LISTSERV at the University of Georgia
Menubar Imagemap
Home Browse Manage Request Manuals Register
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (October 2006, week 1)Back to main SAS-L pageJoin or leave SAS-L (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:         Sun, 1 Oct 2006 18:31:22 +0000
Reply-To:     iw1junk@COMCAST.NET
Sender:       "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From:         Ian Whitlock <iw1junk@COMCAST.NET>
Subject:      Re: Death of the Mainframe? (was PC SAS vs. Mainframe SAS)
Comments: To: "Dorfman, Paul" <paul_dorfman@merck.com>

Paul,

I did not mean to suggest that you discovered/invented the law; I only meant that you suggested its applicability to SAS-L in terms of the subject line and that I thought there was reason to question its applicability.

I would consider the "tools of war" as falling well within the bounds of technology. As for the biological examples, I do not know how in these times to exclude biology from technology. While I would never endorse an "Intelligent Design" view of evolution, I do think that Darwin's principle has lead to far more efficient designs than human technology can yet dream of. So again I do not know how to draw a distinction that you seem to hold.

I agree that in principle Google could use mainframes, but I see their choice as driven by efficiency, so I think the violation of the law still holds.

After I sent my message, I considered your train example and realized that it would be highly inefficient to have my groceries delivered by train to my home. In short I think a great deal must be said before I would know how to reliably apply this "law of technology" to any problem.

I also suspect that this law predates and is outmoded by the science of networks. (I mean networks in a mathematical sense, not in the internet or computer sense; although the they are examples networks.)

Yes, SESUG is a week away, and I still do not know what to say about problem solving.

Ian Whitlock

-------------- Original message -------------- From: "Dorfman, Paul" <paul_dorfman@merck.com>

> Ian, > > I am the one who suggested it no more than I am the one who suggested > any other law I did not discover. And I by no means meant to expand a > law of technology (of which I explicitly stated it is, and herein lies > the constraint) on anything out of the realm within which it applies. > Whether Google should or should not switch to mainframe(s) as their data > pile up is a legitimate question. My guess is they will not - not > because it is principally impossible or mainframes cannot handle their > loads, but because they have spent so much for their current technology > that departing from it at this point is not cost-effective. As far as > your other anecdotal extrapolations are concerned, I a ppreciate and > enjoy your wit, as always. > > Looking forward to seeing you in Atlanta. > > Kind regards > ------------ > Paul Dorfman > Jax, FL > ------------ > > -----Original Message----- > From: iw1junk@comcast.net [mailto:iw1junk@comcast.net] > Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 9:28 PM > To: SAS(r) Discussion > Cc: Dorfman, Paul; Alan Churchill > Subject: Re: Death of the Mainframe? (was PC SAS vs. Mainframe SAS) > > > Summary: ? > #iw-value=0 > > Paul, > > You suggested a fundamental law. > > In order to achieve a certain output, one large unit > is always more efficient than a number of lesser units > working in parallel. > > So we should be able to deduce some facts form this law. > > 1) Google will be out of business shortly after some bright > p erson decides to do the same thing with a powerful mainframe. > > 2) It makes no sense to fight wars with small weapons, since > big weapons are more efficient. > > 3) Ants and all other social animals are an evolutionary > impossible sort of animal, since inefficiency is ruthlessly > eliminated. > > 4) Humans will develop to be over 100 feet tall due to > efficiency requirements. > > Perhaps, the law needs some amendments or other form of > constraints. > > Oh, and yes, I refuse to argue about the perpetuation or demise > of the mainframe. > > Looking forward to our panel discussion with Richard DeVenezia > at SESUG. On the other hand maybe a bigger panel would be > better, but I think it is too late to hash it out with Peter. > > Ian Whitlock > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------ > Notice: This e-mail message, together with any attachments, contains > information of Merck & Co., Inc. (One Merck Drive, Whitehouse Station, > New Jersey, USA 08889), and/or its affiliates (which may be known > outside the United States as Merck Frosst, Merck Sharp & Dohme or MSD > and in Japan, as Banyu - direct contact information for affiliates is > available at http://www.merck.com/contact/contacts.html) that may be > confidential, proprietary copyrighted and/or legally privileged. It is > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named on this > message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this > message in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then > delete it from your system. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main SAS-L page