But if your service only needs a 4 core for 95% of the time, but it gets huge spikes those other 5%, you'd be wasting a ton of money keeping an 8-core twiddling its thumbs, while on EC2 you can scale just during those spikes, particularly if they're regular.
That's the whole point of "X-as-a-service" - getting resources on demand.
Of course if you can, putting the baseload on real server and using IaaS to handle spikes is probably the cheapest option, but it's far from easy unless your application is really simple.
There is a whole bunch of OSI approved licenses that allow the redistribution of software to be restricted
No, there isn't. "Free redistribution" is the first of the necessary criteria for qualifying as Open Source by OSI's definition, and the second criteria also specifies that source code must be distributable too.
Coincidentally, FOSS ERP software is what pays my salary; because even though it's open, guess what: it doesn't show up installed and configured in their machines, modules/plugins for specific needs (like country specific tax laws) don't code themselves, divine powers don't fix bugs and employees aren't born knowing how to use them.
The only thing we don't charge for is for reinventing the damn wheel every single time like it has never been invented before.
I use a different address for each service/website and a catch-all to a single maildir. When some service leaks the address (on purpose or not), I just need to route it to/dev/null. I even give different addresses to different people IRL.
No need for spam filters, greylisting and all that stuff, and I still don't spend more time with it than I did on Gmail.
I know that, and I don't advocate for petitions and other useless bullshit.
My point is that the reaction to those changes in their bottom line won't be "well, then let's give the Chinese workers a decent pay, working conditions, etc" but "well, if we have to pay for a decent salary, then China is no longer interesting" and will leave them worse off, for no good reason except self-righteousness.
Salaries in China have been rising steadily over the years. If we actually want to help them - as opposed to feel good about ourselves while they starve - then we should stop this nonsense.
This article from '97 explains it well:
Why does the image of an Indonesian sewing sneakers for 60 cents an hour evoke so much more feeling than the image of another Indonesian earning the equivalent of 30 cents an hour trying to feed his family on a tiny plot of land--or of a Filipino scavenging on a garbage heap?
The main answer, I think, is a sort of fastidiousness. Unlike the starving subsistence farmer, the women and children in the sneaker factory are working at slave wages for our benefit--and this makes us feel unclean. And so there are self-righteous demands for international labor standards: We should not, the opponents of globalization insist, be willing to buy those sneakers and shirts unless the people who make them receive decent wages and work under decent conditions.
This sounds only fair--but is it? Let's think through the consequences.
First of all, even if we could assure the workers in Third World export industries of higher wages and better working conditions, this would do nothing for the peasants, day laborers, scavengers, and so on who make up the bulk of these countries' populations. At best, forcing developing countries to adhere to our labor standards would create a privileged labor aristocracy, leaving the poor majority no better off.
And it might not even do that. The advantages of established First World industries are still formidable. The only reason developing countries have been able to compete with those industries is their ability to offer employers cheap labor. Deny them that ability, and you might well deny them the prospect of continuing industrial growth, even reverse the growth that has been achieved. And since export-oriented growth, for all its injustice, has been a huge boon for the workers in those nations, anything that curtails that growth is very much against their interests. A policy of good jobs in principle, but no jobs in practice, might assuage our consciences, but it is no favor to its alleged beneficiaries.
My whole point is that improved life conditions enabled political struggle by the regular people (and not only the activists who dedicated theirs lives to it).
And I don't care what the legislation was. From your earlier post:
which is actually enforced
I know plenty of people who worked in the big factories, including my grandmother (who has serious lung issues because they worked without protection in a place filled with cork dust) and they didn't work anything near eight hours.
Portugal. Until 1974 we were under a fascist dictatorship, where striking was illegal, unions were state controlled and there were certainly no 8-hour work days for most people.
I never said people want to be controlled. I said people don't want to control it themselves, and are willing -even if they don't particularly appreciate it, as those occasional "cries" show- to let others control if it means they won't have to.
And there's plenty of stuff which is open and easy -sometimes easier than proprietary solutions- yet people still won't use them. They're not interested enough to even look around for alternatives, because that requires taking some control over their stuff, and as I said, they don't want that.
And I understand them, really, I do. Besides for technology, which I really enjoy, I'm the same. I'll pay a plumber and probably get ripped off because I don't care enough to learn how to do it myself; I don't even care enough to know if it's actually very easy.
I live in an European country. Fifty years ago, we didn't have those rights either. Do you know how we got them? By having jobs, which improved our life conditions, which enabled people to fight for those rights instead f worrying that their child might not have enough to eat if they strike for a day.
By refusing to buy from those countries, you're helping them stay in poverty and without rights. Well done.
We know murder is wrong. Co-existence with any person or group that fails to agree on that point is not possible so we are forced to accept it as a pre condition in any moral code involving multiple people.
