text:
June 4, 2006 9:01 PM PDT
VMware aims higher with new bundle
- Related Stories
IBM software puts price tag on virtualizationMay 31, 2006
Microsoft moves deeper into virtualizationMay 22, 2006
Leaner virtualization coming to Windows, LinuxApril 13, 2006
Microsoft hastens virtualization supportApril 4, 2006
The company released VMware Infrastructure 3, a software suite combining VMware's ESX Server product with VirtualCenter management tools, VMFS distributed file system software, the company's Distributed Resource Scheduler, and its High Availability and Consolidated Backup tools.
VMware sells software that lets a single server run multiple operating systems simultaneously. Such tools are becoming increasingly popular as companies seeks to save money. Products from VMware, and from rivals including Microsoft and the open source Xen Project, allow companies to consolidate the work of many physical servers onto fewer machines. Newcomers are also entering the field.
VMware hopes to move beyond server consolidation to become the default choice for companies looking to manage their entire infrastructure, as virtualized server "farms" become more common, Diane Greene, VMware's president, told CNET News.com.
Companies are becoming more savvy about how they use virtualization, Greene said. "Instead of building and configuring servers, companies can now aggregate their resources and deploy their business services," she said. "People used to replicate their physical, single-server worlds on virtualized servers. Now, they see they can do new things that weren't possible before."
Greene said the new software can help companies can rapidly shift computing resources to where they are most urgently needed. That's long been the promise behind concepts like utility and on-demand computing.
Greene said Infrastructure 3 has been in testing since last October by more than 6,400 participants.
VMware, a subsidiary of storage maker EMC, leads the virtualization market. But Microsoft has been making a concerted effort to catch up. The company last month updated its plans for new virtualization software and expanded its lineup through the acquisition of Softricity, a Boston-based company that specializes in application virtualization.
Even as Intel and Advanced Micro Devices add virtualization hardware support to make the technology mainstream, VMware is exerting price pressure on Microsoft while the Xen project is giving rival Linux a major lead over Windows.
Microsoft's Longhorn Server operating system, due next year, will include better virtualization tools, the company has said.
While Microsoft's approach to virtualization is to build key features into their server operating system, Greene argued that a better approach is to separate those features into infrastructure software. Underlying operating system decisions, in the future, "will not matter", she said. "The application writer will pick the operating system best suited to the application they want to deliver."
VMware said Infrastructure 3 will be available this month in three versions: Infrastructure Starter for small and medium-size companies costs $1,000 per two processors; Infrastructure Standard is for companies consolidating department-level environments and costs $3,750 per two processors; and Infrastructure Enterprise, aimed at large companies, sells for $5,750 per two processors.
See more CNET content tagged:
VMware, virtualization, two-processor, Xen, server
2 commentsJoin the conversation! Add your comment
- Virtualization Meme
- There's been a significant upswing in online discussions of virtualization.
http://www.realmeme.com/roller/page/realmeme/?entry=virtualization_meme
- Like Reply Link Flag
- VMware hopes to move beyond server consolidation to become the default choice for companies looking to manage their entire infrastructure, as virtualized server "farms" become more common, Diane Greene, VMware's president, told CNET News.com.
- Like Reply Link Flag


text:
News Archive: July, 2013
Pre-season update
Hey folks! We're going full force at MFG HQ this week finishing up the series. We've been getting some questions if we are doing August PreSeason Races this year: Unfortunately, we will not be putting on preseason races in 2013. However, we will be announcing a new venue for MFG #3 in the next few days, so stay tuned.
Season Pass Sales Starts July 31st
For 2013 we are selling Season Passes again. You will receive six races for the price of five. Passes are available at BikeReg.com starting 7/31.
Pricing Advantage to Purchasing a Season Pass:
Registration Advantage to Purchasing a Season Pass:
- Season Pass Price per race = $19.03 race fee + $1.81 sales tax = $20.84 per race
- Preregistration Price per race = $22.83 race fee + $2.17 sales tax = $25 per race (plus BikeReg fee)
- Day of Registration Price per race = $27.40 race fee + $2.60 sales tax = $30 per race
Picking Up Your Race Number:
- You are automatically entered in all six races in the initial category you choose.
- Electronic waiver agreed to at time of Season Pass purchase for entire series.
- No weekly visits to BikeReg.com.
- No filling out waiver at event.
If you want to purchase a Season Pass for a secondary category please email email@example.com to receive a discount code.Important Notes:
- At MFG Cyclocross Kick-Off Party at Brouwer's Cafe.
- At the first MFG Cyclocross Race you attend.
- At Cascade Bicycle Studio beginning August 25th.
- Race day requirement: All riders, including Season Pass Holders, need to check in on race day to confirm bib number and chip number. We will have a specific line for Season Pass Holders
- Please see Series Information section regarding changing season pass categories during the season.
Updates to MFG Registration System
We will be using a revised / improved Registration System this year. Riders will be doing most of the self-entry of data at the registration tent. See screenshots below.
We are likely using Tablets for the interface. If any of you have older but functional units you would like to move on let us know. Thanks.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Brief history of Maine Sanatorium, 1909
Contributed by Maine State Archives
Dr. Estes Nichols, medical superintendent of the Maine State Sanatorium in Hebron wrote a brief history of the sanatorium to Hiram T. Ricker to share with legislators who had questions about the facility.
