Slashdot Mirror


Craig Silverstein answers your Google questions

On June 20, we requested questions to submit to Google Director of Technology Craig Silverstein, and got a heck of a lot of them. Here are Craig's answers to the 10 we sent him, along with a "bonus" answer to an additional question he chose himself. (Yes, Craig reads Slashdot. His answers make that pretty obvious.)

1) I've wondered
by lblack

Google always seem to be early-to-market with some really highly developed software solutions, and also always seems to have the backbone to support them.

I'm curious -- what drives the innovation? Is it the hardware team advancing architecture to permit the software team more room to play, or is it the software team saying, "Hey, look what we got!" and the hardware team dropping the iron to implement it?

I understand there must be some level of synergy, but is it completely seamless or is one side of the equation effectively driving the other?

Craig:

Actually, the innovation is driven neither by hardware or software, but by products. We look around and say, "What would be the next great product to have?" and then figure out what software and hardware we need to make that product work and work great. If that figuring goes along the lines of, "Oh, it shouldn't take more than two weeks to get the code ready for public use, so that should give us plenty of time to get the 2000 new machines we'll need ordered, delivered, and installed" -- well, that's the kind of environment in which innovation flourishes at Google. [:-)]

2) Network Management Tools/Technologies
by kaladorn

What technologies help to support the Google server farm? What kind of automated monitoring and trouble reporting tools are in use? Are they home brew, open-source, or COTS with some customization (scripts, etc)? And if you had to point to one area of network management and say "we could use some improvement or some better tools", what would that area be?

Craig:

Almost all the technology we use to support our server farm is home-grown. The system we've built is so efficient we can maintain more than 10,000 computers with a handful of ops folks.

Of course, we benefit a lot from our massive redundancy: Unlike many companies, we don't need to worry immediately if a computer, or two, or a hundred, die, because the dead computers have lots of clones.

The biggest issue when you have more than 10,000 computers is that network management tools based on visualization become inadequate to the task: even if the UI is very good, there's often too much going on (ie,going wrong) to work effectively. At this level, you really benefit from tools that can not only identify problems but fix them. Of course, it's hard to write general tools for this, since "fixing problems" is typically pretty application-specific.

3) As a market leader...
by Marx_Mrvelous

It's well known that you use Linux in your mega clusters. I was wondering if you have ever been approached by Microsoft, Sun, or HP in an effort to switch to their proprietary OSes.

I can't imagine that you haven't. It must have been a huge decision to invest in one technology, so are you satisfied with what you have?

Craig:

We have been approached by several vendors. However, the advantages of Linux for us are pretty strong: It's an environment our developers tend to be familiar with, it offers unsurpassed tech support (we usually talk directly to the author of a piece of code when we're having problems with it), and it's cheap -- an important consideration when you have over 10,000 computers.

I think Linux works here as well as it does because of our technology culture. Our engineers feel comfortable being a partner in debugging kernel problems. For companies that would like to be able to give bug reports like, "Our network is slow" and have someone else take things over from there, Linux probably is not yet the ideal choice.

There's also a question of "Why Linux rather than FreeBSD?" or another free unix-like OS. We're not really religious about this issue. We used Linux -- as well as other, proprietary Unix variants -- when still at Stanford and were happy with it. My guess is if we had used a different open-source, unix-like operating system, we would have been happy with that as well. We're pretty pragmatic about using what works well for us.

4) Google's inescapable coolness.
by rob_from_ca

How do you avoid business pressures to make short-sighted solutions, and consistently make good, common sense ideas work instead of adopting ones from marketing sources? Not only does Google have the best search engine technology, but you consistently do the "right" thing. Clean, quick homepage, text only well-identified ads, interesting research projects, etc...This is the way many search engines start, but they all went the way of the "dark" side instead of adopting the "right" solution. In my jobs, it's been very difficult to execute and justify good engineering (or just common sense) under pressure from the people who control the money. Any advice for driving through well-thought-out decisions instead of adopting the "management fad of the month"?

Craig:

You know, it's this kind of cruel, hard-hitting question that gives the press a bad name. But, rob_from_ca, I know you're not really a member of the press corps -- are you? -- so I'll let it slide.

I think you're right that it's easy for a company to start with a laser-like focus on user experience, but hard to keep it up as the company grows.

I think there are two important factors that have helped Google keep its focus on users. One is that the founders have stayed actively involved in the company. The basics of our company flows directly from them. Larry Page's background is in user interfaces, and that really shows in the design of the site and in every project we do. And both Larry and Sergey Brin firmly believe that if we concentrate on users, everything else -- including money -- will follow.

The other important decision, which I can't stress enough, has been hiring. We've hired people who not only agree with this user-centric view of the world, but embrace it. Knowing what I know now, I'm infinitely impressed by how much our VP of Worldwide Sales and Field Operations, Omid Kordestani, embraced Google's policy of eschewing banner ads in favor of text-based ads, using an advertising system we developed ourselves. It's paid off, but three years ago it was far from a sure thing.

5) Google and IP address.
by Anonymous Coward

Why in this day and age does google continue to penalize sites that are virtual hosted? With ip addresses becoming harder to get/justify every day why does google discount the relevance of links that don't come from a unique ip address. Please don't just deny it, I think the Internet community deserves an explanation.

Craig:

I can't just deny it? What are my other choices? [:)] Actually, Google handles virtually hosted domains and their links just the same as domains on unique IP addresses. If your ISP does virtual hosting correctly, you'll never see a difference between the two cases. We do see a small percentage of ISPs every month that misconfigure their virtual hosting, which might account for this persistent misperception--thanks for giving me the chance to dispel a myth!

6) Weighting of heuristics
by jolshefsky

As the web develops, methods of matching a set of search keywords to a set of websites related to those keywords must change with it. I envision that the Google algorithms rank search hits by summing weighted factors such as overall site popularity, META tag keywords, META tag descriptions, TITLE tag contents, text contents, keywords containted in URLs, and so on.

Can you talk a bit about how those weights have changed over time? Have there been any surprising shifts?

Craig:

a) I'm afraid not, and b) No comment.

7) Regression
by Have Blue

The Internet is always described as a distributed system with no single point of failure. Google, however, has quickly become by far the most popular method of locating information. "Surfing" has been killed with modern search technology, it's so much easier to look through Google than the Web itself. If Google was down, I'm sure the Internet would be far less useful.

Do you think Google has become an Internet point of failure? With the competition for larger and larger indexes, is the Internet becoming centralized? Do you think this is a bad thing?

Craig:

It's true the Internet is distributed, but Internet services have never been. We saw that really vividly a few years ago when Network Solutions had a screwup with their root nameservers. As I recall, the Internet was basically unusable until DNS got fixed up again.

I think the growth of search engines is a sign that, in fact, the internet (well, the web in this case), is not becoming more centralized. If it were, then people could use a centralized registry to find whatever they needed to know. As it is, information is spread out throughout the web, so only an index like Google can tie it all together.

8) Favoring Big Guys
by PenguinRadio

Does google's policy of "ranking" the sites that have hits favor the "big guys" over more specific smaller traffic websites? That is, would a story on a site like CNN get a higher ranking in google on a keyword "Gulf War" than say a site (gulfwarveterans.com) that deals 100% with the Gulf War? Do you think you are leading to the commercialization of the web (i.e. the big power players) over smaller sites?

Craig:

Hmm, everything I wanted to say here has already been said in the Slashdot discussion on this question.

But in my own words: Google doesn't actually use traffic ("hit") analysis in its rankings: the rankings are based entirely on how sites link to each other. One consequence of this approach is that sites like gulfwarveterans.com, which maintain a consistent focus on one issue, are more likely to accrue lots of links than a transient news story, even one on a major site.

Indeed, searching for "gulf war" on google turns up two Gulf War veterans sites in the top 5, including gulfwarvets.com.

9) Dot com changes?
by Telastyn

Last I heard Google was still the stereotypical "startup" type company; promoting morale over bureaucracy as long as the work got done. Hockey, pool, the Greatful Dead's ex-chef (iirc?), and tons of other perks.

Did google keep the atmosphere as you've grown? did they keep it while others tanked?

Craig:

We still pay a lot of attention to making Google a place people like spending their time. The latest is a massaging chair we imported from Japan, so people could get massages even when it's not our masseuses' regular working hours (and they use the chair, too!).

We set this up from the beginning. (Healthy Choice granola bars in the breakroom: that was Sergey. All the M&M's you could eat: that was me.) We still see advantages to it. We think these efforts help productivity rather than hurt it. When you and a co-worker discuss an idea in a conference room, that pretty much limits the communication potential to just you two; when you discuss it over a game of pool, soon half the company has wandered by and had the opportunity to comment.

10) Google's first programming contest
by PK_ERTW

Google recently ran it's "first annual programming contest," with a winner receiving $10,000. Many slashdotters suspect this was simply a way to recruit new talent. So, was finding new people one of the initial goals for this project, and have you hired any new programmers as a direct result of it? What were the other goals (PR, generation of new ideas, etc) where there?

Craig:

The main goal was to have fun and to get people thinking about what they can do with large quantities of information. If we got people excited about the field of search or data mining -- even if they never submitted a program to us -- then that entire area of research benefits, and ultimately Google benefits as well.

The fact that our terms and conditions mentioned that we retained unexclusive rights to whatever people submitted, hints at our attitude. If really good ideas came out of the program, we wanted to be able to use them. On the other hand, we weren't using the contest as a substitute for consulting or anything (or else we would have demanded exclusive rights). And if the authors of the good programs wanted to come work for us, so much the better. For people who were excited by this project, we already knew there was a cultural fit.

[The following question was added to "the list" by Craig -- ED]

11) Forget Craig
by Talisman

No offense to Mr. Silverstein, but I'm much more interested in Cindy [McCaffrey]! Beautiful, highly successful nerds are terribly rare!

Just so I'm not off-topic: Mr. Silverstein, how does Cindy look in tight sweaters?

Craig:

If you did any research at all, you know that Cindy is our Vice President of Corporate Communications. As such, she takes an active role in Google interviews, such as this one. In fact, she's looking over my shoulder even as I type this. And, let me just say, she ... Hey Cindy, what are you doing? No, don't press that button! Hey! erwqu8poxasewrvNO CARRIER

290 comments

  1. Web services? by bryam · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Could be Google the
    "Yellow Pages" for the Web services effort? What about one uddi.google.com? ;-)

    Good luck!

    1. Re:Web services? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it already may be, with apps like apple's sherlock and kde's konqueror integrating google the way they do.

      of course, microsoft doesn't as well as the rest of us because they want to take over the world with msn, y'know

    2. Re:Web services? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      services.google.com (this makes sense too - because the web isn't necessary)

    3. Re:Web services? by Abreu · · Score: 2

      ...with apps like apple's sherlock and kde's konqueror integrating google the way they do.

      Or like Mozilla, although its not on by default ...grumblepieceofcrapnetcentergrumblegrumble ...

      --
      No sig for the moment.
  2. public access to raw archive by emptybody · · Score: 1

    any chence of the public ever geting their hands on the raw archive?

    --
    comment directly in my journal
    1. Re:public access to raw archive by Camulus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I highly doubt it. The amount of data alone would be staggering, but it wouldn't exactly be wise to release all the data in your own home-grown self developed format that brings in the money so that any one could get a hold of it. Granted there are ways around it, but still would you give some one access to a cluster you built or host gigs or possibly terabytes of data for people to download? One way could reveal all of your "trade secrets" the other could break you on bandwidth.

    2. Re:public access to raw archive by rusty+spoon · · Score: 2, Funny

      The data is available for download already - of course you'll have to index it yourself.

    3. Re:public access to raw archive by emptybody · · Score: 1

      the data I am interrested in is the usenet archive. I can (and do) collect new but
      I have a gap of the second 10 years or so that only google seems to have a copy of.

      --
      comment directly in my journal
    4. Re:public access to raw archive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're not saying how much they paid Deja for those archives, but I bet it wasn't cheap (and I bet they won't be giving it away in raw form anytime soon).

