It would be roughly equivalent to a submarine at 10m, right? That said, building the pressure hull of a submarine isn't cheap. Of course, a sub can take 10 or more atms, not just 1.
There's some theory on the intertubes about the "evaporative cooling" of religions - if something discredits a religion (i.e. the "imortal" founder dies), then the moderates start leaving, and only the real nutters remain, so the religion becomes even *more* extreme.
A founder in charge is usually good for the company. Murdock might not be a nice guy, but he cares about the future of his empire. Closing News of the World made them lose a source of revenue, but he probably had a good reason - it lets every other journalist in his empire know that if they get caught making a scandal, they will lose their jobs, and so will all their co-workers. This will plug leaks (because if you leak, your whole paper will be nuked), and prevent unethical behavior.
I think it was Sun Zi who claimed he could make any squad of new recruits march in perfect formation - if anyone in the squad broke ranks he'd just order the whole squad put to death. In the short term, it's suicidal, but it might pay off in the long term.
Java can be about as fast as C (faster or slower, depending on what you do with it, though it is a memory hog and slower to start up), thanks to its JIT. Java can be ~50 times the speed of PHP or Ruby. LLVM is nice, but not much compiles to it (except C and family), and PyPy is not exactly mainstream - what other fast VMs are there? Oh, V8. Trust me, you *don't* want to write server code in Javascript, the COBOL of Web 2.0. It's got it's place, and it's basically the only language that targets the DOM and navigator (not a half-assed way to avoid browsers altogether, like GWT and Dart), but it has issues (hello, implicit global variables - because juggling chainsaws should be easy).
Java has the best mature cross-platform virtual machine. Java sucks, but it's got the best engine. So there's still lots of reasons to use it.
What separates a "vigilante" from other people is that they take justice into their own hands. Breaking up a fight is legal. Making a citizen's arrest is legal (provided you do it legally - there's laws). In some jurisdictions, holding a rioter down until the cops get there is legal (detention to prevent a breach of the peace). Walking around with a mag-light and a mobile phone, and calling the cops if you see a crime is legal.
Breaking up a fight using excessive force, then kneecapping the guy you think was responsible is not.
>> The main difference is the face and genitalia, otherwise its hard to tell fat male and female bodies apart.
Unless there's facial hair involved (and even then..), the faces are similar. It's the hairdo and cheap makeup that make the difference. As for genitalia, if we are talking *massive*, you might need to peel back the apron to see for sure.
OTOH, apart from iOS Apps, Apple is pretty open. Type "python" or "ruby" or "gcc" into a new Windows box, and see what comes up (yes, I know gcc is an optional install).
On the scale of things, Apple is neutral-greedy, like Microsoft. RMS is open-free. The big badies are the DRM crowd, and neither Apple or Microsoft want them to win. Steve may not have liked your taste in ripped music, your torrented TV series, or your third party apps, but he would defend to the death your right to run them, as long as that means you will pay an Apple tax to do so.
Water Vapor needs heat to stay, well, vaporized. It feeds itself, but it also needs CO2 to stay in equilibrium. If you have taken any EE courses, you will understand the importance of feedback (I hope). You already knew that, and are just trying to fight (what you consider) FUD with more FUD.
They probably thought: "The engineers say there's a technical reason why it can't be done."
Bill Gates never accepted this crap, because he knew how to implement it as well as anyone else. I think the young Steve didn't accept it, and sometimes screwed up trying to force people into doing the impossible; but the older Steve got savvier, and learnt which limits were "hard", which were "the engineers are either messing up, or have bad specs", and which ones were compromises that *he* had to decide on.
