Because it's more than that. "Cloud Computing" is a marketing architecture, not a technical one. Incidents like this demonstrate poor planning and design, nothing more.
I wonder if amazon overestimated the uptake of EC2 and needs to have a fire-sale to get _some_ income on the investment. They need to have capacity to service new orders but by default this means that they have un-used resources that are costing them more then the unit bring in.
I'm not saying it is or isn't - but a case can be made. Remember this boils down to google not willing to remove links, at the owner's request, to illegal copies of copyrighted work. I admit it's a gray area in the US, but google is more then passively facilitating the propagation of theft - their software is providing a value-add by making it easier for someone to get access to that illegal copy.
Google makes no data available, they just link to it.
This is the defense line of every bittorrent indexing site too, since.torrent files (and more recently magnet links) contain no copyrighted data at all.
The last time I checked google provided a few sentences from the SERP which is content from the linked page. As the content is automatically copyrighted once posted, google is in fact displaying copyrighted material.
My analogy provided 2 similar methods to come to the same result: knife vs. gun. The knife represents the slow, non-mechanical way to do something while the gun is the evolved, machine-based method. It has ZERO to do with gun manufactures, and if that insolent position is all you could come up with I truly feel for your cognitive abilities; it had to do with the person wielding the weapon. No, before you get lost, google is not the weapon, they are the person. The weapon is the information.
In this story there are [at least] 2 ways to get this media(for the sake of this discussion): 1. google/bing/yahoo/etc. linking to RS links and 2. doing some manual way of tracking the data down.(emails, usenet, wtf ever, etc..) My point was that search engines make it easier by using their software, they don't just regurgitate what they find. They provide value-add of some-kind or we wouldn't use them. SEs format, process, ranks and do a host of other things before we get a SERP after a query is submitted. All of that work their software does is surface area for liable.
You're making excuses for google. Google wrote software that makes posting of information faster and more efficient - doesn't mean new rules of law suddenly apply. If someone kills by stabbing them in the head with a knife it's the same charge as if they used a gun, everything else being equal. Obviously the gun is the more efficient way to get the job done. Bottom line is google harvests, formats and makes available this data, which makes them directly liable. Under the DMCA it's different if they are just the ISP that runs someones site with the information, but Google actually processes and presents data with it's own software, which is where the culpability.
The Chrome Frame was never a good idea for security. By making it opt-in for sites, like an other plugin, it dramatically increased the attack surface of IE. Now any attacker can exploit holes in IE, holes in the frame, or holes coming from the interactions between the two. If you want the features of the Chrome Frame in a more secure package, use Chrome.
Your common sense has no place on this board. Good day, sir.
I know it's cool to bash M$ and all, but bing gives me good results. A lot of time I need to go a fwe pages deep in google to find something(all my searches are boolean phrases) but bing gives a lot of my results on page 1. not sure why, but bing seems "snappy" with all the css they have....
My point is what if that link went away? Instead of searching for someone on google you would go right to facebook, because you know facebook is concerned with people, where google has loads of crap in it.
Do you really think Facebook gets meaningful traffic from Google? Even if someone reading your comment never heard of facebook before, you just informed them about it. facebook.com is easy enough to type into the browser...
I'm willing to bet google needs FB's content more than Facebook needs google's referels.
The fact you're comparing NonStop/Stratus to the IO of a SAN is comical. There's a reason you don't virtualize large RDBMS in production environments: they fall over.
Exchange is not a "high IO application". A high IO application is something like all the ATM transactions for Chase bank in North America. If you can have 20 servers on a single physical host you're doing it wrong: your apps aren't heavy by a long shot.
VM replication like this still has an IO bottleneck. This isn't magic: unless you move to infiniband you're not going to touch something like a Stratus or NonStop machine. By the time you add in the cost of the high-perf interconnects, you're on-par with the real-time boxes. All this convergence going on with people redesigning the mainframe but ass-backward with client/server gear. Makes little sense to me other than it being a gimmick.