  3. Good interview... by Helmholtz+Coil · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...but I really really wanted to know what their electricity bill was!

    I hadn't thought about the inherent redundancy in Google's design before, so if one or a dozen boxes go down the system as a whole remains virtually intact. It's an interesting effect of that level of decentralization, I guess. Maybe they should be a model to other organizations with an eye towards security and survivability?
    1. Re:Good interview... by daviddennis · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If they're in Class A office space, power is paid for by the landlord unless otherwise specified in the lease.

      If they are co-located in a server farm, power is normally included with the fee per machine.

      In either case, there might well be no power bill to pay!

      One interesting unasked question: Could they distribute their servers geographically, through several server farms in widely distributed points, to increase redundancy in case Al Queda decided to target their server farm? Might be a thought.

      D

    2. Re:Good interview... by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Could they distribute their servers geographically, through several server farms in widely distributed points, to increase redundancy in case Al Queda decided to target their server farm?

      Since it's almost entirely relatively static data, of course they could.

    3. Re:Good interview... by Zordak · · Score: 2
      in case Al Queda decided to target their server farm?
      Hey now, don't give them any ideas. This really would be a devastating blow to America's information infrastructure.
      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    4. Re:Good interview... by schnurble · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They -are- geographically distributed.

      I've seen one of Google's colo cages. It truly is badass.

      --
      "To err is human, to forgive is simply not my policy." --root
    5. Re:Good interview... by daviddennis · · Score: 2

      Why be US-centric?

      Doesn't the whole world use Google?

      They probably won't do it, just because it doesn't have the drama and flair of the destruction of a major landmark.

      D

    6. Re:Good interview... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      They probably won't do it, just because it doesn't have the drama and flair of the destruction of a major landmark.

      That and the fact that no-one would find out because they couldn't search the web for information on it.

    7. Re:Good interview... by afidel · · Score: 1

      One interesting unasked question: Could they distribute their servers geographically, through several server farms in widely distributed points, to increase redundancy in case Al Queda decided to target their server farm? Might be a thought.

      Actually they already are, Google is located in 4 major colocation facilities in the US and close to a dozen more around the world. I remember this from an old discussion on google here on slashdot.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    8. Re:Good interview... by Verizon+Guy · · Score: 1

      They use their special Google Perpetual Motion machine!

      --

      Aw, fuck it. Let's go bowling. - The Big Lebowski

    9. Re:Good interview... by Abreu · · Score: 2

      They probably won't do it, just because it doesn't have the drama and flair of the destruction of a major landmark.

      True, these guys dont go for subtlety. Although I was rather surprised that they didnt go for the Statue of Liberty, as that would have been a rather shocking target, with less loss of life.

      Disclaimer: I absolutely disaprove of terrorism as a way to get your point through, even if its a somewhat valid point. I just try to put myself in the other guy's shoes and try to understand his motivations.

      --
      No sig for the moment.
  4. Question for the google guy... by Wattsman · · Score: 4, Funny

    Q: I'm a webmaster, but I won't admit to it. Could you tell me how Google weights websites so I can get my site ranked higher?
    A: No.

    1. Re:Question for the google guy... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1, Redundant
      He does tell us, though; It's based on links. So search google for all the other sites which match the keywords you want to match, and trade links with them.

      Of course links are what the WWW is all about, so google has done us a great service by using this method. Thank you, google!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Question for the google guy... by NewbieV · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Just a random thought... if companies start restricting 'deep-linking' to their content (whether by tehnical or legal means), will that have the effect of lowering their ranking in Google?

      --


      "For every right, an equal responsibility..."
    3. Re:Question for the google guy... by phatlipmojo · · Score: 1

      Sure, he told us. But was there anyone who didn't already know? We were talking about how the google relevance model was essentially an extrapolation of bibliometrics to the 'net back in the GSLIS at least 2 years ago. The prevailing consensus was that it was about time someone thought of it.

      --

      Nice things are nicer than nasty ones.
  5. I had no idea of the scale by Sloppy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I knew Google was into clusters, but holy crap: over 10000 computers?!? Do other clusters of this size exist elsewhere?

    This makes the lack-of-ads-down-your-throat aspect of Google all the more bewildering. Their electric bill alone, must be enormous.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    1. Re:I had no idea of the scale by dattaway · · Score: 3, Funny

      So, what happens when these search engines digest enough intelligence and become self aware?

    2. Re:I had no idea of the scale by TheRain · · Score: 2, Funny

      take the blue pill.

      --
      Please help! I'm stuck inside my virtual reality headset!
    3. Re:I had no idea of the scale by Ageless · · Score: 3, Funny

      The take over the world of course. Fortunatly they have yet to find any intelligence on the net :)

    4. Re:I had no idea of the scale by Cinnibar+CP · · Score: 2, Funny

      So, what happens when these search engines digest enough intelligence and become self aware?

      It'll never happen. The ratio of signal to noise (intelligence vs stupidity) on the 'net ensure that rampaging homicidal sentient search engines aren't in your future.

      On the other hand, if they were about to become sentient, I'm guessing they'd have a high appetite for PRoN and offer to sell you VIAGRA alternatives when they wake up.

    5. Re:I had no idea of the scale by room101 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actaully, this probably shouldn't be considered a cluster, per se. I imagine they use load-balanced clones with shared disk. It is the only way I have ever seen to run more that about 50 web servers without nightmares seen only in IBM or MS commertials.

      This is very different of the "beowulf" type of cluster. There isn't any shared computation going on, since each request would be very minor by itself. I assume they have that many boxes because of the number of connections at a time.

      note that this comment comes from my experience in the industry, not with Google itself.

      --
      room101 -- how much can you stand before they break you?
      (they always break you eventually)
    6. Re:I had no idea of the scale by PhadeRunner · · Score: 0

      Imagine a Beowulf of those...

    7. Re:I had no idea of the scale by i_luv_linux · · Score: 0

      Of course their electric bill is very high, and those guys are one of the reasons why in California I have to pay more for the electric.

    8. Re:I had no idea of the scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I was lucky enough to see one of google's cages at equinix which is in Virginia btw, I know they have cages at other locations as well. Mind bogglingly spectacular.

      Each rack had around 40 2u servers in it. The servers are doubled up so you can fit 2 2U servers in a 2U slot, with an exhaust chimney in the middle of the rack. Apparently equinix has to pump more AC to that zone because of google's high density machines. They probably had about 30-40 racks there by my estimation, and only what I saw. They might have multiple cages there for all I know. Of course, nothing's labeled at equinix for security reasons so you just have to be told by someone that "knows".

      Equinix is a marvel in it's own (check out their virtual tour), the place is incredible, you can't possible ask for anything more in a colo, equinix on top of google's redundancy... Wow, that crap ain't never going down.

    9. Re:I had no idea of the scale by jokerghost · · Score: 2, Informative

      Let's see here. Using rudimentary figures we can compute the cost of electricity for those computers alone. Let's assume that the average computer draws 3.5 amps with 120 volts being supplied to it.

      From Kirchoff's law (either him or Ohm, I forget which) we get Power (watts) = I (amps) * V (volts)

      therefore

      P = 3.5amps * 120 volts * 10,000 computers
      = 4,200,000 watts (egads!)

      Mind you, this is per second! Let's convert this to an hourly figure.

      Watts = 60 * 60 * 4,200,000
      = 15,120,000,000

      Let's convert this to kilowats for simplicity
      = 15,120,000 kilowatts

      Now, let's say that the power company charges $0.00346 (number pulled from thin air) per killowatt hour. Figure the computers are running 24 hours a day.

      Cost per day = 15,120,000 * 24 * .00346
      = $1,255,564.8

      Something tells me that my figures had better be damn well off, or else there is some serious cash floating around there!

    10. Re:I had no idea of the scale by Verence · · Score: 2, Funny

      This search engine is already self aware.

      Aren't you familiar with PigeonRank(tm)?

      --

      ... that's all i wrote...
    11. Re:I had no idea of the scale by Oggust · · Score: 1
      And that's without the cooling. they must have some hefty equipment to get rid of those 4MW...

      That's probably high though, I'd guess something like 1.5MW with slightly cooler boxes, blades etc. Plus a couple of watts for switches, routers, lighting, UPS loss, stuff like that.

      I'm guessing they haven't got everything in one building though, they probably have a number of facilities, in different parts of the world.

      /August

      --
      "An object declared as type _Bool is large enough to store the values 0 and 1." -- 6.1.2.5, C99 standard.
    12. Re:I had no idea of the scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      P = 3.5amps * 120 volts * 10,000 computers

      err, since electricity is sinusoidal, there's a root-2 in there. Even with that, this makes each computer draw 300 watts continuously-possibly a 1337 gamer box with loaded PCI bus...one imagines a google server node does ok on 150-200 watts of continuous power.

      Mind you, this is per second!

      Watts are always "per second", the same way "MPH" are always "per hour".

      power company charges $0.00346 per kWh
      FYI, Georgia Power's rates suggest it's probably closer to $0.06/kWh

      yeah, it's the day before a holiday, and I feel like nitpicking.

    13. Re:I had no idea of the scale by Malcontent · · Score: 2

      what's amazing to me is the pace that seem to work at. Consider this quote.

      ""Oh, it shouldn't take more than two weeks to get the code ready for public use, so that should give us plenty of time to get the 2000 new machines we'll need ordered, delivered, and installed""

      In my company it takes more then two weeks to get the requision for a $500.00 item approved. Anything that required 2000 machines would have to go to the board and would take almost a year to approve let alone ordered and installed. These guys do it all in two weeks. Impressive.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    14. Re:I had no idea of the scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pigeons are not self aware.

    15. Re:I had no idea of the scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      P = 3.5amps * 120 volts * 10,000 computers = 4,200,000 watts

      That's 420 watts per computer. I don't think so.

      Mind you, this is per second!

      They're your own assumptions, and suddenly, without any discussion of time whatsoever, you claim this to be "per second!" Makes as much sense as saying "When I walk, I walk 3 miles per hour, but that's per second!"

      my figures had better be damn well off, or else

      Don't worry your pretty little head.

    16. Re:I had no idea of the scale by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      Cost per day = 15,120,000 * 24 * .00346 = $1,255,564.8

      Hoh Lee Crap are you off. Around here it costs about 40 cents to run a computer all day. If they have 10,000 of them that's four thousand dollars, which I note is just a touch under your otherwise stellar figure of one and a quarter million dollars. Of course, maybe where you live it really does cost $125.56 per day to run a computer. If so I apologize.

    17. Re:I had no idea of the scale by obtuse · · Score: 1

      Who do you think answered the questions?

      All the Net's a Turing test,
      and all the Trolls & Surfers merely sims

      --
      Assembly is the reverse of disassembly.
    18. Re:I had no idea of the scale by dillon_rinker · · Score: 2

      Rampaging SUICIDAL sentient search engines are entirely possible, however, maybe even likely.

    19. Re:I had no idea of the scale by gid · · Score: 1

      Ok, I'll try and be a little more accurate. this article states that google buys servers from rackable systems and king star computer. It looks like a 250W power supply is pretty standard on these small rack servers (king star ones anyway). But from what I understand, a 250W power supply doesn't draw 250 watts continuously all the time, that more of a max rating. So lets grab another number out of the air. Say 150 watts.

      150 WATTS * 10,000 = 1,500,000 * 3600 / 1000 = 5.4 million killowatts * 24 * .00346 =

      $448,416

      They don't directly inccur power costs though, their respective colo facilities do. I know google probably has at least one cage in Equinix from the (rather old article) above. And if you're a colo facility, I'd be willing to bet you might be able to get a better price on power than your average home user.

      here's another google article for those interested.

    20. Re:I had no idea of the scale by gid · · Score: 1

      doh, my math was off and someone already beat me to a better figure, oh well, I still have the interesting articles that I linked. ;)

    21. Re:I had no idea of the scale by fferreres · · Score: 2

      Ok, it may be load balanced, but as they have specialiced machines for seraching, indexing, updating the farm. It's a large scale software project. It's not load balancing as i see it. It's not only a question of balancing load, but from separating task into different computers.

      It's really like a big library (say the AE* box is one shelf) with many librarians (indexers) and a huge buying personel (spiders) as well as coordination (spider queueing/index queuing/autorepair).

      Looks like seti@home, but it's a bit more complex. I'd say it's an application farm.

      --
      unfinished: (adj.)
    22. Re:I had no idea of the scale by KILNA · · Score: 2

      2000 machines of the same configuration is easier to requisition that a dozen machines with differing needs. Especially if that one configration is the same as a previously-used, previously-ordered, known-good setup which I'm sure is common at Google. All you have to do is run the RFQ to your favroite vendors. :) But I would call the 2000 number suspect at least... seeing as that would be a 20% increase in their server farm in one shot.

      --
      Error: PANTS NOT FOUND. Press <F1> to continue.
    23. Re:I had no idea of the scale by ThatTallGuy · · Score: 1
      ...with shared disk.
      I wouldn't think so. No shared nothin', at least not all the way across the enterprise. Replicated. Propagated. Parellelized. Copied to hell and gone.

      Two reasons: performance and redundancy. You could conceivably buy a disk array that would handle the load... but why would you want to? Cost a fortune. Get you nothing that one file server / datastore per dozen/hundred machines wouldn't, and duplicating the data's a lot more likely to not have a single point of failure. Think of the bandwidth that'd have to be going to and from that disk store -- keeping in mind that that number's significantly greater than the bandwidth going in and out from the external interface of the site itself. Also don't neglect the amount of bandwidth use instigated by the webcrawling they have to do. Scary numbers if you try to put them down one pipe... any one pipe.

      Watchword of the industry these days: "disk is cheap."

    24. Re:I had no idea of the scale by Malcontent · · Score: 2

      Where I work configuration is not the issue. If you want to spend over a certain amount you have to go to the board. Even then it's a crapshoot as to whether the CIO can convince the board that it's a good expenditure. FOr smaller items the CIO can approve items himself but even that takes over a month in most cases.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    25. Re:I had no idea of the scale by KILNA · · Score: 1

      Oh, I was just talking the practicality of composing the request and having it filled. The political layer is a whole 'nuther story.

      --
      Error: PANTS NOT FOUND. Press <F1> to continue.
    26. Re:I had no idea of the scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, now that everybody and their uncle has told you what a bonehead you are your only chance is to come back and say YHBT. I don't think it'll work though.

    27. Re:I had no idea of the scale by PhilHibbs · · Score: 1

      In, say, a transport company, buying replacement tyres (sorry, tires) for the trucks, and even buying new trucks if the operation is on a large scale, is a routine task that wouldn't have to go past the board. Thus it is with Google and servers. You probably experience delays with IT purchasing because your company isn't one whose entire product is the output capacity of their servers (CMIIW).

    28. Re:I had no idea of the scale by Malcontent · · Score: 2

      No I experience delays because my company is run by idiots. Every purchase request takes weeks to process no matter how small or insignificant. It's been over a month and I am still waiting for a chair I ordered.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    29. Re:I had no idea of the scale by room101 · · Score: 1

      Didn't mean to imply that there was one disk per 100,000 servers. What I've seen/done is group the servers into "farms" and share disk between the "farm". Each farm having 30-100 servers, depending on the application.

      disk is cheap

      but administration is expensive. It takes too long to try to keep 100,000 or even 100 server upto date or in sync. There just isn't any easy way.

      Once again, drawing from my experience, have only the OS and swap/tmp space on local disk, then each farm shares a NetApp or EMC2 type disk array (or two or three depending on locality). These are machines that have more than 99.99% uptime. Also, you can point a farm to different fileservers within a minute, so there is your redundency. Also, you can mirror (NetApp calls it "snap mirror") the fileservers, making one a master and the rest slaves, so you update one and give a command, presto, all of the others are updated within 10 minutes.

      I'm not saying that is the only way to do it, but that is the only the "big boys" are doing it.

      --
      room101 -- how much can you stand before they break you?
      (they always break you eventually)
    30. Re:I had no idea of the scale by PhilHibbs · · Score: 1
      It's been over a month and I am still waiting for a chair I ordered.
      I wouldn't stand for that! <rimshot/>
  6. Low brow trash by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 2, Insightful
    how does Cindy look in tight sweaters

    Please masturbate before submitting questions, not during.

    Come on guys, clean up the crap and treat women with respect and you might just get to have sex with another human being for once.

    1. Re:Low brow trash by Carthis · · Score: 2, Informative

      RTFI. Read the fscking interview.

      [The following question was added to "the list" by Craig -- ED]

      The interviewee added that question, not some sexually repressed teenage nerd. Oh, and it was humour. Yep.

    2. Re:Low brow trash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Maybe you didn't see pictures! Oh baby! And Craig? He isn't too hard on the eyes either.

    3. Re:Low brow trash by Gary · · Score: 1

      Nothing wrong with appreciating beauty. Face it, humans have sex and have sexual interests.

      Speaking of which, anyone got a link to a photo of Ms. McCaffrey? :) Surprisingly, a Google search didn't turn anything up!

      G.

    4. Re:Low brow trash by Wakko+Warner · · Score: 2

      Are you hoping that blatantly female-chauvinist comment will get you laid?

      - A.P.

      --
      "Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
    5. Re:Low brow trash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      > Please masturbate before submitting questions, not during.

      Gotcha, I'm way ahead of you.

    6. Re:Low brow trash by JdV!! · · Score: 1
      --
      <Enter any 12-digit prime to continue>

    7. Re:Low brow trash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never treat women with respect and get laid all the time.

      Sure I pay for it, but I get laid.

    8. Re:Low brow trash by drinkypoo · · Score: 2
      I was going to say "get over yourself" but then I noticed you were Ars-Fartsica. I guess that's not in the cards.

      Besides the already-mentioned fact that this was added by the interviewee[sibling comment] what the fuck is the big deal? If she wears tight sweaters, it's a valid question.

      Also, I masturbate before, during, and after the submission of /. comments... What the fuck do you call slashdot anyway? Personally, I consider it nothing more than an intellectual form of jacking off. It's sometimes informative, but primarily it's amusing. If it were intended to be a serious news source they'd censor comments, which would ruin slashdot; far better to just be a community site, which is what it is.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Low brow trash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh shit! That's fucking hilarious. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

    10. Re:Low brow trash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think about it what does that /. look like. Coincidence? I think not.

    11. Re:Low brow trash by MrResistor · · Score: 1, Troll

      clean up the crap and treat women with respect and you might just get to have sex with another human being for once

      Wow, you must not get laid much if you honestly believe that. The sad truth is that treating women with respect is the best way to not get laid.

      Nice guys who treat women with respect get to be friends. Jerks who show women no respect get laid. Decide what you want, because you won't get both.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    12. Re:Low brow trash by cdrudge · · Score: 2

      I found it amusing that one of the images returned by that link is a picture of the "I'm feeling lucky" button. Kinda fits in with the original interview question.

    13. Re:Low brow trash by LittleGuy · · Score: 2

      The interviewee added that question, not some sexually repressed teenage nerd. Oh, and it was humour. Yep.

      And besides, it's Craig with the tight sweaters and gets all the g00gle pr0n fanwomen. ;P

      --
      Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
    14. Re:Low brow trash by Kunta+Kinte · · Score: 1
      Please masturbate before submitting questions, not during.

      Come on guys, please dislodge any primates you have up your butt before reading post. The original question was just a joke, and the really wasn't anything offense in there either ( most reasonable people when have taken it as a complement ). If you take things a little more light-heartedly, you may have a laugh once in a while

      --
      Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
    15. Re:Low brow trash by Wanker · · Score: 2
      The interviewee added that question, not some sexually repressed teenage nerd. Oh, and it was humour. Yep.
      It was, however, one of the questions aksed by the Slashdot crowd. It just wasn't added to the "official" question list.

      Read the original question in-context here.
    16. Re:Low brow trash by stungod · · Score: 3, Funny

      Reminds me of something I heard a comedian say:

      "I've been trying so hard not to treat women like objects that I've ended up treating objects like women."

      I can't remember who said it, but I liked it.

    17. Re:Low brow trash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean ./.? Or is it representing Hitler (holy Godwin, batman).
      But real classy of you to admire a woman's intelligence by asking about her (.)(.)
      You immature )*(

    18. Re:Low brow trash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you must not get laid much if you honestly believe that. The sad truth is that treating women with respect is the best way to not get laid.

      Nice guys who treat women with respect get to be friends. Jerks who show women no respect get laid. Decide what you want, because you won't get both.


      Wow, you must still be in high school.

      Here's what my female friends determined as success criteria:

      MALT...

      Money, Ambition, Looks, Transport.

      So long as you're a geek who works hard, saves money and buys a car, you're 3/4 of the way there!

      Confidence and ambition count for a lot. Think big. Do.

    19. Re:Low brow trash by Zathrus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nice guys who treat women with respect get to be friends. Jerks who show women no respect get laid

      Shrug.

      I met this girl, she was nice, I was nice back (although I did make a buffoon of myself the first time I met her). We talked, got to know each other, and awhile later we got married.

      At no point did I not treat her with respect. I still do. And she respects and loves me for it. And yes, there is a good bit of sex involved in our relationship, thank you very much.

      I guess it comes down to - do you want to just fuck something or do you want to have a relationship with another human being? If the former, I suggest renting some porno tapes or surfing the net and jacking off. If the latter, then you better respect the other person. Otherwise you're not deserving of respect yourself.

    20. Re:Low brow trash by majestyk2000 · · Score: 1

      Oh God, someone else that feels the way I do. Doncha just hate the 'Let's just be friends' crap? Um...not that I'd know anything about that...ah crap.

    21. Re:Low brow trash by paperclippy · · Score: 1

      Being a female slashdot reader, I thought I might offer my opinion here . . . If you're going to make a generalization like that, you need to take into account the particular woman.

      If you want to have sex with a nice, intelligent woman, you'd better show her some respect. You'll also have a lot better luck if you don't go after her thinking "I want to have sex with this girl, so I'll be nice to her so she'll sleep with me."

      If you want to have sex with a "cheap whore"-type woman, then as long as you're cute she'll probably sleep with you. I doubt this is the type of woman you want.

      So basically if you just want sex, and you don't care who it's with, then any method will work (you might as well just hire a prostitute . . . ). On the other hand, if you want a relationship (that will likely include lots of sex) then you need to change your attitude.

    22. Re:Low brow trash by shannara256 · · Score: 1

      > "I've been trying so hard not to treat women like objects that I've ended up treating objects like women."

      Like the tambourine?

    23. Re:Low brow trash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With a nic of "paperclippy" you think we'd care about your fucking opinion??!!??
      Shut your piehole and get me another beer, Bitch!

    24. Re:Low brow trash by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      I wish that actually worked in the real world, too bad that for the most part chicks want "bad boys" & guys that will treat them like crap.

      Jaysyn

      p.s. I totally agree on the WCOM stuff in your Journal.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    25. Re:Low brow trash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Nice guys who treat women with respect get to be friends. Jerks who show women no respect get laid.

      Actually I have a theory about this, and I think you've got cause and effect backwards. Really attractive guys often turn in to assholes because they can. They learn that they can be selfish and treat women badly, and still have women falling all over them, because they're attractive. Us mediocre-looking guys are often nice guys because we can't get away with being assholes (we'd *never* get laid). So it looks like women prefer assholes over nice guys, but actually women like hot guys, who often happen to be assholes.

    26. Re:Low brow trash by MrResistor · · Score: 2

      Wow, you must still be in high school.

