Ten billion gigabytes of data can be stored in this vial, according to Molecular Electronics Corp.'s cofounder, Jim Tour.
Operative word is CAN, not IS. Meaning that by "electrifying" the molecules (about 80*10^15 of those in the vial I would guess from the article), that's the POSSIBLE storage space available in that liquid, if they ever work out the kincks, like: Data degredation (Ok if ít's Organic chemestry, not Biochemestry, that's not an issue), storage, RETRIEVAL (Which I would believe to be a killer), addressing, Physical protection (from the environment, heat, radiation and other stuff that affect molecules), and more. I would still have to say that it's not possible with currently available tech. In 15-20 years You might see a working prototype that's capable of leaving the lab, but I doubt it will happen before then.
Reed solved the problem about measuring current on a single molecule in 1996 (I think), at least that was when I first read it. Problem is if he wants to do data storage by altering a "switch" on each molecule, he should still be able to isolate EACH molecule (data storage unit) or the tech is worthless. I know he's not gonna tell us HOW he does that (after all, that would be the trick of it wouldn't it?), but I've been unable to find anything that says that he even CAN do that.
I would imagine that it's possible to assemble molecules of different "types", where the "type" is to be used as an identifier, but that would still cause a FEW problems as he would have to WAIT for that molecule to "drift" into his reader. Not exactly the "baudrate" we would want from this tech.
Looks like You're right on the chemestry bit... But I still need to see effective storage/retrieval in an affordable home appliance before I would believe that They've solved all the "minor" problems they claim to be able to lick
"We're at a point where it's just a technology problem that will be solved by some smart graduate student or myself one of these days," Tour said. "This is not far out. This is going to happen."
But with the recent failures of so many other comanies doing the same, would it not stand to reason that Tour's Ida of "not far out" would at the very least be 15-20 years if not more ? I certainly think so.
As I wronte in a earlier post, IBM has been messing around with (and having some limited success in a lab environment) with molecular computing. And that was YEARS ago. Problem is, it doesn't really do us much good if WE cannot make this into a fully functional, flawless prototype. Unfortunately (for IBM's molecular computing), the last thing I heard of it was that they were stuck in data delivery, as they could not be sure which molecule picked up the data (physics dicate that You cannot know BOTH the location AND the vector of an Ion), as they merely threw it into the fray, hoping the right molecule got it. If this is case with the storage tech, then I CERATAINLY hope they have a good errorcorrection.
I can understand that. Even though a voice recognition software programme MIGHT be usefull when entering the programme. IT's certainly not very efficient for editing existing programmes. Which. I know most coders spend a HECK of a lot of time doing (most spend more time editing programmes than making new ones, as editing is usually required to satisfy custumer needs, testing, etc.).
So even though You might find a piece of Voice software that was made for C/Pascal/SQL/whatever You would still have to do a heck of a lot of typing. So don't count of being able to "ease" Your way around this problem. My solution was simple. I just stopped resting my arms/wrists on the desk. It takes a bit more effort, and a new mouse. But I no longer have problems with hurting/numb hands or arms at work (at home is another matter entirely).
The actual idea of molecular storage (and computing for that matter) has been argued before, and even though it might be theoritically possible. How do we protect ourselves from data degredation ? After all, these are biological storages devices, they grow old You know.
Second: I don't believe it is as of yet (please correct me if i'm wrong) possible to effectively store and retrieve specific data in a vial of fluid, regardless of what they (the scientists at the lab in question) say... There must be a reason why this theory has been around for so long, and not having made it into our homes yet.
Ok... I'm not going to reply to all of that. Mainly because the topic is "Nitrogen powered cars" and "alternative energy sources" by proxy.
But also because I will not attempt to argue the point of efficiency (or rather lack thereof) on behalf of the alternative power sources. Thirdly we seem to be in agreement on the difficulties of power delivery and storage, so no need of arguing that point any further.
However, I will offer this comment:
You obviously know Your chemistry. But apparently not a whole lot about economics, ecology and sociology. My point is and has always been that alternative energy sources that are RENEWABLE should and COULD replace NON-renewable energy sources (regardless of the problems this will bring with it, problems which would be solved quickly if there was a sufficent incentive to do so). Since this is environmentally and inevitably also economically safer. Uranium (and whatever else they choose to stick in those Nuclear generators) and oil ARE of limited supply, even though we might not run out for another 50 years (or even a thousand years, it's not the actually SUPPLY that's the issue here, only the fact that it's LIMITED), it doesn't mean we shouldn't face problems head on. Just because it's only "parts" of the world that's experiencing serious ecological problems due to global warming, lead poisoning or nuclear contamination, it doesn't mean the rest of the world is safe. Sticking our heads in the sand and beliving us safe because we do not SEE the danger doesn't actually MAKE us safe.
I know that the point of ecology doesn't normally go really well with Americans, but seeing as Americans are the most polluting people on earth, they SHOULD be the ones to care the most. Not the ones to close their eyes the hardest.
Actually, somehting much similar is around as handicap-aid tools. Aditionally, some military application tech could also be used.
