Hardware Patches
-
I found this article to be very interesting: patching hardware, specifically chips used in computing. Apparently this already happens in Itanium and Crusoe chips, but this is a new way to handle other chips. A debate on Slashdot seems to feel these types of gates are much slower.
I don't know about you, but while it is "easy" to deliver patches, it's hard to get them right. I think the hardware industry is a little more careful with design and work up front before they build chips, and while they might make better patches, I can't help but think there's a certain amount of laziness if you expect that you can "patch" mistakes later.
I'm pretty certain that that problems with SP2 were a result of a similar laziness: let the customer find the problems. And I'm even less interested in having hardware manufacturers do this than I am with software vendors.
Gamers get the best stuff first. Well I guess they don't get it, they buy it, over clock it, cram it into fancy cases, etc. But the gaming industry drives the hardware industry to some extent. Last week Intel launched quad core CPUs for high end PCs, mostly for gamers. I'm sure it can't be too long before we start seeing those in servers. How cool will it be to compile CLR assemblies or do development work on a laptop with 4 cores?
And if you're a serious gamer, the HALO 3 Beta was taking applications last week. They're probably done by now, and I didn't even tell my boy. He's excited for Halo 3, but he hasn't accrued enough online HALO 2 time and I don't need to give him another excuse to play the XBOX.
Steve's Pick of the Week : 4 ways you can fight greedy CEOs
A few ideas on how you can look to be sure that your CEO is earning his pay. And getting paid what he's earned.
-
On the subject of "greedy CEOs"
One thing I have never understood, is why the large stockholders, especially large mutual funds, tolerate this. After all, the 250 million that the CEO is getting is coming out of their share value. They usually have no close personal relationship with the CEO or the board, so why don’t they vote their large blocks of shares to eliminate this?
I understand that a good CEO can help the company in a big way, but it might just be possible to find someone who can do just as good a job for 20 million instead of 200 million. If you outsource 1000 $80K developer jobs off-shore, a company might save 60 million a year, so why is the possibility of cutting the CEO cost from 100 million to 30 million at a savings 70 million not being considered? Of course, the simple answer is that it would be taking the money out of the pocket of the person making that decision, instead of taking money away from faceless IT workers.
-
You and I both!
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply