Was about to submit my post addressing the math fail, but you were ahead of me.
However... at 10TB, you hit the $0.09 price according to GP, so $900. Wouldn't know if that's expensive.
I wasn't careful with my wording, I believe the way the pricing works is that for usage from 1GB to 9999GB, it's $0.12/GB, but for usage beyond that it's $0.09/GB. The first GB is free.
This is an ad. What is a "resonant clock mesh"? That's sounds really cool. So I started RTFA (I know, sorry). You don't have to chastise me that much, because I stopped reading soon. Right after
An average Google search is reported to require ~ 0.3 watts, about the same amount of power that it takes for a 100 watt light bulb to be lit for 10 seconds.
Which was obviously not written by anybody who has any clue what they are talking about.
I think it was a typo (or edit by someone who doesn't know what they are talking about). They should have said 0.3 watt-hours (and should have said "energy" instead of "power")
A 100W bulb uses.1 kWh in an hour, or.0000278 kWh in a second, or.000278 kWh in 10 seconds. (or.278 Wh)
Therefore, a 100W bulb running for 10 seconds uses about the same amount as energy as an average Google search. Which is a lot higher than I thought it would be - since I use 20W CFL's, each time I do a google search, that's the equivalent of 50 seconds of light per Google search. Just while typing this reply, I did enough Google searches to light up my room for about 15 minutes.
A friend of mine has a Jetta, about 8 years old I think, whose headlights turn on automatically, day or night. That a common feature on European makes? I wouldn't want it myself; we Americans reserve the right to drive around sans headlights in pitch darkness, not to mention our proud tradition of senior citizens tooling around with the left turn signal on.
Some people keep their headlights on even on blindingly bright days, to increase the visibility of their cars. Bet there's a study on the efficacy of that tactic.
My 10 year old Subaru (USA model) headlamps are switched on/off with the ignition switch. There is a headlight switch, so if you leave the headlight switch on all of the time, the headlights will always be on while the car is running. If you want the parking lights to be on when the car is off, there's a separate switch for that. There's no way to switch on the headlights without turning the ignition switch on. It also has daylight-running-lamps that run the headlamps at low power all of the time, even if the headlamps are switched off (there's no switch to disable this).
Seems like a simple answer to the "Ooops, left the headlights on when I parked and now the battery is dead" (even better than a warning chime), and I don't hesitate to turn on the headlights in the rain/fog/dusk because I know I'm not going to forget to turn them off when I park the car in broad daylight. I can't think of a good reason why I'd want the headlights to be on without the ignition switch on, I've certainly never missed that "feature".
People are quick to jump on Google because they track your searches and can follow you with their ad engine, so I'm surprised that no one mentioned the privacy implications of this service. This opens up a whole new world of trackability (likely more even than Amazon's Silk browser) - running MSIE in a hosted server session gives the provider visibility into everything you do in that browser - everytime you scroll a page, every time you zoom in, every text box you fill in (even if you leave the page without submitting), all of that is trackable.
Do any of the people advocating using a $500 tablet as a remote to my $800 TV have any kids? The remote has been dropped more times than I can count (and that's just from me, not including the kids). It's regularly coated with chocolate, popcorn butter, and other food residue, and has survived more than one bath in coke.
When my wife wants the remote, I just toss it to her across the room, something I'm not likely to do when it's a heavy tablet (even if I wasn't worried about her missing it and having it crash to the floor).
I don't want a tablet to control my TV, I want a rugged remote and I don't want to add 50% (or even 10%) to the cost of the TV by having to purchase a tablet to control it.
Keeping an immortal knight in a subterranean cavern for thousands of years.
Or, how about just shut up and watch the movie.
Mythbusters already busted that middle one. I'd like to see them test the ripping out a man's heart one, though I'm not sure PETA will appreciate them testing on live animals.