I know of a handicapped person who has lost all motion below his neck and has a MOUTH piece that interprets touguemovement as a keyboard, by simply pressing his toungue against different parts of his mouth he can hype letters on the screen. Admittedly, it doesn't quilify him for a master at playing Quake 3, but it certainly allows him som leeway with respect to accessing computers. Why he does not use speech recognition You might ask ? Well I'm sure he does, but speech recognition requires that speech conforms to certain "standards" and that the program recognizes the word/command issued. The keyboard is much more flexible when You're doing something more complex than writing a letter.
In keeping with this "bodily" interaction, There's been substantial progress in the military with tracking eyemovement (don't ask me why), thus allowing You to control a pointer on a screen by simply looking at the screen. Right and left click are done by simply closing right or left eye. But due to "normal" eyemovement requireing that Your eyelids close once in a while, closing BOTH eyes will result in nothing.
I would agree that sign language would be nice, but interpreting it is somewhat difficult, because i might move my hands/fingers slightly higher/faster/closer or I might simply bend my joints a bit more than someone else. This could be very difficult for a machine to intepret, as it not only had to transform the movements into letters/words but also sometimes would have to make determinations on what was meant in special situations, did he accidentally move an extra finger, or did he forget one ? The computer would then have to make determinations on the context of what was being said. Additionally, how would the gloves know if I touched my nose or my forehead ? Two significantly different things in signlanguage.
I doubt that will be feasible in the near future, especailly since people who can sign can also use a keyboard, but the idea is nice though.
Howver, for commercial/private use, i think that the virtual glove/glasses combination would be much more likely to succeeed in the nearest future, as these handicap aids are not easier to use than the keyboard/mouse combo, which I think will determine the ultimate success of a replacement for these wonderful but low-baud-rate input devices.
True, Your points are valid. STORAGE of energy is a problem.
BUT not an insolvable one. Many "highland" regions use water and pumps to "store" spare energy, by simply pumping the water up into the hills in large tubes and then when needed let it come back down and through turbines to (re-)create energy. A siple and VERY efficient battery. I challenge You to find a better large scale storage method of energy.
Agreed solar power alone would require massive amounts of energy transfers from the "sunny side" of earth to the not quite so sunny side, or an effective storage of energy to be used in nightimes or in "low energy output"-weather. But I never said it was CHEAP, I merely said it was possible.
As for the energy output of Nuclear power Plants, true.. I never said that nuclear power was obsolete. I merely pointed out that it was not a NESSESITY as we have alternatives, the fact that these alternatives are more expensive even though environmentally more safe, seem to not be foremost in the minds of the desitionmakers.
As for my point on the fossil fuel engine, I was refering to CARS (in reply to a previous post), not to fossil fuel powerplants (ok, I could have mande it more clear). But look at the operating costs of fossil fuel powerplants, and You WILL see that they are obsolete. first of, the sheer cost of rawmeterials WILL increase as the availability of materials decrease (law of supply and demand). Second look at the environmental impact. The cost of cleaning up the environmnt, reversing the greenhouse effect etc. We've not even developed the technology yet to do these things, and as such the cost pr. megawatt is certainly a lot higher. Only problem is that nobody really CARES about cleaning up, and that's why it's not "normal" to include these costs in the price of electricity.
However, MANY countries are right now doing fine wihtout nuclear power, MANY countries (including a lot of US states) are suppling a larger and larger part of their electrical energy from "environmentally safe" powersources like windmills, solar cells, and the likes. And this is and SHOULD BE the way to the future. Safe, clean and abundant energy. Ok, so it might sound a bit naive, but from a sociological point of view (as well as a macroeconomical) I believe I'm not off by much....
I'm sorry to say that I'd have to disagree on both points. [here in Europe t least] I can get all sorts of USB equipment, Harddrives, cd-rom burner, MO drives, tapebackup, cameras, webcams, scanners printers, mice, monitors keyboards, and even a cool little thing that'll diagnose why Your PC wont POST !
So there's LOTSA cools stuff around (mail me if You want links to these products but cannot locate them Yourself), problem is that I really don't want to BUY a substandard harddrive, or whatever at a much higher cost and much lower speed/size than if i bought "the real thing".
Which brings me to my second point. USB is NOT a cool standard because it's not able to keep up with current speeds and technology. However, I do believe that with the implementation (not just the agrement upon) of the new 2.0 standard, Your point might proove to become alid in the near future. I too have a ziliion cool ideas of what to do with USB if the speed (amongst other things) gets bump in the right direction.
Actually, renewable energy sources (ie. NOT fossil and NOT Nuclear) CAN supply the world with the energy it needs. The problem is that we currently have not PRODUCED the production facilities to do so. The current wave-energy transformers are to large and ineffective. The current solar cells (electrical enrgy) are also not sufficiently efficient to do more than drive a car a mere 40-50 KPH. Windmills are to cumbersome and expensive to put up, but produce MASSIVE amounts of energy if there's wind enough (BTW; I have a patent for sale on a high efficiency, almost soundless windmill that can be scaled REALLY small).
