The fact that they attribute success to the software did not surprise me; the chunk and shard (not mentioned in the article) approach has been known for some time. But the fact that the GFS architecture works with BigTable and MapReduce was interesting, and that it handles many data/content types. What this creates is not only a scalable structure volume size, AND a sustainable business model. As new content types are added, regardless of size or type, they can generally be indexed appropriately.
I am looking forward to searching more within types like video and audio, or even medical records like xRays or MRI results. The possibilities are staggering.
Normally I would say that parent should be modded up, and agree that it is true that most of the time hackers just want to use the machine's resources (Connectivity, etc.), not the data.
But this hack requires physical access to the machine, which would mean a person probably wants to access data. It would be too much work to go to somebody's basement and do this so you use the machine as a spambot.
It is an addicting game, I had a boss who used to kick me off my computer, the only Windows 3.x system in the office, at lunch everyday. She was almost as crazy as George Dobbs, the ALDOT worker who spent massive amounts of time on Solitaire:
http://www.waff.com/Global/story.asp?S=2081845
IMNSHO...the approach taken to these types of articles, and this one in particular is wrong. They tend to take a look at the form and stretch it in all sorts of directions (a blob? A clam shell on its side as an ebook?). But they go conservative on the underlying technology. Why can we only expect 6 cores, and 2Tb of Magnetic disk space/or 250Mb of SSD storage? The technology always outstrips the ability of people to change the way they use it, other than certain disruptive technologies which may make another technology obsolete (cell phones not land lines; wireless not wired LAN, etc.). But for the very personal use, people will not in 8 years switch to a blob, or use a laptop on a steering wheel (though I'd like to try:)). Even with speech input, tablets, etc. - traditional hardware interfaces have not chnaged in 25 years ("here's your keyboard, screen, and main unit...oh it's all in one? Let's call it a laptop, no wait...a notebook"
They will want:
Lighter Devices
Better Battery Life/less power used
Tactile Feedback from a keyboard
Faster Processing, and ability to never see an hourglass
Higher amount of storage
Faster Connections to other devices or resoucres
More Robust Construction
Less errors affecting their use
Then they will try to decide between small surface area (small screen and keyboard for portability) compared to large surface area for usability.
For me, just make my Toshiba M400 faster, more reliable, lighter, and better battery life, and able to never see an hourglass and I am there.
Yes, I do understand low hanging fruit. When I was in the AF I won several suggestion awards for exactly that, and got a token award for things like "Let's but this part for $1.00 from this source instead of $1.50 over here", so it is part of the culture, and both encouraged and rewarded. I also completely re-engineered the supply chain at numerous locations to improve flow, and reduce costs.
My point is that my experience at identifying and actually taking advantage of flow hanging fruit, and identifying and executing effective, efficient, processes has been common to both the AF and private industry. The converse is also true, as a consultant, I see inefficient, ineffective processes in private industry also. Both are sometimes addressed, and sometimes ignored.
I am just one guy, but that is my observation FWIW.
I do not think I am confused. I am asking why the teacher cannot actively engage in scientific thought. I did not even say I supported ID. It would appear that people are not allowed to question the theory of origins currently popular, or even present any opposing view. That opposing view does not have to be religiously based to be effetively forbidden by this action.
That sounds like a religion to me: "do not question it, just trust us, we are right" How did that happen?
I was in the US Air Force for 12 years, and and have now been in private industry for about the same, and I can tell you the USAF is reflective of all organizations. It makes mistakes like all others, exceeds standards in a lot, and at the end of the day gets the job done using the resources allotted to it. If there is low hanging fruit there, it is generally no more or less than anywhere else.
"Religion" has been regarded for centuries as unquestionable and authoritative. At what point did science merely replace that? When were we told that we cannot question assumptions made as part of scientific theory, and doesn't that reduce science to just another religion?
Why do we listen to people that cannot reliably tell us what will happen tomorrow in terms of weather? We are supposed to attribute credibility to them for prediciting hurricanes, and even global warming, a much longer cycle of data and extrapolation, when I am not sure if I need an umbrella or not. Ridiculous.