I've seen several electric vehicles that have a gasoline-powered "pusher" trailer that provides "emergency power" for long haul trips instead of looking for an outlet for the car. It isn't even that new of an idea for that matter.
Not pushers, just generators in a trailer, plugged into the car. A car would be nearly impossible to drive if you had something behind it, attached at a rotating pivot point, actually pushing the car. The generator is producing the electricity, not the motor in the vehicle. That's why trailers have their own brake systems -- its extremely dangerous to have the load behind a vehicle doing anything more than being pulled by the vehicle.
As long as you have good traction, having a pusher doesn't make the car uncontrollable. Articulated buses with drive drive wheels in the rear half in a "pusher" configuration are quite common in cities.I wouldn't want to drive one in the snow, but in normal conditions it should work fine.
Another option with the Tesla could be to lift the back wheels and tow it with the front wheels on the ground, unless there is some regenerative braking system which still acts as a generator. And yes, you want to lock the wheels if you do that.
Or they could just use the same flatbed towtruck that they sent to pick up my 4 wheel drive car. Or use the same dollies under the car's wheels that some tow truck operators use to tow 4 wheel drives and cars that they can't get out of "Park". Towing a car without spinning the wheels is a well solved problem that any tow truck operator will be able to handle. I've seen ferarri's on flatbed tow trucks, so I don't think ground clearance is a problem with getting them on a flatbed.
I don't think that's true, Google *can* associate your searches with your account whether or not you are logged on.
They can associate searches with your account when you aren't logged on, but they don't know that they were done by you or by anyone who would have access to your account, so doing so would be somewhat pointless.
Why do you think that's true? Do you think they are unable to set a cookie that remembers your identify even after you log off? Right now I have cookies from 19 different domains that have the word "google", including 31 cookies from google.com. Why should I assume that none of those cookies remember who I am even when I log off?
I cleared all of my cookies, logged in to Gmail, logged out again and I still have 19 different cookies for various Google domains. Some are set to expire when I close my browsers, others don't expire for a year.
Even assuming you have a single machine with a static IP, its quite possible that machine has multiple users, and that the people using your browser when you aren't logged in aren't you. In fact, its possible that multiple different Google Accounts are regularly used from the same machine, leaving Google no reliable way to associate non-logged-in searches with a single Google Account even on the (shaky) assumption that all searches from that machine are linked to the holder of oneof the Google Accounts which are sometimes logged into from that machine.
Granted, it's not foolproof, but the EFF claims that 84% of users can be identified by browser characteristics:
I just logged into www.google.com/history and saw my browsing history back to 2007. I understand some of the privacy concerns, but I actually found it interesting to see what webpages I went to 5 years ago. For me, the ability to look back into details of the past that may have left my conscious memory recall seems to outweigh the security concerns. Also, on the www.google.com/history page you can delete individual record items so if there's something IN PARTICULAR that you want to delete... hint, hint, nudge, nudge, say no more.
But who has time to go through 5 years of browser history to delete all of the times they searched for "naked hot girls with donkeys"? If you think you have some particularly sensitive items in your history, the only way to make sure you get them all is to delete it all.
Google can only associate your searches with your account if you're logged in. If you don't want them to remember your searches, don't log in. Log in to use YouTube when you want to, then log out when you're done.
I don't think that's true, Google *can* associate your searches with your account whether or not you are logged on. I don't know if they *do* associate searches with your account when you're not logged on, but there's no reason why they couldn't do it if they wanted to.
You'd have to delete all of your Google cookies to prevent this. And even then, it's no sure thing, they could look at your IP address and browser ID to do a pretty good job of correlating your activity with your Google account even without a cookie.
Fortunately, not every business falls under the dark cloud of socialist regulatory agencies. Some companies run unfettered and free in the glorious economic wilderness that is the American capitalist system.
But how many of those free and unfettered businesses are large enough to have a CIO?
Yeah, especially since most local storage these days are appliances that pretty much manage themselves. And there's that physical access part of security -- if it's locked in your machine room with no path to the outside world, it's a lot harder to steal your data.
