Several years ago I drafted a white paper I called "x86 Everywhere". I started it in the fall of 2004, let it sit, and updated it in April 2005. It remains unfinished, but with the release today of Intel's Nehalem processor, I took a look at it again. Here is Part 2:
Three trends could allow what I call "x86 Everywhere" to happen.
The first trend is the decrease in value of large, partitionable, RISC/UNIX systems.
All major commercial RISC/UNIX systems vendors offer large systems that can support large workloads, or can be partitioned to support many medium-sized workloads. The primary reasons for deploying a medium-sized workload in a partition on a large server are expected growth beyond the capacity of typical midrange servers, higher system resource utilization, system management efficiencies of server consolidation, and customer politics and preferences. Each of these reasons is coming under assault by the advancement of Moore's law, and as a result, the value proposition of large, partitionable datacenter servers is declining.
The performance improvements brought about by Moore's law over the last several years have outpaced customer workload growth, allowing midrange systems to handle the expected growth of most customer workloads. In addition, the price of midrange RISC/UNIX system has declined significantly over the last several years, starting with Sun's UltraSPARC III based V880, whose price point was then met by IBM with the POWER4-based p650, and HP's strategy of offering standard configurations of PA-RISC and Itanium midrange systems at very aggressive prices. Moore's law has caused system utilization to drop, as processors are now very powerful.
Traditional physical based partitioning, such as Sun's Dynamic System Domains and HP's Node Partitions (nPars) do not provide adequate granularity given the performance of today's processors. The result is the rise of software-based partitioning, logical partitioning, and virtual machine technology, which are portable to smaller, less expensive RISC/UNIX systems. In the case of purely software based partitioning technology, it is portable to other ISAs such as x86 platforms. For example, virtual machine technology is primarily being used on x86 systems via VMware's products. These shift in server partitioning technology are also decreasing the value proposition of large and midrange RISC/UNIX servers.
The recent emphasis in the industry for provisioning and system management solutions, along with policy-based computing solutions to manage large numbers of discreet servers has yet to significantly change the industry, however improvements in this area have improved the system management efficiencies of distributed servers. This, along with some of the inherent provisioning and management efficiencies of software-based partitioning technologies (shared network and disk resources) have resulted in a decrease in the relative value of large partitionable systems.
One should note, this decrease in value is real. It is not simply a customer perception. First, physical partitioning is simply too expensive a method to achieve partitioning in a server. Markets define prices, not vendors. Costs define margins, not prices. In a scenario with two otherwise equivalent servers, one using physical partitioning, the other using logical partitioning, the logical partitionable server will offer the vendor greater margins. Similarly, designing a server with physical partitioning which offers the same granularity as logical partitioning would likely be abandoned for having too high a cost. Second, customers really are moving workloads from previous generation large servers to smaller servers of the current generation, rather than partitions on larger current generation servers. In 1998 a Sun customer might consider paying the 50% price premium of an E10K over multiple E4500s. The value the 50% premium represented, primarily in growth capacity, justified the premium. Today the premium an E20K has over multiple V890s or V490s is so much higher (around 150% more), few customers can justify the value the E20K price premium provides.
The effect of this is a leveling of playing field between RISC/UNIX servers and x86 servers. Midrange RISC/UNIX servers are becoming simpler and cheaper. Midrange x86 servers have become more robust. RISC ISAs versus the x86 ISA is become a "Coke versus Pepsi" decision: a flavor choice.
Related Post:
x86 Rises, Part 1: The Background
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Monday, June 15, 2009
Three types of people
I have come to a conclusion there are three types of people in the world:
Process people.
Idea people.
People people.
Process people.
Idea people.
People people.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
x86 Rises, Part 1, The Background
Several years ago I drafted a white paper I called "x86 Everywhere". I started it in the fall of 2004, let it sit, and updated it in April 2005. It remains unfinished, but with the release today of Intel's Nehalem processor, I took a look at it again. Here it is:
What is “x86 Everywhere”? x86 Everywhere is a concept that the dominance the x86 instruction set architecture (ISA) currently has on the desktop and entry server markets will expand into the midrange and high-end datacenter server markets, eventually reaching a tipping point, and displacing most RISC/UNIX platforms. Over time the x86 ISA establishes a monopoly in the datacenter similar to its current monopoly on the desktop.
The drivers for such a scenario are purely economic, but this does not refer to server acquisition costs. Instead it refers to the economic advantages a single, dominant ISA would bring to system vendors and independent software vendors. This is not the first time such a scenario has been speculated. In the early and mid 1990s, when Microsoft announced Window NT as a portable, multiplatform operating system for both RISC and x86, many speculated Windows would become the dominant operating system and programming application binary interface (ABI) from the desktop to large datacenter servers. A few years later, many speculated Intel's IA-64 “Merced” (later branded Itanium) ISA would dominate all computers, displacing RISC from the datacenter. Desktop PCs, entry and midrange servers running Microsoft Windows and Novell Netware, and high-end datacenter servers running UNIX would all use the IA-64 architecture. Despite this speculation, few put two and two together and speculated a Windows/IA-64 monopoly platform combination. The latest domination scenario proposed a few years ago was Linux would displace all UNIX variants. In this scenario, system vendors with their own UNIX variants would simply abandon their UNIX distributions and instead port Linux to their RISC architectures. This scenario is amazingly similar to the speculation about Microsoft Windows in the mid 1990s. Then experts suggested RISC vendors would abandon their UNIX variants to instead embrace Windows.
