Bitch moan, bitch moan. If I had a need for such a dataset, I think I'd be damn grateful that I didn't have to collect it myself. As for the cost of processing the pages, the article suggests that running a hadoop job on the whole dataset on EC2 might be in the neighborhood of $100. That's not that costly.
It may or may not be a small part of the problem, but it isn't a small problem to crawl that many web pages. This likely lets people save a lot of time and effort which they can then devote to their unique research.
Maybe it will cost a fortune to analyze that much data, but there isn't really anyway of getting around the cost if you need that much data. Besides, for what its worth, the linked article suggests that a hadoop run against the data costs about $100. I'm sure the real cost depends on the extent and efficiency of your analysis, but that is hardly "a fortune."
A conspiracy? You're going to have to pay someone for the compute time. It's not like a lot of people have big clusters lying around, so lot of people are going to opt to pay Amazon anyway.
As for selling access to the data on physical media, it doesn't look like there is anything to stop you from taking advantage of Amazon's Export Service to get the data set on physical media.
I don't get it. You are going to have to pay someone if you want to do any research on it. If you don't want to pay Amazon you could either crawl the data yourself, or pay the cost of transferring the data out of Amazon's cloud.
Well, putting aside the fact that you are talking about filesystem internals, and the OP is talking about conventions for filesystem layout:
Disks are really big these days. The things people tend to fill them with are images, video and audio that is already in a compressed format. So, for the average user, directory compression isn't going to be a big win.
To put it more succinctly, this isn't an important filesystem feature.
Aeronautical engineers involved with civillian passenger aircraft seem to have an appropriately conservative attitude about risk. That doesn't mean that there won't be problems when they try to innovate, but I have a hard time imagining that the 787 will actually go into commercial service without thorough vetting. Its still a new design, of course, and problems will be discovered and fixed once the aircraft are in regular use.
It may be less safe than, say, an older model with more real world use, or a new model with less ambitious design and technology, but it is less safe from a baseline with a remarkable degree of safety.
Thanks for the clarification. I'd misread the 2.5 minute time as being the total throughput, not the time it took to output a single completed frame, but rereading the paper, it seems like it is indeed the time to expose a 1024x1024 frame. Its unclear to me how long the computation took.
The short answer is that the facial animation was produced by software written in Fortran and run on a pair of PDP-10s, and the hand animation was likely running in the same environment. When each frame was finished, it was displayed on a CRT and captured to film using a 35mm animation camera. For the facial animation, each frame took about 2.5 minutes to render.
Assuming this story is true, I'd be concerned that this is an attempt to draw the US Government into a confrontation that will help the hard-liners in Iran. As for who would want such a thing.
Clearly the hard-liners would like to try, once again, to get people to rally behind them in the face of "the great satan." You'd also have to look at the US Neocons, many of whom would like to remove any sympathy for Iran or Iranians that gets in the way of their long-disgraced axis-of-evil BS. And then there is Israel. At least some in Israel are on the same page as the neocons, though I wouldn't want to suggest that their position is universally held.
Anyway, I'm suspicious of the motives of anyone who wants to use this as anything but a reason to get the cops and/or FBI on the case.
"Netcraft confirms: IBM, Sun, and Google make boatloads of money off of the countless unnamed and unpaid developers who write the code that they use. Does the amount they contribute back exceed the amount they gain by benefiting from the work of others?"
Are you kidding me?
Do you honestly believe that anyone who benefits from open source software needs to contribute back MORE than the benefit they receive?
One of the reasons the open source software models work is that companies that pay developers to work on open source software can get out more than they put in. Someone paying an apache developer to make changes to apache that get contributed back to the apache project gets the benefit of all the work that's already gone into apache, and any work that other people do.
Dude, as basic reasearch goes, gaining a better understanding protein folding has a huge number of applications, including, I dare say, finding a cure for cancer.
Open source environments may or may not be more complex than a pure microsoft shop that upgrades in lockstep of Microsofts product schedule, but they will never, ever, reach the licensing complexity of Microsoft's products, which microsoft has intentionally obfuscated because they know that a confused customer will often pay more to be on the safe side, rather than risk a BSA audit.
it also gives massive amounts to very specific areas of Washington and Oregon
The Gates Foundation gave $ 37M in 04 and $75M in 05 out of a budget in excess of $1B to programs in the pacific northwest. This bothers you why? Because you want to make a big deal about a small thing?
Next up, you've got a beef because Gates funded a scholarship program for groups who have long been underrepresented in american higher education.
