The algorithms required to make a mainframe work vs. a distributed system are vastly different. Your failure to recognize this is probably why your thoughts are outdated.
Mainframes are distributed systems in a big iron box. There's a reason you can hot swap CPUs and RAM in a mainframe. It's because everything is redundant, distributed, and aware of other components.
The cloud is mainframe that sacrifices speed for physical separation (to prevent failures due to loss of power, or disasters). The algorithms are only "vastly different" if you're too dumb to see past IPv4 and understand what the damned thing is actually doing and why.
The videos show different code blocks. Useless for a comparison. The "expert" spends way too long looking at the top of the fucking code.
Your eyes should immediately drop past that shit and start where the program actually starts. When you see a function called, then look at it. A cursory glance will tell you that it does what its name implies. Glance back to the function call, and then to x, to find the output. Repeat for y. Then see the call to the other function, verify that it also does what it says on the tin with a quick glance, and then compare x and y.
All of 30 seconds if you're being meticulous about looking at x and y, and the "expert" in the video spends minutes just to ultimately get it wrong!
Its not Spam if you opt in. Spam is unsolicited. For this you have to request. Now is it possible the guy is bull shitting that part sure, however if we accept that the articles are bull why bother to read them?
They're spam because people are clicking the "THIS IS SPAM" button. They're clicking that button because they don't want the fucking emails and he keeps sending them.
Certain cryptography functions and related software packages are export-restricted by some governments for National Security(tm). As a result, products that contain export-restricted software is also export-restricted. Go read the PuTTY webpage, you'll see what I mean.
Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. The iPhone is not banned for export to China. Please stop spreading this myth. Certain products are banned because of cryptography. The iPhone is not among them.
That's dumb, the iPhone is MADE in China, it's also SOLD in China. There's no such export restriction and no such law (just think how dumb what you said is, in effect a product made in China can't be inside China... the mind boggles).
The rule is an Apple arbitrary sale limit rule. The article mentions Apple uses police officers to enforce it because they've had trouble in the past with people buying too many for unauthorized export. As if they get to tazer customers based on some EULA or something!
ALL SHE WANTED TO DO WAS BUY A LOT OF IPHONES AT FULL PRICE! (BTW they're the same price in China).
Right now I'm going to go to an Apple store and diss the products in front of other customers, complain they're overpriced, underpowered, not as good as the Android ones, maybe bring my Android quad core tablet and do visual compares. Until they ask me to leave. Then I'm not going to leave, I'm going to kick up one hell of a stink. Maybe do a bit of shouting about how they tazered a woman in an Apple store. f*** Apple. Really f*** em, corporate scum.
I'm sure the police are checking that their tasers are charged at this very moment...
First they have to cough up $30 for an adapter to charge their iTaze because it only has Lightning port. Which I guess makes sense for once.
"Big Data" is horse shit. It's code for "stuff it all in a pile and maybe someday we can get some of it out, but not in any order that makes sense, and not in any reliable fashion".
The problem with arguments like this is that it overlooks the fact that there is a lot of value in data that doesn't need ordering in advance, and where any missing gaps in data are not critical failures. Not all data can or should be stored in such systems, but for that which can, there are much better ways to store it than RDBMS. RDBMS isn't going away, but it's certainly been commoditised. In time, so will Big Data type storage, but until then it's a good thing to make good money on if you are starting out in this field precisely because it is relatively new, and also is not going away.
The only data you should throw in the big data pile is data you don't care about getting out or making sense of later. You may as well flatfile it at that point.
Gosh, guess I should stop using Cassandra for time series data, and forget all the performance gains its given me on huge data sets. Maybe if you organize it like a pile, a pile is what you get?
All else being equal, if a non-relational database is giving you significant performance gains, it just means you setup your relational database incorrectly.
The real money these days is in Big Data, not RDBMS. If you are just starting out now, start with what's still big in five years, not what was big five years ago.
"Big Data" is horse shit. It's code for "stuff it all in a pile and maybe someday we can get some of it out, but not in any order that makes sense, and not in any reliable fashion".