All of these are limiting factors, however, some are technical some are logistical. Why do You think we Danes INVENTED the windmill ? Because the number of days with no wind over here are virtually 0. Why do solarengery races tak place in desserts ? Because there's the most sun. Why is the most common renewable enrgysource purchased by homeowners the solar heat generator, because it's the most efficient (cost and energy wise) they can get. Why are dams build where they are, becuase there's water there.
Truly the world CAN survive without fossil fuel and without nuclear power, it's just a matter of political will, and MONEY, because we need to INVEST in new technology, but the fossil fuel plants, and the nuclear power plants are already there, so why not keep using them. It's so much cheaper... And THAT'S why the world "needs" fossil and nuclear fuel. Technologically the fossil fuel was obsoleted more than 50 years ago.
I hope that'll NEVER be the case. No employer should EVER ask for a NDA under any circumstances of anyone unless he NEEDS to provide this person with sensitive data/information.
First off: Yes, it is possible to discuss qualifications without giving away business secrets. Like someone pointed out (You said something similar Yourself), possibly through the discussion of previous workexperience, or in case of no experience, then through schoolwork, projects or whatever.
Second: It should NEVER be "policy" to have people sign NDA's just for showing up. By god. It's the COMPANY that's supposed to keep it's stuff secret, not the visitors. Anyone messing around where they shouldn't be and the company WILL have a problem, but surely the COMPANY should be able to keep a leash on it's interviews, not the Interviewee.
Third: I do believe that the NDA should be in place to protect the company in case a CURRENT employee, Government official, business partner or similar leaves the company with sensitive info/data. In this case the NDA should prevent that person from disclosing information that could be damaging to the company, it's profits, brand or public image.
Potential employees should not even be given info of this sort !
I myself have an NDA at my place of work, and I'd have been shocked if my employer would have asked me to sign that without enclosing a work contract (which they did).
The world has become so paranoid that some companies are not even filing patents, but just doing the "patent pending" thing to keep from having to supply the public with it's sensitive business designs/innovations, while still remaining under the protective umrella of a patent (filing a patent means supplying infomation on how to build the patented item, down to the last nail). But think for a moment what this xenophobic behavior can do to a society. It IS after all the free exchange of information and ideas that truly makes the world go 'round. Through joint effort we might NOT have to invent the hot water every time we need to use it.
On the other hand, not all positions in the industry are techincal, even though "us nerds" like to believe that. An HR consultant might need information on the organizational structure, a purchaser might need information on business partners and so on. In some cases the NDA could be seen as a "good thing".
However, if a company cannot bring themselves to trust a potential employee with information he needs to do his job, then I'd seriously consider if this was the company I'D like to work for. But if You must, then insist the NDA contains details on exactly what info You will be given and what parts of it You're not allowed to talk about. (I know some companies would prefer to not even let on that they're hiring!)
Buttom line: Trust goes to ways, an NDA kinda screws up that relationship. Makes ME think twice, should make You do the same.
True there are many sceptics. But consider the implications of waht You are saying.
First of, let's assume we will not meet intelligent life (biological or mechanical) on OUR solar system. That means traveling to another one to find it.
Let's next assume that there's not NATIVE and INTELLIGENT life in more than say one of 1000 solarsystems.
That means that if WE have to find THEM (rather than the other way around) we'd likely be traveling to a solar system more than 50 Lightyears away, and with theorethical speeds of up to 1 TENTH of the speed of light available (with current technology), that means 500 YEARS of space travel. Not really within the human lifespan. Agreed ?
Besides IF humans are to travel into space, let's also agree that our cumbersome bodies ARE a limiting factor. First off we need to breathe, we need to eat, shit, move around and much more. Ideally not something to do for 500 years.
HOWEVER, IF (and I do say if) we could manage to make an electronic copy of the human brain (hey it's all just biotrasistors anyways, right ?), would it not seem more reasonable to ship that "mechanizzed" consciousness into space possibly in a robots body ? This way the spacetravel WOULD be within a human lifespan, as we could/would live forever, though more "primitive" lifeforms would percieve the "space-traveling" man as mechanical.
If You can at least agree on SOME of these points, would it not seem likely that OTHER races might have done the same thing in order to explore space ? I would think so.
If we are ever to send PEOPLE to explore space (I am ofcourse referring to other starsystems), then it will not be possible with our current level of technology. However, that is not to say it will never be possible, I certainly hope it will happen, I am a realist though. So I believe that if I will ever go explorer the stars, I'll have to leave my "earthly" shell behind. If I can live on as a robot, fine, if I can't.. Hey, that's a whole other adenture to embark on....
I will agree as far as to the fact that to DoubleClick, this will make little or no diff, unless you REALLY try hard to avoid their detection (by only excahnging with the same 3-4 people all the time for a while, then slowly altering Your pattern to something else, or simply exchange the CONTENTS of the cookie in which case DoubleClick WOULD be screwed, as the IP would be the same, but the recorded "habits" change all the time).