What's wrong with Kissinger? You don't like Realpolitik? It's ugly, but it arguably headed off World War III. It's a terrible way to deal with friends, but the least-worst way to deal with powerful enemies. One of the consequences of realpolitik was the anti-nuclear movement. There's nothing wrong with using small tactical nukes (compared to just using conventional missiles) to blow up your enemy's battleships, but your enemy will need to respond with their own tactical nukes. Unfortunately, you and your enemy will have to keep using bigger and bigger nukes, to stay ahead, till you are eventually nuking each other's cities (which is very undesirable). The only winning solution is not to play - to completely avoid the use of nukes in combat (except as deterrents which should never be used). So the realpolitik guys on both sides publicly demonized the idea of using nuclear weapons (even small, clean, tactical ones), except in retaliation. Why else do you think there's never been a nuke used in anger, since 1945?
Patent "the use of [proposed HTML feature] in [a social network]". Wait for the feature to be implemented by Facebook. Tell a few journalists that you are now able to directly sue *everyone* who uses a modern browser to access Facebook. Hint that nobody should mind, as they could lobby their local congressman if anyone cared about software patents.
Re:WTF are you talking about? Devops is nothing ne
on
The Cult of DevOps
·
· Score: 1
I'm guessing in the 90s, it was pretty rare to actually use those practices. A new shop would have one server called "server". Then it would get a few, named after the Seven Dwarfs. Eventually, you would get to the point of needing to get a new sysadmin who could handle large-scale deployments (or have the old sysadmin change the way they worked), but that would be around the post-IPO stage (if ever), not the "three guys, one of whom is figuring out how to script EC2" stage.
Imagine you have gold behind a locked door. Now imagine you have 50 locked doors.
This is your security through obscurity.
That is *not* security through obscurity. There are 50 locked doors - that's about 6 more bits of password strength, but it's not obscure that you need to go through one of the doors.
Hiding your key under the flower pot is a better example of obscurity. As is hiding your money in the freezer, or in your sock drawer. Ask someone who has worked in a prison, or served time - most people tend to come up with the same banally unoriginal ways to hide stuff, and the bad guys are pretty good at figuring those methods out.
All they need is a few thoroughly rooted systems, and they can watch what "original" solutions get used. Then generalize them a little, and add the new attacks to their tool chains. Then it's like: Oh, that's nice, you rot13'ed the hash, concatenated it with an easily guessed "key word", then hashed it again? How very original.
I'm guessing the main haters are sysadmins, who see threats to their importance and way of working.
It's no longer desirable to have a gradually grown system. Everything should be built on virtual machines from scripts. You no longer need a wise old guy with a beard to change anything - who cares if your modification might trash the system? You can spin up a test instance, and dump it if it doesn't work right. If you have two apps that don't play nice with each-other, just put them on difference machines. The philosophy of a DevOps guy is very different to that of a sysadmin - you don't do brain surgery on a horse while it's in the middle of a race. Just shoot the damn thing, and send in a healthy clone. (Or would you prefer a car analogy?)
There was a world of difference between "works on the dev box", and "works in the production environment, without screwing up anything else". That gap is getting bridged by DevOps practices. OK, you still need people with sysadmin skills, but the way they work (and the things they have to learn) is becoming a lot more like development than sysadmin work, and sysadmins are not bred to like change.
Face it, a representative sample of "the elites" made it there through superior intellect and rationality, not luck, inheritance or chance. "The system" is fundamentally just, fair and meritocratic.
Um, most of that is based on his "touch and feel" assessment of CEOs at dinner parties. He disregards charisma, then talks about how these CEOs seemed to "sparkle" with their overflowing "life force".
I'm sure the average CEO is a little smarter than the average bear. But that doesn't mean they don't have an excess of charisma (and a cynical ability to do whatever it takes to be rewarded), while other smart (but less charismatic / greedy) people don't get so high up the ladder.
One of his main ideas - that people like to dislike and underestimate CEOs just because it makes them feel better) is sound. But the other - CEOs *are* all amazingly smart, because the few he remembers meeting seemed pretty bright (selection bias - he met them at humanist conferences, and recall bias - who would remember a boring guy who talked about efficient capital allocations, and the importance of trustworthy lieutenants?), is not so sound.
