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)
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.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 