      Actually, no. I'm 27, married, and have a 2 year old daughter, and I'm very much aware of what it took for me to get to this point; which was mainly a realization that if I kept being the nice guy who always treated women with respect that I would never be more than a friend and I would always sleep alone.

      The truth hurts. It sucks, but that's the way it is. The day I came to that realization was a turning point in my life. Up to that point I treated women with the greatest respect, and I was always just a friend. The less respect I showed, the more dates I got.

      Here's what my female friends determined as success criteria:

      MALT...

      Money, Ambition, Looks, Transport.


      This is exactly what I'm saying. Notice that nowhere in there is "a nice guy who treats me with respect". A guy who has all the qualities listed above very rarely treats women with respect.

      In fact, I know plenty of guys who fit only one of those catagories who have no trouble getting play. As far as I can tell, the real requirements for a guy to be able to pick up women are:

      1) Don't treat women with respect
      2) Don't be 'slimey'

      Any guy who can fulfil those 2 requirements should be reasonably successful.

      And yes, confidence is important. Ambition really isn't.

      Let me point out, though, that I'm not saying you shouldn't have respect for women, just that you shouldn't show it if you want to date them. Obviously, my marriage wouldn't be anywhere near as successful as it is if I didn't respect my wife, but the fact remains that neither she, nor any of the various women I dated before her, would give me the time of day until I stopped showing it.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    27. Re:Low brow trash by MrResistor · · Score: 2

      You are by far the exception to the rule, and I commend you on finding an exceptionally enlightened woman.

      Note that I didn't say a guy shouldn't have respect for women, just that he shouldn't show it if he wants to be more than friends. I had to learn that the hard way, but when I did I started getting dates. Eventually I got my wife (whom I had known for some time) to go out with me, which brings me to where I'm at; a happily married man with a beautiful daughter and a healthy sex life.

      In truth, I would love to be able to say that I got here by being respectful of women, but that simply isn't the case. I was never a player by any means, nor was I after nothing more than sex, but I found that I had to project a certain image in order to get what I wanted; a meaningful relationship beyond being friends.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    28. Re:Low brow trash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A guy with all that probably knows better than to treat women with respect. Fairer sex? Hah.

      For every woman who isn't a black widow, there's a few hundred thousand who are.

    29. Re:Low brow trash by MrResistor · · Score: 2

      This is based on observations from my own life, and I put a great deal of thought into cause and effect.

      The inescapable fact is that the less respect I showed the more dates I got. I don't consider myself to be a particularly good looking guy, but I most definately have become an asshole ;-)

      I'm not espousing misogyny here, nor am I saying you shouldn't have respect, just don't show it.

      My sister's theory is that most women have serious self-esteem issues and don't believe they are worthy of being treated right.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    30. Re:Low brow trash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's what my female friends determined as success criteria:

      MALT...

      Money, Ambition, Looks, Transport.


      Wow... sounds like you have a lot of whores for friends.

      And what's with that "transport" thing? The women you hang with care about whether a guy has a cool car? And you're suggesting that HE'S still in high school?

    31. Re:Low brow trash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to have sex with a "cheap whore"-type woman, then as long as you're cute she'll probably sleep with you. I doubt this is the type of woman you want.

      You're new around here, aren't you?

    32. Re:Low brow trash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    33. Re:Low brow trash by MrResistor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My wife is a beautiful and intelligent woman, whom I seduced by not being respectful. Do I have respect for her? Absolutely. If I didn't my marriage couldn't possibly be as good as it is.

      The thing is, though, that women tend to take nice guys who treat them with respect for granted. The nice guy becomes a friend, a confidant, but certainly not someone she would date, let alone have sex with. There comes a time in every nice guys life when this is not enough. At this point he either becomes a bitter misogynist, or he learns to play the part that will get him what he wants, and the key to it is having confidence and not showing respect.

      There are women who are exceptions to this rule, but they are few and far between.

      You're right, a cheap whore is not what I want. I've had my share, and they aren't worth the effort. And sex has always been a fringe benefit for me, not the prize I was after. If I were just after sex, I certainly could have lost my virginity before I was 19. In fact, I was dumped a few times for being respectful and not trying to get in a girls pants.

      Anyway, that is the truth as I have found and tested it (following the scientific method, of course, like any good geek should). Sorry if it offends you, but if it does you need to make sure that you aren't perpetuating it. Give the nice guy in your life a chance, I'll bet you dollars to donuts he wants you.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    34. Re:Low brow trash by Vulture_ · · Score: 1
      There are women who are exceptions to this rule, but they are few and far between.
      And finding one of them is your reward for staying the course. Effort well spent, I would think.
      --

      The only way the typical /.er can pick up a chick is with a forklift. -- AC

    35. Re:Low brow trash by Vulture_ · · Score: 1
      My sister's theory is that most women have serious self-esteem issues and don't believe they are worthy of being treated right.
      If that's correct, becoming friends with one gives you an opportunity to improve her self-esteem, thus eliminating that problem. Obviously, this requires a great deal of patience and dedication, but then, isn't that also true about marriage?
      --

      The only way the typical /.er can pick up a chick is with a forklift. -- AC

    36. Re:Low brow trash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps, just perhaps ... the version of "Treating women with respect" comes off as slimey?

    37. Re:Low brow trash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How true!

    38. Re:Low brow trash by JPriest · · Score: 1

      Try this, I searched images.google.com for "Cindy McCaffrey", that was difficult.

      --
      Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
  7. Interview loophole? by FortKnox · · Score: 2, Interesting

    OK, I had 2 score:5 questions, but, about 3 days after the interview article was posted (it was off the "older stuff" block), both mine get modded down once (overrated, of course), so now my questions don't get answered?

    Is there a way to prevent this?

    What happens when trolls wait and upmod something you don't want to ask the interviewer?

    Shouldn't the moderations stop for interviews after it leaves the frontpage? Or was this an editor moderation??

    --
    Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
    1. Re:Interview loophole? by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Of course it was editor moderation, how else would it be decided if say 30 questions were rated score 5?

      The editor just used overrated so they can still claim that they get metamodded 99% fair or whatever they claim, since those *rated moderations aren't subject to metamod.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:Interview loophole? by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      Surely the interviewer exercises some discretion and judgement.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    3. Re:Interview loophole? by quantaman · · Score: 2

      Is there a way to prevent this?

      Supposedly this is what meta-moderation does. I agree it's a problem (discounting the number of comments I've posted that have gone up to 5 then down to 2) with people going on moderation sprees when the story is off the page or near the bottom. In the case of a geniune troll the only solution I can think of is when a person gets enough bad meta-mods they lose their privaleges, perhaps the editors could do the blacklisting themselves, it should be a rare enough occurance. In this case I suspect that it was not an editor moderation because of the fact that they can really choose any group of high scoring ten questions so the precise ranking isn't really relevant.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    4. Re:Interview loophole? by FortKnox · · Score: 1

      metamod doesn't work with over/underrated mods. But I've already had that arguement, and Taco doesn't seem to care.

      --
      Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
    5. Re:Interview loophole? by Erasmus+Darwin · · Score: 1
      "Supposedly this is what meta-moderation does."

      Of course there's a small loophole in meta-moderation in that it doesn't occur for the "Overrated" moderations, which was what was used to mod the comment down in this case.

      "In the case of a geniune troll the only solution I can think of is when a person gets enough bad meta-mods they lose their privaleges,"

      Unfortunately, the genuine trolls are the ones who don't have a problem cooking up a new account and karma-whoring it back up to 50. Meanwhile, someone like myself winds up stuck with an account that virtually never gets mod points (except when the mod point system went nuts a few months back) due to some questionable meta-mods against me.

    6. Re:Interview loophole? by unicron · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I noticed he didn't answer my goatse.cx question either. Also, my question inquiring about the best syntax to use when searching for direct download warez, I found my post severely modded down.

      --
      Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
    7. Re:Interview loophole? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's how taco breaks ties.

    8. Re:Interview loophole? by gorgon · · Score: 2
      OK, I had 2 score:5 questions, but, about 3 days after the interview article was posted (it was off the "older stuff" block), both mine get modded down once (overrated, of course), so now my questions don't get answered?
      It shouldn't have mattered if you were down modded 3 days later, since they were going to choose the questions 24 hours after positing according to the article.

      Of course its annoying to have your questions left out, but there are almost always more than 10 comments rated 5 for interviews, so Roblimo has to exercise some judgement. There's more than 40 comments scored 5 in this interview.

      --

      And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners.
      Berke Breathed
    9. Re:Interview loophole? by ALoverOfPeace · · Score: 1

      Is there a way to prevent this?

      There is a very easy and simple way to prevent something like that happening: uncap the moderation totals.

      Doing that, at least for interviews, would ensure that the questions that Slashdot readers most want to see are asked. Slashdot editors would also no longer get to pick which questions they want to see asked, which is an ability I think they are hesisitant to relinquish.

    10. Re:Interview loophole? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're having hallucinations of persecution and delusions of adequecy. Quit your whining.

      And you really DO need to get out more.

    11. Re:Interview loophole? by t · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Oh boo hoo. I've been here practically forever, I didn't even bother to get an id until there were "features" with it. My karma has never gotten over 30 and I couldn't give a fsck. What the hell do you want? A certificate of accomplishment? If no one gave a shit about karma then there wouldn't be all the damn trolls, hell someone should just write a patch to the slashcode to make karma invisible to everyone.

      In fact I'd rather have an age based system (thats real world years). Go ahead and grab new accounts and try and troll, you'll just be an infant to me. Can we do that? Go for the simple scheme of anyone with an id under a quarter-mil is old? This would at least allow the friend/foe scheme to be useful since people wouldn't be able to just dump their account and get a new one to start over with.

      Speaking of friend/foe, they need to add another option of "just plain stupid".

      t.

    12. Re:Interview loophole? by No-op · · Score: 2

      I concur about the whole ID thing. I thought it was retarded, but once I figured that I could block out some of the lame crap it was worth it (maybe.)

      the whole karma whore thing is really dumb, and leads to silly pap and dumb commentary. blah.

      --
      EOM
    13. Re:Interview loophole? by alienmole · · Score: 2
      Oh, c'mon. Yeah, sure, it's a conspiracy by the editors. Look, thousands of people get to moderate, and it's not unusual to read and moderate older stories.

      But your sig demonstrates that you're paranoid about this kinda stuff, so I guess there's not much point trying to argue you out of your worldview - especially since after this latest boneheaded post of yours, I'm out to get you too. Self-fulfilling prophecy, I guess.

  8. No disclosure about ranking methodology... by alexandre · · Score: 1

    I wonder if there is a secure way to have an open methodology for ranking site without people abusing it... any idea? :-)

    1. Re:No disclosure about ranking methodology... by jallen02 · · Score: 1

      I think whenever a good answer or solution comes up for that we will see another search engine :-)

    2. Re:No disclosure about ranking methodology... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Doesn't Google already have something that comes close with the scoring based on offsite links being a factor? That would be a certain criteria in determining relevance.

      Also, the best possible way to rank sites would be to have a browser plugin that allowed for voting. Imagine a little +/- voting button next to the URL. Something like what Nielsen does for TV.

    3. Re:No disclosure about ranking methodology... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy. They adopt a human to computer ratio of 1:1. Each human reviews sites and assigns them a ranking. Right now a few humans are trying to get hte system to respond in a way that resembles human judgement. And it's amazing how well it works. But if you really want a system that reflects human judgement, you either use humans, or develop monster AI. Obviously that latter would have other uses as well, kind of overkill to go all that way just for a search engine. "Brain the size of a planet and all they want me to do is find them porn..."

    4. Re:No disclosure about ranking methodology... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, theres the way the academic comunity handles scientific articles.
      The so-called impact factor of a certain publication is determined by the amount of citations it recieves from the other periodicals/book, with increasing weights for proportionally higher impact ratings, although self-references and 'common/biased' references(as in nature/nature-genetics) are 'modded down'.

