Iranians might have once been Persians (looks like they all got out when the Shah got dumped), but the fact of the matter is that they're now a radical-Islamic state that supports terror every which way it can.
FYI - the world's first empire dates back a little further than 500BC - can you spell Egyptian?
With regards to Hezbollah, with whom are they fighting for the liberty of Lebanon? Last time I checked, the Israelis are long gone and so the only others left are other Lebanese (however, since there are so many Christians amongst these remaing Lebanese, I can see why why these Syrian-backed intolerant scumbags have a problem). Perhaps all the attempts at reconstructing a democratically elected government also puts a pebble in their collective shoe.
Hard to believe that any sane person these days can insinuate that Hezbollah is anything more than a poorly organized band of poorly educated terror loving freaks who can watch their own children strap bombs to themselves, and then applaud.
Thanks for the attempt at the history lesson science-boy. Perhaps a little remedial reading is in order (and make sure this time that you read it left to right, if you know what I mean).
With respect to Procom, look out below...
I'm speechless except to say that no, moron, I didn't buy your shares. I'd be happy to give you a tour of the English language, but given your apparent investment track record, I doubt you could afford my rates.
Thought I'd answer before this post gets pulled too for profanity. Little grammar lesson for you first, moron,
(1) The spelling for are'nt is actually aren't which is an abbreviated version of 'are not'
(2) The word 'corps' generally refers to a group of military folk, like in 'the corps of engineers' - was your mother in the military at one point? I forgot to ask.
(3) Hate to harp on the point, but could'nt is actually couldn't (same abbreviation principle).
(4) Don't really know what "sorry ass dip
The last sentence seems to be some kind of challenge to buy your shares in this wate-of-space company, so I think I'll pass. In closing, moron, perhaps some more lucid thoughts might clarify your seemingly silly posturing vis-a-vis ASPX. Please keep this dialogue open, as I do so enjoy your prose...
Like I said, moron, I never trust anyone who can't compose a simple, grammatically correct sentence. What I'll suggest is that you crawl back under your hype-laden, penny-pushing rock and then peek back out when this dog files for bankruptcy. Hugs and kisses, and your Mom says hello (she's still sleeping)...
Moron - nothing material will happen to this company in the next two weeks. No one will make an offer to purchase them because they have nothing to offer, sales will not suddenly take off "saving" the quarter, and the rent-a-management team will continue to slowly spin down the drain, suffering from corporate leprosy.
I always say, never trust a comment from someone who cannot even formulate a simple sentence. Like I said, Moron.
Real problem with the NSc3000 strategy is that there is no shared file system between the "NAS Gateway" and the other SAN nodes. Their whole position is that if you bought too much storage for your SAN (and by the way, part of the reason you invest in a SAN to start off with is so that you won't have a lot of wasted space), then recommission part of it as NAS, but don't expect the NAS clients to be able to access any of the other data on the SAN.
The true holy grail of storage would be a SAN architecture which incorporates a scalable, clustered file system, and which also allows SAN clients to act as NAS gateways into the shared data pool. Now that would be cool...
Some good points, but I have to address one item in particular.
"I|O isn't just the path between the processor and disk drive. I|O is *ALL* things connected on the motherboard to transport data regardless of where it goes (eg: memory, caches, swap, disk, AGP/PCI/NUMA bus, etc.)..."
The basic fact of the matter is that Discreet actually renders through the graphics pipeline for a final product, and, SGI graphics having been tuned for pixel throughput product VERY fast render times. It also benefits from the fact that rendering is WYSIWYG. Preview and final renders are generated in the same way.
This, in opposition, is something that 3D applications suffer from in that OpenGL-based previews and their final renders (done with Renderman, Mental Ray, etc.) don't match. My understanding about DS is that its rendering suffers from the same problems - you're never sure exactly what's going to come out the other side as they don't use the OpenGL card(s) for rendering purposes.
Finally, this is also a limiting factor for DS providing a true 3D compositing environment, as no decent speed software renderers exist for projecting large 2D images into 3D.
Finally, say what you will about Softimage and definitions of special-purpose hardware, if what I've put above is true regarding OpenGL cards being used for preview only, Soft has indeed flip-flopped and traded one set of problems for another.
Thanks for your posts - you've certainly added some perspective and knowledge on this side of the keyboard.
