poison; corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, excise taxes, etc. etc. etc. In the end, money is just a means of counting value.

Comment Re:Confirmation Bias (Score 1) 304

I would always have ignored screaming lunatics.

I think it's more of a subtle (and not so subtle) condescending attitude to "the other side". Pick your adjectives -- dishonest, cruel, stupid, immoral, and so on. Even when it's not explicitly stated.

I think those kinds tones are much harder to pull off in face-face encounters. People are forced to be more accommodating in person.

Slashdot Top Deals

Old programmers never die, they just become managers.

Working...