There is a huge difference with x86 Everywhere. The difference is the current installed base of x86 systems, and the current willingness of customers to use x86 systems for critical tasks. This is not to say other ISAs will exist. While RISC/UNIX established dominance in the datacenter in the 1990s, mainframes still exist, and while x86 is dominant on the desktop, the Apple Macintosh continues to be successful as an alternative platform. However, in this scenario, traditional RISC/UNIX systems are rendered to a smaller, niche market.
Three trends could allow what I call "x86 Everywhere" to happen.
I will cover those three trends in my next post.
What is “x86 Everywhere”? x86 Everywhere is a concept that the dominance the x86 instruction set architecture (ISA) currently has on the desktop and entry server markets will expand into the midrange and high-end datacenter server markets, eventually reaching a tipping point, and displacing most RISC/UNIX platforms. Over time the x86 ISA establishes a monopoly in the datacenter similar to its current monopoly on the desktop.
The drivers for such a scenario are purely economic, but this does not refer to server acquisition costs. Instead it refers to the economic advantages a single, dominant ISA would bring to system vendors and independent software vendors. This is not the first time such a scenario has been speculated. In the early and mid 1990s, when Microsoft announced Window NT as a portable, multiplatform operating system for both RISC and x86, many speculated Windows would become the dominant operating system and programming application binary interface (ABI) from the desktop to large datacenter servers. A few years later, many speculated Intel's IA-64 “Merced” (later branded Itanium) ISA would dominate all computers, displacing RISC from the datacenter. Desktop PCs, entry and midrange servers running Microsoft Windows and Novell Netware, and high-end datacenter servers running UNIX would all use the IA-64 architecture. Despite this speculation, few put two and two together and speculated a Windows/IA-64 monopoly platform combination. The latest domination scenario proposed a few years ago was Linux would displace all UNIX variants. In this scenario, system vendors with their own UNIX variants would simply abandon their UNIX distributions and instead port Linux to their RISC architectures. This scenario is amazingly similar to the speculation about Microsoft Windows in the mid 1990s. Then experts suggested RISC vendors would abandon their UNIX variants to instead embrace Windows.
There is a huge difference with x86 Everywhere. The difference is the current installed base of x86 systems, and the current willingness of customers to use x86 systems for critical tasks. This is not to say other ISAs will exist. While RISC/UNIX established dominance in the datacenter in the 1990s, mainframes still exist, and while x86 is dominant on the desktop, the Apple Macintosh continues to be successful as an alternative platform. However, in this scenario, traditional RISC/UNIX systems are rendered to a smaller, niche market.
Three trends could allow what I call "x86 Everywhere" to happen.
I will cover those three trends in my next post.
Monday, February 23, 2009
On Power and Journalism
Another great quote. This time from Jonah Goldberg:
"But it’s worth remembering that government and corporations aren’t the only institutions that can abuse power. Factions, to borrow a word from the Federalist Papers, have a power all their own. When governments cave to that power, they become mere tools of bullies. And when journalists go along for the ride, there’s no one left to speak truth to power when that is what’s needed most."
An Excellent Observation on the Financial Bailout
Great comment from Mark Steyn on the Hugh Hewitt show last Thursday:
UPDATE: Another great comment by Steyn, where he calls the press "eunuchs to the PC sultans". That one's going to leave a mark (pun intended).
" ... what the government has been trying to do since October has been to re-inflate a credit bubble, to say that people should be able to get spectacular returns on mediocre assets as a permanent feature of life. And that is simply unsustainable. And my objection to what started back in mid-September is that no matter how much you pump into it, you cannot re-inflate a credit bubble, and you shouldn’t try. And that is something that if necessary, people have to take a bit of temporary pain ... "Steyn is exactly right. We should be trying to ensure a soft landing on a reasonable bottom (i.e., preventing the crashing through a reasonable bottom into a worse situation), we should not be trying to reinflate a balloon with a huge gash in its side. That money is lost, and worse, takes with it more.
UPDATE: Another great comment by Steyn, where he calls the press "eunuchs to the PC sultans". That one's going to leave a mark (pun intended).
Friday, February 20, 2009
Thoughts on "Great Depression 2.0"
When I was in junior high (I think it was 8th grade), my Social Studies teacher (Mr. James) made everyone in the class interview someone who had lived through the Great Depression (that would be "Great Depression 1.0", or "Great Depression 29"). For Generation X, that generally meant interviewing a grandparent.
Mr. James gave us a list of questions to ask in our interview.
So, I took my Radio Shack monoural cassette tape recorder, and interviewed my grandmother, born in 1909 (or maybe it was 1908). The one thing I remember from that interview was one question: "What ended the Great Depression?" I still remember my grandmother's answer: "The wower" That would be "The War" for those who cannot translate a southern accent. "The War" refeedr to World War II. Now, "The War" didn't happen for America until twelve years after the stock market crash, and nine years after the election of FDR.
Wasn't there a New Deal? What about the WPA? The CCC? What, building the Hoover and Grand Coulee Dams didn't pull us out of the depression? Rural Electric Administration and the TVA? Nope.
Now, after we all did our interviews, we had to listen to them. For a week, we all listened to each of the interview tapes. And the one thing I remember is almost every subject answered the "What ended the Great Depression?" question the same way: World War II.
Is there a lesson in this? Perhaps. Perhaps the lesson is spending billions of dollars of taxpayers' money on make-work will not pull you out of depression, but spending billions of dollars of taxpayers' money on trucks, tanks, airplanes, and ammo will. Perhaps the lesson is economic problems are rarely solved quickly from the bottom up (i.e., jobs programs, consumer focused programs, tax cuts to individuals, etc.). Does it mean economic problems can be solved faster at the top (money supply, business lending, business taxes, etc.)? One could say the war spending was a direct subsidy to large American industrial companies, like GM and Boeing, and the jobs were a byproduct, that is, it was top-down. Certainly the decade-long economic downturn of 1973-1984 never adequately responded to the demand side economic efforts of Nixon, Ford, and Carter, and only recovered after Reagan's tight money supply and supply side focused efforts.
One thing I can say is, I can lean on that CCC-built rail at the Grand Canyon. I can use electricity from the TVA. They might not have pulled the U.S. out of depression, but one could argue we got something for the money, and some people were employed for some period of time.
But can we say the same thing about the current stimulus plan?
Mr. James gave us a list of questions to ask in our interview.
So, I took my Radio Shack monoural cassette tape recorder, and interviewed my grandmother, born in 1909 (or maybe it was 1908). The one thing I remember from that interview was one question: "What ended the Great Depression?" I still remember my grandmother's answer: "The wower" That would be "The War" for those who cannot translate a southern accent. "The War" refeedr to World War II. Now, "The War" didn't happen for America until twelve years after the stock market crash, and nine years after the election of FDR.
Wasn't there a New Deal? What about the WPA? The CCC? What, building the Hoover and Grand Coulee Dams didn't pull us out of the depression? Rural Electric Administration and the TVA? Nope.
Now, after we all did our interviews, we had to listen to them. For a week, we all listened to each of the interview tapes. And the one thing I remember is almost every subject answered the "What ended the Great Depression?" question the same way: World War II.
Is there a lesson in this? Perhaps. Perhaps the lesson is spending billions of dollars of taxpayers' money on make-work will not pull you out of depression, but spending billions of dollars of taxpayers' money on trucks, tanks, airplanes, and ammo will. Perhaps the lesson is economic problems are rarely solved quickly from the bottom up (i.e., jobs programs, consumer focused programs, tax cuts to individuals, etc.). Does it mean economic problems can be solved faster at the top (money supply, business lending, business taxes, etc.)? One could say the war spending was a direct subsidy to large American industrial companies, like GM and Boeing, and the jobs were a byproduct, that is, it was top-down. Certainly the decade-long economic downturn of 1973-1984 never adequately responded to the demand side economic efforts of Nixon, Ford, and Carter, and only recovered after Reagan's tight money supply and supply side focused efforts.
One thing I can say is, I can lean on that CCC-built rail at the Grand Canyon. I can use electricity from the TVA. They might not have pulled the U.S. out of depression, but one could argue we got something for the money, and some people were employed for some period of time.
But can we say the same thing about the current stimulus plan?
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
A stuck clock moment
Even Saturday Night Live gets it right sometimes:
Now I hear George Soros and Herb and Marion Sandler are not happy with the skit, so SNL has pulled the video from the official SNL site.
Supposedly, the skit now does not meet SNL standards, and they are going to "edit" the skit.
Wait a minute, I thought it was Saturday Night Live? Did I miss something? Editing a live skit after the fact?
I guess the new Lorne Michaels is George Orwell.
Now I hear George Soros and Herb and Marion Sandler are not happy with the skit, so SNL has pulled the video from the official SNL site.
Supposedly, the skit now does not meet SNL standards, and they are going to "edit" the skit.
Wait a minute, I thought it was Saturday Night Live? Did I miss something? Editing a live skit after the fact?
I guess the new Lorne Michaels is George Orwell.
Friday, September 12, 2008
It's too bad Whoopi Goldberg did have a dad like this
Thursday, September 11, 2008
The best political speech in history
So today is September 11th. I remember back on that fateful day, September 11th 2001, what I did once I returned home. As I watched the events of the day unfold, I recalled Ronald Reagan's most famous speech, given in 1964 in support of the candidacy of Barry Goldwater.
Specifically, I recalled the phrase "You and I have a rendezvous with destiny", and a few other choice lines, such as "We are at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars", "You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." There is a point beyond which they must not advance." and of course, "You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness."
When I got home, I searched "rendezvous with destiny" on the Internet, and found the speech on the web site for the Reagan Presidential Library. While parts of the speech may be specific to the Goldwater-Johnson Presidential election, the speech itself is truly timeless. It is a speech about the freedom of man, the threats to that freedom, and what free men must do to preserve that freedom.
So without further adoo, here is Ronald Reagan's speech, "A Time for Choosing" (a.k.a., "Rendezvous with Destiny"):
And a link to the site of the text of that speech: A Time for Choosing
Specifically, I recalled the phrase "You and I have a rendezvous with destiny", and a few other choice lines, such as "We are at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars", "You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." There is a point beyond which they must not advance." and of course, "You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness."
When I got home, I searched "rendezvous with destiny" on the Internet, and found the speech on the web site for the Reagan Presidential Library. While parts of the speech may be specific to the Goldwater-Johnson Presidential election, the speech itself is truly timeless. It is a speech about the freedom of man, the threats to that freedom, and what free men must do to preserve that freedom.
So without further adoo, here is Ronald Reagan's speech, "A Time for Choosing" (a.k.a., "Rendezvous with Destiny"):
And a link to the site of the text of that speech: A Time for Choosing
Monday, September 01, 2008
Experience
I am hearing a lot of comments in the media about the experience (or lack thereof) of the Republican VP candidate, Governor Sarah Palin.
Here are some interesting facts:
Barack Obama was a Community Organizer for 3 years, and later spent six months running a voter registration drive.
Sarah Palin was a City Council Member for 4 years.
Barack Obama was an Illinois State Senator for 7 years.
Sarah Palin was a mayor for 6 years.
If elected President, upon inauguration, Barack Obama will have been a U.S. Senator for 4 years.
If elected Vice President, upon inauguration, Sarah Palin will have been Alaska's Governor for 2 years.
In addition to being a Mayor and a Governor, Palin was Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission for a year (basically a sub- cabinet position, under Alaska's Department of Administration).
This latter position is the most interesting, and Palin's experience there reads like a Grisham novel.
So let's assume for a moment, serving on a City Council provides similar experience to being a community organizer (low-level public service experience). And let's assume being a Mayor provides similar experiences to being a State Legislator (mid-level public service experience). Finally, let's assume running a 25 member state commission, and later being a Governor provide similar experiences as that of a U.S. Senator (high-level public service experience).
I believe many will say being a Mayor is far more challenging, and therefore far more valuable experience than being a state legislator. Likewise, I believe many will say being a Governor is far more challenging, and therefore far more valuable experience than being a U.S. Senator. But for now, let's call these experiences equal.
If so, that basically gives Obama one year of advantage at both the middle and high levels of public service.
So I find the argument that Palin is too inexperienced to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency weak compared to Obama being in the Presidency.
And like I said, her experience on the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission read like a Grisham novel. Check out the link below.
Link:
Palin explains her actions in Ruedrich case
Here are some interesting facts:
Barack Obama was a Community Organizer for 3 years, and later spent six months running a voter registration drive.
Sarah Palin was a City Council Member for 4 years.
Barack Obama was an Illinois State Senator for 7 years.
Sarah Palin was a mayor for 6 years.
If elected President, upon inauguration, Barack Obama will have been a U.S. Senator for 4 years.
If elected Vice President, upon inauguration, Sarah Palin will have been Alaska's Governor for 2 years.
In addition to being a Mayor and a Governor, Palin was Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission for a year (basically a sub- cabinet position, under Alaska's Department of Administration).
This latter position is the most interesting, and Palin's experience there reads like a Grisham novel.
So let's assume for a moment, serving on a City Council provides similar experience to being a community organizer (low-level public service experience). And let's assume being a Mayor provides similar experiences to being a State Legislator (mid-level public service experience). Finally, let's assume running a 25 member state commission, and later being a Governor provide similar experiences as that of a U.S. Senator (high-level public service experience).
I believe many will say being a Mayor is far more challenging, and therefore far more valuable experience than being a state legislator. Likewise, I believe many will say being a Governor is far more challenging, and therefore far more valuable experience than being a U.S. Senator. But for now, let's call these experiences equal.
If so, that basically gives Obama one year of advantage at both the middle and high levels of public service.
So I find the argument that Palin is too inexperienced to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency weak compared to Obama being in the Presidency.
And like I said, her experience on the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission read like a Grisham novel. Check out the link below.
Link:
Palin explains her actions in Ruedrich case
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Who else can stand up for liberty in the world?
A rhetorical question, no doubt, but one which had to be asked.
Who else can stand up for liberty in the world?
Well, who?
Who else can stand up for liberty in the world?
Well, who?
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
The Empire Strikes Back
Playing the part of Darth Vader is Dmitri Medvedev:
And of course, Vladimir Putin is Emperor Palpatine:
And of course, Vladimir Putin is Emperor Palpatine:
Saturday, August 09, 2008
Random House commits an "Honor Killing"
In a world where all to often people love to establish moral equivalence between western and third-world cultures, permit me to add one.