Are you sure Dell retains a stock of motherboards? They do for the Optiplex line, but I do not think they do for the Dimension line. The Dimension line can change at a whim and takes advantage of new tech, better pricing, etc. Their supply chain is very optimized to reduce inventory. But the Optiplex line (and the corresponding Notebooks aimed at corporate), do remain consistent over a long time, and I would think they maintian an inventory of spares.
Either way, the revalidation is a major hassle and potential loss of use regardless of the legitimate reasons to change equipment components.
How can the parent of this, and its parent both be modded to +5 Insightful, when they are opposed? I would think one is insightful and the other is not.
You have taken my words out of context and added meaning I never stated. I did not say peope would not be moral or care about things like their history separate from any thought on a creative influence; I said "The reason people rail so much against the idea of creation is that it would mean there is a creator.". There is a distinct difference between what you are implying I am saying, and what I said. In other words, and to state again - the reason people do not like the idea of creation is that it means there must be a creator, and they are possibly obligated to live in that creator's purpose or plan, not their own. Without a creator, they are free to do as they please without care, to live morally or immorally, to study their origin, or not.
Actually, he is wrong. There was only one forbidden tree, from Genesis 2:16-17:
The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely;but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."
They could eat from ANY tree except that one, or in other words only ONE tree was forbidden. The second tree mentioned in verse 9 was not forbidden to the man at all; he could have eaten at any point from it BEFORE the fall. The reason it was forbidden after the fall is because the penalty of sin was death; and had to pay for the sin of disobedience, which ultimately only Christ could pay, but that is a whole other subject.
You misuse the bible just like Satan. Look at how he misuses the command of God in Genesis 3:1"
And he said to the woman, Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?
See how subtle that is? A slight change of words makes God to be a restrictive, overbearing, won't let us do anything kind of a God. And he even asks it as a question.
At the risk of flaming, a lot of you are using the same approach. I guess the "apple", especially in this case, does not fall far from the tree.
You asked for a scripture that states God is all powerful, here are some:
Psalms 115:2-3 "Why should the nations say, "Where, now, is their God?" But our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases."
Daniel 4:35: "the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, But He does according to His will in the host of heaven And among the inhabitants of earth; And no one can ward off His hand Or say to Him, 'What have You done?'"
Certainly the cncept of God as creator (which in fact is the general topic of this slashdot article, implies he is sovereign over His creation. The reason people rail so much against the idea of creation is that it would mean there is a creator. And that is what they reject - the idea of being responsible to some higher power. If it was just creation with no implied responsibility, who would really care?
Your argument assumes that an omnipotent, omnipresent being would always prevent something they would not personally do or agree with. You are going to have to do a little better than that. While not omnipotent, anybody with kids knows that you may have the authority and power to stop them from doing something out of your wishes, but you may allow it for various reasons.
Same here - I have flash, etc., but with FF and Adblock, no popups can, well, pop-up...
Why more people do not do this is beyond me, but if they all did it, I guess these free sites might disappear. On second thought, everybody should just let the ads and pop-ups fly. Go ahead, click some too.
Well, the US Constitution, or rather, how it is interpreted and applied, is in fact the final authority in the United States, which oddly enough, is where this situation occured.
As to the issue of censorship, whule somebody may practice censorship in definition, it really only matters if there is no other outlet.
Please, please do not tell me that the Wikipedia, established in 2k? is a more substanatial guideline than the US Constitution. I can see it now on capital hill, some senator asking a judical appointee "Sir, where do you stand on the issue ofd abortion as Wikipedia applies?". And the appointee benignly answering that he takes a strict view of Wikipedia, and how it applies, but to the issue of abortion, he cannot answer...
The issue is - what is a "controlling group or body"? Since anybody is free to self publish, or find some other outlet for their views, the local newspaper is in fact NOT censoring an idea because it chooses not to publish it.