That's just plain ignorant. There were societies where murder under certain conditions was not only OK, as it was considered good (like when a family member dishonored his or her family). You can even live with people that believe that indiscriminate murder is OK, as long as you impose penalties that impose a too great a cost on murder - that's why we have laws.
Of course, if everyone was indiscriminatingly murdering people life would be impossible, but then again if everyone chose to be a software developer like me we'd die for lack of food and other basic necessities, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong for being one.
From that we can conclude that liberalism/progressivism/socialism/whatever it calls itself today is also wrong since it is based on declaring envy a virtue and murder goes hand in hand with it.
I'll refer to George Carlin:
George Carlin: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods. This one is just plain fucking stupid.
George Carlin: Coveting your neighbor's goods is what keeps the economy going. Your neighbor gets a vibrator that plays "O Come All Ye Faithful", you wanna get one, too! Coveting creates jobs, leave it alone.
So? Machine code isn't typed either. Much like for native applications, you can use a statically (and strongly) typed language and compile it down to JavaScript.
"Letting" them? What exactly do you propose? That we set their offices on fire because they make apps instead of websites?
They want control over the experience and data, and most people do not want control over their own experience and data. You can warn about the current and potential dangers, but otherwise it's their stuff, if they want to give it away, who are we to decide otherwise?
What product did people buy from BP so that made them get hit by the oil spill?
It's a nice dream, but far from reality. You can be fucked and exploited by companies - as well as individuals - regardless of whether you bought something from them or not.
Slashdot Mirror
I like the concept; I don't particularly like most boards, particularly /b/. Same as Freenet and other anonymous and pseudo-anonymous systems.
its over 50% of the site
There's 57 boards in total, of which only 17 are for +18.
It's not hard math.
by if you mean clicking an ok box its restricted I have a box of magic beans to sell you
I meant what I wrote: porn is restricted to the Adult boards.
Actually, porn is restricted to the "Adult" boards, which are only a subsection of the site.
But if your service only needs a 4 core for 95% of the time, but it gets huge spikes those other 5%, you'd be wasting a ton of money keeping an 8-core twiddling its thumbs, while on EC2 you can scale just during those spikes, particularly if they're regular.
That's the whole point of "X-as-a-service" - getting resources on demand.
Of course if you can, putting the baseload on real server and using IaaS to handle spikes is probably the cheapest option, but it's far from easy unless your application is really simple.
That would only be useful if they couldn't get to the key as well, which (apparently) isn't the case here - it sits on the same machine.
There is a whole bunch of OSI approved licenses that allow the redistribution of software to be restricted
No, there isn't. "Free redistribution" is the first of the necessary criteria for qualifying as Open Source by OSI's definition, and the second criteria also specifies that source code must be distributable too.
That's what contracts are for; you negotiate the price before you do the work, like any professional.
As an employed FOSS developer, I can tel you that you're wrong in asserting that you need to hide the source to get paid.
Coincidentally, FOSS ERP software is what pays my salary; because even though it's open, guess what: it doesn't show up installed and configured in their machines, modules/plugins for specific needs (like country specific tax laws) don't code themselves, divine powers don't fix bugs and employees aren't born knowing how to use them.
The only thing we don't charge for is for reinventing the damn wheel every single time like it has never been invented before.
I always go back and block those domains in Google. I don't know if they use that information, for ranking, but at least my own results are cleaner.
Old times, man. Installing and configuring exim on Debian is a breeze.
I use a different address for each service/website and a catch-all to a single maildir. When some service leaks the address (on purpose or not), I just need to route it to /dev/null. I even give different addresses to different people IRL.
No need for spam filters, greylisting and all that stuff, and I still don't spend more time with it than I did on Gmail.
I know that, and I don't advocate for petitions and other useless bullshit.
My point is that the reaction to those changes in their bottom line won't be "well, then let's give the Chinese workers a decent pay, working conditions, etc" but "well, if we have to pay for a decent salary, then China is no longer interesting" and will leave them worse off, for no good reason except self-righteousness.
Salaries in China have been rising steadily over the years. If we actually want to help them - as opposed to feel good about ourselves while they starve - then we should stop this nonsense.
This article from '97 explains it well:
Why does the image of an Indonesian sewing sneakers for 60 cents an hour evoke so much more feeling than the image of another Indonesian earning the equivalent of 30 cents an hour trying to feed his family on a tiny plot of land--or of a Filipino scavenging on a garbage heap?
The main answer, I think, is a sort of fastidiousness. Unlike the starving subsistence farmer, the women and children in the sneaker factory are working at slave wages for our benefit--and this makes us feel unclean. And so there are self-righteous demands for international labor standards: We should not, the opponents of globalization insist, be willing to buy those sneakers and shirts unless the people who make them receive decent wages and work under decent conditions.