While it may be much harder to steal the data that's locked in your machine room, if that's the only place it exists, you're guaranteed to lose it when you have a machine room disaster (fire, fire supression release, transformer explosion, etc).
Most enterprise backup software will encrypt your data for offsite storage. A cloud storage vendor can also offer encryption options where you are the only one with the decryption key.
The problem is that file storage is so dad-gum expensive these days. 15cents a gb at Amazon makes it $150 per month for a terabyte of storage. You're better off buying the 1TB drives yourself and rotating it to an employee's house every night.
Sure there are some cheaper alternatives (nimbus.io) but even at 6cents a GB with Nimbus, you're still better off buying the external drives yourself.
But you've got to pay someone to keep track of those drives (you do have more than one, right?), and shuttle them back and forth from home (if you're in earthquake country, he better not live too close to the office. If he spends a few hours/month doing these daily drive swaps, then it may be worth paying Amazon $150/month to store the data for you and you can replicate your data offsite more than once/day.
I just came from a very large banking organization, and their business case for cloud is to set up a series of private cloud servers. It's not about putting everything on Amazon etc, but rather about putting the services into their own datacentres.
I'm not sure why you got an "insightful" rating for your comment. While what you said is true, a corporate private cloud is not the public cloud the submitted article is talking about.
Private cloud storage has always been around, but it used to be called a "fileserver", or maybe a "SAN", so just because they are calling storage consolidation a "private cloud" doesn't mean it's something new.
We use Box for 300 people in 8 countries and I use Dropbox and Skyfile for personal file storage and sharing. There is a place for Cloud storage in corporate IT since the end users are using these services on mobile devices already. The author is obviously out of touch with current CIO initiatives, I talk to these guys everyday and most are looking to use cloud services for file storage and sharing.
Do any of these CIOs run companies that fall under SOX, HIPAA, or PCI? How does your CIO ensure that files stored on the cloud storage meet any of those regulatory requirements? All it takes is one personnel file with medical records to leak into the wild to for the company to face liability under HIPAA for unauthorized release. If the company knowingly allowed sensitive files to be stored in unsecured storage, the penalties could be substantial.
If you use a Mac in an enterprise where the Infrastructure admins refuse to investigate why network performance grinds to a halt at 2:30pm everyday on the Windows shares, then you are dying for an alternative, competitive solution to your internal storage monopoly. Especially when your files are destined for publication anyhow, so data security concerns are much less.
Maybe that slowdown is caused by bad behavior from the Macs on the network that IT doesn't know about.
There is definitely some info missing in this story that makes me question that all the facts are not being given.
First, a "young child" does not need a photo ID of any kind to board a plane in the US.
The article explains this -- the child's passport was questioned, but not denied, so this story has nothing to do with the child's passport:
His (child's) passport was questioned, but not denied. It was Kyle Gosnell’s (the father) that was the real problem. It has a small crease on the back cover, and is overall weathered and worn.
Second, why were they even showing an ID in Dallas unless they left the boarding area and have to come back through security again?
On every international flight I've been on, the airline verifies my passport when I check in before leaving the country -- I don't know if this is a legal requirement or just an airline/airport requirement.
I appreciate you telling me this. You've enlightened me to add something to my hiring practices. Now I know to ask a simple Apache configuration question when I Interview someone. I definitely don't want to hire someone that has trouble using something as simple as Apache.
The problem isn't with "simple Apache configuration", the problem is when a manager thinks that only simple apache configuration directives are needed to set up their site to be secure, scalable, and stable. That's often not the case with Apache.
Slashdot Mirror
Was about to submit my post addressing the math fail, but you were ahead of me.
However... at 10TB, you hit the $0.09 price according to GP, so $900. Wouldn't know if that's expensive.