I was going to poke fun at your setup with a reference to an IBM 360, but to be fair, I grabbed AdBlock and FilterSet.G, and really like it much better with those installed. Not sure about the burn-in factor on your retinas with the black background, but hey, to each his own.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that they attribute success to the software did not surprise me; the chunk and shard (not mentioned in the article) approach has been known for some time. But the fact that the GFS architecture works with BigTable and MapReduce was interesting, and that it handles many data/content types. What this creates is not only a scalable structure volume size, AND a sustainable business model. As new content types are added, regardless of size or type, they can generally be indexed appropriately. I am looking forward to searching more within types like video and audio, or even medical records like xRays or MRI results. The possibilities are staggering.
Normally I would say that parent should be modded up, and agree that it is true that most of the time hackers just want to use the machine's resources (Connectivity, etc.), not the data. But this hack requires physical access to the machine, which would mean a person probably wants to access data. It would be too much work to go to somebody's basement and do this so you use the machine as a spambot.
Look honey...it looks just like you!
It is an addicting game, I had a boss who used to kick me off my computer, the only Windows 3.x system in the office, at lunch everyday. She was almost as crazy as George Dobbs, the ALDOT worker who spent massive amounts of time on Solitaire: http://www.waff.com/Global/story.asp?S=2081845
How ironic... BTW - that may be the biggest laugh I ever had on /., which usually vexes me with its insanity and trolls.
Evidently dying on Weds does not result in a Slashdot post until Sunday? That is one slow effect...
They will want:
- Lighter Devices
- Better Battery Life/less power used
- Tactile Feedback from a keyboard
- Faster Processing, and ability to never see an hourglass
- Higher amount of storage
- Faster Connections to other devices or resoucres
- More Robust Construction
- Less errors affecting their use
Then they will try to decide between small surface area (small screen and keyboard for portability) compared to large surface area for usability.For me, just make my Toshiba M400 faster, more reliable, lighter, and better battery life, and able to never see an hourglass and I am there.
Yes, I do understand low hanging fruit. When I was in the AF I won several suggestion awards for exactly that, and got a token award for things like "Let's but this part for $1.00 from this source instead of $1.50 over here", so it is part of the culture, and both encouraged and rewarded. I also completely re-engineered the supply chain at numerous locations to improve flow, and reduce costs.
My point is that my experience at identifying and actually taking advantage of flow hanging fruit, and identifying and executing effective, efficient, processes has been common to both the AF and private industry. The converse is also true, as a consultant, I see inefficient, ineffective processes in private industry also. Both are sometimes addressed, and sometimes ignored.
I am just one guy, but that is my observation FWIW.
I do not think I am confused. I am asking why the teacher cannot actively engage in scientific thought. I did not even say I supported ID. It would appear that people are not allowed to question the theory of origins currently popular, or even present any opposing view. That opposing view does not have to be religiously based to be effetively forbidden by this action. That sounds like a religion to me: "do not question it, just trust us, we are right" How did that happen?
I was in the US Air Force for 12 years, and and have now been in private industry for about the same, and I can tell you the USAF is reflective of all organizations. It makes mistakes like all others, exceeds standards in a lot, and at the end of the day gets the job done using the resources allotted to it. If there is low hanging fruit there, it is generally no more or less than anywhere else.
"Religion" has been regarded for centuries as unquestionable and authoritative. At what point did science merely replace that? When were we told that we cannot question assumptions made as part of scientific theory, and doesn't that reduce science to just another religion?
nothing to see here folks...keep it moving
Why do we listen to people that cannot reliably tell us what will happen tomorrow in terms of weather? We are supposed to attribute credibility to them for prediciting hurricanes, and even global warming, a much longer cycle of data and extrapolation, when I am not sure if I need an umbrella or not. Ridiculous.