However, for those of us who can now truly say: "Doubleclick thinks I'm bogus.. Yeah" there IS a difference, namely that we should no longer be counted as "reliable info" which at least keeps us out of their "target group" or whatever. And at the same time make us feel better, knowing that we've done our bit to make the world safe from democracy (pardon the pun).
Personally, I think that it would be much more efficient to mess with their data, but seeing as the number of people who would participate in a venture such as this would probably only mess up so small a percentage of their DB that they'd hardly notice, then what's the point ? I mean those of us who object are also the same ones who knows how to do something about the problem. WE are NOT the ones that give them accurate data by keeping the cookies. Like so many others, I just delete mine after a while.
No if we REALLY want to do something about DoubleClick, it should be transparent to the user. Something more like a "cookie-virus" that would mess up peoples double-click cookie without them knowing. This could easily hit a VERY large part of their users, and SERIOUSLY corrupt their data. Ofcourse having the cookie look into a "legit" cookie-excahgne DB to find new intresting values might not be a bad idea, in which case this program/DB would be nice to have.
But all in all.. The program on it's own is not worth much... Not ANYTHING really.
Yup.. And ofcourse the CPU's have EXACTLY the same instruction set, right ?
No ?
Oh well, but at least the TI chips have on-die cache memory, right ?
No ?
But then they surely must be able to run at clockspeeds in excess of 500 MHz ?
No ?
Then WHY THE HECK do You want to compare it to a laptop CPU ?
My point being that those CPU's are SPECIFICALLY designed for running weird maths and most have an extremely limited instruction set (some are smaller than the CISC, some might be bigger, but not many), so You'd probably have a hard time making it understand x86 instructions.
Now I work for a HUGE "hosting" company.. We host EVERYTHING... And as it is.. We HAVE one box with only CPU's (about 1000 of 'em) a box with only memory (gawd... Don't ASK how much) a few boxes with only harddrive space and some tape robots the size of my apartment.
All of this machinery is running JUST FINE... We run everything we want on it. What's the diff if we run Linux or any other OS in a seperate memory space ? (oh yeah... Some of this IS IBM hardware BTW:)
My point being: We've done JUST THAT for about a few decades now... Why would this particular piece of machinery make things different ? Just wondering....
But HERE (read: Denmark) It's IS the law. AS per ruling by supirior court several months ago. E-mail is NOT to be considered "private" (it does go through the ISP's networks), and as such the (Danish) privacy act is NOT in effect. This means that if YOU decide to run an ISP service, and buy the webhosting from another ISP, in essence competing with them, and they read You email from clients, then responds with THEIR offer on the services You thought You could make a living on, This is not illegal. Because if You did not want the offending ISP to read You mail, You'd not send it via them, right ? A fairly pointless and in my eyes dumb argument. But it's the law.
Now, form there and to allow people OTHER than the ISP to read the mail, in my eyes it's a small step. And I for one will start not only to encrypt my emails, but also to avoid countries with RIF or Canivore (or whatever), because they are no longer talking about "just email". They're also talking secure Business-2-Business comunication over the internet. I do not know/understand why more businesses have not stood up and argues their loss of profit. Because that WILL be a consequence. Regardless, IF any laws are passed, I will (as I am now) avoid ANY and ALL comminucation with nodes that are "affected". In essence the discussion held on "cutting the US out of the internet". I for one MIGHT not have anything to hide, but that doesn't give ANYONE the right to look thourhg my communication which is DEEPLY personal (not that I'm buying sextoys or hookers on the internet, but I MIGHT), and the privacy should be respected. It would trouble me deeply to know that I could not send my mom an email without someone else (even if it's just a computer looking for "flagged words") reading it.
Having seen the few comments posted so far, I must say that I've been impressed with the quality and insight. However, I must also say that I feel that a point has been missed. Mainly: WHO are the companies offering free education ?
Because, if they are offering scolarships to universities... Fine... I'm all for that.. Even though this will only benefit those who can actually cut the grade to get to the University in the first place, and are these people REALLY the most deserving of our help ? Or should we instead try to (as the texan pointed out in an earlier post) help fight "illiteracy and ignorance" ?
Education is a multi-headed beast, and as the saying goes: "A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing".
Personally I've grown up in a "wellfare-society" which means that even though my mom was poor, I was still able to go to school, highschool and eventually college. For this I thank the politicians who gave our society this great system. And if business can help us out by providing the system with the money an enducation costs, fine... However, as someone else pointed out, businesses are in business for the money. So even though a little goodwill is worth a lot of money, a lot of money itself might be a better motive. This is why most companies offering ME free education today, are simply the companies that want me to buy their stuff. They will be most happy to teach me C++, but ONLY using their compiler, editors help engines and whatever, so that when I get back from "studying", this will be the ONLY C++ tool that I know. And most people, unfortunately, do not have the sense (or time, or inclination or whatever) to see this as a problem, they just say "boss, I want THIS program for writing C++ programs". And so the company has gotten it's cash back. It might cost the company a few hundred dollars for a teacher plus an initial investment cost of the PC's and other equipment used (but most companies will do that as a tax writeoff or maybe even have the stuff from internal use, so this cost is probably not relevant) to teach as many as 10-20 or even 30 people at a DAY and even on a week-long course with lunch served (lunch is cheap), all of this will be coming back with just ONE purchase of a $1500 peice of software. if the software is more expensive, or comes with a "pay pr. month license" or they sell more than one pr. course, then isn't that money well spent ? And ofcourse once a company decides to actually BUY the products being tought, then their employees "should not have to make do with the sub-standard free courses" and would be encouraged to buy the "real" courses.
