As of 2007, IBM's Blue Gene/P system cost $1.3M per rack, and the Blue Gene/L cost $800K (per a PCWorld story entitled http://www.pcworld.com/article/135334/ibm_drops_price_on_supercomputer.html).
However, it should be noted that the hardware cost of such systems doesn't reflect the total configuration and operating cost. Many news outlets have reported on the favorable overall cost effectiveness of building supercomputing clusters with PS3s. Yellow Dog Linux has features specifically designed to support the Cell/B.E. CPU.
lmgtfy.com simply redirects the user to Google with the proper query in the URL, albeit in an amusing fashion. This is quite different from using a proxy system to query Google.
If you had bothered to pay closer attention to the article, you would know that you're wrong.
Oleg Nikolaenko of Moscow, also know by his online nickname “Docent”, is thought to be the man behind the “Mega-D” bot network of 500,000 infected computers... Atkinson, along with another spammer Jody Smith, were last year sentenced to prison terms for computer related offenses. Atkinson also later admitted to using Nikolaenko.
The article does not say Nikolaenko has been convicted of anything yet.
To my ears at least, you seem to be implying that Google is willfully complicit in something illicit. The act of searching for something does not break copyright law. Actually distributing it without the right to do so does break copyright law. Also, for purposes of increasing your chances of retaining some credibility in the future, please also note that the term "copyright" is not spelled "coppywrite."
You'll be waiting a long time. Google's AUP prohibits the activity you're describing, and it's extremely difficult to do it on anything resembling a large scale without getting blocked.
Why are you assuming I didn't review the study? I did, and again, the conclusions are deeply flawed. The appropriate course of action would be to instantiate improved policies for the production of documents that appear in PDF format for general consumption. Once again, the file format itself is not the problem.
Wow, the GP response occupies maybe 6x2 inches on my MBP display, and that's with the browser window occupying perhaps only 3/5 of the horizontal space available on the LCD. I think perhaps the issue lies with your particular parsing of the content.
Many applications can already export directly to PDF on exactly the terms you've described, and there are things like CutePDF that will allow you to "print" from any application to a PDF file with a couple of clicks under Windows. On Mac OS X and Linux platforms, you can typically just save any document as a PDF file, at least from most native apps. The capabilities you're describing are already in place, and there's no need to worry about strictly text and image-based docs you've created falling prey to any sort of vulnerability, at least not in the scope you've described.
For purposes of this particular discussion, I don't give a rip about security vulnerabilities from exploits in PDFs. We're talking about the accessibility of content that by all rights should be easily accessible to the vision impaired. On that note, it is firmly the fault of absolute morons (who are, in my experience, in the minority of content producers, by the way) who elect to convert text-based documents to PDF docs consisting of nothing more than one rendered image per page of content. It's actually beyond moronic, and I would formally reprimand anyone I found doing it with anything that was destined for even semi-public consumption. Above all else, it largely eliminates accessibility for everyone, including folks like myself who might idly attempt to search such PDFs for a specific term, and wind up screwed, because the idiot who created the document couldn't be bothered with operating an elementary piece of OCR software or gasp seeing if there was an alternate origin format that could likely be exported to a full-text-indexed PDF document with three clicks of the mouse.
The file format is not to blame. Morons who scan text-based documents into PDF files, saving each page as an image are to blame. Even in 1995 or so, when I was first exposed to OCR technology, it worked "fairly well." Anyone converting text to PDF by scanning pages in as images these days is a complete moron, and a huge variety of applications now support exporting text-based documents directly to PDF format with full text search and indexing capabilities intact, along with fancy formatting like gasp italics, bold script, superscript, subscript, numbers, fairly complex mathematical expressions, etc. Hell, images can even be embedded in PDF docs that are largely textual content (holy wow, the technology!), along with alternate text and hyperlinks. In other words, "WTFMATE."
Insightful?!? How did you manage to ignore the very real threat of asteroid impacts and other phenomena that are outside our control? It's really not a matter of "if" this will, but a matter of "when."
I've defined a contract in my user agent string, which is bound to wind up in their logs. It stipulates that every time I successfully load a page (HTTP 200) from their site, they owe me $100 USD. Should they decide to refuse payment, I have no reservations about issuing subpoenas for testimony from those who have administrative access to the logs and collecting what is rightfully mine. Let's hope for their sake that they're retaining their logs; I'd hate to have to have them brought up on charges of destroying evidence.
I'm having a really hard time coming up with a case where I'd ever recommend that people disable signature checks. That aside, your example is limited to one distribution. That isn't a good sample of the general Linux server install base, and the recommendation of one company certainly doesn't represent the actual behavior of most admins, even those using that distro. Care to provide a better citation?