      Of course the number of sites is overwhelmingly larger then the amount of periodicals, but the concept works, is as 'open source' as it can be, and although it accounts for much of the crappy ways of science nowadays, there might be a way to make it work. hope you got some time on your hands.

  9. Grrrr by ScumBiker · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Damn it! Now I *really* need to know what Cindy looks like.
    Hey you Googlites, keep rockin. You've created the best search engine of all time.

    --
    --- Think of it as evolution in action ---
    1. Re:Grrrr by Plutor · · Score: 3, Informative

      Check her out here.

    2. Re:Grrrr by Syris · · Score: 1

      Well, here is google's official info on Cindy. It includes a pic.

    3. Re:Grrrr by beamdriver · · Score: 1
      Here she is as well as the rest of the bunch.

      I thought question 6 was pretty funny, too.

    4. Re:Grrrr by great+throwdini · · Score: 4, Funny

      Duh... use google :)

      You give an obvious answer, but you don't ask the obvious question: What is the significance of the "I'm Feeling Lucky" graphic included in that collection of images?

    5. Re:Grrrr by lebjoot · · Score: 0
      Gee...
      Have you looked the crew:
      Approximate number of employees: 400
      Ph.D.s on staff: 50+
      Languages spoken: 34
      Number of roller hockey players: 32
      Number of offices worldwide: 12
      Massage Therapists: 2
      Neurosurgeons: 1

      Emphasis mine.
      What do they do with Neurosurgeons ?
      connect the PHD directly to the computers :) ?

      --
      Is this /.-honeypot? Oh well, whatever...
    6. Re:Grrrr by CableModemSniper · · Score: 0

      The grandparent 9of this post) gets modded down for being offtopic, but the the parent gets modded up for providing a pic? Shessh.

      --
      Why not fork?
  10. Obligatory by MAXOMENOS · · Score: 5, Funny

    Imagine a beowulf ... never mind.

    1. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine a beowulf cluster of hot grits.

    2. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would actually be quite similar to the network that Google is indexing...

  11. How about telling us how to do virtual hosting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If you seem to think some ISPs are having trouble configuring their virtual hosts, why don't you tell us what they are doing wrong so we can be sure to not make teh same mistakes? I'm curious how someone could screw up what seems to be such a simple thing.

    1. Re:How about telling us how to do virtual hosting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      If you're running a shared virtual hosting platform (eg. everyone is on the same IP) make sure your webserver is sending a Vary: Host header or its equivalent. IIRC, apache handles this automagically if you include the mod_rewrite module.

      I'm not sure if this is what craig was referring too, but it has caused me problems in the past at my last shared hosting provider.

    2. Re:How about telling us how to do virtual hosting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, what does this mean? Please explain? ^_^;

    3. Re:How about telling us how to do virtual hosting? by 680x0 · · Score: 1

      Yes, I host www.steeds.com and www.ncaug.org on the same physical machine (running Apache on Linux) and they come out separately on Google. And, yes, I'm doing name-based virtual hosting, not IP-based virtual hosting (check it out yourself with nslookup). Didn't have to do anything special, though I'd have to look to see if I have mod_rewrite enabled.

  12. Re:hmmmm by XO · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I'm using Mozilla 1.1, dumbass.

    --
    "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
  13. A link with a picture by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 2

    http://www.google.com/corporate/execs.html#cindy

    No nekkid pictures though - I keeping them to myself ... or some such low brow shit.

    --
    We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
  14. She is not a babe by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    No offense against this lady, I am sure she is nice, but you really have to lower the bar to put her in oogling territory.

    If you want to demean women, at least pick one who is hot.

    1. Re:She is not a babe by Sabalon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yup...she's not 18 with a chest like a deck cannon and a 5" waist and negative IQ.

      Give me a break...there is nothing at all wrong with this lady.

    2. Re:She is not a babe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're into older women, she's hotter than Janeway and may actually exist in real life (can't be sure on the internet, she might actually be a hookah smoking caterpillar).

    3. Re:She is not a babe by DeepZenPill · · Score: 1

      Those are exactly my sentiments, that's why I ogle Joan Braddi instead.

    4. Re:She is not a babe by geekoid · · Score: 2

      why do you assume all big breasted, small wasted women are stupid?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:She is not a babe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it is because they can't spell.

    6. Re:She is not a babe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the parent poster wishes s/he had big breasts and a small waist.

    7. Re:She is not a babe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, she's not a geek either. Marketing, by definition, are never geeks.

    8. Re:She is not a babe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not a spelling error, he's just missing a comma. He likes women to be big-breasted, small, and wasted.

    9. Re:She is not a babe by M3shuggah · · Score: 1
      why do you assume all big breasted, small wasted women are stupid?
      I don't assume -- I know that wasted people are less than rational. :)
  15. Re:How did that lame 'tight sweater' question... by kableh · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Read the fscking article d00d. Besides, some of us geeks actually *gasp* like girls?

  16. very good interview as mp3 by 216pi · · Score: 2, Informative

    there is an interview with craig available as mp3 (over 70 minutes) that deals with details of the technology at google and how it changed since mr. silverstein started at google.

  17. dialup connection by deanpole · · Score: 5, Funny
    NO CARRIER

    Like he would work over dialup from one of the highest bandwidth offices in the world?!? They must have been at a hotel together. :-)

    1. Re:dialup connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod up!

      (hehe)

    2. Re:dialup connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very insightful! :-D

    3. Re:dialup connection by Nightpaw · · Score: 2

      I guess we should have asked what she looks like with her sweater off.

  18. Craig. by Steveftoth · · Score: 1

    Not that you will read this, but Craig added that question himself. Shows humor and stuff.

    1. Re:Craig. by Milican · · Score: 1

      LOL.... good rebuttal!

      JOhn

  19. No Network Stats?? by Hoeken · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Damn! The only question i really cared about, didnt get answered. I just wanted to know how many servers they ran, specs, raw computing power, how much traffic, etc. Oh well.

    --
    Educate > Enlighten > Evolve http://www.neuroatomik.com
    1. Re:No Network Stats?? by billstr78 · · Score: 1

      Seriously. This was a pretty technically light article considering how many secrets Google posseses that amazes the $hit out of everyone. The page ranking heuristics the network and clustering technology. This company is getting as tight lipped as M$ regarding thier really amazing stuff. Google just went down a couple of points in my book, but I guess they cannot even hint at what they are really doing in Palo Alto witout having some fsking search portal try to snag thier technology.

    2. Re:No Network Stats?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why the hell would they want to give away their computer server, network, cluster specs out? So YOU can put them out of business? So other search engines can pick up on the techniques? I think they enjoy the money from working hard on being the best search engine out on the net

    3. Re:No Network Stats?? by billstr78 · · Score: 1

      Why the hell does Linus want to give away his operating system? Becuase it benifits the greater good. The computing industry as a whole would benifit from knowing more about thier server clustering and network load balancing techniques. I am not asking for a guided tour, just a little snip about what makes them the bomb shitiz.

    4. Re:No Network Stats?? by ceejayoz · · Score: 2

      Telling everyone how they run Google would let anyone copy it... really, get some business sense. Giving away your secrets is almost always bad business.

  20. The Pigeons by cOdEgUru · · Score: 4, Funny

    Damn! My CEO and CTO were both planning to invest our last million on pigeons if Craig were going to give a headsup on their effectiveness.

    Now, I am stuck with the thousand monkeys we bought clamoring on the keyboards churning out shakespearean sonnets.

    1. Re:The Pigeons by red_dragon · · Score: 4, Funny
      Now, I am stuck with the thousand monkeys we bought clamoring on the keyboards churning out shakespearean sonnets.

      Is your network of monkeys RFC-2795-compliant?

      --
      In Soviet Russia, Jesus asks: "What Would You Do?"
  21. Re:How did that lame 'tight sweater' question... by jjn1056 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    If your definition of 'liking' girls is so infantile you might just discover real quality women don't like you very much at all...

    --
    Peace, or Not?
  22. Google a database. by I_redwolf · · Score: 1

    Here's a question I wanted to know, I must of been sleeping or something during the original questions.. Why isn't it that someone hasn't written an API or something of the sort based on an algo for whatever specific program to get relevant information for whatever in that specific program using google? Well lemme not say API lets say using existing command line utilities maybe. I've never seen that done, it's kinda of using Google as a large database (the whole data mining thing). maybe it's been done somewhere... ahh whatever I'm gonna run over the brooklyn bridge thinking about this.. maybe I'll come up with something.

    1. Re:Google a database. by Broccolist · · Score: 3, Informative

      You mean like this?

    2. Re:Google a database. by I_redwolf · · Score: 2

      Yeah.. exactly like that except using your OWN search pattern or algorithim not googles. In essence you'd be creating your own search engine using googles stuff..

  23. Well, thankfully Google still works by Zarquil · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I was starting to worry, but fortunately not only is the first hit appropriate, but it includes a picture - and is that a tight sweater I see?

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en=ISO-8859-1=%2 2C indy+McCaffrey%22

  24. Sigh; It _was_ a good joke until you wrecked it :) by genomancer · · Score: 1

    As someone mentioned, you should have read the article a little closer ;P (I need that in a paste buffer).

    Seriously, I bet they had some fun tracking how much of a hit response they got on their exec profile page in response to that post. Got me at least, she's kinda a hottie ;)

    G

  25. Cindy (and some other people...) by ackthpt · · Score: 1

    Some pics and bios of Google Execs.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  26. We played pool at Eudora, but the beer was better by Wee · · Score: 5, Insightful
    When you and a co-worker discuss an idea in a conference room, that pretty much limits the communication potential to just you two; when you discuss it over a game of pool, soon half the company has wandered by and had the opportunity to comment.

    We had a pool table at Eudora, when we were in Building I (the one by the cemetary, ironically enough). It got used a lot, although there was very little work talk that went on around it. Some, but not much. Mostly it was guys from tech support on break. More discussion took place when they had beer busts out on the lawn, or when they brought in food late at night for all us guys lucky enough to be working late during pre-GM release crunches. In fact, they wound up taking the pool table away because it was causing "productivity" to slip.

    The beer busts worked particluarly well (and not just because I a) like beer or b) would wait until they were over and then would stuff the leftovers into the fridge in my office). It was like 3 hours of sitting around in the grass, engineers talking to sales, marketing talking to project mgmt, everyone talking to everyone else, VPs and admin clerks mingling. We couldn't all get together without talking about work stuff at a bar during happy hour, much less on a Friday at 2 in the afternoon on the front lawn of our building. The freebie dinners wer egood, but only engineers got to eat, so the group was more limited. We didn't get the cross-polination that the beer busts had.

    If had to recommend a "dotcom-ish" group activity, I'd say a nice summer afternoon, some grass, a few frisbees, t-shirts for the employees-of-the-month, and a big tub of beer, wine, and soda. Very informal, just come and hang out. That's a really good way for a department head to get feedback, and way better than "all hands" meetings. I remember one day we had an all-hands, and not one person asked a question. A couple days later at a beer bust you couldn't get a word in edge-wise with the VP he was so busy talking with people.

    Anyway, gone are the salad days...

    -B

    --

    Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.

  27. Dejanews by headchimp · · Score: 1

    Hmm...was hoping someone would ask about Google taking on the dejanews groups

  28. Re:How did that lame 'tight sweater' question... by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

    Some of us are mature enough to let our "tight sweater" childish side show from time to time without letting it get out of control.

    --
    Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
  29. download photo of Cindy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I'd be willing to bet that Cindy McAffrey has a (transiently) very high rank on the word and image search index right about now...

  30. Hey, learn to type 'cindy mccaffrey jpg' by zrk · · Score: 1

    http://www.google.com/press/images/cindy_mccaffrey _lg.jpg

  31. Here's How Cindy Looks by McLuhanesque · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Cindy McCaffrey. At least the sweater seems tight!