Random House's decision to kill Sherry Jones' new novel "The Jewel of Medina", about Muhammad's wife A'isha is the literary moral equivalent of an Honor Killing.
University of Texas' history professor Denise Spellberg, according to Random House's Jane Garrett, advised strongly against publishing. I cannot help but wonder what Dr. Spellberg teaches about Islam in her classes. Does she teach it is includes a significant element of unstable, easy to anger, medieval, barbaric, and terroristic sects, which are so influential, as to preclude the entirety of Islam from being subject to popular fiction, avant-garde art, political cartoons, or comic routine, unlike every other other major religion and culture, which often are the subject of critical or tasteless speech or expression.
I think Dr. Spellberg, based on her comments, strongly believes Islam, due to its extremist component, is not compatible with the secular, post-Enlightenment, western world. I just wonder if she teaches this in her classes.
More:
You Still Can't Write About Muhammad
Free Speech Jilted by Muhammad Romance Novel 'Warpath'
And some worthy background reading:
Victor Davis Hanson: Traitors to the Enlightenment
Random House's decision to kill Sherry Jones' new novel "The Jewel of Medina", about Muhammad's wife A'isha is the literary moral equivalent of an Honor Killing.
University of Texas' history professor Denise Spellberg, according to Random House's Jane Garrett, advised strongly against publishing. I cannot help but wonder what Dr. Spellberg teaches about Islam in her classes. Does she teach it is includes a significant element of unstable, easy to anger, medieval, barbaric, and terroristic sects, which are so influential, as to preclude the entirety of Islam from being subject to popular fiction, avant-garde art, political cartoons, or comic routine, unlike every other other major religion and culture, which often are the subject of critical or tasteless speech or expression.
I think Dr. Spellberg, based on her comments, strongly believes Islam, due to its extremist component, is not compatible with the secular, post-Enlightenment, western world. I just wonder if she teaches this in her classes.
More:
You Still Can't Write About Muhammad
Free Speech Jilted by Muhammad Romance Novel 'Warpath'
And some worthy background reading:
Victor Davis Hanson: Traitors to the Enlightenment
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
The Ideal Margarita (A Basic Recipe)
Memorial day is almost here, which means Margarita season is upon us.
There are as many Margarita recipes as there are opinions, it seems. However, I think the following works pretty well. It is a variation of the original Jimmy Buffet Perfect Margarita from the liner notes of his "Boats, Beaches, Bars & Ballads" box set.
2-1/2 oz. Sauza Hornitos Reposado Tequila
1-1/2 oz. Rose's Lime Juice
3/4 oz. Cointreau
Mix and pour over the rocks, or blend with ice.
I came up with this by making some substitutions to the original recipe. First, I only keep one type of tequila, so I just added an additional half-ounce of my regular tequila instead of the white tequila. I did not have any fresh lime at the time, so I added an additional half-ounce of Rose's. And I did not have any orange Curacao liqueur, so I increased the Cointreau by a quarter-ounce.
I found the solution worked, and could be used any time. Fresh lime is nice, but its not always around, and can be especially limiting if friends drop by. However, this recipe scales easily, and works well both on the rocks and in the blender.
Also, just as Jimmy was very brand-specific in his original recipe, so am I. However, my brand preferences differ. Hornitos Reposado is the best gold tequila, not over distilled like Patron (this is tequila, not vodka), and not destined to give you a headache like Jose Cuervo Especial, and personally, its better tasting than 1800 Reposado.
As for triple-sec, I prefer Cointreau. Most stuff liquor sold in stores today claiming to be triple-sec is not, so now we have real "orange liqueur", and rock-gut "triple-sec". And Cointreau is just better than Grand Marnier, the flavor of which reminds me of St. Joseph baby aspirin.
Now, assuming I have the time to get all of the ingredients, I will add that splash of orange Curacao liqueur. But like I said, I have my brand preferences. Bols liqueurs in the U.S. are cheap, mass-produced stuff just like the typical triple-secs. One high-quality orange Curacao liqueur I have found is Marie Brizard Orange Curacao which is made with French cognac as the alcohol base.
This recipe is sweeter than one using only fresh lime juice, so it is good to balance the sweet and sour by trading off fresh lime juice and Rose's. However, the sweetness and strength of this recipe make it perfect as a sipping drink, as it still has plenty of flavor as the ice melts.
One last trick. If you like Margaritas on the rocks, try using a blender with a few ice cubes added to mix a pitcher of these. The result is a super-chilled drink which will will not melt the ice cubes so quickly when poured into a glass. The effect is similar to using a cocktail shaker for a single drink.
There are as many Margarita recipes as there are opinions, it seems. However, I think the following works pretty well. It is a variation of the original Jimmy Buffet Perfect Margarita from the liner notes of his "Boats, Beaches, Bars & Ballads" box set.
2-1/2 oz. Sauza Hornitos Reposado Tequila
1-1/2 oz. Rose's Lime Juice
3/4 oz. Cointreau
Mix and pour over the rocks, or blend with ice.