Not that it matters... people usually just disable GPG checking or force install, when the signature check fails. Or they don't bother to check the "signature that's essentially 'impossible' to fake" before installing the tarball, anyways.
Care to cite your source for that? I work for a company with a very large base of customers running various distros (mostly Ubuntu and Debian), and this is not the behavior I see at all.
Now DFCU, 'splain to me again why you closed down the Alpharetta branch??!!!
Heh, you reminded me of the fact that Navy Federal Credit Union finally opened a shiny new branch at Crabapple awhile back... shortly after I moved to New Jersey. Awesome timing!
Is there a good technical reason for 32-bit Windows 7 not supporting more than 4 GB of RAM, period? PAE has been in use for a long time now, and while you can't have a single process that exceeds 3 GB in Linux (tunable, I'm given to understand, can also be a 2 GB per process limit in some installations), you can definitely go past 4 GB of total system memory. Windows Server 2008 Enterprise supports 64 GB per 32-bit system...
Given you statement, why would you link to a document entitled Reevaluating Amdahl's Law? Did you even read what you linked to? Here's an excerpt:
Our work to date shows that it is not an insurmountable task to extract very high efficiency from a massively-parallel ensemble, for the reasons presented here. We feel that it is important for the computing research community to overcome the "mental block" against massive parallelism imposed by a misuse of Amdahl's speedup formula; speedup should be measured by scaling the problem to the number of processors, not fixing problem size. We expect to extend our success to a broader range of applications and even larger values for N.
As stated in my original post, I'm about to buy a business account. However, given the explosion in realistic bandwidth usage by even average households given online media development, I'm pretty sure 250 GB a month isn't going to be adequate for most people fairly soon.
Very simply this: voicing an opinion that, while not directly related to the topic, I believe is important and related. What good is blazing fast Internet when content delivery is increasingly going 100% online, and you're stuck with an insufficient cap?
I care about speed, but I also care about transfer caps. Note that I'm not saying we should legislate this (I'm about to pay for "business class" service without a cap), but I'm saying 250 GB a month doesn't cut it for me. I transfer large disk images (server backups, even compressed, they're big) several times per month , move virtual machine images around on a routine basis, use streaming video services in lieu of television, streaming audio on top of that, etc. The list goes on, and my #1 concern isn't the transfer speed anymore. It's the transfer cap.
Slashdot Mirror
As of 2007, IBM's Blue Gene/P system cost $1.3M per rack, and the Blue Gene/L cost $800K (per a PCWorld story entitled http://www.pcworld.com/article/135334/ibm_drops_price_on_supercomputer.html). However, it should be noted that the hardware cost of such systems doesn't reflect the total configuration and operating cost. Many news outlets have reported on the favorable overall cost effectiveness of building supercomputing clusters with PS3s. Yellow Dog Linux has features specifically designed to support the Cell/B.E. CPU.
lmgtfy.com simply redirects the user to Google with the proper query in the URL, albeit in an amusing fashion. This is quite different from using a proxy system to query Google.
Oleg Nikolaenko of Moscow, also know by his online nickname “Docent”, is thought to be the man behind the “Mega-D” bot network of 500,000 infected computers ... Atkinson, along with another spammer Jody Smith, were last year sentenced to prison terms for computer related offenses. Atkinson also later admitted to using Nikolaenko.
The article does not say Nikolaenko has been convicted of anything yet.
Slashdot titles are frequently fertile grounds for seeding jokes.
To my ears at least, you seem to be implying that Google is willfully complicit in something illicit. The act of searching for something does not break copyright law. Actually distributing it without the right to do so does break copyright law. Also, for purposes of increasing your chances of retaining some credibility in the future, please also note that the term "copyright" is not spelled "coppywrite."
You'll be waiting a long time. Google's AUP prohibits the activity you're describing, and it's extremely difficult to do it on anything resembling a large scale without getting blocked.
Why are you assuming I didn't review the study? I did, and again, the conclusions are deeply flawed. The appropriate course of action would be to instantiate improved policies for the production of documents that appear in PDF format for general consumption. Once again, the file format itself is not the problem.
Wow, the GP response occupies maybe 6x2 inches on my MBP display, and that's with the browser window occupying perhaps only 3/5 of the horizontal space available on the LCD. I think perhaps the issue lies with your particular parsing of the content.
Many applications can already export directly to PDF on exactly the terms you've described, and there are things like CutePDF that will allow you to "print" from any application to a PDF file with a couple of clicks under Windows. On Mac OS X and Linux platforms, you can typically just save any document as a PDF file, at least from most native apps. The capabilities you're describing are already in place, and there's no need to worry about strictly text and image-based docs you've created falling prey to any sort of vulnerability, at least not in the scope you've described.