I wasn't careful with my wording, I believe the way the pricing works is that for usage from 1GB to 9999GB, it's $0.12/GB, but for usage beyond that it's $0.09/GB. The first GB is free.
http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/pricing/
So $10,000 for 10 TB? That's not exactly what they're looking for.
Oh, and you're off by around a factor of 10, 10TB is "only" $1200/month.
So $10,000 for 10 TB? That's not exactly what they're looking for.
But it's only 20% of what they are paying now, so still a bargain!
How about Amazon EC2? $0.12 per GB, once you hit 10TB it drops to $0.09 per GB. (this doesn't include server and storage costs)
This is an ad. What is a "resonant clock mesh"? That's sounds really cool. So I started RTFA (I know, sorry). You don't have to chastise me that much, because I stopped reading soon. Right after
Which was obviously not written by anybody who has any clue what they are talking about.
I think it was a typo (or edit by someone who doesn't know what they are talking about). They should have said 0.3 watt-hours (and should have said "energy" instead of "power")
Google says they use 0.0003 kWh of energy per search.
A 100W bulb uses .1 kWh in an hour, or .0000278 kWh in a second, or .000278 kWh in 10 seconds. (or .278 Wh)
Therefore, a 100W bulb running for 10 seconds uses about the same amount as energy as an average Google search. Which is a lot higher than I thought it would be - since I use 20W CFL's, each time I do a google search, that's the equivalent of 50 seconds of light per Google search. Just while typing this reply, I did enough Google searches to light up my room for about 15 minutes.
ITS
Naa, they were using "it's" as a contraction for "it has", i.e. " A handful of scientists have commented on the letter and it has implications"
A friend of mine has a Jetta, about 8 years old I think, whose headlights turn on automatically, day or night. That a common feature on European makes? I wouldn't want it myself; we Americans reserve the right to drive around sans headlights in pitch darkness, not to mention our proud tradition of senior citizens tooling around with the left turn signal on.
Some people keep their headlights on even on blindingly bright days, to increase the visibility of their cars. Bet there's a study on the efficacy of that tactic.
My 10 year old Subaru (USA model) headlamps are switched on/off with the ignition switch. There is a headlight switch, so if you leave the headlight switch on all of the time, the headlights will always be on while the car is running. If you want the parking lights to be on when the car is off, there's a separate switch for that. There's no way to switch on the headlights without turning the ignition switch on. It also has daylight-running-lamps that run the headlamps at low power all of the time, even if the headlamps are switched off (there's no switch to disable this).
Seems like a simple answer to the "Ooops, left the headlights on when I parked and now the battery is dead" (even better than a warning chime), and I don't hesitate to turn on the headlights in the rain/fog/dusk because I know I'm not going to forget to turn them off when I park the car in broad daylight. I can't think of a good reason why I'd want the headlights to be on without the ignition switch on, I've certainly never missed that "feature".
People are quick to jump on Google because they track your searches and can follow you with their ad engine, so I'm surprised that no one mentioned the privacy implications of this service. This opens up a whole new world of trackability (likely more even than Amazon's Silk browser) - running MSIE in a hosted server session gives the provider visibility into everything you do in that browser - everytime you scroll a page, every time you zoom in, every text box you fill in (even if you leave the page without submitting), all of that is trackable.
Do any of the people advocating using a $500 tablet as a remote to my $800 TV have any kids? The remote has been dropped more times than I can count (and that's just from me, not including the kids). It's regularly coated with chocolate, popcorn butter, and other food residue, and has survived more than one bath in coke.
When my wife wants the remote, I just toss it to her across the room, something I'm not likely to do when it's a heavy tablet (even if I wasn't worried about her missing it and having it crash to the floor).
I don't want a tablet to control my TV, I want a rugged remote and I don't want to add 50% (or even 10%) to the cost of the TV by having to purchase a tablet to control it.
It's actually "ahoy-hoy".
I'm pretty sure it's Ahoy there matey!
Or, how about just shut up and watch the movie.