With respect, as a Javascript programmer, I can tell you that I hit a lot of WTF moments with Javascript on a regular basis. I'm pretty sure that web forms count as "real world usage"
With respect, as an actual programmer, I can tell you that "Javascript programming" is a misnomer for "Javascript scripting". I'm pretty sure that web forms don't count as "real world programming".
I've used MySQL and (MS) SQL Server. MySQL is trash, trash, trash. I've never had a problem with SQL Server (though I've only touched versions up to about a decade old).
SSD's for workstations sort of depends on the purpose of the workstation... For a video workstation for serious special effects etc, you run a bunch of the highest-quality 1TB+ drives you can find in RAID locally, and the rest over network. System boot time and application load times are non-factors, since that's just negligible time, compared with chucking around TB's of video, images etc that also need to be stored somewhere.
A colleague of mine skipped SSD's simply because if he needed really fast I/O for something, the dataset was always so small that he could fit it inside a 256GiB RAMDisk he setup in system RAM(out of his total 384GiB).
Also: with HD's, if the onboard controller dies, for example in the middle of doing a backup), you have a(small, mostly theoretical) chance of recovering the data. With a SSD, if the onboard controller dies, it's goodbye.
1: Nobody in the real world uses "GiB".
2: No one who has used both would every choose a RAID array of HDDs over a RAID array of SSDs unless cost/storage was the primary concern. (And according to your post it isn't since he allegedly fits his shit into a 256 GB RAM disk, which is absurd because that much memory and a workstation motherboard that supports it cost $$$$ and save you about zero time after taking into account the initial read in from disk.)
SSDs win in every category except cost/storage. No one spending $$$$ on 384 GB of RAM and a workstation to support it would balk at using SSDs. Especially not when 256 GB of that RAM is reserved for a RAM disk that would only be used when he "needed really fast I/O for something". No one needing more storage than you can squeeze into a standard workstation with SSDs would skip out on a networked storage solution if they used regular HDDs in the workstation.
Your story is bullshit or the people involved are idiots.
Date in memory is not a permanent storage, nor is data stored on disk. Furthermore, a string of binary bits which have been encoded and recoded are significantly different than the original.
Data on disk is considered permanent storage. The copy doesn't have to be permanent to be in violation of copyright law. A copy doesn't have to be identical to be a violation of copyright law. You can't legally copy the Harry Potter books by changing the font, a single word, etc.
You telling your computer to fetch the data you have no license to and make a copy of it (in memory or on permanent storage) is a copyright violation.
Who says I don't have a license?
So what you're saying is that the act of downloading is itself criminal? And that anything downloaded should be assumed to be a violation?
This law seems to take an extra step and just assume that any files that have come across your network connection are illegal downloads except for the ones that were downloaded from approved sources. Skipping the step where someone has to prove that you don't have a license and going right to the penalty phase.
The people who actually hold the copyright says you don't have a license.
The act of downloading itself is a violation of copyright, yes. You are making a copy when you have no license to do so. There is no exemption in the DMCA for personal use of something you didn't pay for. Exemptions in the DMCA include unlocking your phone for carrier portability and research purposes in an effort to maintain functionality/compatibility when there is no reasonable way to do so with the copyright holder's consent (i.e., company/product is dead, NOT update / new version is more expensive).
Copyright holders have a short list of approved sources. A scene release of a BluRay rip isn't one of them. Despite what we all may want, we are not allowed (under the DMCA) to rip our DVDs / BluRays. Even if we have the right to format shift our content (and this is nebulously defined at best with regards to CDs, but they've given up that fight) we do NOT have the right to break the encryption.
You telling your computer to fetch the data you have no license to and make a copy of it (in memory or on permanent storage) is a copyright violation. Like it or not.
Wait, are you telling me that the way my DVD buffers in vram before being displayed is illegal? Because it's technically copied into vram before being displayed...
No, because the drive/software are licensed to do that. Try harder!