It only gives grants to Americans. This is despite the fact that Gates and Buffet got their money from all over the world.
First off, its just one the grants that the Gates foundation has made to support education, and there will be others. The fact that it's targeted at students in the US really tells you nothing about the reach of the foundations educational grants program.
Next off, most of Gates worth is due to microsoft, and a huge amount of microsoft's sales have been in the US. I think even today 1/3rd of microsoft's revenue is domestic. Even if you insist that the gates foundation pays out in proportion to where the wealth came from, that still leaves a lot to be spent in the US.
Of course, at this point, probably 80% is being spent on global health (which mostly means the impovershed parts of the world), which means that even if all their remaining budget was spent on US educational programs, it would only be a relatively small portion of their total annual spending.
It's run by the "United Negro College Fund", which doesn't sound particularly unbiased to me. It's a blatantly racist scheme, as their website makes clear:
The Gates Millennium Scholars (GMS), funded by a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, was established in 1999 to provide outstanding African American, American Indian/Alaska Natives, Asian Pacific Islander Americans, and Hispanic American students with an opportunity to complete an undergraduate college education, in all discipline areas and a graduate education for those students pursuing studies in mathematics, science, engineering, education, or library science. Sorry, but whatever the statistics say, I think anybody should be able to apply regardless of background. It's just pushing some PC agenda otherwise.
First, it's an estate tax. Death isn't taxed. Second, it does a nice job of impeeding dynastic accumulations of wealth.
As for politicians and their pet projects. Whatever. I'm sure you've benefited in lots of ways from government programs. So its really just a question of the best way to pay for them. A tax on substantial estates seems like one good way to raise some of that money. Better than taxing working & living people at an even higher rate.
I don't know if it was the first, but I remember the price being a big reason I hated the game. Because it was basically static clips, there was no real feedback about how you were doing until you got killed, which happened pretty quickly, and then you had to spend another 50 cents to try again.
Of course, the real reason to hate the game was that the gameplay sucked, no matter what the price.
This gives me an interesting idea. What about setting up firefox to provide it's own terms of use as part of the HTTP request header. Something to the effect of "By providing content in response to this HTTP request, you agree to not impose any bullshit terms of use on me."
Speaking as a non-programmer who has taught himself a middling amount of Java (and C#) and a slightly less middling amount of Python I say, for a community college course (which I assume is going to be pretty oriented towards practical programming, rather than computer science): For the java course, use an IDE because that's what you do when you write java. For python, I say give them a decent editor with syntax highlighting, and show them how handy it is to be able to use the interpreter interactively and do 'dir' on objects, even without some big IDE.
I've been enjoying the game a lot over the past week, but to be honest, I've probably spent as much time looking for performance tweaks as I have playing it.
The graphics are incredibly ambitious, especially outdoors in heavy forest, as a result, even relatively high end hardware (7800GT) can suffer from low FPS in spots, and that's not even with all the graphics settings pushed to the max.
I'm seriously considering selling my card (which I bought primarily for this game) and getting a 1900xt (with its massive pixel shader power avantage over the NVidia offerings). I never thought I'd spend $400+ on a graphics card, but having already committed almost $300 it seems silly not to pay a bit more to get the experience I was hoping for. If I do though, I'll have to get more games to amortize the expense over.
If you are intrigued by this game, but haven't been eagerly awaiting it, I'd suggest waiting a few months before picking it up. That'll give the developer a chance to fix bugs. It'll give the gaming community time to figure out how to get the best peformance, and it'll give a little more time for price/performance on graphics card to improve.
Also, I really see this "Photoshop Killer" being Paint Shop Pro on steroids. I honestly can't see microsoft competing in the pro market at all. The only competing they do is when we get the do-it-yourselfers sending us M$ Publisher files or Powerpoint files that are to be used for output; which results in us needing to rebuild their files from the elements, if possible. or just do a complete re-create.
I think you're pretty much right that the market segment for this isn't true professionals. However, that said, it could still be bad for Adobe in the long run.
First off, I'm sure the Photoshop revenue Adobe gets from non-pros is significant. Second, the value of the Photoshop brand helps adobe sell their own non-pro versions of photoshop, like PS Elements.
Third, if Microsoft can underut Adobe in non-traditional photoshop markets, they can deprive Adobe of growth and potentially absorb more and more of Adobe's core market in successive versions (disrupt from below). I'd guess that at least part of the reason Microsoft is financing a product like this is the worry that Adobe might do the same thing, and use their content creation tools to start chipping away at the Office System edifice.