Not arguing the point that a graphics card is required for 3D. Just commenting that all the operations you list are polygonal in nature, even if they're polygons mapped with textures of relatively high resolutions, which from my experience don't measure in sizes of let's say 1920x1080. And, since these operations are indeed based on polygonal geometry, the 3D apps. have benefitted from the mainstream development efforts.
As far as the 2D operations being mostly I/O bound, now I'd say you don't know what you're talking about. Put a Discreet system beside a DS with equal throughput to the drives, and try rendering or scrubbing through the aforementioned composite. The comparison is night and day with the same I/O bandwidth - using DS is like bringing a knife to a gun fight.
On the subject of Softimage, allow me to add some detail I omitted last time. For years and years, the DS folks said that they would NEVER use hardware acceleration of any kind. Their app. would get faster in lockstep with Intel. My how times have changed. Mind you the product flip flopped for years - I still have the marketing brochure where DS was being released on the Trinity box from the now defunct Play.
Finally, as far for the games industry, now you really lost me. If you'd bother to look at nVidia's roadmap (which highlights where everyone is going), it is indeed focused on the games market, and as such, focuses on shaded and textured polygons per second which is what I've been saying from the beginning.
Interesting what you say about 3D, and believe it or not, yes I do know what I'm talking about. From an interactive user perspective, in other words the creative part of the task, your statement about 3D is simply plain wrong. I'm not saying that once you apply lighting, shadows, etc. that rendering times becomes ridiculous (they would have never moved to a render-farm based model if it were the case).
However, from a 2D compositing perspective, have you ever tried a 30 second 5 layer composite on an NT box, like say, DS? Softimage said for years that that they would never employ special purpose hardware in DS, and wouldn't you know it, you now need OpenGL cards.
With regards to complexity, if you ever decide to crawl under the hood of an SGI box, you'll realize that a lot of the complexity has simply been embedded in hardware. Discreet apps. allow the user to render 3D inside the composite. Granted a higher degree of precision will most certainly be required when rendering things like hair and fur.
With respect to Unity, it's not a complex video server. It's a storage area network (SAN) that serves up files across a switched fabric. If it were a video server, they'd have embedded VTR-like controls so that the content which resides on the drives could be treated as video. The only elements that turn Unity content into video are the AVBV or Meridian cards. It does indeed provide useful services, especially when viewed within the context of Avid applications.
On the Apple front, with their release of OS X they now have a UNIX core to work from which should make any ports simpler.
On the Softimage front, I'll agree and disagree at the same time. I don't think that Microsoft bought Softimage solely to prove the viability of the PC as a realistic platform for 3D modelling and animation. If that were the case they could have simply poured some cash and engineering support in and had them do a port. I think that they were thinking how pervasive 3D could become and wanted to lead the charge. Just look at what the Pulse Entertainment and Cycores of the world are doing with 3D on the web (although they're a little ahead of their time).
Another point to make is that 3D applications are way lighter on graphics requirements, and more importantly their requirements were in step with where the graphics accelerator guys were going - faster and more polygons per second (in support of video games). All this is to say that the technology to make the PC a viable platform for 3D was in lock step with what the industry was focusing on anyway. It will be interesting to see the uptake now that Alias has ported Maya to the Mac. Maybe SGI will have finally found a buyer for their money losing Toronto-based operation, because with the Nothing Real acquisition, 3D is the only glaring hole in the Apple strategy.
Finally, since not a single graphics accelerator vendor (e.g. nVidia, ATI, Matrox,etc.) has put any real effort behind the raster side (i.e. pixel transfer and fill rate) of the equation, it's still going to be a while before anyone catches up with Discreet on the compositing side. And just before you say it, and people have been saying it for at least 5 years now, I don't care how fast the Intel processors get (they just released 2.4GHz Xeons), there's a lot more to it than that.
Interesting perspective - thanks for the insight. One question I do have pertains to these benchmarks. While SpecSFS certainly seems to offer some insight into response times for NFS (i.e. UNIX-based client environment), it's by no means a throughput metric.
If BlueArc or MaxT wants to demonstrate their performance numbers for UNIX, what benchmark is there out there that can put it all in perspective - something akin to IOmeter, but for non Windows clients?
Seems like with more and more facilities (across a great many vertical markets) employing Linux-based clusters to get the job done, such numbers could be meaningful to a great many potential candidates.