THIS is the reality of it. And I'm not saying it's bad for me, bad for my company or bad for anyone. As a matter of fact, I enjoy some of these sessions, as I get free lunches, some time off from my otherwise busy schedule and at the same time I learn something new. And I KNOW how to use the new knowledge with the tools I have available, as such I'm a "bad costumer" to the companies offering free education. But having me on the course might infer some credibility to it in the eyes of the other students, and for this reason they will also invite me to the next free course they hold.
No I truly think that the free courses are nice, but in reality someone is paying and that in the end is always the consumer. So the question is: Should we then take as much advantage of this as possible ? A fairly dumb idea as most people do not have this option, and this might bring about the downfall of the concept. Or should we instead try to see this in a larger perspective, as generating business for businesses, and therefore as a good thing for the comunities it touches ? I think so.
So even though the value of this education is limited to most people, I think that it's a great idea. On the other hand if I had the choice to take the money spent on this and use it to teach people with sub-standard reading skills, or math-ablilties, then I would agree that that MIGHT seem like a better alternative. For reasons of lenght, I will not argue this point, suffice to say: Go study economics for a few years, maybe some company will offer it as "free education":)
you need at least 50% more memory than the indices I HOPE TO GOD You don't really mean that !
I often run Oracle DBs (also MS-SQL, Informix, DB2 and others). Most of our DB's are more than 30 GB, and almost ALL of them have at least 30% of that being indices. Som even go as high as 60%. Reason being: For complex searches You DON'T want to do an index scan, You just want to use an index that holds the information You are Looking for. This means that You often will have 5, 6 or even more indices pr. table. yeah, ok, some DB's know how to search through several indicies and copmare the info, but that's downright RARE to find. Most DB's either run rulebased optimised searches, or costbased optimised searches. And neither of these will be any good if You only have ONE index pr. table
And You also quite nice manage to change the question Yourself. Nobody said anything about Oracle. No wait.. I take that back... But the person posing the QUESTION didn't say anything about Using oracle for a DB. The question actualy stipulates a Sybase DB !
But anyway, to answer the question posed in the first place: Yes You COULD probably handle a UX/NT trasition of the data, but try not to change database as this often screws with the data. Not all tables are stored identically in all databases (probably one of the reasons there are more than one supplier of databases). So for gods sake.. Even IF You want to have a backup/mirror on the UX box, make sure You run the same DB.
But still, it sounds like you want to "exchange" the UX box for an Intel machine running Linux.. Am I right ? If this is indeed the case, yes even a 30 (or 50 gig for that matter) DB is possible. The major pitfalls in this scenario are (I've been there myself): 1. Physical space for disks. If you go buy a Intel machine You limit Yourself to say about 3-4 SCSI controllers, and unless You go and buy a shitload of External conenctivity (kabinets and such), which can be a pain, You're often limited to about 8-10 disk drives, so size Your DB with some future expansion in mind.
2.Backup solultion Make Sure to have a decent and FAST backup. I've not yet been able to run parallel backups on Linux (maybe I'm just not very good at configuring it), and it DOES take a while to backup 30 Gigs, even on a DLT, so if the client wants high-availability, take this into consideration. However, in Your situation, this might be redundant, since this DB WILL be the mirror (but the point should be handled otherwise).
3. High Availability. Your client might want the DB to be accessible at ALL times, and we all know that when a PSU or CPU goes in a NT box, the machine is pretty darned worthless. And getting a decent service level on a Intel box is almost impossible (usually 24 hours is as good as it gets). Also You should consider if this mirror should be used as a fail-over in case of whatever.
4. Remote access. Remote servicing is a bit easier though, as You can easily set up Telnet or whatever. However, You can get some goot remote programs for Windows machines also, just not AS good. But this should only factor in if You need to access the machine frequently. If the choice is between UNIX/Linux, it's the same diff. But if it's UX/NT, then think about it for a while.
5. Maintanence Maintenance is a BIT heavier, especially when the machine gets older, but the first year or two, how gives a S***. Also, whatever peole might say of UNIX harddirves, they're EXACTLY the same as the ones sold for Windows machines. They're just formatted differently. So You will save a bundle on the costs of aqusition, which should cover for the added maintenance of trading in old components that can no longer hack it (MB's, Networking cards, SCSI controllers, RAM etc.), All of the components which are NOT the same:)
6. Choosing the right hardware. You might want to make sure to spend a few more dollars on the right hardware. Whatever people might say, the UNIX boxes are most often put together with the best of hardware, ECC ram, Redundancy controllers, and hot-swap drives (and sometimes also other pieces can be swapped whilst power is still on). DON'T save more money here than absolutely nessesary. A good point to make would be: It's basically the same hardware, only the software is different.