Just as in the US, in Canada there's no such thing as "illegal downloading." Guess it's lucky for the copyright cartels that the most popular way to download a movie is with bittorrent which, conveniently-enough, involves uploading (making available).
In general, though, I wish the media would stop parroting the general idea that it's illegal to download copyrighted materials. It's no more illegal than bringing home a bootleg CD bought on the streets of Karachi.
You telling your computer to fetch the data you have no license to and make a copy of it (in memory or on permanent storage) is a copyright violation. Like it or not.
Once Google started manually fucking with the results and rankings, they became responsible for the content as they were no longer simply a passive repository.
Passwords must be given (just change it to something random and hand it to the court) so the court can appoint a reviewer to select which info is pertinent to the case. The reviewer then hands it off to the owner of the account (the plaintiffs) and they block/redact any info they say is private or unrelated. The reviewer then presents the evidence to the court (both plaintiff and defendant) and tells the judge if he thinks the owner of the account chose to block / redact any pertinent information.
The more normal process is for the attorney of the party requested to provide the data to sift through the mass of potentially relevant information and to extract what needs to be disclosed, redacting anything that isn't relevant to the questions at hand. The attorney's duty to the court ensures that all relevant information is provided, and the attorney's duty to the client ensures that nothing else is.
That only works when you already know the totality of what exists but do not have access to it (such as billing records for a certain time frame or whatever). That way you can call the lawyer out on shit that's missing. If you think a lawyer's duty to the court means anything, I've got a big ol' LOL for you.
Such as wearing a shirt with CUNT printed on it, then complaining for being called one after you labelled yourself.
My wife calls me sexy. I don't want my boss calling me sexy. I might call my wife a fucking bitch while playing a game if she makes a move that blocks. Her boss calling her a fucking bitch would be inappropriate in a professional office environment.
The plaintiff may have been at a bachelorette party where friends put the shirt on her or she was otherwise having a good time and went along with it. That doesn't mean it was appropriate, right, or that she appreciated her boss calling her that or saying that to her.
Context is very key and context can not be fully determined just from a picture. And even if it could, it still doesn't mean that the boss didn't sexually harass her or other plaintiffs.
Context is key, yes. Which is why the judge ordered that access to the accounts be turned over so that they can be independently reviewed for pertinent information. Otherwise you have the prosecution cherry picking things that eschew context and the defense doing the same.
Judge thinks we need to see the full picture instead of sitting through a my word vs your word battle. The full picture does include behavior outside of the workplace. If you talk about the case, the defendants, or aspects of your life that are related to your claim, the court should consider and present that evidence.
it's called a warrant and you have to show a likelihood of the existence of something that matches various search parameters in the warrant to even get one. you can't just say "it's possible it exists SO WE NEED TO SEARCH EVERYTHING!" just because the phrase can exist does NOT mean the judge has the right to view every message you've ever sent in the past three years to anybody. that's ridiculous. he can sign a warrant saying that any email messages on a specific account (or accounts, but each named individually) that match a very specific set of search parameters can be admissibile in court. Someone can then be appointed to search through those messages and even if something looks incriminating, if it doesn't match the search parameters, it shouldn't be admissible. plus, the only reason they even say the messages possibly exist really have no bearing on whether incriminating messages exist. So the original poster has a great point. None of that proves that any evidence for the defense exists and therefore access should not be granted to every personal detail of their lives.
Guess what! The defense has shown the judge that they have a reason to believe that there exist such specific things on those Facebook accounts that warrant a search!
Slashdot Mirror
Games tend to be particularly oinky for disk space... newer "big budget" games seem to be around 12 GiB (12.88GB) standard a piece these days.
Also, how big is Windows 8?
The PC version of Max Payne 3 is over 30 GB.
SSD are good for random IO of lots of tiny files because of the low latency, but spinning rust is about equivalent for bulk IO.
Show me a spinning disk that can shit out 500 MB/sec.
DataTraveler HyperX Predator 3.0
I laughed for about half a minute at that name. Next year: Mega Terminator X-treme 5x5!!!