"NFS filers, there is only one that can fully utilize the bandwidth of a gbit interface. "
Thought I might chime in here. The special purpose hardware to which you refer is standard in Avids, Media 100s, Pinnacle, and Matrox based boxes. The original uses for this kind of hardware (in addition to cheesy stuff real-time FX like page turns, ripples, wipes, etc.) was the compression/decompression (CODEC) to/from the drives. Should note that the vast majority of these cards now have Mac and Windows driver support. When you're using only uncompressed material, you simply need an I/O card and a set of drives fast enough to suck up or spit out (pardon my use of these highly technical terms) the data. Avid|DS has proved that processor-based real-time FX are very doable, albeit not yet at HD resolutions.
I've been to all the NABs, and if I remember the state of Final Cut Pro correctly, they were employing the Pinnacle Targa3000 card in their demo. No reason that FCP couldn't be hardware accelerated either - would just take a group of developers some time and effort, and I bet that Pinnacle is more than willing to put in the effort so as not to have to continue to rely on Adobe Premiere as their (lack of) application of choice. The Fast stuff muddies the water a little, but that's probably just Sanders picking up another piece of junk at a garage sale. I think that FCP is going to be a long term winner.
If my memory isn't too dated, it would seem that Pinnacle and Sony are now linked at the hip through the Fast deal. There's a Sony NLE (I believe it's the ES3) that is based on the Fast "Blue" product. In fact, Sony went so far as to buy/license the source code from Fast and modify it themselves so that it had a Sony look and feel.
Your answers and comments are as selective and self-serving as your grasp on history. I've at least made an attempt to address both sides of the topic at hand. Maybe you should set your anger aside for the moment and do the same.
As an aside, SGI makes great gear (I've worked with their teechnology from the engineering side since '85 and the 2300/2400Turbo grey metal boxes), and really just needs to stop going off on meaningless tangents. They should stick to the high end of the market where there truly is still no competition. Shape the technology into products for specific markets if third-party software vendors can't or won't do it, but don't drop down into a commodity game - it's a no-win situation in a market where there are no margins left.
First off, the fact that some of the moguls (e.g. Zukor, Mayer, Fox/Cohn) who happen to be of Jewish descent made it big in Hollywood seems to have really put a bug up your ass. These guys all fled Eastern Europe and made something of themselves from nothing. I thought that was the American dream, and if it is, why would people, including you, be selectively angry at the Jews who managed to do so?
Next, a hell of a lot more Jews would have survived the Holocaust had immigration policies in the west afforded them an avenue of escape, so don't play up the notion of the west saving the Jews. It was only after seeing the attrocities of the camps that the UN voted, with a guilty conscience, in favor of Israeli statehood.
You don't seem to be angry at the Arab states that did nothing for the Palestinians (right or wrong aside) except hold them up as symbolic martyrs for the rest of the world to see.
There have been many occurences, both recent and distant where Israel has taken in the world's Jews. The countries from which Israel's population now comes cover the globe, and I think it's a hard sell to say that there's something self-serving about taking in a family of Russians who have nothing but the clothes on their backs when they arrive.
With regards to Ethiopian Jews, who many consider as possibly being the lost tribe, I have a vivid recollection of an Israeli military transport arriving at Ben Gurion airport with a load of repatriated Hasidic black Jews. It was indeed a strange sight, but a heart warming one at the same time. Can't see the self-serving nature of this one either.
With all this said, is Israel a perfect nation where there's no prejudice (even amongst Jews themselves)? Absolutely not. Various sects look at each other suspiciously, and have even been known to throw a stone or two at each other (especially when driving on Saturday). There are orthodox groups that want reform conversions invalidated, and the government is under constant pressure to try and satisfy both the conservatives at home and the diaspora abroad who still help fund (persoanlly, not governmentally) the country.
To close, there seems to be a lot more acid in your tongue about Jews in general than about Israel as a country. Seems like you've got an axe to grind with someone - is this personal?
I guarantee you guys would have been out of WWII had the Japs not shoved a few torpedos up your ass. You certainly sat on the sidelines (the war started in September 1939) until that infamous day in December of 1941, more than two years after the fact. Guess it got personal at that point.
And, if you are for a minute suggesting that it's Israel's "recalcitrance" that caused some fanatics to bomb the WTC and hence force the US/UK to retaliate and fight a war, then I think that there's some loose shrapnel lodged somewhere close to your cerebellum.
History is an amazing tool, especially when it's used as selectively as you've chosen to do.