It's probably a misunderstanding. He thinks Google is sitting on some goldmine, with their appengine, not giving any love to the community. Given how slow appengine runs, and how long it took them to even untangle the fact that it is slow as a bubble-sort implemented in Ruby sitting on a virtual Windows machine on a shared Pentium IV, Google is probably just embarrassed to release it./exaggeration
Liquid nitrogen vaporizes, forming a gaseous layer which protects exposed skin. You *can* put it in your mouth, and look like you are breathing steam, but you can't swallow it (as the gaseous layer gets forced aside causing you frostbite when the liquid presses against your internal linings, and it rapidly expands in your stomach, which makes you expand too, possibly fatally). See http://darwinawards.com/personal/personal2000-25.html
You can wash your face with it, but your hair / body hair *can* perforate the gaseous layer, resulting in localized frostbite, and hair loss. If you jumped into a pool of it, it would kill you, but *just don't do that*. Geez.
It's like the difference between a hot coal, and a pot of hot coffee. Drop the hot coal on your lap, and it will vaporize the top layer of your clothes, causing no real damage (and creating lots of comic relief for observers), unless you leave it there for a significant period of time. Drop a pot of boiling coffee on your lap, and you may no longer be able to reproduce. But people just assume that the hot coal is more dangerous, because it is hotter.
No, they need lean years. Their bonuses are based on outperforming the market. If the financial sector was reliable, their share prices would be good, but flat, so they wouldn't be rewarded much in the good years. They won't let a good crisis, rescue, recovery, or boom go to waste. But you can't exploit good but stead performance for personal gain.
Well, my personal recommendation would be to add some white (or log-white) noise to trade timestamps. If you get in 1ms faster, there would be an almost 50% chance the next guy would make the trade, not you. If you were a whole second faster, you win for sure.
Traders would focus *less* on high-speed performance, and more on more useful stuff.
Fractional reseve banking *creates* money while the reserve requirements are being slackened (which happens during bubbles, as the regulators think everything is working), and *destroys* money while the reserve requirements are being tightened (during a crash, when they the regulators realized the *yet again* let the banks sail too close to the wind).
But the bankers don't mind, because they make outsized bonuses during the bubble, and still do OK in a crash, due the asymmetric reward profile of options and bonuses. Bankers *like* year-to-year variability and instability - it makes their fat years so much fatter that in the lean years they can lose their jobs and still retire in luxury, not that many lose their jobs.
So, I take it you have a better plan for how to take large amounts of money from developed countries (which are generally democracies, ruled by the stingy masses), and give them to people who need it?
Remember 20 years ago, when Taiwan was a sweatshop, and all your cheap plastic toys came from there? Now they are as well off as Hong Kong (i.e. close to the US in living standards, without the US's fucked up health system).
India might take longer to close the gap, but it will happen. Countries that don't trade with richer countries (say, North Korea) will take far longer to develop.
It *is* a very complex thing, though. But you can be pretty certain that anyone who says "Globalization is slavery" is even *more* wrong than the fools who say "More trade is always better".
In this case, the work is relatively safe, isn't causing much pollution, and isn't stripping finite resources. Compared to what mining companies do in poor countries, it seems like a good kind of trade.
Isn't that the story of Ali Baba and the 40 thieves? Ali Baba finds the thieves cave, and a reasonable amount of their loot. His brother comes in, and takes so much loot that the thieves are able to catch and slaughter him. The moral - if you try to make out like a bandit, you might get your ass handed to you.
The problem with the publishers is, they think their baby worth more than any reasonable market value.
People who kill tech products are often making the same mistake - they overcapitalize (because their idea is worth bazillions), then have to shoot the white elephant they ended up raising.
Google Wave does some cool(ish) stuff. But they made it too big, too fast, and found it couldn't support the development budget they had allocated to it. And I bet shrinking the budget wasn't an option, because everything became big, slow, scalable, and impossible to manage with a small team.
Slashdot Mirror
It would be roughly equivalent to a submarine at 10m, right? That said, building the pressure hull of a submarine isn't cheap. Of course, a sub can take 10 or more atms, not just 1.
