--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I won't swear it was him. It might have been Dirac, and I'd appreciate
> > > correction:
> > >
> > > "Back then, a second rate mind could have a first rate idea. Now, a
> first
> > > rate mind has a hard time coming up with a third rate idea."
> > Nice try Dan, but we both know that's not what is happening here.
>
> No, I strongly differ with you.
>I asked a friend who was the test engineer for the Saturn I
>rocket what would be the cost savings in getting something into orbit if
>the best guys possible started an organization from scratch and did things
>right. He thought about 40% or so, no more.
No More?!?!?. %40?!?!?! When you are talking about 100 billion %40 is 40
billion. Frel! when you talk about $100 %40 is $40. Were talking about almost
cutting the cost in halph. If it would take 50 year to develop a viable maned
Marse mission, you could do it in 30. I don't know anyone who wouldn't think
a %40 improvement is not significant.
No more? Sheesh, what a spin! And to think that some people probably read
your post over, got ~your~ ~message~ that the improvement was
~insignificant~. That is once again, exactly what I am talking about here.
This kind of thing has become the norm. This kind of spin might work on the
guy who flips your burgers, but please, Dan, don't try and insult the
intelegance of your reader with silly little empathic tricks of phrasing.
You don't see that as a kind of lie? "%40 no more"... I just can't get over
it.
> >I was not
> > referencing anything we don't already know ~how~ to do, just stuff we
> aren't
> > doing that we do know how to do, or worse, have done.
> As far as distributed concurrent networks go, I know some applications
> where it is being employed because the applications are very
> straightforward. But, like AI, the ease of use for many problems has been
> greatly overstated.
No Dan, it isn't being used. It is not anything at all like AI. The probelms
have not even been stated. Why? becouse we've built these things. They exist,
they just are not being used becouse no one will fund anything that is not
http over port 80. And that is a bottle neck which keeps such architectures
from working. Why won't they fund something that is not http over port 80?
1)Becouse that is the most complex through point that some security
"professionals" can understand, and they insist on being able to understand
every through point. It's like what would happen if the state department
required every person entering the country to go through one port of entry in
a small island off the coast. Planing a trip to Europe? Plan on spending 2
weeks or more on http80 island waiting for your turn to get back home.
2)Such architectures require more brainpower therefore more money. As long as
no one else is doing it, there is no advantage to doing it. And no one else
is going to do it, becouse they don't understand it.
3)Several big name companies have sold those who don't understand the
technology that there "new" (but inferior) technology is the latest thing,
and it is simple enough to understand. Why? becouse they see that sector as
easier to profit from, and they know that as soon as someoen figures out that
with only a very small investment they can gain an incredible productivity
advantage they can run back to the "addvancement" they abandoned.
=====
_________________________________________________
Jan William Coffey
_________________________________________________
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