By the time you get all the components that provide the processing and I/O throughput of those high-end boxes, the x86/64 commodity hardware cost advantage has evaporated.
I've never understood this. You can mod your hardware all you want, just don't expect the vendor to support it. That means no using the vendor's services.
Linus was upset that someone was basing a modern OS on BSD. boo-hoo. Solaris still innovates more than Linux, all Linux does is try to replicate commercial functionality in "Open Source". The case can be made that the OpenBSD project has had more innovation(openssh, CARP, etc.) than Linux.
You can't provision 100x servers/databases/hadoop nodes for a single hour or night at a traditional host based on some event your software manages, and then pay less then $100.
You can't do this with the cloud either. Show me what a 100 CPU instance costs for an hour, each with 2GB of RAM and a 5 GB disk.(bare bones) Come back when I can get a single instance with 1024 CPUs and 50 TB of addressable RAM. I want my one instance to scale automatically - because that's what the cloud promises: automatic scalability.
Mod parent up. People are wanting 'something for nothing' again. I also take offense to HE's comments about "caring about their customers being the most important thing" implying Cogent doesn't. I'm not fan of Cogent, but hell HE, if you care about your customers spend the money and get proper peeing agreements setup instead of blaming the other guy for not wanting to service your customers for free.
They are the Wal-Mart of bandwidth and offer dirt-cheap prices. How can they do that and expect to hand-off to more expensive/higher quality(It's Cogent, I know....) networks? People want cheaper and cheaper so a company will eventually come along that caters to that crowd, but how dare they expect to offer the same QoS and not pay for it. Forget peering then throttling the links, Cogent is doing the right thing and not even lighting the fiber.
Slashdot Mirror
please mod up the AC.
Because it's more than that. "Cloud Computing" is a marketing architecture, not a technical one. Incidents like this demonstrate poor planning and design, nothing more.
webOS uses multitouch, though not sure if they licensed anything from apple for that ability.
I wonder if amazon overestimated the uptake of EC2 and needs to have a fire-sale to get _some_ income on the investment. They need to have capacity to service new orders but by default this means that they have un-used resources that are costing them more then the unit bring in.
I'm not saying it is or isn't - but a case can be made. Remember this boils down to google not willing to remove links, at the owner's request, to illegal copies of copyrighted work. I admit it's a gray area in the US, but google is more then passively facilitating the propagation of theft - their software is providing a value-add by making it easier for someone to get access to that illegal copy.
This is the defense line of every bittorrent indexing site too, since .torrent files (and more recently magnet links) contain no copyrighted data at all.
The last time I checked google provided a few sentences from the SERP which is content from the linked page. As the content is automatically copyrighted once posted, google is in fact displaying copyrighted material.
No, you missed the point entirely.
My analogy provided 2 similar methods to come to the same result: knife vs. gun. The knife represents the slow, non-mechanical way to do something while the gun is the evolved, machine-based method. It has ZERO to do with gun manufactures, and if that insolent position is all you could come up with I truly feel for your cognitive abilities; it had to do with the person wielding the weapon. No, before you get lost, google is not the weapon, they are the person. The weapon is the information.
In this story there are [at least] 2 ways to get this media(for the sake of this discussion): 1. google/bing/yahoo/etc. linking to RS links and 2. doing some manual way of tracking the data down.(emails, usenet, wtf ever, etc..) My point was that search engines make it easier by using their software, they don't just regurgitate what they find. They provide value-add of some-kind or we wouldn't use them. SEs format, process, ranks and do a host of other things before we get a SERP after a query is submitted. All of that work their software does is surface area for liable.
You're making excuses for google. Google wrote software that makes posting of information faster and more efficient - doesn't mean new rules of law suddenly apply. If someone kills by stabbing them in the head with a knife it's the same charge as if they used a gun, everything else being equal. Obviously the gun is the more efficient way to get the job done. Bottom line is google harvests, formats and makes available this data, which makes them directly liable. Under the DMCA it's different if they are just the ISP that runs someones site with the information, but Google actually processes and presents data with it's own software, which is where the culpability.