I came up with this by making some substitutions to the original recipe. First, I only keep one type of tequila, so I just added an additional half-ounce of my regular tequila instead of the white tequila. I did not have any fresh lime at the time, so I added an additional half-ounce of Rose's. And I did not have any orange Curacao liqueur, so I increased the Cointreau by a quarter-ounce.
I found the solution worked, and could be used any time. Fresh lime is nice, but its not always around, and can be especially limiting if friends drop by. However, this recipe scales easily, and works well both on the rocks and in the blender.
Also, just as Jimmy was very brand-specific in his original recipe, so am I. However, my brand preferences differ. Hornitos Reposado is the best gold tequila, not over distilled like Patron (this is tequila, not vodka), and not destined to give you a headache like Jose Cuervo Especial, and personally, its better tasting than 1800 Reposado.
As for triple-sec, I prefer Cointreau. Most stuff liquor sold in stores today claiming to be triple-sec is not, so now we have real "orange liqueur", and rock-gut "triple-sec". And Cointreau is just better than Grand Marnier, the flavor of which reminds me of St. Joseph baby aspirin.
Now, assuming I have the time to get all of the ingredients, I will add that splash of orange Curacao liqueur. But like I said, I have my brand preferences. Bols liqueurs in the U.S. are cheap, mass-produced stuff just like the typical triple-secs. One high-quality orange Curacao liqueur I have found is Marie Brizard Orange Curacao which is made with French cognac as the alcohol base.
This recipe is sweeter than one using only fresh lime juice, so it is good to balance the sweet and sour by trading off fresh lime juice and Rose's. However, the sweetness and strength of this recipe make it perfect as a sipping drink, as it still has plenty of flavor as the ice melts.
One last trick. If you like Margaritas on the rocks, try using a blender with a few ice cubes added to mix a pitcher of these. The result is a super-chilled drink which will will not melt the ice cubes so quickly when poured into a glass. The effect is similar to using a cocktail shaker for a single drink.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Youth and Innocence Beat Age and Guile
Urban Meyers "Lucy Moment"
One was born in July of 1964. The other in March of 1989. There can be little doubt the elder had more guile, demonstrated with three seconds left in the game.
In a scene reminiscent of Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown to kick, Urban Meyers, like Lucy Van Pelt, proved he is a bitch.
But the younger man showed innocence. The kind of childlike innocence that is oblivious to the malicious meddling of the grown-ups.
Urban, in the game of college football brinkmanship, you were beaten by a man less than half your age.
One was born in July of 1964. The other in March of 1989. There can be little doubt the elder had more guile, demonstrated with three seconds left in the game.
In a scene reminiscent of Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown to kick, Urban Meyers, like Lucy Van Pelt, proved he is a bitch.
But the younger man showed innocence. The kind of childlike innocence that is oblivious to the malicious meddling of the grown-ups.
Urban, in the game of college football brinkmanship, you were beaten by a man less than half your age.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
I Told You So
Eight months ago I postulated a crazy idea. It is one of those things I predicted would happen within the next three to five years. The idea was to embed a Xen hypervisor into the BIOS of an x86 server.
Today I read Dell (yes Dell) is planning to embed a hypervisor into an x86 computer. The hypervisor is likely to be VMware ESX based. This makes sense, because Dell already has a relationship with EMC, the owner of VMware. It also makes sense because Dell knows it must differentiate its products rather than simply being a low-cost provider.
More at:
The Register: Dell to stuff hypervisors in flash memory
The Inquirer: Dell plans to embrace virtualisation
ZDNet Blogs: Speculation about embedded hypervisors
SearchServerVirtualization.com: VMware prepping embedded 'ESX Lite' hypervisor
Special hat tip to Timothy Prickett Morgan:
The UNIX Guardian: The X Factor: Virtualization Belongs in the System, Not in the Software
Related Post:
Is this a crazy idea?
Today I read Dell (yes Dell) is planning to embed a hypervisor into an x86 computer. The hypervisor is likely to be VMware ESX based. This makes sense, because Dell already has a relationship with EMC, the owner of VMware. It also makes sense because Dell knows it must differentiate its products rather than simply being a low-cost provider.
More at:
The Register: Dell to stuff hypervisors in flash memory
The Inquirer: Dell plans to embrace virtualisation
ZDNet Blogs: Speculation about embedded hypervisors
SearchServerVirtualization.com: VMware prepping embedded 'ESX Lite' hypervisor
Special hat tip to Timothy Prickett Morgan:
The UNIX Guardian: The X Factor: Virtualization Belongs in the System, Not in the Software
Related Post:
Is this a crazy idea?
Monday, June 11, 2007
That was leadership
It was 20 years ago today:
"There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace.
"General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Are there any pragmatic libertarians?
The emergence of the Fair Tax as a viable, well-researched consumption based alternative to the income tax should have libertarians (both small "l" and large "L") ecstatic. It is the first proposal in years to try to return power to individuals, and away from the Federal government and Washington lobbyists. However, many self-described libertarians seem opposed to the Fair Tax because of their unrealistic vision of a taxless American society. Or perhaps it is the natural conflict between well-researched pragmatism and political purism. I mean if you research something, you might actually be asked to do it.
