Even for a small community it is kinda odd for an Adult to be a Friend to a child.
I had childhood friends whose parents were teachers. While the parents were not "best buddies," you get to know them through the relationship with their children. It wouldn't be strange at all to befriend them on Facebook.
I am assuming at first blush the prevention of child molesting
That is ridiculous. It is impossible to molest anyone on Facebook. The classroom, however, provides an excellent venue to play out the crime. If teachers cannot be trusted, it seems Facebook (or other online service) should be the only place students and teachers interact.
Walk into any American home and count how many books are there
You won't find any in mine. This is 2011, not 1950. We have these things called the internet and computers now. But seriously, I have never enjoyed reading from paper. However, I can read for hours on my computer. In my mind, technology replaced the book decades ago.
Thanks for sharing the link. I can relate with everything written within. It explains a lot. Thankfully, once I left school, I was free to set my own schedule so its impact on my life since has been fairly minor.
As a farmer, I came up with a very similar idea of using the camera and other sensors on a cell phone to determine a tractor's position in the field for autonomous operation. You can buy very expensive GPS (RTK)-based systems that do the same, but I wanted something that would run on low-cost consumer devices with the only external interface being to the tractor's mechanical components.
Like you, I unfortunately could find the time to work on it. However, I am very excited about this because it means that research I would have had to do myself is already done. The means the time it will take to turn my idea into a viable product, which is what really matters, has been greatly reduced.
Then why not draw a straight line? The reason we draw a cloud is because we know it is a vast and complex system that allows for faults. The internet itself is designed to survive catastrophe, thus it gets a cloud symbol. If you have one physical line between your two endpoints, even if it is controlled by someone else, there is no need for a cloud drawing in your diagram.
loud computing is about putting a layer of abstraction between a logical server and its hardware
Which is also true of The Cloud. You have one point of access, but the content/processing is spread across distinct regions of the world in multiple datacenters. Outages at any given location, or even multiple outages, have no effect on service as far as the end user is concerned.
The cloud on a network diagram
In a network diagram the cloud represents an abstract entity that sends and receives bits, nothing more. The Cloud is the same, you send your request, and you get a response back. Going back to my first point, it is represented as a cloud instead of distinct wires because its ability to never fail because of localized outages. It always works, no matter how bad a datacenter is failing at a given time.
It sounds like Web 2.0 all over again. Web 2.0 only ever meant computer consumable content served over HTTP (think RSS, ATOM, JSON, XML, etc.) but since AJAX required Web 2.0 content, it got lumped in. Then some designers, excited by the AJAX possibilities, started making websites that weren't meant to look like a magazine so then design got lumped in.
The goal of Cloud Computing is similar to the goals that marketers trumpet The Cloud to achieve, but The Cloud encompasses much more. It is about the entire stack, including the computers (which might utilize Cloud Computing), the network infrastructure, and the software. This is also what the cloud on a network diagram represents. It is a random void that sends and receives bits. If you have to concern yourself with how it works, you are not accessing the Cloud.
The Cloud means that the service will always be available without you having to provide any fail overs of your own. If a couple of datacenters hosting the application/content are destroyed at the exact same time, you will still be able to carry on as if nothing ever happened. If the usage quadruples during that same destruction, the service will still be humming along as if nothing ever happened.
If you have to worry about failure, you are not using a cloud service. If you are thinking about how you need to prevent failure at all cost, you are likely building a cloud service. Anything else is just a regular service.
The Cloud is useless without the network, but you are right on your point that things just magically work. That is why it is a cloud; you have no absolutely no idea what kind of voodoo magic is going on within to make it all work, it just does, no matter what happens.
Yes, absolutely. But the key point is that, like the internet itself, it has to always be available and just works. Take S3, as an example. Amazon distributes your data across multiple datacenters in geographically distinct locations. Even if a couple of datacenters were blown to smithereens, your data would still show up just like it always has without you ever having known anything has happened. That is why it is shown as an abstract cloud instead of a single wire to a single computer.
The Cloud is not the same as Cloud Computing. The Cloud is this (Special note: Image is dated 1998). Somewhere in the fog is your service. You, the end user, don't care about how it works, it just does – always.
EC2 is not the cloud. EC2 can provide you with the tools necessary to build a cloud service, but by itself it just a datacenter full of computers. And you cannot throw your application on a few EC2 instances in the same datacenter and call it a cloud application either. That is not the cloud, that's just a networked application.
If a service cannot survive simultaneous catastrophic failures in multiple physical locations, it is not a cloud service. Without being intimately familiar with it, I would like to say that Amazon's S3 service would fit the bill for being a cloud service. Given what Amazon has said about it, it does sound like it meets the criteria of the cloud. EC2, however, does not.
The cloud exists to hide infrastructure. The cloud is an abstract network. If, for example, all the service's ties to the USA die, you are automatically routed to the datacenter in Germany. You don't know or care about how it works, it just does. It doesn't fail because it is the cloud.