  32. Google Image Search on Cindy by Milican · · Score: 5, Informative

    So who is Cindy McCaffrey? Google knows! Super cool. Big thanks to the guys at Google for the search engine and the interview :)

    JOhn

    1. Re:Google Image Search on Cindy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like I said in the first article Cindy is a horse faced marketdroid. I'm shocked that that piece of tripe question got asked.

    2. Re:Google Image Search on Cindy by webprogrammer · · Score: 1

      Kinda cool that google indexes itself, isn't it? I wonder if they cache their own content as well.

      --
      Tim ODonnell (trying to be the most
    3. Re:Google Image Search on Cindy by __aasfhc1949 · · Score: 3, Informative
      I wonder if they cache their own content as well.

      Yeah, they do:

      http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:1i0prMhBa54C: www.google.com/+=en=UTF-8

    4. Re:Google Image Search on Cindy by roc_machine · · Score: 1

      Interesting how the first non-Cindy pic contains the infamous google words "I'm Feeling Lucky".

      Was that intentional? I wonder. :)

    5. Re:Google Image Search on Cindy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i'd nail her like a construction worker on super crack

    6. Re:Google Image Search on Cindy by emoeric · · Score: 2, Funny
      it's funny because they still have the standard disclaimer on the cache page:

      "Google is not affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content."

      BUT THEY ARE!!

      --

      |---------------|
      practically an AC
    7. Re:Google Image Search on Cindy by BlueGecko · · Score: 2

      Anyone else think that it's a somewhat odd coincidence that searching for her brings up an image of the "I'm feeling lucky" button?

  33. MOD THIS UP by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    I would do it myself but I spent my mod points already. I want to know what people are doing wrong. Obviously it's not reverse DNS, because he says that vhosts aren't the problem, and you can't do proper reverse DNS for vhosts... well, just one of them. What is there to screw up, really?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:MOD THIS UP by carlos_benj · · Score: 1

      You can mod it up all you want but if you run back up to the top of the page you'll note that the interview is now history. Unless Mr. S. reads it and decides to answer it goes in the bit bucket. If he does decide to answer it I'd guess it would be because he thinks it's a good question and modding won't make a bit of difference.

      --

      --

      As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.

    2. Re:MOD THIS UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one sane would ever use reverse DNS for anything truly important. It's not reliable at all.

    3. Re:MOD THIS UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless he browses at +5

  34. attn. jjn1056 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If your "I must be hypersensitive so quality women won't hate me" attitude weren't so hardcore you might actually have some fun.

  35. Re:We played pool at Eudora, but the beer was bett by ackthpt · · Score: 1
    All well and good, until mystery, suspicion, innuendo, etc. take root. I came out west to join a "fun" company, and it was initially. We had little parties, did stuff together, costumes and stuff on Halloween, golf outtings, and a pretty cool holiday party. But as things changed, lip service remained concerning "all being in this boat together" when it became apparent some were edging for the lifeboats.

    Once morale is infected with the aforementioned diseases, it can be hard to shake. Familiarity can breed contempt, even in the best of settings.

    Though it may seem hard to schedule, it is important for CEO's and other cheif execs to get some face time with each employee, particularly in a small firm (400 employees) like Google. In my experience, the feel that I'm in a good group of motivated people, relaxed atmosphere and encouraged to spend spare time developing some project on a small initiative has been a major boon to my employers (I wrote a small search engine used by a midwestern college, took 2 weeks to write from 0 knowlege of perl to production, ran for 4 years... the replacement is hideous) I sure wish there were more Googles around.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  36. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  37. Unprofessional! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful


    Craig:

    a) I'm afraid not, and b) No comment.


    Wow, that is pretty low Craig. Couldn't be bother to even touch on the subject of how google works, huh? You couldn't be bothered to share some surface details about the weighting methods. About why method have changed. About why certain method work at one point in time but not another.

    You just stiffed the entire /. community which you very arrogant "I'm important and that's classified" attitude. You could have told us so much without spilling the beans.

    This is not a troll, but that responce was the most pricky I have ever seen in a /. interview. That is how I feel.

    1. Re:Unprofessional! by bhv · · Score: 1

      You build the same thing a see waht you say. you....you, Coward!

    2. Re:Unprofessional! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that responce was the most pricky I have ever seen in a /. interview

      Same here, but then, this is also the first time i have ever seen a question in a slashdot interview that flat-out requested a professional reveal trade secrets crucial to their business.

    3. Re:Unprofessional! by multimed · · Score: 1
      I understand the trade secret thing, really I do. And I understand that Google Technology explains as much as they're willing to say about PageRank and their algorithms. I really do understand that--and keeping it secret helps prevent abuse by the marketers which preserves the great quality of the results. But why couldn't he have bee a little more polite and said that they don't disclose that and directed people to the webpage or given the general info from it. At least for me, it wasn't that he wouldn't disclose the info, he just seemed to short in the way he avoided it. The rest of the interview was really good, and I can't help but wish I were smart enough to work there and have a hand in the fantastic stuff they do.

      steve

      --
      Vote Quimby.
  38. Not that kind of grass by Wee · · Score: 5, Funny
    a nice summer afternoon, some grass, a few frisbees

    Uh, that came out kinda wrong. I meant the kind of grass you sit on and the kind of frisbees you throw. I'm surprised I didn't mention patchouli and a hackysack. Jeez. At any rate, I wasn't advocating getting the whole company stoned. Although it probably would have helped in our case...

    -B

    --

    Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.

  39. 1 question about this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do you tell what's been meta-moded for or against you?

  40. Bandwidth by selderrr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    too bad he didn't answer the bandwidth Q. Can anyone here give a calculated estimate on how much bytes the google farm pushes around per day ?

    How many queries do they server per minute/sec ?

    1. Re:Bandwidth by freakinPsycho · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Really, you don't want per day estimates. With a site like google, you want per second.

      Trust me. I work for a company with a very large web presense. Pushing a number of gigs/sec doesn't end up translating well to per day measurements.

      For fun, just used a calc here to figure some stuff out.

      For a company like the one I'm at (or like google) pushing over 1 gig/sec, that's over 80 terabytes per day (at min).

      I find a lot of the per day questions amusing as it is obvious it is coming from someone who doesn't work in very large volumes.

      --
      "All the things I really like to do are either immoral, illegal, or fattening."
      - Alexandar Woolcot
    2. Re:Bandwidth by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 2

      too bad he didn't answer the bandwidth Q. Can anyone here give a calculated estimate on how much bytes the google farm pushes around per day ?

      If by "calculated estimate" you mean "blind guess", sure :).

      Assume 1e9 people with access/exposure to it. Assume 1e-3 of these use it regularly, and assume 1e1 uses per day per user. That's 1e7 calls to Google per day. Assuming 1e3 bytes per search, that's 1e10 bytes per day. (At 1e5 seconds per day, that's 1e5 bytes per second, or 1e6 bytes per second if peak time has 10 times the load).

      So 10 gigabytes per day, with one megabyte per second at peak load.

      Take this with a grain of salt :).

    3. Re:Bandwidth by rodgerd · · Score: 3, Informative

      You can guesstimate trawling linux-kernel archives; the Google guys were having random lockup problems with early 2.2.x series kernels. Turned out they were in the IP stack. A kernel hacker asked for tcpdump logging and the Google guys explained they were getting (hundreds? thousands?) of connections per system per second.

    4. Re:Bandwidth by selderrr · · Score: 2

      excuse me ? You company is pushing 1GB/sec into the world ?

      Pardon me for falling over backwards, but how many companies are gigabit connected to the internet ? I doubt that even Google does this.

    5. Re:Bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      80 TB/day? there was a huge circlejerk when cdrom.com pushed ONE tb in 24h

    6. Re:Bandwidth by No-op · · Score: 2

      That's quite a bit, but it's not all that amazing anymore... considering the massive decrease in cost of SONET/SDH gear, and the move towards directly provisioning DWDM for IP (whether you agree with it or not!) as well as the huge excess of fibre laying around.

      considering that an OC-48c handles about 2.5gbit/sec, and way back in 1999 when I was working at our colo I saw numerous firms that had their own OC48 or higher, I can imagine that now in the heady post-bomb days there's huge quantities of cheaper bandwidth around.

      I'm sure, however, that your uncapped cable modem still wows you :)

      --
      EOM
    7. Re:Bandwidth by alienmole · · Score: 2
      So 10 gigabytes per day, with one megabyte per second at peak load.

      IOW, you're guessing that Google could serve all its traffic over a single 100Mbit/s connection, i.e. the LAN card in my PC? That seems kinda modest, surely?

    8. Re:Bandwidth by alienmole · · Score: 2

      Make that a 10Mbit/s connection...

  41. Re:How did that lame 'tight sweater' question... by optikSmoke · · Score: 1

    Sorry.. did you read the interview? It was plainly stated that Silverstein (a) reads Slashdot (and therefore could have found said question himself) and (b) chose the questions himself.

    To rephrase it was not submitted to him, he chose it.

    Again: not submitted, chosen

    Wow, I wonder sometimes if the average Slashdot reader can write but not read.

  42. That was refreshing by beleg777 · · Score: 1

    And both Larry and Sergey Brin firmly believe that if we concentrate on users, everything else -- including money -- will follow.

    With all the news about immoral corporations sometimes it's easy to forget that there are good ones out there. And it's always nice to be reminded that doing things right does pay off. Keep up the good work.

    --

    Science may someday discover what faith has always known.
    1. Re:That was refreshing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm this is the STANDARD corporate line. What do you think WorldCom or Enron's CEO's say? "we love our customers .. we wish to provide them with value blah blah blah" It's on page 572 or somethiong of "Guide to being the CEO of an evil corporation"

      I'm writing the next edition.

      I suppose saying something bad about google on slashdot is a death sentence to my already dying karma so I wisely decided to post it anonymously.

    2. Re:That was refreshing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With all the news about immoral corporations sometimes it's easy to forget that there are good ones out there. And it's always nice to be reminded that doing things right does pay off. Keep up the good work.

      "everything else including money will follow" -- think about why that statement was said for a second .. it means they _are_ after the money, and they arent motivated by benefitting users.

      Yes, I am motivated by money. And they're motivated by money too .. ultimately they want to maximize their profits .. if they felt telling their users to screw off will bring them more profit they'll do it. We all found this out the hard way during the .com era when so called open software embracers turned against the scene and ideas. Red Hat, Sun .. i'm talking about you.

      Anyway, nothing wrong with earning money but don't TELL me you're caring about me when you're actually acting out of 100% self interest.

  43. Re:How did that lame 'tight sweater' question... by optikSmoke · · Score: 1

    oops, I meant "chose the question himself" (not "questions", silly!). And by question I obviously mean the "offending" get-Google-exec-in-your-pants question :)

  44. Grrr? by Zordak · · Score: 2

    So what's all the fuss about? She looks like a well-groomed, attractive middle-aged woman, but I'm not exactly thinking "babe." Maybe you have to be some lonely, teen-aged 31337 h4X0r to get it or something. Now, if you're looking for a truly HOT older woman, Reba McEntire is much better. Of course, my wife looks a lot like her (except much younger), so maybe I'm just prejudiced. I'm not so particular about women who are nerds. With all of the other good qualities about my wife (including being amazingly hot), I find that it doesn't particularly bother me that she doesn't know the difference between PCI and ISA.

    --

    Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    1. Re:Grrr? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      To me she looks like an aged porn star. I'd prefer the class of Ms. McCaffrey any day.

      (This only illustrates that you can't argue about taste BTW)

    2. Re:Grrr? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (This only illustrates that you can't argue about taste BTW)

      What the hell can you argue about, then? Facts?

  45. Re:hmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just print the page out.

  46. Google's electric bill by Megawatt-hour · · Score: 2, Informative

    Well, let's see. Assuming 100 watts continuous power consumption per server and an electricity rate of $0.15 per kilowatt-hour, we have:

    0.1 kW * 10,000 servers * (365 * 24) hours * $0.15 per kW-h

    which is $1,314,000 per year, just to run their server farm.