AT 4G LTE SPEEDS WITH VERIZON 4G LTE, THE NATION'S FASTEST 4G LTE NETWORK, FROM VERIZON, THE LEADER IN 4G LTE.
The algorithms required to make a mainframe work vs. a distributed system are vastly different. Your failure to recognize this is probably why your thoughts are outdated.
Mainframes are distributed systems in a big iron box. There's a reason you can hot swap CPUs and RAM in a mainframe. It's because everything is redundant, distributed, and aware of other components.
The cloud is mainframe that sacrifices speed for physical separation (to prevent failures due to loss of power, or disasters). The algorithms are only "vastly different" if you're too dumb to see past IPv4 and understand what the damned thing is actually doing and why.
The videos show different code blocks. Useless for a comparison.
The "expert" spends way too long looking at the top of the fucking code.
Your eyes should immediately drop past that shit and start where the program actually starts.
When you see a function called, then look at it. A cursory glance will tell you that it does what its name implies. Glance back to the function call, and then to x, to find the output.
Repeat for y.
Then see the call to the other function, verify that it also does what it says on the tin with a quick glance, and then compare x and y.
All of 30 seconds if you're being meticulous about looking at x and y, and the "expert" in the video spends minutes just to ultimately get it wrong!
Most people with little or no experience with debuggers wait for the program to segfault and then ask for the stack trace.
AKA most people with little or no experience with debuggers ARE debuggers.
Its not Spam if you opt in. Spam is unsolicited. For this you have to request. Now is it possible the guy is bull shitting that part sure, however if we accept that the articles are bull why bother to read them?
They're spam because people are clicking the "THIS IS SPAM" button.
They're clicking that button because they don't want the fucking emails and he keeps sending them.
Certain cryptography functions and related software packages are export-restricted by some governments for National Security(tm). As a result, products that contain export-restricted software is also export-restricted. Go read the PuTTY webpage, you'll see what I mean.
Wrong.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
The iPhone is not banned for export to China. Please stop spreading this myth.
Certain products are banned because of cryptography. The iPhone is not among them.
That's dumb, the iPhone is MADE in China, it's also SOLD in China. There's no such export restriction and no such law (just think how dumb what you said is, in effect a product made in China can't be inside China... the mind boggles).
The rule is an Apple arbitrary sale limit rule. The article mentions Apple uses police officers to enforce it because they've had trouble in the past with people buying too many for unauthorized export. As if they get to tazer customers based on some EULA or something!
ALL SHE WANTED TO DO WAS BUY A LOT OF IPHONES AT FULL PRICE! (BTW they're the same price in China).
Right now I'm going to go to an Apple store and diss the products in front of other customers, complain they're overpriced, underpowered, not as good as the Android ones, maybe bring my Android quad core tablet and do visual compares. Until they ask me to leave. Then I'm not going to leave, I'm going to kick up one hell of a stink. Maybe do a bit of shouting about how they tazered a woman in an Apple store. f*** Apple. Really f*** em, corporate scum.
I'm sure the police are checking that their tasers are charged at this very moment...
First they have to cough up $30 for an adapter to charge their iTaze because it only has Lightning port. Which I guess makes sense for once.
You're a spammer... Hotmail and Yahoo are doing us good... Get lost!
Yup!
Can't believe this kid has the audacity to complain about it on Slashdot with a wall of text to hide the fact that he's a fucking spammer.
Sweet!!!
You mean we'd get an immediate price drop for the usual $1.25+ it costs in the machines nowdays?!?!
12 ounce cans are typically under a dollar.
$1.25 gets you a 20 ounce bottle.
Of course if you're at an amusement park, airport, zoo, whatever, triple all prices.
"Big Data" is horse shit.
It's code for "stuff it all in a pile and maybe someday we can get some of it out, but not in any order that makes sense, and not in any reliable fashion".
The problem with arguments like this is that it overlooks the fact that there is a lot of value in data that doesn't need ordering in advance, and where any missing gaps in data are not critical failures. Not all data can or should be stored in such systems, but for that which can, there are much better ways to store it than RDBMS. RDBMS isn't going away, but it's certainly been commoditised. In time, so will Big Data type storage, but until then it's a good thing to make good money on if you are starting out in this field precisely because it is relatively new, and also is not going away.