If you service cannot automatically deal with failure, it is not the cloud, it is just a regular node on the network.
The Cloud is an abstract interface, not a specific technology. It always has been. Look at some networking documents from years ago and you'll find the cloud present. The cloud services might be implemented using virtualization, but you don't care, because it is just an abstract network that you throw your bits at.
I think it is funny that we see regular people getting the concept of the cloud while technical folk, who have been using the term for decades, are trying to turn it into something new.
Absolutely. These days, people at home, let alone businesses, are operating at least two active connections to the internet (cable/DSL and cellular). The internet was designed right from the start to support multiple connections so that a link can fail without anyone noticing. It seems strange to me that network outages are still a topic of debate.
The problem is that we don't need any new laws. The common law written hundreds to thousands of years ago covers everything we will ever need. The problem is that these people have to justify their job somehow, thus we get a bunch of crazy laws that have no reason for existence.
Fair enough. It just seems weird to me that it was good enough a few months ago, but not good enough now, even though nothing has changed at all. It is like evaluating Windows 7 for a few months and then switching to Linux because Windows 8 was released in the meantime.
Also, why did management believe Firefox would change their updating behaviour starting with 4.0? Firefox is old. There is a lot of history to look back on to see how the project has been conducted. While they may have changed their marketing, the actual development practises remain the same as they have always been.
So what are you going to use instead? Chrome and IE are also constantly releasing updates with security patches. If you continue to test those browsers under previous releases, you will be behind in security patches. If you start over to include the patches, you are in the exact same place you are in with Firefox right now.
So it is okay to allow your users to run the always-up-to-date version of Chrome, but Firefox has to be tested for several months before it is allowed to be used? I understand your point of connivence for using Chrome, but if you are going to allow Chrome to auto-update, why not roll out Firefox as soon as new versions become available too? The chances of something breaking are fairly equal. Why the different treatment with regards to compatibility?
The move from 4.0 to 5.0 should require much less testing than the move from, say, 3.6.3 to 3.6.4. Why did that update not scare you off of Firefox way back then? It was far more significant.
If you are hung up on the version number marketing instead of actual changes, why hasn't Chrome going all the way to version 12 in just a couple of years scared you away from it? That is a much quicker major version release schedule than Firefox is doing.
I really don't see the big deal here. Even IE sees fairly frequent updates that need to be rigorously tested.
Slashdot Mirror
I had childhood friends whose parents were teachers. While the parents were not "best buddies," you get to know them through the relationship with their children. It wouldn't be strange at all to befriend them on Facebook.
That is ridiculous. It is impossible to molest anyone on Facebook. The classroom, however, provides an excellent venue to play out the crime. If teachers cannot be trusted, it seems Facebook (or other online service) should be the only place students and teachers interact.
You won't find any in mine. This is 2011, not 1950. We have these things called the internet and computers now. But seriously, I have never enjoyed reading from paper. However, I can read for hours on my computer. In my mind, technology replaced the book decades ago.
Thanks for sharing the link. I can relate with everything written within. It explains a lot. Thankfully, once I left school, I was free to set my own schedule so its impact on my life since has been fairly minor.
Being serious doesn't make it true. Even the iPhone 3G was given the feature quite some time ago.
As a farmer, I came up with a very similar idea of using the camera and other sensors on a cell phone to determine a tractor's position in the field for autonomous operation. You can buy very expensive GPS (RTK)-based systems that do the same, but I wanted something that would run on low-cost consumer devices with the only external interface being to the tractor's mechanical components.
Like you, I unfortunately could find the time to work on it. However, I am very excited about this because it means that research I would have had to do myself is already done. The means the time it will take to turn my idea into a viable product, which is what really matters, has been greatly reduced.
Then why not draw a straight line? The reason we draw a cloud is because we know it is a vast and complex system that allows for faults. The internet itself is designed to survive catastrophe, thus it gets a cloud symbol. If you have one physical line between your two endpoints, even if it is controlled by someone else, there is no need for a cloud drawing in your diagram.
Which is also true of The Cloud. You have one point of access, but the content/processing is spread across distinct regions of the world in multiple datacenters. Outages at any given location, or even multiple outages, have no effect on service as far as the end user is concerned.
In a network diagram the cloud represents an abstract entity that sends and receives bits, nothing more. The Cloud is the same, you send your request, and you get a response back. Going back to my first point, it is represented as a cloud instead of distinct wires because its ability to never fail because of localized outages. It always works, no matter how bad a datacenter is failing at a given time.
It sounds like Web 2.0 all over again. Web 2.0 only ever meant computer consumable content served over HTTP (think RSS, ATOM, JSON, XML, etc.) but since AJAX required Web 2.0 content, it got lumped in. Then some designers, excited by the AJAX possibilities, started making websites that weren't meant to look like a magazine so then design got lumped in.