Mythbusters already busted that middle one. I'd like to see them test the ripping out a man's heart one, though I'm not sure PETA will appreciate them testing on live animals.
I've seen several electric vehicles that have a gasoline-powered "pusher" trailer that provides "emergency power" for long haul trips instead of looking for an outlet for the car. It isn't even that new of an idea for that matter.
Not pushers, just generators in a trailer, plugged into the car. A car would be nearly impossible to drive if you had something behind it, attached at a rotating pivot point, actually pushing the car. The generator is producing the electricity, not the motor in the vehicle. That's why trailers have their own brake systems -- its extremely dangerous to have the load behind a vehicle doing anything more than being pulled by the vehicle.
As long as you have good traction, having a pusher doesn't make the car uncontrollable. Articulated buses with drive drive wheels in the rear half in a "pusher" configuration are quite common in cities.I wouldn't want to drive one in the snow, but in normal conditions it should work fine.
Another option with the Tesla could be to lift the back wheels and tow it with the front wheels on the ground, unless there is some regenerative braking system which still acts as a generator. And yes, you want to lock the wheels if you do that.
Or they could just use the same flatbed towtruck that they sent to pick up my 4 wheel drive car. Or use the same dollies under the car's wheels that some tow truck operators use to tow 4 wheel drives and cars that they can't get out of "Park". Towing a car without spinning the wheels is a well solved problem that any tow truck operator will be able to handle. I've seen ferarri's on flatbed tow trucks, so I don't think ground clearance is a problem with getting them on a flatbed.
They can associate searches with your account when you aren't logged on, but they don't know that they were done by you or by anyone who would have access to your account, so doing so would be somewhat pointless.
Why do you think that's true? Do you think they are unable to set a cookie that remembers your identify even after you log off? Right now I have cookies from 19 different domains that have the word "google", including 31 cookies from google.com. Why should I assume that none of those cookies remember who I am even when I log off?
I cleared all of my cookies, logged in to Gmail, logged out again and I still have 19 different cookies for various Google domains. Some are set to expire when I close my browsers, others don't expire for a year.
Even assuming you have a single machine with a static IP, its quite possible that machine has multiple users, and that the people using your browser when you aren't logged in aren't you. In fact, its possible that multiple different Google Accounts are regularly used from the same machine, leaving Google no reliable way to associate non-logged-in searches with a single Google Account even on the (shaky) assumption that all searches from that machine are linked to the holder of oneof the Google Accounts which are sometimes logged into from that machine.
Granted, it's not foolproof, but the EFF claims that 84% of users can be identified by browser characteristics:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/17/browser_fingerprint/
I just logged into www.google.com/history and saw my browsing history back to 2007. I understand some of the privacy concerns, but I actually found it interesting to see what webpages I went to 5 years ago. For me, the ability to look back into details of the past that may have left my conscious memory recall seems to outweigh the security concerns. Also, on the www.google.com/history page you can delete individual record items so if there's something IN PARTICULAR that you want to delete... hint, hint, nudge, nudge, say no more.
But who has time to go through 5 years of browser history to delete all of the times they searched for "naked hot girls with donkeys"? If you think you have some particularly sensitive items in your history, the only way to make sure you get them all is to delete it all.
Google can only associate your searches with your account if you're logged in. If you don't want them to remember your searches, don't log in. Log in to use YouTube when you want to, then log out when you're done.
I don't think that's true, Google *can* associate your searches with your account whether or not you are logged on. I don't know if they *do* associate searches with your account when you're not logged on, but there's no reason why they couldn't do it if they wanted to.
You'd have to delete all of your Google cookies to prevent this. And even then, it's no sure thing, they could look at your IP address and browser ID to do a pretty good job of correlating your activity with your Google account even without a cookie.
Fortunately, not every business falls under the dark cloud of socialist regulatory agencies. Some companies run unfettered and free in the glorious economic wilderness that is the American capitalist system.