    1. Re:Google's electric bill by Helmholtz+Coil · · Score: 1

      So now I'm wondering if Google cut a special deal for its power much like the folks in aluminum did. And whether in a future power crunch, we'd see Google opting to re-sell its power, much like the folks in aluminum did.

    2. Re:Google's electric bill by B3ryllium · · Score: 1, Funny

      I haven't seen aluminum people before ...

      ... do they make your mouth feel weird when you bite them?

    3. Re:Google's electric bill by Anonymous+DWord · · Score: 2

      You can't see them - they're hiding from the black helicoptaaaaaaaaaaagggghhhhh

      I mean, uhh, nothing.

      --
      "If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
    4. Re:Google's electric bill by jmichaelg · · Score: 2

      Good estimate but I'd guess you're off by at least a factor of two. The $0.15 kW-h is probably more like .07 or .08 kW-h. They can locate their farm pretty much anywhere, including the Northwest where electricity is cheaper.

      If they were really adventurous, they could locate the farm on Iceland where the government is subsidizing Alcoa's new aluminum smelter to the tune of $0.02 kwh.

  47. i still want to see it. by paradesign · · Score: 2
    just a .jpeg, thats all im asking for... well maybe a .tiff would be better.

    just one picture

    --
    I want 2D games back.
  48. Re:How did that lame 'tight sweater' question... by Abraxis · · Score: 2, Informative

    It didn't get modded up, that's the one that he picked out to answer.

  49. Curious webmasters want to know! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not everyone's an expert webmaster yet....some of us got webmastering shoved on them along with other duties...I want the site to rank well in Google for the topics and products it covers, so how do I avoid screwing up with virtual hosting? Thanks!

  50. I can vouch for that! by Chmarr · · Score: 2

    8) Favoring Big Guys
    by PenguinRadio

    Does google's policy of "ranking" the sites that have hits favor the "big guys" over more specific smaller traffic websites?


    I can certainly vouch for Craig's response. My own site comes up as #1, and it's only three letters :)

    1. Re:I can vouch for that! by namtog · · Score: 1

      Chmarr I have to agree with you. My hobby site is very small and seasonal. If you do a search for mnf and chat it pops up as number one. I could never figure out why it comes up as the Yahoo address instead of just simply namtog.com.

      No matter, people find and then stop by for a little football chat during the regular season.

      Thanks Google.

  51. Bad Moderators by Sloppy · · Score: 1

    Quit marking that post up, and answer it instead.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  52. Important missing question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has Google used IBM GXP hard drives in any of its servers, and what has been their track record?
    Background:
    http://www.tech-report.com/news_reply.x/3494

  53. YES, MOD UP by Phroggy · · Score: 1

    That jumped out at me too.

    --
    $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
    $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  54. Answer the question, or mod up if you dont know it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Curious webmasters are dying to find out!

  55. I think I have to hate him now by drew_kime · · Score: 5, Funny
    "Oh, it shouldn't take more than two weeks to get the code ready for public use, so that should give us plenty of time to get the 2000 new machines we'll need ordered, delivered, and installed"

    Sure, and while you're at it why don't you tell us about your Ferrarri and the supermodel you're banging. Bastard.

    --
    Nope, no sig
  56. Electricity Bill by legaleagll · · Score: 1

    Doing some quick research, it would appear that a computer (without monitor) that is always on costs on average approximately $100.00 per year. Of course multiplying that times 10,000 gives you an annual cost of $1,000,000.00 or $83,333.33 per month. The actual costs would depend upon the system components, speed, etc...

    If they each had a 14 inch monitor that was always on, it would double the bill annually. I can't imagine they would have one monitor for each machine, that would make no sense. The way I figure it, they still have one heck of a bill each month when speaking from a Joe Schmoe standpoint, but I don't think that they would have any trouble meeting that bill with the traffic they get and their limited advertising. Of course that bill is just for the computers themselves, not to mention the cooling infrastructure, lighting, etc... Anyone have any experience in the area of cluster cooling and the expenses associated with it? I know I saw something on Discovery or TLC about the units used in the old days, but what about now?

    All of my statistics came from here.

    1. Re:Electricity Bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that they use 1U rackmount servers.. so there would not be a monitor per PC. Still, those things must cost a small fortune to run.. maybe they have their own powerplant onsite? :O

    2. Re:Electricity Bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you think the pigeons do, just sit there and choose web sites? The pigeon exercise treadmills are hooked up to generators.

  57. Hmmmm by sys4some · · Score: 1

    No offense to Mr. Silverstein, but I'm much more interested in Cindy [McCaffrey]! Beautiful, highly successful nerds are terribly rare! Beautiful, Yes. Succesfull, Yes.... Nerd nope. Take a look at her quals: McCaffrey graduated with a bachelor of arts degree in journalism from the University of Nebraska, and pursued graduate studies in American Literature at Southwest Missouri State University. She began her career as a reporter and editor at daily newspapers, including The Omaha World-Herald; the Springfield (Mo.) Leader & Press; the Kansas City Business Journal; and The Contra Costa Times; and at high-tech trade publications, including Macintosh Today.

  58. Cindy googlewhack! by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Funny
    > Duh...use google :)
    >
    > http://images.google.com/images?q=%22Cindy+McCaffr ey%22=UTF-8=UTF-8=en=Google+Search

    Sure, that's a good start...

    ...but it doesn't answer the real question, which is going to images.google.com and entering ""Cindy McCaffrey"+tight+sweater". No results. Bummer. (Doesn't even matter if the sweater in the search query is tight or not. Double bummer.)

    On the bright side, "Cindy McCaffrey" sweater" is a Googlewhack, albeit not a pure one.

    This brings two obvious followup questions:

    To Craig: when will someone in your office leak us a copy of the .GIFs showing Cindy's meteoric rise in Google's images zeitgeist this week? Can we see it in the next Slashback, please?

    Also to Craig: in how many hours, and how hard, do you think Cindy's gonna kick your ass for handing her over to the raving /. hordes as the older, classier, and way more-reasonably-hairstyled, replacement for our mad collective crush on Natalie Portman?

    Finally, to Cindy if she's crazy enough to admit it: Do you like grits? ;-)

    1. Re:Cindy googlewhack! by MullerMn · · Score: 1

      On the bright side, "Cindy McCaffrey" sweater" [google.com] is a Googlewhack, albeit not a pure one.

      I don't get what you mean by 'not a pure one', but an interesting offshoot of this is that now you've included those words in this page, how long before Google picks it up and that search term no longer works as a Google-whack??? ;)

      --
      Andy

    2. Re:Cindy googlewhack! by Jester99 · · Score: 2
      On the bright side, "Cindy McCaffrey" sweater" [google.com] is a Googlewhack, albeit not a pure one.

      Pun not intended, right? :)

    3. Re:Cindy googlewhack! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I like grits. I like 'em wet and steamy hot, and poured over your massive cock.

    4. Re:Cindy googlewhack! by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      > I don't get what you mean by 'not a pure one'

      As another poster has hinted, that pun's probably between Ms. McCaffrey and me. I'm an invertebrate punster, spinelessly unable to resist a pun. Don't slug me for it! :)

      Seriously - because I used two words encased in quotes. I think a "pure" Googlewhack has to be two words and only two words, no quotes. I'm allowing it as a Googlewhack only because I can argue that "Cindy McCaffrey" is a single proper noun composed of two strings, whereas, say, "squeamish ossifrage" isn't. For instance:

      "Pure" googlewhack: One result for foo bar (the original definition - two strings, no quotes.)

      "Impure" googlewhack: One result for "Cindy McCaffrey" sweater (one string being the proper name of an individual, "sweater")

      Non-googlewhack: One result for "squeamish ossifrage" sweater (one string merely consisting of two unrelated words attached into a longer string by means of quotes, "sweater")

  59. Who is the asshole? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Gee AC, I have to say the OTHER AC in the very thread you linked to who pointed out that it was a direct request for trade secrets was perhaps just a touch more clueful than youreself. Note that unlike your own cowardly self (Head of Excite or former "Ask Jeeves" exec? Tired of loosing business?), I am willing to attach my name to my opinion.

    If only I could rate my own response -1 to show the level of respect I have for your juvinile "opinion". Why don't you create a leading search engine and then reveal to us those same answers? Or try e-mailing all the other search engines with the same question and see if you get any response, much less a no!! When you find no answers forthcoming, does that mean they are all "assholes"? Or does that mean you need to perhaps look a little closer to find the real source of the trouble...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  60. Re:We played pool at Eudora, but the beer was bett by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't Bldg I by the PET cemetary?

  61. Such a shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its too bad that Craig couldnt reveal ANYTHING about the algorithm of his search engine. Hell, he couldn't even explain how the weighted ranking system changed! Too bad google can't open up their search engine source.

    Carm

  62. I'd like to hear the answer to this one as well. by Mustang+Matt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm curious if he meant on the webserver setup or the DNS setup.

    I'm very interested in hearing an answer or if someone could point me to a reference explaining the correct way to do it, that would be great.

    The way I do it works and I've always assumed it was correct. Google picks up most of our sites quite well, so I probably am doing it correct.

    --
    The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
  63. Re:How did that lame 'tight sweater' question... by kableh · · Score: 1

    What's wrong with finding women's bodies attractive? Or infantile for that matter? I was pointing out, by way of linking to another post of that title, that it was a question chosen by Craig himself. Some of us have a sense of humor. I found it amusing myself.

    As someone else pointed out, get over yourself. And I might point out, the quality woman I'm with at the moment seems to like me just fine =). And is a geek to boot.

  64. Re:1 question about this. by Erasmus+Darwin · · Score: 2

    There's no direct way to tell. However, it's an educated guess based on seeing the post-meta-mod karma drop and correlating that with my moderation activity at the time -- which was almost exclusively modding down the sort of trolling garbage that popped up in a freshly posted story. At the time, I was reading Slashdot a little on the obsessive side, so I was running into the fresh story garbage before it was getting modded down by other people.

  65. how does Cindy look in tight sweaters by msheppard · · Score: 3, Informative

    thought I'd use my favorite image search engine to find this picture... then I realized my favorite image search engine is GOOGLE.

    --
    Krispy Cream is people
    1. Re:how does Cindy look in tight sweaters by Naikrovek · · Score: 2

      uhh, she's not that good looking, just over par for marketing women, i'd say.

      Not a nerd, that's for sure, so the whole "Hot Chick" business is out.

      picture

  66. Re:How did that lame 'tight sweater' question... by shannara256 · · Score: 1

    > Besides, some of us geeks actually *gasp* like girls?

    Pretty sure gasping like a girl isn't going to get you many (girls, that is).

  67. Re:PageRank, not SiteRank by zauber · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I could be wrong here, but I would venture to guess that deep linking has little effect on how often your Site pops up on Google. Ideally, you want all incoming links to funnel through a single page, and that page will end up with a high rating. Those who try to ban deep linking still want you to link to their front door...

  68. more like $2500 a day by bcaulf · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'll say one headless machine is drawing in the neighborhood of 200 watts. That's .2 KW. Per day, that's 4.8 KW-hours. One KW-hour costs neighborhood of a nickel, so one machine costs about 25 cents to run each day. 10,000 machines cost $2500 in electricity a day altogether.

    You made a number of mistakes. The main one is: there is no notion of "watts per second" unless you are talking about a rate of change of power. 4.2M watts is a rate; it is the same whether measured over an instant, a second or an hour. If you use power at that rate for an hour you use 4.2M watt-hours. Not 15.1 billion watt-hours. So that was a factor of 3600 on the high side. Then you were off by a factor of about 14 on the low side in pricing kilowatt-hours. And I would say you were about a factor of 2 on the high side in wattage of a server. Altogether you were high by a factor of just about 500x which is the difference in our results.

