I see lots of comments asking why not just put in more main memory and let the OS cache. The reason is persistence.
This sorta device can be used very effectively for large scale database systems. But the device reviewed here doesn't qualify because it doesn't have redundant power, a back-up hard-disk and a UPS.
A Google search brings up
Imperial Technology for example, which makes a line of DRAM disks and storage caches with lots of redundancy and multiple high-speed (USCSI, fiber channel) channels.
If you have a high transaction volume database, putting your highest access tables and redo logs on a solid state disk system can produce 2x to 6x performance improvements even when you've already got gobs of server power and very fast disk arrays. Here's a success story involving eBay seeing 500% improvement with their Oracle installation on Sun E10Ks.
These server class devices are a lot pricier then $3K, but when you've spent mid-five to high 6 or 7 figures on the hardware and six figures on your oracle enterprise license, another $10-50K to get four times the performance is easy.
If you want to play armchair CFO, maybe you should learn something about finance. DEbt is not the same as DEficit, just as a MOuse is not the same as a MOnitor.
Read the balance sheet. Salon has almost no debt. What they have is an accumulated deficit (negative retained earnings) of about $75M -- that's the amount of money they've lost since they were founded six-seven years ago. They've raised about $85M in investment funding in that time too.
Salon has done a heck of a job bringing their expenses down and developing alternative revenue streams -- all those things you mentioned -- unfortunately, they can't seem to lower expenses faster than their ad revenues have fallen. They currently only have about $1.5M in cash on hand and their burn rate depletes that in four or five months, hence the auditor's "doubt" about the company as an on-going concern.
> At the current price of $10,000 per lb, it's going to cost you $4,120,000,000 to get that sucker into > orbit. That's 4.12 BILLION. That's totally excluding the cost of the spaceship itself. Not even Bill > Gates can afford this.
I think you're too impressed by that word *billion*. At close of market today, billg was worth about $90 billion dollars.
Let's say it took $4B to get your spacecraft into orbit, and twice that to design and manufacture the craft and train and staff your mission and flight crew. You're looking at $12B probably spent over 10-12 years -- let's say a $1B/yr for a 12 year project mission.
That's about 13% of Gates' net worth. Not too bad. A gal with a net worth of $250K spends more than 13% of her worth to buy a fscking SUV.
And you think there will be NO return on the $12B? Lucas made $2B on the liscensing rights to Phantom Menace before the movie even showed. He'll make more than another billion on the box office and video.
I suspect one could get at least half that $12B investment back on liscensing alone, possibly more than the whole sum with some decent marketing and deal making.
The tobacco industry makes about $12B per year. Let's just slap another 10% tax on cigarettes and finance a Mars mission! US consumers spend more on lipstick every year then NASA's budget.
Hey maybe the aerospace industry could afford this trip. Hmmm, Boeing has a market cap of $40B and nets $2.25B in after-tax profits every year. I suppose Boeing could decide to churn 50% of their profits into a Mars mission. And gee, most of that money gets posted as revenue for them and their partners. And they get to keep the technology and all its spin-offs.
4 BILLION DOLLARS isn't a lot of money in the modern economy. There are plenty of individuals and corporations that could afford a project of this scale, not just governments.
Well, if we're going to look at dates, at least look at all of them:
This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 08/653,556, filed May 24, 1996, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,696,901, which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 8/481,642, filed Jun. 7, 1995, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,544,320, which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 08/001,982, filed Jan. 8, 1993, now abandoned, each of which is incorporated herein by reference for all purposes.
The original filing was January 1993. HTML is still prior art, but it's not quite as egregious.
Slashdot Mirror
This sorta device can be used very effectively for large scale database systems. But the device reviewed here doesn't qualify because it doesn't have redundant power, a back-up hard-disk and a UPS.
A Google search brings up Imperial Technology for example, which makes a line of DRAM disks and storage caches with lots of redundancy and multiple high-speed (USCSI, fiber channel) channels.
If you have a high transaction volume database, putting your highest access tables and redo logs on a solid state disk system can produce 2x to 6x performance improvements even when you've already got gobs of server power and very fast disk arrays. Here's a success story involving eBay seeing 500% improvement with their Oracle installation on Sun E10Ks.
These server class devices are a lot pricier then $3K, but when you've spent mid-five to high 6 or 7 figures on the hardware and six figures on your oracle enterprise license, another $10-50K to get four times the performance is easy.
Read the balance sheet. Salon has almost no debt. What they have is an accumulated deficit (negative retained earnings) of about $75M -- that's the amount of money they've lost since they were founded six-seven years ago. They've raised about $85M in investment funding in that time too.
Salon has done a heck of a job bringing their expenses down and developing alternative revenue streams -- all those things you mentioned -- unfortunately, they can't seem to lower expenses faster than their ad revenues have fallen. They currently only have about $1.5M in cash on hand and their burn rate depletes that in four or five months, hence the auditor's "doubt" about the company as an on-going concern.
For a little overview on how cool IBM has become try The New Face of IBM at InternetWorld.
> At the current price of $10,000 per lb, it's going to cost you $4,120,000,000 to get that sucker into
> orbit. That's 4.12 BILLION. That's totally excluding the cost of the spaceship itself. Not even Bill
> Gates can afford this.
I think you're too impressed by that word *billion*. At close of market today, billg was worth about $90 billion dollars.
Let's say it took $4B to get your spacecraft into orbit, and twice that to design and manufacture the craft and train and staff your mission and flight crew. You're looking at $12B probably spent over 10-12 years -- let's say a $1B/yr for a 12 year project mission.
That's about 13% of Gates' net worth. Not too bad. A gal with a net worth of $250K spends more than 13% of her worth to buy a fscking SUV.
And you think there will be NO return on the $12B?
Lucas made $2B on the liscensing rights to Phantom Menace before the movie even showed. He'll make more than another billion on the box office and video.
I suspect one could get at least half that $12B investment back on liscensing alone, possibly more than the whole sum with some decent marketing and deal making.
The tobacco industry makes about $12B per year. Let's just slap another 10% tax on cigarettes and finance a Mars mission! US consumers spend more on lipstick every year then NASA's budget.
Hey maybe the aerospace industry could afford this trip. Hmmm, Boeing has a market cap of $40B and nets $2.25B in after-tax profits every year. I suppose Boeing could decide to churn 50% of their profits into a Mars mission. And gee, most of that money gets posted as revenue for them and their partners. And they get to keep the technology and all its spin-offs.
4 BILLION DOLLARS isn't a lot of money in the modern economy. There are plenty of individuals and corporations that could afford a project of this scale, not just governments.
This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 08/653,556, filed May 24, 1996, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,696,901, which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 8/481,642, filed Jun. 7, 1995, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,544,320, which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 08/001,982, filed Jan. 8, 1993, now abandoned, each of which is incorporated herein by reference for all purposes.
The original filing was January 1993. HTML is still prior art, but it's not quite as egregious.