The only data you should throw in the big data pile is data you don't care about getting out or making sense of later.
You may as well flatfile it at that point.
Gosh, guess I should stop using Cassandra for time series data, and forget all the performance gains its given me on huge data sets. Maybe if you organize it like a pile, a pile is what you get?
All else being equal, if a non-relational database is giving you significant performance gains, it just means you setup your relational database incorrectly.
The real money these days is in Big Data, not RDBMS. If you are just starting out now, start with what's still big in five years, not what was big five years ago.
"Big Data" is horse shit.
It's code for "stuff it all in a pile and maybe someday we can get some of it out, but not in any order that makes sense, and not in any reliable fashion".
With respect, as a Javascript programmer, I can tell you that I hit a lot of WTF moments with Javascript on a regular basis. I'm pretty sure that web forms count as "real world usage"
With respect, as an actual programmer, I can tell you that "Javascript programming" is a misnomer for "Javascript scripting". I'm pretty sure that web forms don't count as "real world programming".
I've used MySQL and (MS) SQL Server.
MySQL is trash, trash, trash.
I've never had a problem with SQL Server (though I've only touched versions up to about a decade old).
SSD's for workstations sort of depends on the purpose of the workstation... For a video workstation for serious special effects etc, you run a bunch of the highest-quality 1TB+ drives you can find in RAID locally, and the rest over network. System boot time and application load times are non-factors, since that's just negligible time, compared with chucking around TB's of video, images etc that also need to be stored somewhere.
A colleague of mine skipped SSD's simply because if he needed really fast I/O for something, the dataset was always so small that he could fit it inside a 256GiB RAMDisk he setup in system RAM(out of his total 384GiB).
Also: with HD's, if the onboard controller dies, for example in the middle of doing a backup), you have a(small, mostly theoretical) chance of recovering the data. With a SSD, if the onboard controller dies, it's goodbye.
1: Nobody in the real world uses "GiB".
2: No one who has used both would every choose a RAID array of HDDs over a RAID array of SSDs unless cost/storage was the primary concern. (And according to your post it isn't since he allegedly fits his shit into a 256 GB RAM disk, which is absurd because that much memory and a workstation motherboard that supports it cost $$$$ and save you about zero time after taking into account the initial read in from disk.)
SSDs win in every category except cost/storage.
No one spending $$$$ on 384 GB of RAM and a workstation to support it would balk at using SSDs. Especially not when 256 GB of that RAM is reserved for a RAM disk that would only be used when he "needed really fast I/O for something".
No one needing more storage than you can squeeze into a standard workstation with SSDs would skip out on a networked storage solution if they used regular HDDs in the workstation.
Your story is bullshit or the people involved are idiots.
Date in memory is not a permanent storage, nor is data stored on disk. Furthermore, a string of binary bits which have been encoded and recoded are significantly different than the original.
Data on disk is considered permanent storage.
The copy doesn't have to be permanent to be in violation of copyright law.
A copy doesn't have to be identical to be a violation of copyright law. You can't legally copy the Harry Potter books by changing the font, a single word, etc.
Who says I don't have a license?
So what you're saying is that the act of downloading is itself criminal? And that anything downloaded should be assumed to be a violation?
This law seems to take an extra step and just assume that any files that have come across your network connection are illegal downloads except for the ones that were downloaded from approved sources. Skipping the step where someone has to prove that you don't have a license and going right to the penalty phase.
The people who actually hold the copyright says you don't have a license.
The act of downloading itself is a violation of copyright, yes. You are making a copy when you have no license to do so. There is no exemption in the DMCA for personal use of something you didn't pay for. Exemptions in the DMCA include unlocking your phone for carrier portability and research purposes in an effort to maintain functionality/compatibility when there is no reasonable way to do so with the copyright holder's consent (i.e., company/product is dead, NOT update / new version is more expensive).