    1. Re:more like $2500 a day by qnonsense · · Score: 2, Informative

      You quote 4.8KW-hours per day for a headless box. Prob about right, but multiply by two (which, speaking as someone who has seen the elec bills of a server room, is about right) to account for things like lighting (a tiny bit) and air-con (a huge expense) and UPS systems. So we have 9.6KW-hours/day per box. Electricity in CA (where google is) is around $.22/KWH on the commercial scale, not a nickel (you must live in the east). So you're off by a factor of ten, but still, $25,000 is a lot less than the $1.2mil/day that the original poster blathered about.

      --
      There comes a time in every man's life when he must say, "No mother! I do not want any more Jell-O!"
  69. Cindy [McCaffrey]... by fmaxwell · · Score: 3, Funny

    I got onto Google, typed "Cindy McCaffrey", and pressed the I'm Feeling Lucky button. It didn't work out nearly as well as I had hoped. No phone number. No candid pics. Not even an e-mail address. I'm disappointed in Google.

    1. Re:Cindy [McCaffrey]... by DangerTenor · · Score: 2, Funny

      I got onto Google, typed "Cindy McCaffrey", and pressed the I'm Feeling Lucky button. It didn't work out nearly as well as I had hoped. No phone number. No candid pics. Not even an e-mail address. I'm disappointed in Google.

      Perhaps you misread, it's not the I Want To Get Lucky button...

      --
      Check out our infosecurity industry blog: http://securitymusings.com/
    2. Re:Cindy [McCaffrey]... by johnjones · · Score: 2

      yeah but what kind of browser does she use I bet its I.E. or netscape 6 if she's really trying to be goofy

      try getting her to compile mozilla and I bet she'd shirk it "but I'm not a techy"

      regards

      john "oh for fsck sake type make" jones

  70. Re:We played pool at Eudora, but the beer was bett by skirch · · Score: 1
    In fact, they wound up taking the pool table away because it was causing "productivity" to slip.

    I suspect this difference has something to do with the people at Google enjoying what they work on. Don't get me wrong, I have no idea what the atmosphere was like at Eudora. Maybe everyone was totally into email clients. But at Google, especially after reading Craigs answers, you get the feeling that they're all on the same page. Not just your usual group of developers that has nothing more in common than beer, but a group of people excited about what they're doing.

    (I really don't mean to slam Eudora, but Google does seem like an interesting exception to the rule.)

  71. couple of things I didn't see by alizard · · Score: 3
    I'd like to see the innards of google discussed in a lot more detail. What I mean here is a good technical article on just how one puts together 10K+ machines into a working system.

    I'm also interested in seeing a discussion with actual google people on their policy on what's "suitable" and "unsuitable" as far as advertising goes. I've heard that pro-gun sites are considered "unsuitable" for no other reason than someone at google doesn't like guns. Google's right, but one starts to wonder if those biases are going to get built into the search engine algorithms sooner or later.

    As google becomes a more and more important tool for getting to the rest of the Net, their politics are an issue whether they like it or not.

  72. Re:4th post.... by damiam · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    Moderators: let me explain something. Even if you feel that a post is worthy of a -1 rating, there's NO NEED TO MOD IT DOWN if the parent post is already at -1. Replies to -1 comments are hidden for anyone whose threshold isn't -1, so there's NO POINT WHATSOEVER in wasting your mod points on them.

    Unless you just like fucking with people's karma. In that case, I have 50, do your worst.

    --
    It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
  73. brings new meaning to the term "Googlewhacking" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Googlewhacking"... ack... did i say that? Of course not... nothing to see here.. go on to the next post...

  74. AdWords by yerricde · · Score: 3, Informative

    I want the site to rank well in Google for the topics and products it covers, so how do I avoid screwing up with virtual hosting?

    1. Virtual host by hostname, not by path. GeoCities hosts by path (www.geocities.com/$user/rest.of.url); Freeservers hosts by hostname (pineight.8m.com/rest.of.url).

    2. If you feel that your ranking is still not high enough, then bid on keywords.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:AdWords by GeckoX · · Score: 1

      Yeah, virtual hosting by host name is fine and dandy, unless you need to do anything through SSL.

      Do you know where this url would end up?
      https://sitename.company.com

      You'd think it'd end up at sitename.company.com ehh?
      nope.
      It'll end up at www.company.com.

      Why?
      Well, host headers are encrypted under SSL and don't get read until the request has already been routed.

      Fun ehh.

      --
      No Comment.
  75. Disappointing questions! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gee, they were really disappointing questions.

    They were mainly google fanboy questions that were way too general. This guy was their head tech dude -- we should have had more tech questions.

    Better luck next time.

  76. He didn't answer the question posed! by clarkgoble · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is it just me, or did he avoid answering the question about whether Google had itself become a point of failure for the internet. His answer basically was that the fact we need Google to find things implies a decentralized net. Yet the question was whether Google replacing other search engines implies that if Google fails the net fails. i.e. we have the de-facto rise of a centralized interface to the net.

    Let me put it an other way. Consider that some terrorist manages to destroy all the Google servers. What happens to practical day to day work that uses the Internet?

    1. Re:He didn't answer the question posed! by CableModemSniper · · Score: 0

      teoma

      --
      Why not fork?
    2. Re:He didn't answer the question posed! by Clansman · · Score: 1

      Most jobs that consider access to google as the centre of their work domain have nothing to do with the real world of utilities, food, transport, work, life, etc. Good grief, get a grip ... :-)

  77. Re:We played pool at Eudora, but the beer was bett by Ducky · · Score: 1

    I think it has something to do with the location. If you declare "fun time" and hold it at everyone's desks, people just don't feel free from work. But if you have coworkers get together some place generally not associated with work (a park), people put the usual corporate structure aside.

    [btw, Colleen landed a position end of March with Eudora. The crew's in R now. Lot closer than bldg I was =) ]

    -Duck

  78. Try again... by dillon_rinker · · Score: 2

    Let's try this again...

    P = 3.5amps * 120 volts * 10,000 computers
    = 4,200,000 watts

    Let's convert this to an hourly figure

    E = 4,200,000 watts * 1 hour
    = 4,200,000 watt-hours

    Let's convert this to kilowatt-hours for simplicity:

    E = 4200 kwh

    The remainder is left as an exercise

  79. power consumption by faster · · Score: 3, Informative

    Since Google uses Rackable Systems 1U boxes (mostly), they can put 80 in a telco cabinet along with a couple of switches. About double the normal capacity of a cabinet. That means about double the power draw per cabinet.

    Exodus reworked their pricing after Google forced them to rewire a bunch of cabinets to handle double the power draw.

    As of a year ago when a couple of the Google techies gave a talk at a BayLISA meeting, they had four data centers, two on the west coast and two on the east coast.

  80. Re:We played pool at Eudora, but the beer was bett by Wee · · Score: 2
    But if you have coworkers get together some place generally not associated with work (a park), people put the usual corporate structure aside

    I agree. It really helps to be somewhere besides the meeting room. Spontaneity helps too. Insane working conditions/hours (hence the need to blow off steam) also help. Of course, none of that was really necessary for people like me (and 7/8s of tech support), who never had much in the way of structure to begin with.

    Congrats to Colleen! I'll have to check out the duckpond every once in a while and see what's happening.

    I still have some Guiness in a bottle hanging around if you ever find yourself up north... :-)

    -B

    --

    Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.

  81. Re:4th post.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damian, metamod aleviates the problem. And as moderators we learn to mod more up than down.

    Why? My guess is that a -1 Troll that is not really trolly (most are just biased or somewhat uninformed) will be metamod up. While an interesting post will probably not be marked Overrated easily (because you cannot always tell if some people will find it usefull).

    So I don't have the stats, but i think metamoderators end up using more the unfair button for downgraded messages than the opposite.

  82. Dictionary Links by JasonMcVeigh · · Score: 1

    that link to dictionary.com was PERFECT. great work boys.

  83. BTW fsck you downvoter by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    I was the first person to post that particular comment under that comment. Stick it.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  84. Craig, why did you duck that one? by leonbrooks · · Score: 1, Redundant
    Do you think Google has become an Internet point of failure?

    That didn't actually get answered.

    I know Google's been somewhat Akamai'ed, which helps, but if for example your data warehouse had a 'plane land on it (this kind of thing has happened a lot elsewhere in recent days), how long would Google be off-air for?

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  85. Be decisive. by rahl · · Score: 1

    If you want a relationship, you've got to treat the woman with respect. However, you can't be so respectful that you fail to assert yourself. If you have no confidence in yourself, eventually your girl will lose her confidence in you, and then you're just friends.


    -rahl

    --
    Reality is indistinguishable from any sufficiently advanced fantasy.
    1. Re:Be decisive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the standard BS people believe. I believed it too.

      http://www.sosuave.com/niceguys/

      should set things straight.

  86. NO CARRIER by totallygeek · · Score: 2
    What is funny is the Director of Technology for Google has dial-up.

  87. Re:PageRank, not SiteRank by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aye, but I imagine that kind No Deep Linking policy will put people off from linking at all.

  88. cruel? by CoughDropAddict · · Score: 2
    How do you avoid business pressures to make short-sighted solutions, and consistently make good, common sense ideas work instead of adopting ones from marketing sources? [...]

    Craig:

    You know, it's this kind of cruel, hard-hitting question that gives the press a bad name.
    Huh? The question, paraphrased, was "how does Google manage to not suck when so many lesser companes suck?" The question is very complimentary of Google! I don't understand how Craig construed it as "cruel."
  89. Cindy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh wow I never knew, but boy she really is cute. Damn you people for making me aware of yet another hot woman I'll never get to go out with :-)

  90. Oldskool by YeeHaW_Jelte · · Score: 2

    "As I recall, the Internet was basically unusable until DNS got fixed up again."

    Eh, sonny? What's this DNS you're talking about? Only sissies use domain-names, real die-hards use IP-adresses. Now, lets see, what was that address for google again ...

    --

    ---
    "The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
  91. It was irony. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I am guessing that you are American, right?

  92. Linux Support by PhilHibbs · · Score: 2
    (we usually talk directly to the author of a piece of code when we're having problems with it)
    Good for you, but I imagine a Linux developer getting a call from Google asking for help would be chuffer to bits. The same Linux developer getting called by, say, the US Govt, or Wal Mart, or Monsanto would probably not be quite so buzzed. This is why Linux support is not regarded as reliable in big corporations.
  93. Perfectly professional by alienmole · · Score: 2

    There's no question that Craig's answer was required by the executive and legal team at Google. What would you have him do, stiff all his co-workers? That's just naive.

  94. Why is the standard American workplace so stale? by wessman · · Score: 1

    "When you and a co-worker discuss an idea in a conference room, that pretty much limits the communication potential to just you two; when you discuss it over a game of pool, soon half the company has wandered by and had the opportunity to comment."

    Why do most American executives think so differently? When will most industries realize that not just customer support/loyalty is important, but employee morale and out-of-the-box thinking leads to more productivity (when done right) and then more profits (if managed right)?

    Yes, I'm jealous.

  95. Confusing respect for nice guys and balls by rlowe69 · · Score: 2

    The thing is, though, that women tend to take nice guys who treat them with respect for granted.

    I think we're clouding the issue. Women like nice guys. They also like guys who think for themselves, do what they want to and defend themselves. In the common lexicon, this is called "having balls". The difference is that the former are like little brothers and the latter are the (so-called-by-nice-guys) "assholes" they date.

    The correlation between niceness and lack of balls has been well documented. It's very difficult to be nice and defend yourself and be confident, as one deviation from nice behaviour will exclude you from the "nice guy" collective.

    Some people also confuse this with "playing the game". The game is bullshit. If you're being yourself and you're confident, you preclude yourself from having to play the complicated mind game that nice guys have to play. It's that easy.

    You just have to throw that bologna out the window and do what you want. Be your own person. Don't be a pushover. Save nice for nuns, priests and girl guides. Women are smart social animals and can see right through the BS. They respect that more than a nice pushover guy. Which is why they acutally DATE the assholes - the assholes are just being themselves!

    </tired-jumbled-rant>

    --
    ----- rL