Which brings us to the crux of the problem. Every journey begins with a single step. If you live in New York, but want fly to to California, you probably have to take some other form of transportation (train or car) to get to the airport. Libertarians seem like somebody who believes traveling by land from their New York residence to JFK somehow violates their vision of "flying" to California.
Because of this, many libertarians seem to be more comfortable as political outsiders, who would rather criticize from a position of political purity rather than roll up their sleeves and start the hard work of solving problems. They are like the proverbial dog chasing the car. What will the dog do with the car if he actually catches it?
This can also be seen in the Libertarian Party's intolerance with those who do not toe the LP line 100%. This was eerily similar what the Democrats did to Bob Casey Sr. Do we really need such political muttawas in American political parties? And how on earth can such a puritan party ever lead a multi-political party government?
While widely varying views on many issues are the norm in the Republican party, and even to some extent in the Democrat party, the LP would rather be small, pure, insignificant, and whiny, rather than actually lead. It's tiring, unproductive, and immature.
And I would add, I firmly believe the Libertarian Party (and many self-described small "l" libertarians) are simply jealous of the success Americans for Fair Taxation has had rallying tens of thousands of people to its Fair Tax rallies. I would not be surprised if more people have attended Fair Tax rallies in the last year than have attended LP national conventions over the last 10 years.
So if you are smug, you like to think you are better than everyone else, you like complain, you like to champion the impossible, you like to bitch, and you really, really do not have any desire whatsoever to actually lead, the Libertarian Party needs you.
Which brings us to the crux of the problem. Every journey begins with a single step. If you live in New York, but want fly to to California, you probably have to take some other form of transportation (train or car) to get to the airport. Libertarians seem like somebody who believes traveling by land from their New York residence to JFK somehow violates their vision of "flying" to California.
Because of this, many libertarians seem to be more comfortable as political outsiders, who would rather criticize from a position of political purity rather than roll up their sleeves and start the hard work of solving problems. They are like the proverbial dog chasing the car. What will the dog do with the car if he actually catches it?
This can also be seen in the Libertarian Party's intolerance with those who do not toe the LP line 100%. This was eerily similar what the Democrats did to Bob Casey Sr. Do we really need such political muttawas in American political parties? And how on earth can such a puritan party ever lead a multi-political party government?
While widely varying views on many issues are the norm in the Republican party, and even to some extent in the Democrat party, the LP would rather be small, pure, insignificant, and whiny, rather than actually lead. It's tiring, unproductive, and immature.
And I would add, I firmly believe the Libertarian Party (and many self-described small "l" libertarians) are simply jealous of the success Americans for Fair Taxation has had rallying tens of thousands of people to its Fair Tax rallies. I would not be surprised if more people have attended Fair Tax rallies in the last year than have attended LP national conventions over the last 10 years.
So if you are smug, you like to think you are better than everyone else, you like complain, you like to champion the impossible, you like to bitch, and you really, really do not have any desire whatsoever to actually lead, the Libertarian Party needs you.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
The Return of In-Flight Broadband
I stumbled onto this purely by accident.
Like the mythical bird, Phoenix, in-flight broadband Internet access may soon rise from the ashes of Connexion by Boeing. Panasonic Avionics Corporation has improved upon Connexion's original concept in its eXconnect offering.
eXconnect improves on Connexion by leasing satellite Internet connectivity, reducing the breakeven point for the service. It also improves speed using newer technology. The airplane antenna is more compact and lighter, saving fuel costs. And Panasonic is looking to partner with existing airport WiFi vendors, so you can pay for your in-flight connection, and use the airport departure lounge WiFi prior to boarding under a single package. Finally, the goal is to start the service at a price similar to Connexion by Boeing, and get the price down to about $20 for the duration of long-distance international flight within a year of launching.
It makes total sense the in-flight entertainment companies are bringing back in-flight broadband, and as any second attempt, it should be faster, smaller, and cheaper.
Now if they would just bring back Concorde.
Links:
Panasonic May Relaunch Connexion
Aircraft Interiors: Panasonic plans broadband launch in fourth quarter
Like the mythical bird, Phoenix, in-flight broadband Internet access may soon rise from the ashes of Connexion by Boeing. Panasonic Avionics Corporation has improved upon Connexion's original concept in its eXconnect offering.
eXconnect improves on Connexion by leasing satellite Internet connectivity, reducing the breakeven point for the service. It also improves speed using newer technology. The airplane antenna is more compact and lighter, saving fuel costs. And Panasonic is looking to partner with existing airport WiFi vendors, so you can pay for your in-flight connection, and use the airport departure lounge WiFi prior to boarding under a single package. Finally, the goal is to start the service at a price similar to Connexion by Boeing, and get the price down to about $20 for the duration of long-distance international flight within a year of launching.
It makes total sense the in-flight entertainment companies are bringing back in-flight broadband, and as any second attempt, it should be faster, smaller, and cheaper.
Now if they would just bring back Concorde.
Links:
Panasonic May Relaunch Connexion
Aircraft Interiors: Panasonic plans broadband launch in fourth quarter
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Rhetorically Brilliant
So Sun Microsystems is bringing back a dedicated microelectronics division.