The Chrome Frame was never a good idea for security. By making it opt-in for sites, like an other plugin, it dramatically increased the attack surface of IE. Now any attacker can exploit holes in IE, holes in the frame, or holes coming from the interactions between the two. If you want the features of the Chrome Frame in a more secure package, use Chrome.
Your common sense has no place on this board. Good day, sir.
I know it's cool to bash M$ and all, but bing gives me good results. A lot of time I need to go a fwe pages deep in google to find something(all my searches are boolean phrases) but bing gives a lot of my results on page 1. not sure why, but bing seems "snappy" with all the css they have....
My point is what if that link went away? Instead of searching for someone on google you would go right to facebook, because you know facebook is concerned with people, where google has loads of crap in it.
Do you really think Facebook gets meaningful traffic from Google? Even if someone reading your comment never heard of facebook before, you just informed them about it. facebook.com is easy enough to type into the browser...
I'm willing to bet google needs FB's content more than Facebook needs google's referels.
The fact you're comparing NonStop/Stratus to the IO of a SAN is comical. There's a reason you don't virtualize large RDBMS in production environments: they fall over.
Exchange is not a "high IO application". A high IO application is something like all the ATM transactions for Chase bank in North America. If you can have 20 servers on a single physical host you're doing it wrong: your apps aren't heavy by a long shot.
VM replication like this still has an IO bottleneck. This isn't magic: unless you move to infiniband you're not going to touch something like a Stratus or NonStop machine. By the time you add in the cost of the high-perf interconnects, you're on-par with the real-time boxes. All this convergence going on with people redesigning the mainframe but ass-backward with client/server gear. Makes little sense to me other than it being a gimmick.
By the time you get all the components that provide the processing and I/O throughput of those high-end boxes, the x86/64 commodity hardware cost advantage has evaporated.
I've never understood this. You can mod your hardware all you want, just don't expect the vendor to support it. That means no using the vendor's services.
It doesn't. HP Non-Stop is a beast.
I have a rock that keeps tigers away to sell you ...
Please, this is the 21st century... there's a Mpp for that.
Fixed! -Verizon Marketing Mgr.
Linus was upset that someone was basing a modern OS on BSD. boo-hoo. Solaris still innovates more than Linux, all Linux does is try to replicate commercial functionality in "Open Source". The case can be made that the OpenBSD project has had more innovation(openssh, CARP, etc.) than Linux.
It never helps. (Even when he's right, which he always is when the discussion involves something technical.)
Fixed.
Theo is a rock star when it comes to OS code, and as such has the attitude to go along with it. More power to him.
You can't provision 100x servers/databases/hadoop nodes for a single hour or night at a traditional host based on some event your software manages, and then pay less then $100.
You can't do this with the cloud either. Show me what a 100 CPU instance costs for an hour, each with 2GB of RAM and a 5 GB disk.(bare bones) Come back when I can get a single instance with 1024 CPUs and 50 TB of addressable RAM. I want my one instance to scale automatically - because that's what the cloud promises: automatic scalability.
Mod parent up. People are wanting 'something for nothing' again. I also take offense to HE's comments about "caring about their customers being the most important thing" implying Cogent doesn't. I'm not fan of Cogent, but hell HE, if you care about your customers spend the money and get proper peeing agreements setup instead of blaming the other guy for not wanting to service your customers for free.
An SLA won't show it - latency reports will. Yes, we have plenty of them. Also yes, there are many ISPs that offer QoS for IP traffic. (including us)
They are the Wal-Mart of bandwidth and offer dirt-cheap prices. How can they do that and expect to hand-off to more expensive/higher quality(It's Cogent, I know....) networks? People want cheaper and cheaper so a company will eventually come along that caters to that crowd, but how dare they expect to offer the same QoS and not pay for it. Forget peering then throttling the links, Cogent is doing the right thing and not even lighting the fiber.
Or it's because they were all purchased by the 2 remaining. Business cycles include consolidation to make room for start-ups.