These are my thoughs/experiences on this matter. As for "FascDot Killed My Pr". I REALLY have to say: I've been running an Oracle DB (8.04) on an NT for over two years now, not a single glitch yet. And YES, it's a development DB, so there ARE active users. And installation was as sweet as pie. Only major flaw in my opinion is the inability of older Oracles to "bundle together", You could not have more than one major relase DB installed on one system, You have to add another logical DB to the exising one, or install a different major relase version of oracle as the second DB. But that's SUPPOSEDLY done away with in version 8 and up (not that I'm not haveing problems with it anyway)
Well, first concern is not valid. I don't believe King would just drop the novel after writing two thirds of it.
Maybe not... But he will almost certainly not release it in the "public domain". The first two chapters wont be. More likely he will broker a deal with his publisher. So everyone who payed a buck (or two) will then have to shell out another 10-30 bucks to read the end. I for one think the SPP is in essence good. It also allows me to read the book and THEN take a position on weather or not I should pay for it... Kinda like shareware.. I might not like when it comes right down to it. If it's all a matter of money, then do like King does, and publish in parts. But write two parts, and give away part one. Then when people pay for part two, they get it, and when enough people have payed for part two, make it free. I know this stands out a little bit from the basic idea of the SPP, but it certainly would have made me bother to download. As it is I didn't, and I wont.
You're right one one count at least
on
Geek Flavor
·
· Score: 2
I also doubt this will work. I've tried something similar myself once, where I made a script allowing people to use my webspace as a sort of BBS system, leaving files and messages for others. I quickly found the need to moderate far greater than was my intention. People just start abusing this much too quickly. In this case giving away Your account info is just plain dumb. With several hundreds if people uploading whatever they want, giving away the addy for friends, or linking or whatever, and the next guy deleting the files, overwriting them or something else. Nah... This will never work....
The point is very valid. And knowing these percantages would be nice if there was a proposition to tax countries on the amount of traffic they send though the US. However, the hypo is: "What if the US was cut away", not "how is the traffic being routed now". So even though the information is very interesting, it does not provide the discussion with say an idea of what would happen to this traffic if the cut was made. Based on the report, One can speculate that Mexico would wither and die, seing as they aparantly have NO alterntes routing, but seeing as no other coutry is 100% dependant on the US for routing, things might slow down a bit, but nothing else.
Slashdot Mirror
And exactly HOW would that be done ? if You can get to the data legitimately, You can get to the data illegitimately.
Actually, the text says:
Ten billion gigabytes of data can be stored in this vial, according to Molecular Electronics Corp.'s cofounder, Jim Tour.
Operative word is CAN, not IS. Meaning that by "electrifying" the molecules (about 80*10^15 of those in the vial I would guess from the article), that's the POSSIBLE storage space available in that liquid, if they ever work out the kincks, like: Data degredation (Ok if ít's Organic chemestry, not Biochemestry, that's not an issue), storage, RETRIEVAL (Which I would believe to be a killer), addressing, Physical protection (from the environment, heat, radiation and other stuff that affect molecules), and more.
I would still have to say that it's not possible with currently available tech. In 15-20 years You might see a working prototype that's capable of leaving the lab, but I doubt it will happen before then.
Reed solved the problem about measuring current on a single molecule in 1996 (I think), at least that was when I first read it.
Problem is if he wants to do data storage by altering a "switch" on each molecule, he should still be able to isolate EACH molecule (data storage unit) or the tech is worthless.
I know he's not gonna tell us HOW he does that (after all, that would be the trick of it wouldn't it?), but I've been unable to find anything that says that he even CAN do that.
I would imagine that it's possible to assemble molecules of different "types", where the "type" is to be used as an identifier, but that would still cause a FEW problems as he would have to WAIT for that molecule to "drift" into his reader. Not exactly the "baudrate" we would want from this tech.
Looks like You're right on the chemestry bit... But I still need to see effective storage/retrieval in an affordable home appliance before I would believe that They've solved all the "minor" problems they claim to be able to lick
"We're at a point where it's just a technology problem that will be solved by some smart graduate student or myself one of these days," Tour said. "This is not far out. This is going to happen."
But with the recent failures of so many other comanies doing the same, would it not stand to reason that Tour's Ida of "not far out" would at the very least be 15-20 years if not more ? I certainly think so.
As I wronte in a earlier post, IBM has been messing around with (and having some limited success in a lab environment) with molecular computing.
And that was YEARS ago. Problem is, it doesn't really do us much good if WE cannot make this into a fully functional, flawless prototype. Unfortunately (for IBM's molecular computing), the last thing I heard of it was that they were stuck in data delivery, as they could not be sure which molecule picked up the data (physics dicate that You cannot know BOTH the location AND the vector of an Ion), as they merely threw it into the fray, hoping the right molecule got it.