There's some theory on the intertubes about the "evaporative cooling" of religions - if something discredits a religion (i.e. the "imortal" founder dies), then the moderates start leaving, and only the real nutters remain, so the religion becomes even *more* extreme.
A founder in charge is usually good for the company. Murdock might not be a nice guy, but he cares about the future of his empire. Closing News of the World made them lose a source of revenue, but he probably had a good reason - it lets every other journalist in his empire know that if they get caught making a scandal, they will lose their jobs, and so will all their co-workers. This will plug leaks (because if you leak, your whole paper will be nuked), and prevent unethical behavior.
I think it was Sun Zi who claimed he could make any squad of new recruits march in perfect formation - if anyone in the squad broke ranks he'd just order the whole squad put to death. In the short term, it's suicidal, but it might pay off in the long term.
Java can be about as fast as C (faster or slower, depending on what you do with it, though it is a memory hog and slower to start up), thanks to its JIT. Java can be ~50 times the speed of PHP or Ruby. LLVM is nice, but not much compiles to it (except C and family), and PyPy is not exactly mainstream - what other fast VMs are there? Oh, V8. Trust me, you *don't* want to write server code in Javascript, the COBOL of Web 2.0. It's got it's place, and it's basically the only language that targets the DOM and navigator (not a half-assed way to avoid browsers altogether, like GWT and Dart), but it has issues (hello, implicit global variables - because juggling chainsaws should be easy).
Java has the best mature cross-platform virtual machine. Java sucks, but it's got the best engine. So there's still lots of reasons to use it.
What separates a "vigilante" from other people is that they take justice into their own hands. Breaking up a fight is legal. Making a citizen's arrest is legal (provided you do it legally - there's laws). In some jurisdictions, holding a rioter down until the cops get there is legal (detention to prevent a breach of the peace). Walking around with a mag-light and a mobile phone, and calling the cops if you see a crime is legal.
Breaking up a fight using excessive force, then kneecapping the guy you think was responsible is not.
>> The main difference is the face and genitalia, otherwise its hard to tell fat male and female bodies apart.
Unless there's facial hair involved (and even then ..), the faces are similar. It's the hairdo and cheap makeup that make the difference. As for genitalia, if we are talking *massive*, you might need to peel back the apron to see for sure.
OTOH, apart from iOS Apps, Apple is pretty open. Type "python" or "ruby" or "gcc" into a new Windows box, and see what comes up (yes, I know gcc is an optional install).
On the scale of things, Apple is neutral-greedy, like Microsoft. RMS is open-free. The big badies are the DRM crowd, and neither Apple or Microsoft want them to win. Steve may not have liked your taste in ripped music, your torrented TV series, or your third party apps, but he would defend to the death your right to run them, as long as that means you will pay an Apple tax to do so.
Water Vapor needs heat to stay, well, vaporized. It feeds itself, but it also needs CO2 to stay in equilibrium. If you have taken any EE courses, you will understand the importance of feedback (I hope). You already knew that, and are just trying to fight (what you consider) FUD with more FUD.
They probably thought: "The engineers say there's a technical reason why it can't be done."
Bill Gates never accepted this crap, because he knew how to implement it as well as anyone else. I think the young Steve didn't accept it, and sometimes screwed up trying to force people into doing the impossible; but the older Steve got savvier, and learnt which limits were "hard", which were "the engineers are either messing up, or have bad specs", and which ones were compromises that *he* had to decide on.
What's wrong with Kissinger? You don't like Realpolitik? It's ugly, but it arguably headed off World War III. It's a terrible way to deal with friends, but the least-worst way to deal with powerful enemies. One of the consequences of realpolitik was the anti-nuclear movement. There's nothing wrong with using small tactical nukes (compared to just using conventional missiles) to blow up your enemy's battleships, but your enemy will need to respond with their own tactical nukes. Unfortunately, you and your enemy will have to keep using bigger and bigger nukes, to stay ahead, till you are eventually nuking each other's cities (which is very undesirable). The only winning solution is not to play - to completely avoid the use of nukes in combat (except as deterrents which should never be used). So the realpolitik guys on both sides publicly demonized the idea of using nuclear weapons (even small, clean, tactical ones), except in retaliation. Why else do you think there's never been a nuke used in anger, since 1945?