This sounds only fair--but is it? Let's think through the consequences.
First of all, even if we could assure the workers in Third World export industries of higher wages and better working conditions, this would do nothing for the peasants, day laborers, scavengers, and so on who make up the bulk of these countries' populations. At best, forcing developing countries to adhere to our labor standards would create a privileged labor aristocracy, leaving the poor majority no better off.
And it might not even do that. The advantages of established First World industries are still formidable. The only reason developing countries have been able to compete with those industries is their ability to offer employers cheap labor. Deny them that ability, and you might well deny them the prospect of continuing industrial growth, even reverse the growth that has been achieved. And since export-oriented growth, for all its injustice, has been a huge boon for the workers in those nations, anything that curtails that growth is very much against their interests. A policy of good jobs in principle, but no jobs in practice, might assuage our consciences, but it is no favor to its alleged beneficiaries.
http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/smokey.html
My whole point is that improved life conditions enabled political struggle by the regular people (and not only the activists who dedicated theirs lives to it).
And I don't care what the legislation was. From your earlier post:
which is actually enforced
I know plenty of people who worked in the big factories, including my grandmother (who has serious lung issues because they worked without protection in a place filled with cork dust) and they didn't work anything near eight hours.
Portugal. Until 1974 we were under a fascist dictatorship, where striking was illegal, unions were state controlled and there were certainly no 8-hour work days for most people.
I never said people want to be controlled. I said people don't want to control it themselves, and are willing -even if they don't particularly appreciate it, as those occasional "cries" show- to let others control if it means they won't have to.
And there's plenty of stuff which is open and easy -sometimes easier than proprietary solutions- yet people still won't use them. They're not interested enough to even look around for alternatives, because that requires taking some control over their stuff, and as I said, they don't want that.
And I understand them, really, I do. Besides for technology, which I really enjoy, I'm the same. I'll pay a plumber and probably get ripped off because I don't care enough to learn how to do it myself; I don't even care enough to know if it's actually very easy.
Why should they care?
not to mention the social ills that come along with those sweatshops
The alternative is what they had before: unemployment, poverty and famine. Of course, that doesn't create social ills, no siree.
Maybe you should ask yourself why are those people applying for the sweatshops. It's not like the farms where they worked before disappeared.
I live in an European country. Fifty years ago, we didn't have those rights either. Do you know how we got them? By having jobs, which improved our life conditions, which enabled people to fight for those rights instead f worrying that their child might not have enough to eat if they strike for a day.
By refusing to buy from those countries, you're helping them stay in poverty and without rights. Well done.
Yes! The Chinese workers don't have rights, so lets shit more on them by putting them out of work!
The idiocy never ceases to amaze me.
We know murder is wrong. Co-existence with any person or group that fails to agree on that point is not possible so we are forced to accept it as a pre condition in any moral code involving multiple people.
That's just plain ignorant. There were societies where murder under certain conditions was not only OK, as it was considered good (like when a family member dishonored his or her family). You can even live with people that believe that indiscriminate murder is OK, as long as you impose penalties that impose a too great a cost on murder - that's why we have laws.
Of course, if everyone was indiscriminatingly murdering people life would be impossible, but then again if everyone chose to be a software developer like me we'd die for lack of food and other basic necessities, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong for being one.
From that we can conclude that liberalism/progressivism/socialism/whatever it calls itself today is also wrong since it is based on declaring envy a virtue and murder goes hand in hand with it.
I'll refer to George Carlin:
George Carlin: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods. This one is just plain fucking stupid.
George Carlin: Coveting your neighbor's goods is what keeps the economy going. Your neighbor gets a vibrator that plays "O Come All Ye Faithful", you wanna get one, too! Coveting creates jobs, leave it alone.
And of course, coveting is envy.
Not anymore. OpenJDK is the official Reference Implementation now.
So? Machine code isn't typed either. Much like for native applications, you can use a statically (and strongly) typed language and compile it down to JavaScript.
List of languages that compile to JavaScript.
"Letting" them? What exactly do you propose? That we set their offices on fire because they make apps instead of websites?
They want control over the experience and data, and most people do not want control over their own experience and data. You can warn about the current and potential dangers, but otherwise it's their stuff, if they want to give it away, who are we to decide otherwise?
What's wrong with maximizing every window? /tilling WM user.
So, what product did people without an account buy from Facebook so that they could track their every move across the web?
What product did people buy from BP so that made them get hit by the oil spill?
It's a nice dream, but far from reality. You can be fucked and exploited by companies - as well as individuals - regardless of whether you bought something from them or not.
Netflix relies itself on such governmental powers, like copyright. Why should they only have the benefits?