Are you sure Dell retains a stock of motherboards? They do for the Optiplex line, but I do not think they do for the Dimension line. The Dimension line can change at a whim and takes advantage of new tech, better pricing, etc. Their supply chain is very optimized to reduce inventory. But the Optiplex line (and the corresponding Notebooks aimed at corporate), do remain consistent over a long time, and I would think they maintian an inventory of spares. Either way, the revalidation is a major hassle and potential loss of use regardless of the legitimate reasons to change equipment components.
Mod Parent MUCH higher-this is absolutely the case!
How can the parent of this, and its parent both be modded to +5 Insightful, when they are opposed? I would think one is insightful and the other is not.
You have taken my words out of context and added meaning I never stated. I did not say peope would not be moral or care about things like their history separate from any thought on a creative influence; I said "The reason people rail so much against the idea of creation is that it would mean there is a creator.". There is a distinct difference between what you are implying I am saying, and what I said. In other words, and to state again - the reason people do not like the idea of creation is that it means there must be a creator, and they are possibly obligated to live in that creator's purpose or plan, not their own. Without a creator, they are free to do as they please without care, to live morally or immorally, to study their origin, or not.
Actually, he is wrong. There was only one forbidden tree, from Genesis 2:16-17:
The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely;but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."
They could eat from ANY tree except that one, or in other words only ONE tree was forbidden. The second tree mentioned in verse 9 was not forbidden to the man at all; he could have eaten at any point from it BEFORE the fall. The reason it was forbidden after the fall is because the penalty of sin was death; and had to pay for the sin of disobedience, which ultimately only Christ could pay, but that is a whole other subject.
You misuse the bible just like Satan. Look at how he misuses the command of God in Genesis 3:1"
And he said to the woman, Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?
See how subtle that is? A slight change of words makes God to be a restrictive, overbearing, won't let us do anything kind of a God. And he even asks it as a question.
At the risk of flaming, a lot of you are using the same approach. I guess the "apple", especially in this case, does not fall far from the tree.
You asked for a scripture that states God is all powerful, here are some:
Psalms 115:2-3 "Why should the nations say, "Where, now, is their God?" But our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases."
Daniel 4:35: "the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, But He does according to His will in the host of heaven And among the inhabitants of earth; And no one can ward off His hand Or say to Him, 'What have You done?'"
Certainly the cncept of God as creator (which in fact is the general topic of this slashdot article, implies he is sovereign over His creation. The reason people rail so much against the idea of creation is that it would mean there is a creator. And that is what they reject - the idea of being responsible to some higher power. If it was just creation with no implied responsibility, who would really care?
Your argument assumes that an omnipotent, omnipresent being would always prevent something they would not personally do or agree with. You are going to have to do a little better than that. While not omnipotent, anybody with kids knows that you may have the authority and power to stop them from doing something out of your wishes, but you may allow it for various reasons.
Same here - I have flash, etc., but with FF and Adblock, no popups can, well, pop-up...
Why more people do not do this is beyond me, but if they all did it, I guess these free sites might disappear. On second thought, everybody should just let the ads and pop-ups fly. Go ahead, click some too.
Really -- can you cite the source of this poll?
Well, the US Constitution, or rather, how it is interpreted and applied, is in fact the final authority in the United States, which oddly enough, is where this situation occured.
As to the issue of censorship, whule somebody may practice censorship in definition, it really only matters if there is no other outlet.
Please, please do not tell me that the Wikipedia, established in 2k? is a more substanatial guideline than the US Constitution. I can see it now on capital hill, some senator asking a judical appointee "Sir, where do you stand on the issue ofd abortion as Wikipedia applies?". And the appointee benignly answering that he takes a strict view of Wikipedia, and how it applies, but to the issue of abortion, he cannot answer... The issue is - what is a "controlling group or body"? Since anybody is free to self publish, or find some other outlet for their views, the local newspaper is in fact NOT censoring an idea because it chooses not to publish it.
I was going to poke fun at your setup with a reference to an IBM 360, but to be fair, I grabbed AdBlock and FilterSet.G, and really like it much better with those installed. Not sure about the burn-in factor on your retinas with the black background, but hey, to each his own.