I've an idea:
Patent "the use of [proposed HTML feature] in [a social network]". Wait for the feature to be implemented by Facebook. Tell a few journalists that you are now able to directly sue *everyone* who uses a modern browser to access Facebook. Hint that nobody should mind, as they could lobby their local congressman if anyone cared about software patents.
I'm guessing in the 90s, it was pretty rare to actually use those practices. A new shop would have one server called "server". Then it would get a few, named after the Seven Dwarfs. Eventually, you would get to the point of needing to get a new sysadmin who could handle large-scale deployments (or have the old sysadmin change the way they worked), but that would be around the post-IPO stage (if ever), not the "three guys, one of whom is figuring out how to script EC2" stage.
There is another way to look at this.
Imagine you have gold behind a locked door. Now imagine you have 50 locked doors.
This is your security through obscurity.
That is *not* security through obscurity. There are 50 locked doors - that's about 6 more bits of password strength, but it's not obscure that you need to go through one of the doors.
Hiding your key under the flower pot is a better example of obscurity. As is hiding your money in the freezer, or in your sock drawer. Ask someone who has worked in a prison, or served time - most people tend to come up with the same banally unoriginal ways to hide stuff, and the bad guys are pretty good at figuring those methods out.
All they need is a few thoroughly rooted systems, and they can watch what "original" solutions get used. Then generalize them a little, and add the new attacks to their tool chains. Then it's like: Oh, that's nice, you rot13'ed the hash, concatenated it with an easily guessed "key word", then hashed it again? How very original.
I'm guessing the main haters are sysadmins, who see threats to their importance and way of working.
It's no longer desirable to have a gradually grown system. Everything should be built on virtual machines from scripts. You no longer need a wise old guy with a beard to change anything - who cares if your modification might trash the system? You can spin up a test instance, and dump it if it doesn't work right. If you have two apps that don't play nice with each-other, just put them on difference machines. The philosophy of a DevOps guy is very different to that of a sysadmin - you don't do brain surgery on a horse while it's in the middle of a race. Just shoot the damn thing, and send in a healthy clone. (Or would you prefer a car analogy?)
There was a world of difference between "works on the dev box", and "works in the production environment, without screwing up anything else". That gap is getting bridged by DevOps practices. OK, you still need people with sysadmin skills, but the way they work (and the things they have to learn) is becoming a lot more like development than sysadmin work, and sysadmins are not bred to like change.
Yeah, you're wrong.
Face it, a representative sample of "the elites" made it there through superior intellect and rationality, not luck, inheritance or chance. "The system" is fundamentally just, fair and meritocratic.
Um, most of that is based on his "touch and feel" assessment of CEOs at dinner parties. He disregards charisma, then talks about how these CEOs seemed to "sparkle" with their overflowing "life force".
I'm sure the average CEO is a little smarter than the average bear. But that doesn't mean they don't have an excess of charisma (and a cynical ability to do whatever it takes to be rewarded), while other smart (but less charismatic / greedy) people don't get so high up the ladder.
One of his main ideas - that people like to dislike and underestimate CEOs just because it makes them feel better) is sound. But the other - CEOs *are* all amazingly smart, because the few he remembers meeting seemed pretty bright (selection bias - he met them at humanist conferences, and recall bias - who would remember a boring guy who talked about efficient capital allocations, and the importance of trustworthy lieutenants?), is not so sound.
It's probably a misunderstanding. He thinks Google is sitting on some goldmine, with their appengine, not giving any love to the community. Given how slow appengine runs, and how long it took them to even untangle the fact that it is slow as a bubble-sort implemented in Ruby sitting on a virtual Windows machine on a shared Pentium IV, Google is probably just embarrassed to release it. /exaggeration
Did you realize before or after you took the pen from the "lost and found" box?