But how many of those free and unfettered businesses are large enough to have a CIO?
Yeah, especially since most local storage these days are appliances that pretty much manage themselves. And there's that physical access part of security -- if it's locked in your machine room with no path to the outside world, it's a lot harder to steal your data.
While it may be much harder to steal the data that's locked in your machine room, if that's the only place it exists, you're guaranteed to lose it when you have a machine room disaster (fire, fire supression release, transformer explosion, etc).
Most enterprise backup software will encrypt your data for offsite storage. A cloud storage vendor can also offer encryption options where you are the only one with the decryption key.
The problem is that file storage is so dad-gum expensive these days. 15cents a gb at Amazon makes it $150 per month for a terabyte of storage. You're better off buying the 1TB drives yourself and rotating it to an employee's house every night.
Sure there are some cheaper alternatives (nimbus.io) but even at 6cents a GB with Nimbus, you're still better off buying the external drives yourself.
But you've got to pay someone to keep track of those drives (you do have more than one, right?), and shuttle them back and forth from home (if you're in earthquake country, he better not live too close to the office. If he spends a few hours/month doing these daily drive swaps, then it may be worth paying Amazon $150/month to store the data for you and you can replicate your data offsite more than once/day.
I just came from a very large banking organization, and their business case for cloud is to set up a series of private cloud servers. It's not about putting everything on Amazon etc, but rather about putting the services into their own datacentres.
I'm not sure why you got an "insightful" rating for your comment. While what you said is true, a corporate private cloud is not the public cloud the submitted article is talking about.
Private cloud storage has always been around, but it used to be called a "fileserver", or maybe a "SAN", so just because they are calling storage consolidation a "private cloud" doesn't mean it's something new.
We use Box for 300 people in 8 countries and I use Dropbox and Skyfile for personal file storage and sharing. There is a place for Cloud storage in corporate IT since the end users are using these services on mobile devices already. The author is obviously out of touch with current CIO initiatives, I talk to these guys everyday and most are looking to use cloud services for file storage and sharing.
Do any of these CIOs run companies that fall under SOX, HIPAA, or PCI? How does your CIO ensure that files stored on the cloud storage meet any of those regulatory requirements? All it takes is one personnel file with medical records to leak into the wild to for the company to face liability under HIPAA for unauthorized release. If the company knowingly allowed sensitive files to be stored in unsecured storage, the penalties could be substantial.
If you use a Mac in an enterprise where the Infrastructure admins refuse to investigate why network performance grinds to a halt at 2:30pm everyday on the Windows shares, then you are dying for an alternative, competitive solution to your internal storage monopoly. Especially when your files are destined for publication anyhow, so data security concerns are much less.
Maybe that slowdown is caused by bad behavior from the Macs on the network that IT doesn't know about.
213 million six foot power strips daisy chained together...
I've got three of them in a box under my desk that I can donate to the cause, so now you only need 212,999,997.
There is definitely some info missing in this story that makes me question that all the facts are not being given.
First, a "young child" does not need a photo ID of any kind to board a plane in the US.
The article explains this -- the child's passport was questioned, but not denied, so this story has nothing to do with the child's passport:
His (child's) passport was questioned, but not denied. It was Kyle Gosnell’s (the father) that was the real problem. It has a small crease on the back cover, and is overall weathered and worn.
Second, why were they even showing an ID in Dallas unless they left the boarding area and have to come back through security again?
On every international flight I've been on, the airline verifies my passport when I check in before leaving the country -- I don't know if this is a legal requirement or just an airline/airport requirement.
I appreciate you telling me this. You've enlightened me to add something to my hiring practices. Now I know to ask a simple Apache configuration question when I Interview someone. I definitely don't want to hire someone that has trouble using something as simple as Apache.
The problem isn't with "simple Apache configuration", the problem is when a manager thinks that only simple apache configuration directives are needed to set up their site to be secure, scalable, and stable. That's often not the case with Apache.