If this is case with the storage tech, then I CERATAINLY hope they have a good errorcorrection.
I can understand that. Even though a voice recognition software programme MIGHT be usefull when entering the programme. IT's certainly not very efficient for editing existing programmes. Which. I know most coders spend a HECK of a lot of time doing (most spend more time editing programmes than making new ones, as editing is usually required to satisfy custumer needs, testing, etc.).
So even though You might find a piece of Voice software that was made for C/Pascal/SQL/whatever You would still have to do a heck of a lot of typing. So don't count of being able to "ease" Your way around this problem. My solution was simple. I just stopped resting my arms/wrists on the desk. It takes a bit more effort, and a new mouse. But I no longer have problems with hurting/numb hands or arms at work (at home is another matter entirely).
The actual idea of molecular storage (and computing for that matter) has been argued before, and even though it might be theoritically possible. How do we protect ourselves from data degredation ? After all, these are biological storages devices, they grow old You know.
Second: I don't believe it is as of yet (please correct me if i'm wrong) possible to effectively store and retrieve specific data in a vial of fluid, regardless of what they (the scientists at the lab in question) say...
There must be a reason why this theory has been around for so long, and not having made it into our homes yet.
Ok... I'm not going to reply to all of that. Mainly because the topic is "Nitrogen powered cars" and "alternative energy sources" by proxy. But also because I will not attempt to argue the point of efficiency (or rather lack thereof) on behalf of the alternative power sources. Thirdly we seem to be in agreement on the difficulties of power delivery and storage, so no need of arguing that point any further.
However, I will offer this comment:
You obviously know Your chemistry. But apparently not a whole lot about economics, ecology and sociology. My point is and has always been that alternative energy sources that are RENEWABLE should and COULD replace NON-renewable energy sources (regardless of the problems this will bring with it, problems which would be solved quickly if there was a sufficent incentive to do so). Since this is environmentally and inevitably also economically safer.
Uranium (and whatever else they choose to stick in those Nuclear generators) and oil ARE of limited supply, even though we might not run out for another 50 years (or even a thousand years, it's not the actually SUPPLY that's the issue here, only the fact that it's LIMITED), it doesn't mean we shouldn't face problems head on. Just because it's only "parts" of the world that's experiencing serious ecological problems due to global warming, lead poisoning or nuclear contamination, it doesn't mean the rest of the world is safe. Sticking our heads in the sand and beliving us safe because we do not SEE the danger doesn't actually MAKE us safe.
I know that the point of ecology doesn't normally go really well with Americans, but seeing as Americans are the most polluting people on earth, they SHOULD be the ones to care the most. Not the ones to close their eyes the hardest.
Actually, somehting much similar is around as handicap-aid tools. Aditionally, some military application tech could also be used.
I know of a handicapped person who has lost all motion below his neck and has a MOUTH piece that interprets touguemovement as a keyboard, by simply pressing his toungue against different parts of his mouth he can hype letters on the screen. Admittedly, it doesn't quilify him for a master at playing Quake 3, but it certainly allows him som leeway with respect to accessing computers.
Why he does not use speech recognition You might ask ? Well I'm sure he does, but speech recognition requires that speech conforms to certain "standards" and that the program recognizes the word/command issued. The keyboard is much more flexible when You're doing something more complex than writing a letter.
In keeping with this "bodily" interaction, There's been substantial progress in the military with tracking eyemovement (don't ask me why), thus allowing You to control a pointer on a screen by simply looking at the screen. Right and left click are done by simply closing right or left eye. But due to "normal" eyemovement requireing that Your eyelids close once in a while, closing BOTH eyes will result in nothing.
I would agree that sign language would be nice, but interpreting it is somewhat difficult, because i might move my hands/fingers slightly higher/faster/closer or I might simply bend my joints a bit more than someone else. This could be very difficult for a machine to intepret, as it not only had to transform the movements into letters/words but also sometimes would have to make determinations on what was meant in special situations, did he accidentally move an extra finger, or did he forget one ? The computer would then have to make determinations on the context of what was being said. Additionally, how would the gloves know if I touched my nose or my forehead ? Two significantly different things in signlanguage.
I doubt that will be feasible in the near future, especailly since people who can sign can also use a keyboard, but the idea is nice though.
Howver, for commercial/private use, i think that the virtual glove/glasses combination would be much more likely to succeeed in the nearest future, as these handicap aids are not easier to use than the keyboard/mouse combo, which I think will determine the ultimate success of a replacement for these wonderful but low-baud-rate input devices.
True, Your points are valid. STORAGE of energy is a problem.
BUT not an insolvable one. Many "highland" regions use water and pumps to "store" spare energy, by simply pumping the water up into the hills in large tubes and then when needed let it come back down and through turbines to (re-)create energy. A siple and VERY efficient battery. I challenge You to find a better large scale storage method of energy.
Agreed solar power alone would require massive amounts of energy transfers from the "sunny side" of earth to the not quite so sunny side, or an effective storage of energy to be used in nightimes or in "low energy output"-weather. But I never said it was CHEAP, I merely said it was possible.