The goal of Cloud Computing is similar to the goals that marketers trumpet The Cloud to achieve, but The Cloud encompasses much more. It is about the entire stack, including the computers (which might utilize Cloud Computing), the network infrastructure, and the software. This is also what the cloud on a network diagram represents. It is a random void that sends and receives bits. If you have to concern yourself with how it works, you are not accessing the Cloud.
The Cloud means that the service will always be available without you having to provide any fail overs of your own. If a couple of datacenters hosting the application/content are destroyed at the exact same time, you will still be able to carry on as if nothing ever happened. If the usage quadruples during that same destruction, the service will still be humming along as if nothing ever happened.
If you have to worry about failure, you are not using a cloud service. If you are thinking about how you need to prevent failure at all cost, you are likely building a cloud service. Anything else is just a regular service.
The Cloud is useless without the network, but you are right on your point that things just magically work. That is why it is a cloud; you have no absolutely no idea what kind of voodoo magic is going on within to make it all work, it just does, no matter what happens.
Yes, absolutely. But the key point is that, like the internet itself, it has to always be available and just works. Take S3, as an example. Amazon distributes your data across multiple datacenters in geographically distinct locations. Even if a couple of datacenters were blown to smithereens, your data would still show up just like it always has without you ever having known anything has happened. That is why it is shown as an abstract cloud instead of a single wire to a single computer.
The cloud has always been this: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_K52n2Jkv5-I/SYbEngJYXbI/AAAAAAAABVU/C_Wd8gyjaK4/s400/CLOUD.GIF
And that is still what marketers are selling the cloud as, even today. It is an abstract place where things just magically work, nothing more.
The Cloud is not the same as Cloud Computing. The Cloud is this (Special note: Image is dated 1998). Somewhere in the fog is your service. You, the end user, don't care about how it works, it just does – always.
EC2 is not the cloud. EC2 can provide you with the tools necessary to build a cloud service, but by itself it just a datacenter full of computers. And you cannot throw your application on a few EC2 instances in the same datacenter and call it a cloud application either. That is not the cloud, that's just a networked application.
If a service cannot survive simultaneous catastrophic failures in multiple physical locations, it is not a cloud service. Without being intimately familiar with it, I would like to say that Amazon's S3 service would fit the bill for being a cloud service. Given what Amazon has said about it, it does sound like it meets the criteria of the cloud. EC2, however, does not.
The cloud exists to hide infrastructure. The cloud is an abstract network. If, for example, all the service's ties to the USA die, you are automatically routed to the datacenter in Germany. You don't know or care about how it works, it just does. It doesn't fail because it is the cloud.
If you service cannot automatically deal with failure, it is not the cloud, it is just a regular node on the network.
The Cloud is an abstract interface, not a specific technology. It always has been. Look at some networking documents from years ago and you'll find the cloud present. The cloud services might be implemented using virtualization, but you don't care, because it is just an abstract network that you throw your bits at.
I think it is funny that we see regular people getting the concept of the cloud while technical folk, who have been using the term for decades, are trying to turn it into something new.
Absolutely. These days, people at home, let alone businesses, are operating at least two active connections to the internet (cable/DSL and cellular). The internet was designed right from the start to support multiple connections so that a link can fail without anyone noticing. It seems strange to me that network outages are still a topic of debate.
The problem is that we don't need any new laws. The common law written hundreds to thousands of years ago covers everything we will ever need. The problem is that these people have to justify their job somehow, thus we get a bunch of crazy laws that have no reason for existence.
I tried compiling your code and got this:
warning: Semantic Issue: Using the result of an assignment as a condition without parentheses
Fair enough. It just seems weird to me that it was good enough a few months ago, but not good enough now, even though nothing has changed at all. It is like evaluating Windows 7 for a few months and then switching to Linux because Windows 8 was released in the meantime.
Also, why did management believe Firefox would change their updating behaviour starting with 4.0? Firefox is old. There is a lot of history to look back on to see how the project has been conducted. While they may have changed their marketing, the actual development practises remain the same as they have always been.
So what are you going to use instead? Chrome and IE are also constantly releasing updates with security patches. If you continue to test those browsers under previous releases, you will be behind in security patches. If you start over to include the patches, you are in the exact same place you are in with Firefox right now.
So it is okay to allow your users to run the always-up-to-date version of Chrome, but Firefox has to be tested for several months before it is allowed to be used? I understand your point of connivence for using Chrome, but if you are going to allow Chrome to auto-update, why not roll out Firefox as soon as new versions become available too? The chances of something breaking are fairly equal. Why the different treatment with regards to compatibility?
The move from 4.0 to 5.0 should require much less testing than the move from, say, 3.6.3 to 3.6.4. Why did that update not scare you off of Firefox way back then? It was far more significant.
If you are hung up on the version number marketing instead of actual changes, why hasn't Chrome going all the way to version 12 in just a couple of years scared you away from it? That is a much quicker major version release schedule than Firefox is doing.
I really don't see the big deal here. Even IE sees fairly frequent updates that need to be rigorously tested.