Slashdot Mirror
Bitch moan, bitch moan. If I had a need for such a dataset, I think I'd be damn grateful that I didn't have to collect it myself. As for the cost of processing the pages, the article suggests that running a hadoop job on the whole dataset on EC2 might be in the neighborhood of $100. That's not that costly.
It may or may not be a small part of the problem, but it isn't a small problem to crawl that many web pages. This likely lets people save a lot of time and effort which they can then devote to their unique research.
Maybe it will cost a fortune to analyze that much data, but there isn't really anyway of getting around the cost if you need that much data. Besides, for what its worth, the linked article suggests that a hadoop run against the data costs about $100. I'm sure the real cost depends on the extent and efficiency of your analysis, but that is hardly "a fortune."
A conspiracy? You're going to have to pay someone for the compute time. It's not like a lot of people have big clusters lying around, so lot of people are going to opt to pay Amazon anyway.
As for selling access to the data on physical media, it doesn't look like there is anything to stop you from taking advantage of Amazon's Export Service to get the data set on physical media.
I don't get it. You are going to have to pay someone if you want to do any research on it. If you don't want to pay Amazon you could either crawl the data yourself, or pay the cost of transferring the data out of Amazon's cloud.
Well, putting aside the fact that you are talking about filesystem internals, and the OP is talking about conventions for filesystem layout:
Disks are really big these days. The things people tend to fill them with are images, video and audio that is already in a compressed format. So, for the average user, directory compression isn't going to be a big win.
To put it more succinctly, this isn't an important filesystem feature.
Aeronautical engineers involved with civillian passenger aircraft seem to have an appropriately conservative attitude about risk. That doesn't mean that there won't be problems when they try to innovate, but I have a hard time imagining that the 787 will actually go into commercial service without thorough vetting. Its still a new design, of course, and problems will be discovered and fixed once the aircraft are in regular use.
It may be less safe than, say, an older model with more real world use, or a new model with less ambitious design and technology, but it is less safe from a baseline with a remarkable degree of safety.
Thanks for the clarification. I'd misread the 2.5 minute time as being the total throughput, not the time it took to output a single completed frame, but rereading the paper, it seems like it is indeed the time to expose a 1024x1024 frame. Its unclear to me how long the computation took.
I dug into the technical details a bit and posted some of what I found on my blog, along with links to the papers describing the hand and facial animation work in more detail: http://geekfun.com/2011/09/03/early-cgi-animation-by-ed-catmull/
The short answer is that the facial animation was produced by software written in Fortran and run on a pair of PDP-10s, and the hand animation was likely running in the same environment. When each frame was finished, it was displayed on a CRT and captured to film using a 35mm animation camera. For the facial animation, each frame took about 2.5 minutes to render.
What about the hundreds of thousands of geeks who have been refining their command of strategy and tactics since they were old enough to hold a mouse?
I can tell you one thing, the US is f-ucked in the event of a major cyberattack if someone as clueless as this clown is in charge.
Assuming this story is true, I'd be concerned that this is an attempt to draw the US Government into a confrontation that will help the hard-liners in Iran. As for who would want such a thing.
Clearly the hard-liners would like to try, once again, to get people to rally behind them in the face of "the great satan." You'd also have to look at the US Neocons, many of whom would like to remove any sympathy for Iran or Iranians that gets in the way of their long-disgraced axis-of-evil BS. And then there is Israel. At least some in Israel are on the same page as the neocons, though I wouldn't want to suggest that their position is universally held.
Anyway, I'm suspicious of the motives of anyone who wants to use this as anything but a reason to get the cops and/or FBI on the case.
This is a nice design win for Django as a web framework. I wonder how much of the stack he ended up using and whether he used the ORM layer at all.
Are you kidding me?
Do you honestly believe that anyone who benefits from open source software needs to contribute back MORE than the benefit they receive?
One of the reasons the open source software models work is that companies that pay developers to work on open source software can get out more than they put in. Someone paying an apache developer to make changes to apache that get contributed back to the apache project gets the benefit of all the work that's already gone into apache, and any work that other people do.
Dude, as basic reasearch goes, gaining a better understanding protein folding has a huge number of applications, including, I dare say, finding a cure for cancer.
Open source environments may or may not be more complex than a pure microsoft shop that upgrades in lockstep of Microsofts product schedule, but they will never, ever, reach the licensing complexity of Microsoft's products, which microsoft has intentionally obfuscated because they know that a confused customer will often pay more to be on the safe side, rather than risk a BSA audit.
I remember this guy, I ridiculed him heartily in my blog after he bitched about the way non-Microsoft people handled the WMF exploit.