Ricker was a member of the Sanatorium Association that oversaw the facility's operations.
The Legislature appropriated some funds to help indigent patients and had been asked for funds to help pay down the sanatorium's debt.
This is a carbon copy of the original letter.
Other Information
- Title: Brief history of Maine Sanatorium, 1909
- Creator: Nichols, Estes
- Creation Date: 1909-09-17
- Subject Date: 1909-09-17
- Local Name: Greenwood Mountain
- Town: Hebron, South Poland
- County: Androscoggin, Oxford
- State: ME
- Media: Ink on paper
- Local Code: 2613-076, Box 1/1909, September 16-30
- Object Type: Text
For more information about this item, contact:
Maine State Archives
84 State House Station, Augusta, ME 04333-0084
(207) 287-5795
Cross Reference Searches
LC Subject Headings
Ricker, Hiram--Correspondence
Maine State Sanatorium
Hospitals, convalescent--Maine--Hebron
Tuberculosis hospitals--Maine
Western Maine Sanatorium
Nichols, Estes--Correspondence
Ricker, Hiram T.
Nichols, Estes
Other Keywords
Share what you know about this item
... Or if there's a problem with this page, tell us.
We do NOT offer appraisals on like items. Check our Note on Appraisals.


text:
The passing of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, after 14 years in power, left behind a country with a deeply divided society, an economy in shambles, and a legacy that would be intensely debated for years to come. Contrary to popular belief, Chavez's most important impact was not necessarily making socioeconomic conditions the prime time issue. But the institutionalization of radical populism as the vehicle to spread his socioeconomic message to rally emotional support from traditional neglected sectors of the population to win elections.
Contrary to other parts of the world where the divisive factor is ideology, religion, race, ethnicity or language; in Venezuela, socioeconomic status is the main divisive factor. Because socioeconomic conditions determinate legitimacy, opportunity, and power in society; divisions are between the "haves" and the "have nots."
Chavez forever changed the way of doing politics in Venezuela. Although previous leaders shared populist tendencies, they were perceived as distant people that could only be seen on television. Chavez went to the barrios or slums to greet people; he got closer to them both physically and emotionally. Chavez' style was very personalistic indeed, which helped him secured his followers loyalty.
Chavez foresaw that by empowering the traditionally neglected sectors of the population he could achieve his main objective which was to win elections, and stay in power. He implemented educational, healthcare, small cooperatives business credits, and training programs called misiones. However, these apparent socioeconomic advances are dependent on unpredictable, and volatile oil prices; if oil prices drop so will the funding for misiones. Chavez reinforced the petro-rentier dependency of the Venezuelan economy.
The daily dose of radical populism in all of his activities was constant and effective. He promised the most neglected sectors representation and voice. He understood what people wanted to hear, and perfected his message through the power of television. Most importantly, Chavez revolution gave them a sense of belonging, equality, political and socioeconomic inclusion.
Chavez's democratic legacy is weak at best. He increased electoral participation; however, there's been a systematic effort to undermine freedom under provocative statements, threats, and actions. In a never ending campaigning mode, he needed democratic elections to legitimize his rule. This electoral legitimization was a key difference between the old radical left of the Cold War, and the new autocratic democracies of the 21st century.
The allegation of electoral fraud is a too simplistic answer to Chavez's success, and for now there is no concrete evidence of such. But, elections were not clean neither due to an abusive use of the state's funds and assets to benefit his campaigns. Instead, his success can be explained by the social behavior of his followers, also known as political science.
Chavez's derogatory political and socioeconomic discourse left a country with a deeply divided society, an economy barely sustainable by high oil prices, food shortages, one of the highest crime rate, and inflation rates in Latin America. What many people failed to understand is that Chavez's quire preaching was not part of logical, but an emotional mystique he made with his followers that went beyond pragmatism. Surely these variables should have been strong enough to make an impact on his popularity, and it did, just not enough to tip the balance of power to the opposition.
Because Venezuela's democratic majority live in poverty or near poverty, Chavez's message resonated with the most neglected sectors of the population. The use of an informal favor swap system called clientelism, which is using the state economic and bureaucratic system to benefit one part of the population in return of political support to win elections, was brutally effective.
Chavez's sudden surge to power and his radical populist discourse were a direct result of a set of variables like the debt crises of the 1980s, low oil prices, perceived corrupt governments, and badly prioritized implementation of the Washington Consensus. These actions culminated in February 1989 in El Caracazo, a social explosion that rocked the entire country with riots and lootings where hundreds died. When you have radical problems, people seek radical solutions, and this happened in Venezuela to an unprecedented level. This is a warning to organizations like the IMF not to impose policies without taking into consideration local priorities and culture, and to avoid a "one size fits all" solution.
What Chavez delivered was quite simply a rock solid emotional connection between him and his followers, impossible to replicate because he was one of a kind. Chavez's impact was not just socioeconomic, this conclusion is too narrow. His most important impact was the institutionalization of radical populism in every aspect of society to win elections. The institutionalization of radical populism wasn't just a factor; it was the commanding factor that made everything else possible.