For purposes of this particular discussion, I don't give a rip about security vulnerabilities from exploits in PDFs. We're talking about the accessibility of content that by all rights should be easily accessible to the vision impaired. On that note, it is firmly the fault of absolute morons (who are, in my experience, in the minority of content producers, by the way) who elect to convert text-based documents to PDF docs consisting of nothing more than one rendered image per page of content. It's actually beyond moronic, and I would formally reprimand anyone I found doing it with anything that was destined for even semi-public consumption. Above all else, it largely eliminates accessibility for everyone, including folks like myself who might idly attempt to search such PDFs for a specific term, and wind up screwed, because the idiot who created the document couldn't be bothered with operating an elementary piece of OCR software or gasp seeing if there was an alternate origin format that could likely be exported to a full-text-indexed PDF document with three clicks of the mouse.
The file format is not to blame. Morons who scan text-based documents into PDF files, saving each page as an image are to blame. Even in 1995 or so, when I was first exposed to OCR technology, it worked "fairly well." Anyone converting text to PDF by scanning pages in as images these days is a complete moron, and a huge variety of applications now support exporting text-based documents directly to PDF format with full text search and indexing capabilities intact, along with fancy formatting like gasp italics, bold script, superscript, subscript, numbers, fairly complex mathematical expressions, etc. Hell, images can even be embedded in PDF docs that are largely textual content (holy wow, the technology!), along with alternate text and hyperlinks. In other words, "WTFMATE."
There's a technical term for the practice you're describing: rubber hose cryptanalysis
Insightful?!? How did you manage to ignore the very real threat of asteroid impacts and other phenomena that are outside our control? It's really not a matter of "if" this will, but a matter of "when."
I've defined a contract in my user agent string, which is bound to wind up in their logs. It stipulates that every time I successfully load a page (HTTP 200) from their site, they owe me $100 USD. Should they decide to refuse payment, I have no reservations about issuing subpoenas for testimony from those who have administrative access to the logs and collecting what is rightfully mine. Let's hope for their sake that they're retaining their logs; I'd hate to have to have them brought up on charges of destroying evidence.
I'm having a really hard time coming up with a case where I'd ever recommend that people disable signature checks. That aside, your example is limited to one distribution. That isn't a good sample of the general Linux server install base, and the recommendation of one company certainly doesn't represent the actual behavior of most admins, even those using that distro. Care to provide a better citation?
Not that it matters... people usually just disable GPG checking or force install, when the signature check fails. Or they don't bother to check the "signature that's essentially 'impossible' to fake" before installing the tarball, anyways.
Care to cite your source for that? I work for a company with a very large base of customers running various distros (mostly Ubuntu and Debian), and this is not the behavior I see at all.
Whooooooosh.
Now DFCU, 'splain to me again why you closed down the Alpharetta branch??!!!
Heh, you reminded me of the fact that Navy Federal Credit Union finally opened a shiny new branch at Crabapple awhile back... shortly after I moved to New Jersey. Awesome timing!
As far as performance impacts go, 64-bit systems will use more memory for the same set of running programs than otherwise equivalent 32-bit systems.
Is there a good technical reason for 32-bit Windows 7 not supporting more than 4 GB of RAM, period? PAE has been in use for a long time now, and while you can't have a single process that exceeds 3 GB in Linux (tunable, I'm given to understand, can also be a 2 GB per process limit in some installations), you can definitely go past 4 GB of total system memory. Windows Server 2008 Enterprise supports 64 GB per 32-bit system...
Our work to date shows that it is not an insurmountable task to extract very high efficiency from a massively-parallel ensemble, for the reasons presented here. We feel that it is important for the computing research community to overcome the "mental block" against massive parallelism imposed by a misuse of Amdahl's speedup formula; speedup should be measured by scaling the problem to the number of processors, not fixing problem size. We expect to extend our success to a broader range of applications and even larger values for N.
As stated in my original post, I'm about to buy a business account. However, given the explosion in realistic bandwidth usage by even average households given online media development, I'm pretty sure 250 GB a month isn't going to be adequate for most people fairly soon.
Very simply this: voicing an opinion that, while not directly related to the topic, I believe is important and related. What good is blazing fast Internet when content delivery is increasingly going 100% online, and you're stuck with an insufficient cap?
I care about speed, but I also care about transfer caps. Note that I'm not saying we should legislate this (I'm about to pay for "business class" service without a cap), but I'm saying 250 GB a month doesn't cut it for me. I transfer large disk images (server backups, even compressed, they're big) several times per month , move virtual machine images around on a routine basis, use streaming video services in lieu of television, streaming audio on top of that, etc. The list goes on, and my #1 concern isn't the transfer speed anymore. It's the transfer cap.
Hey man, I do exactly the same thing... just saying, if you're not already piping those through gzip or bzip2, please do so from now on :).