Copyright holders have a short list of approved sources. A scene release of a BluRay rip isn't one of them. Despite what we all may want, we are not allowed (under the DMCA) to rip our DVDs / BluRays. Even if we have the right to format shift our content (and this is nebulously defined at best with regards to CDs, but they've given up that fight) we do NOT have the right to break the encryption.
You telling your computer to fetch the data you have no license to and make a copy of it (in memory or on permanent storage) is a copyright violation.
Like it or not.
Wait, are you telling me that the way my DVD buffers in vram before being displayed is illegal? Because it's technically copied into vram before being displayed ...
No, because the drive/software are licensed to do that.
Try harder!
Just as in the US, in Canada there's no such thing as "illegal downloading." Guess it's lucky for the copyright cartels that the most popular way to download a movie is with bittorrent which, conveniently-enough, involves uploading (making available).
In general, though, I wish the media would stop parroting the general idea that it's illegal to download copyrighted materials. It's no more illegal than bringing home a bootleg CD bought on the streets of Karachi.
You telling your computer to fetch the data you have no license to and make a copy of it (in memory or on permanent storage) is a copyright violation.
Like it or not.
Once Google started manually fucking with the results and rankings, they became responsible for the content as they were no longer simply a passive repository.
Passwords must be given (just change it to something random and hand it to the court) so the court can appoint a reviewer to select which info is pertinent to the case. The reviewer then hands it off to the owner of the account (the plaintiffs) and they block/redact any info they say is private or unrelated. The reviewer then presents the evidence to the court (both plaintiff and defendant) and tells the judge if he thinks the owner of the account chose to block / redact any pertinent information.
The more normal process is for the attorney of the party requested to provide the data to sift through the mass of potentially relevant information and to extract what needs to be disclosed, redacting anything that isn't relevant to the questions at hand. The attorney's duty to the court ensures that all relevant information is provided, and the attorney's duty to the client ensures that nothing else is.
That only works when you already know the totality of what exists but do not have access to it (such as billing records for a certain time frame or whatever). That way you can call the lawyer out on shit that's missing. If you think a lawyer's duty to the court means anything, I've got a big ol' LOL for you.
My wife calls me sexy. I don't want my boss calling me sexy. I might call my wife a fucking bitch while playing a game if she makes a move that blocks. Her boss calling her a fucking bitch would be inappropriate in a professional office environment.
The plaintiff may have been at a bachelorette party where friends put the shirt on her or she was otherwise having a good time and went along with it. That doesn't mean it was appropriate, right, or that she appreciated her boss calling her that or saying that to her.
Context is very key and context can not be fully determined just from a picture. And even if it could, it still doesn't mean that the boss didn't sexually harass her or other plaintiffs.
Context is key, yes.
Which is why the judge ordered that access to the accounts be turned over so that they can be independently reviewed for pertinent information.
Otherwise you have the prosecution cherry picking things that eschew context and the defense doing the same.
Judge thinks we need to see the full picture instead of sitting through a my word vs your word battle.
The full picture does include behavior outside of the workplace. If you talk about the case, the defendants, or aspects of your life that are related to your claim, the court should consider and present that evidence.
it's called a warrant and you have to show a likelihood of the existence of something that matches various search parameters in the warrant to even get one. you can't just say "it's possible it exists SO WE NEED TO SEARCH EVERYTHING!" just because the phrase can exist does NOT mean the judge has the right to view every message you've ever sent in the past three years to anybody. that's ridiculous. he can sign a warrant saying that any email messages on a specific account (or accounts, but each named individually) that match a very specific set of search parameters can be admissibile in court. Someone can then be appointed to search through those messages and even if something looks incriminating, if it doesn't match the search parameters, it shouldn't be admissible. plus, the only reason they even say the messages possibly exist really have no bearing on whether incriminating messages exist. So the original poster has a great point. None of that proves that any evidence for the defense exists and therefore access should not be granted to every personal detail of their lives.
Guess what! The defense has shown the judge that they have a reason to believe that there exist such specific things on those Facebook accounts that warrant a search!