That complaint was leveled before a major refactoring to "remove the magic" from Djago was merged with the codebase.
It was incredibly popular?
Not at the Arcade I went to.
The Gates Foundation gave $ 37M in 04 and $75M in 05 out of a budget in excess of $1B to programs in the pacific northwest. This bothers you why? Because you want to make a big deal about a small thing?
Next up, you've got a beef because Gates funded a scholarship program for groups who have long been underrepresented in american higher education.
First off, its just one the grants that the Gates foundation has made to support education, and there will be others. The fact that it's targeted at students in the US really tells you nothing about the reach of the foundations educational grants program.
Next off, most of Gates worth is due to microsoft, and a huge amount of microsoft's sales have been in the US. I think even today 1/3rd of microsoft's revenue is domestic. Even if you insist that the gates foundation pays out in proportion to where the wealth came from, that still leaves a lot to be spent in the US.
Of course, at this point, probably 80% is being spent on global health (which mostly means the impovershed parts of the world), which means that even if all their remaining budget was spent on US educational programs, it would only be a relatively small portion of their total annual spending.
Yeah, whatever, buddy. That's blatantly racist how?
Try a little harder. A press release from May of this year states they've given over 10K scholarships since 1999.
It's an estate tax. Death is not taxed, estate's are.
First, it's an estate tax. Death isn't taxed. Second, it does a nice job of impeeding dynastic accumulations of wealth.
As for politicians and their pet projects. Whatever. I'm sure you've benefited in lots of ways from government programs. So its really just a question of the best way to pay for them. A tax on substantial estates seems like one good way to raise some of that money. Better than taxing working & living people at an even higher rate.
I don't know if it was the first, but I remember the price being a big reason I hated the game. Because it was basically static clips, there was no real feedback about how you were doing until you got killed, which happened pretty quickly, and then you had to spend another 50 cents to try again.
Of course, the real reason to hate the game was that the gameplay sucked, no matter what the price.
This gives me an interesting idea. What about setting up firefox to provide it's own terms of use as part of the HTTP request header. Something to the effect of "By providing content in response to this HTTP request, you agree to not impose any bullshit terms of use on me."
Speaking as a non-programmer who has taught himself a middling amount of Java (and C#) and a slightly less middling amount of Python I say, for a community college course (which I assume is going to be pretty oriented towards practical programming, rather than computer science): For the java course, use an IDE because that's what you do when you write java. For python, I say give them a decent editor with syntax highlighting, and show them how handy it is to be able to use the interpreter interactively and do 'dir' on objects, even without some big IDE.
I've been enjoying the game a lot over the past week, but to be honest, I've probably spent as much time looking for performance tweaks as I have playing it.
The graphics are incredibly ambitious, especially outdoors in heavy forest, as a result, even relatively high end hardware (7800GT) can suffer from low FPS in spots, and that's not even with all the graphics settings pushed to the max.
I'm seriously considering selling my card (which I bought primarily for this game) and getting a 1900xt (with its massive pixel shader power avantage over the NVidia offerings). I never thought I'd spend $400+ on a graphics card, but having already committed almost $300 it seems silly not to pay a bit more to get the experience I was hoping for. If I do though, I'll have to get more games to amortize the expense over.
If you are intrigued by this game, but haven't been eagerly awaiting it, I'd suggest waiting a few months before picking it up. That'll give the developer a chance to fix bugs. It'll give the gaming community time to figure out how to get the best peformance, and it'll give a little more time for price/performance on graphics card to improve.
Also, I really see this "Photoshop Killer" being Paint Shop Pro on steroids. I honestly can't see microsoft competing in the pro market at all. The only competing they do is when we get the do-it-yourselfers sending us M$ Publisher files or Powerpoint files that are to be used for output; which results in us needing to rebuild their files from the elements, if possible. or just do a complete re-create.
I think you're pretty much right that the market segment for this isn't true professionals. However, that said, it could still be bad for Adobe in the long run.
First off, I'm sure the Photoshop revenue Adobe gets from non-pros is significant. Second, the value of the Photoshop brand helps adobe sell their own non-pro versions of photoshop, like PS Elements.
Third, if Microsoft can underut Adobe in non-traditional photoshop markets, they can deprive Adobe of growth and potentially absorb more and more of Adobe's core market in successive versions (disrupt from below). I'd guess that at least part of the reason Microsoft is financing a product like this is the worry that Adobe might do the same thing, and use their content creation tools to start chipping away at the Office System edifice.