Why? Or more specifically, why now?
Here are my thoughts as to why.
First, the obvious. Sun in the past had an solid OEM SPARC business, primarily in the low-end embedded and SPARC clone workstation market, as well as low-end servers, and specialized systems such as telco market products and hardened systems for the military. These systems included workstations and servers where customers built their own systems based on UltraSPARC processors OEMed from Sun, as well as systems where the entire motherboard was OEMed from Sun.
Back when the techical desktop was ruled by UNIX/RISC, and Sun UltraSPARC II processors were solid desktop performers, this made a lot of sense. It also made sense with the initial UltraSPARC IIIi systems. However, the MHz race between Intel and AMD, along with the rise of Linux caused this specialized OEM business to shift towards x86, and Sun's OEM business shrank accordingly.
However, it never entirely went away, as Tadpole still sells UltraSPARC IIi and UltraSPARC IIIi based laptop computers, and the mil spec SPARC systems business still exists.
So why bring a dedicated microelectronics OEM business back? One reason is Sun has a very good OEM server chip with the UltraSPARC T1 "Niagara" processor. This processor has a system on a chip architecture which makes it easy for companies to build compute solutions around. And there are companies focused on markets where US-T1 fits well, such as telco, security, networking, etc. The other is Sun has Niagara 2 in the works, which could allow Sun to reposition the original Niagara as more of an embedded play, but also offer Niagara 2 to OEM customers where it may fit. Also, Sun now has a 10Gb Ethernet ASIC they wish to offer to the OEM market. And as you know if you follow Sun, volume matters. Sun knows it cannot drive its network ASIC into the larger market by itself.
But I think that is only part of the story. It explains the "Why". It does not explain the "When", or more precisely, the "Why Now".
As you may know, Sun will soon announce the servers which are part of the Sun-Fujitsu "Advanced Product Line" (APL) project. These systems will use Fujitsu's SPARC64-VI processors. Sun has had to face a lot of FUD around the future of its SPARC processors due to its decision to partner on these midrange and high-end systems.
What better preemptive action to take against he obvious FUD and annoying reporter questions than to create an Executive Vice President of SPARC? Who is the obvious leader of the SPARC processor business? People in the industry know who David Yen is. Does anyone know who run's Fujitsu's SPARC64 business?
Sun has grabbed the leadership of the SPARC industry in a very visible way just before the announcement of a product line which uses third-part SPARC processors.
All I can say is, this is rhetorically brilliant.
It has Jonathan Schwartz's fingerprints all over it.
Why? Or more specifically, why now?
Here are my thoughts as to why.
First, the obvious. Sun in the past had an solid OEM SPARC business, primarily in the low-end embedded and SPARC clone workstation market, as well as low-end servers, and specialized systems such as telco market products and hardened systems for the military. These systems included workstations and servers where customers built their own systems based on UltraSPARC processors OEMed from Sun, as well as systems where the entire motherboard was OEMed from Sun.
Back when the techical desktop was ruled by UNIX/RISC, and Sun UltraSPARC II processors were solid desktop performers, this made a lot of sense. It also made sense with the initial UltraSPARC IIIi systems. However, the MHz race between Intel and AMD, along with the rise of Linux caused this specialized OEM business to shift towards x86, and Sun's OEM business shrank accordingly.
However, it never entirely went away, as Tadpole still sells UltraSPARC IIi and UltraSPARC IIIi based laptop computers, and the mil spec SPARC systems business still exists.
So why bring a dedicated microelectronics OEM business back? One reason is Sun has a very good OEM server chip with the UltraSPARC T1 "Niagara" processor. This processor has a system on a chip architecture which makes it easy for companies to build compute solutions around. And there are companies focused on markets where US-T1 fits well, such as telco, security, networking, etc. The other is Sun has Niagara 2 in the works, which could allow Sun to reposition the original Niagara as more of an embedded play, but also offer Niagara 2 to OEM customers where it may fit. Also, Sun now has a 10Gb Ethernet ASIC they wish to offer to the OEM market. And as you know if you follow Sun, volume matters. Sun knows it cannot drive its network ASIC into the larger market by itself.
But I think that is only part of the story. It explains the "Why". It does not explain the "When", or more precisely, the "Why Now".
As you may know, Sun will soon announce the servers which are part of the Sun-Fujitsu "Advanced Product Line" (APL) project. These systems will use Fujitsu's SPARC64-VI processors. Sun has had to face a lot of FUD around the future of its SPARC processors due to its decision to partner on these midrange and high-end systems.
What better preemptive action to take against he obvious FUD and annoying reporter questions than to create an Executive Vice President of SPARC? Who is the obvious leader of the SPARC processor business? People in the industry know who David Yen is. Does anyone know who run's Fujitsu's SPARC64 business?
Sun has grabbed the leadership of the SPARC industry in a very visible way just before the announcement of a product line which uses third-part SPARC processors.
All I can say is, this is rhetorically brilliant.
It has Jonathan Schwartz's fingerprints all over it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)