Liquid nitrogen vaporizes, forming a gaseous layer which protects exposed skin. You *can* put it in your mouth, and look like you are breathing steam, but you can't swallow it (as the gaseous layer gets forced aside causing you frostbite when the liquid presses against your internal linings, and it rapidly expands in your stomach, which makes you expand too, possibly fatally). See http://darwinawards.com/personal/personal2000-25.html
You can wash your face with it, but your hair / body hair *can* perforate the gaseous layer, resulting in localized frostbite, and hair loss. If you jumped into a pool of it, it would kill you, but *just don't do that*. Geez.
It's like the difference between a hot coal, and a pot of hot coffee. Drop the hot coal on your lap, and it will vaporize the top layer of your clothes, causing no real damage (and creating lots of comic relief for observers), unless you leave it there for a significant period of time. Drop a pot of boiling coffee on your lap, and you may no longer be able to reproduce. But people just assume that the hot coal is more dangerous, because it is hotter.
No, they need lean years. Their bonuses are based on outperforming the market. If the financial sector was reliable, their share prices would be good, but flat, so they wouldn't be rewarded much in the good years. They won't let a good crisis, rescue, recovery, or boom go to waste. But you can't exploit good but stead performance for personal gain.
Well, my personal recommendation would be to add some white (or log-white) noise to trade timestamps. If you get in 1ms faster, there would be an almost 50% chance the next guy would make the trade, not you. If you were a whole second faster, you win for sure.
Traders would focus *less* on high-speed performance, and more on more useful stuff.
Fractional reseve banking *creates* money while the reserve requirements are being slackened (which happens during bubbles, as the regulators think everything is working), and *destroys* money while the reserve requirements are being tightened (during a crash, when they the regulators realized the *yet again* let the banks sail too close to the wind).
But the bankers don't mind, because they make outsized bonuses during the bubble, and still do OK in a crash, due the asymmetric reward profile of options and bonuses. Bankers *like* year-to-year variability and instability - it makes their fat years so much fatter that in the lean years they can lose their jobs and still retire in luxury, not that many lose their jobs.
If they can *sell* them for $100, they might be making a $40 profit. So they only need to sell 1/200th as many.
And you wonder why US medicine is expensive?
In Australia, the PBS will subsidize stuff, but only *after* they have cut a deal with the suppliers. Monopoly vs. monopoly is a lot fairer.
So, I take it you have a better plan for how to take large amounts of money from developed countries (which are generally democracies, ruled by the stingy masses), and give them to people who need it?
Remember 20 years ago, when Taiwan was a sweatshop, and all your cheap plastic toys came from there? Now they are as well off as Hong Kong (i.e. close to the US in living standards, without the US's fucked up health system).
India might take longer to close the gap, but it will happen. Countries that don't trade with richer countries (say, North Korea) will take far longer to develop.
It *is* a very complex thing, though. But you can be pretty certain that anyone who says "Globalization is slavery" is even *more* wrong than the fools who say "More trade is always better".
In this case, the work is relatively safe, isn't causing much pollution, and isn't stripping finite resources. Compared to what mining companies do in poor countries, it seems like a good kind of trade.
And doesn't it sound just a little more flattering to say he had limited experience with enraged lagomorphs?
"President fights off giant lagomorph!" sounds *so* much better than "President flees fluffy white rodent!".
Isn't that the story of Ali Baba and the 40 thieves? Ali Baba finds the thieves cave, and a reasonable amount of their loot. His brother comes in, and takes so much loot that the thieves are able to catch and slaughter him. The moral - if you try to make out like a bandit, you might get your ass handed to you.
The problem with the publishers is, they think their baby worth more than any reasonable market value.
People who kill tech products are often making the same mistake - they overcapitalize (because their idea is worth bazillions), then have to shoot the white elephant they ended up raising.
Google Wave does some cool(ish) stuff. But they made it too big, too fast, and found it couldn't support the development budget they had allocated to it. And I bet shrinking the budget wasn't an option, because everything became big, slow, scalable, and impossible to manage with a small team.