As for the energy output of Nuclear power Plants, true.. I never said that nuclear power was obsolete. I merely pointed out that it was not a NESSESITY as we have alternatives, the fact that these alternatives are more expensive even though environmentally more safe, seem to not be foremost in the minds of the desitionmakers.
As for my point on the fossil fuel engine, I was refering to CARS (in reply to a previous post), not to fossil fuel powerplants (ok, I could have mande it more clear). But look at the operating costs of fossil fuel powerplants, and You WILL see that they are obsolete. first of, the sheer cost of rawmeterials WILL increase as the availability of materials decrease (law of supply and demand). Second look at the environmental impact. The cost of cleaning up the environmnt, reversing the greenhouse effect etc. We've not even developed the technology yet to do these things, and as such the cost pr. megawatt is certainly a lot higher. Only problem is that nobody really CARES about cleaning up, and that's why it's not "normal" to include these costs in the price of electricity.
However, MANY countries are right now doing fine wihtout nuclear power, MANY countries (including a lot of US states) are suppling a larger and larger part of their electrical energy from "environmentally safe" powersources like windmills, solar cells, and the likes. And this is and SHOULD BE the way to the future. Safe, clean and abundant energy. Ok, so it might sound a bit naive, but from a sociological point of view (as well as a macroeconomical) I believe I'm not off by much....
I'm sorry to say that I'd have to disagree on both points.
[here in Europe t least] I can get all sorts of USB equipment, Harddrives, cd-rom burner, MO drives, tapebackup, cameras, webcams, scanners printers, mice, monitors keyboards, and even a cool little thing that'll diagnose why Your PC wont POST !
So there's LOTSA cools stuff around (mail me if You want links to these products but cannot locate them Yourself), problem is that I really don't want to BUY a substandard harddrive, or whatever at a much higher cost and much lower speed/size than if i bought "the real thing".
Which brings me to my second point. USB is NOT a cool standard because it's not able to keep up with current speeds and technology. However, I do believe that with the implementation (not just the agrement upon) of the new 2.0 standard, Your point might proove to become alid in the near future. I too have a ziliion cool ideas of what to do with USB if the speed (amongst other things) gets bump in the right direction.
Actually, renewable energy sources (ie. NOT fossil and NOT Nuclear) CAN supply the world with the energy it needs. The problem is that we currently have not PRODUCED the production facilities to do so. The current wave-energy transformers are to large and ineffective. The current solar cells (electrical enrgy) are also not sufficiently efficient to do more than drive a car a mere 40-50 KPH. Windmills are to cumbersome and expensive to put up, but produce MASSIVE amounts of energy if there's wind enough (BTW; I have a patent for sale on a high efficiency, almost soundless windmill that can be scaled REALLY small).
All of these are limiting factors, however, some are technical some are logistical. Why do You think we Danes INVENTED the windmill ? Because the number of days with no wind over here are virtually 0. Why do solarengery races tak place in desserts ? Because there's the most sun. Why is the most common renewable enrgysource purchased by homeowners the solar heat generator, because it's the most efficient (cost and energy wise) they can get. Why are dams build where they are, becuase there's water there.
Truly the world CAN survive without fossil fuel and without nuclear power, it's just a matter of political will, and MONEY, because we need to INVEST in new technology, but the fossil fuel plants, and the nuclear power plants are already there, so why not keep using them. It's so much cheaper... And THAT'S why the world "needs" fossil and nuclear fuel. Technologically the fossil fuel was obsoleted more than 50 years ago.
I hope that'll NEVER be the case. No employer should EVER ask for a NDA under any circumstances of anyone unless he NEEDS to provide this person with sensitive data/information.
First off: Yes, it is possible to discuss qualifications without giving away business secrets. Like someone pointed out (You said something similar Yourself), possibly through the discussion of previous workexperience, or in case of no experience, then through schoolwork, projects or whatever.
Second: It should NEVER be "policy" to have people sign NDA's just for showing up. By god. It's the COMPANY that's supposed to keep it's stuff secret, not the visitors. Anyone messing around where they shouldn't be and the company WILL have a problem, but surely the COMPANY should be able to keep a leash on it's interviews, not the Interviewee.
Third: I do believe that the NDA should be in place to protect the company in case a CURRENT employee, Government official, business partner or similar leaves the company with sensitive info/data. In this case the NDA should prevent that person from disclosing information that could be damaging to the company, it's profits, brand or public image.
Potential employees should not even be given info of this sort !
I myself have an NDA at my place of work, and I'd have been shocked if my employer would have asked me to sign that without enclosing a work contract (which they did).
The world has become so paranoid that some companies are not even filing patents, but just doing the "patent pending" thing to keep from having to supply the public with it's sensitive business designs/innovations, while still remaining under the protective umrella of a patent (filing a patent means supplying infomation on how to build the patented item, down to the last nail). But think for a moment what this xenophobic behavior can do to a society. It IS after all the free exchange of information and ideas that truly makes the world go 'round. Through joint effort we might NOT have to invent the hot water every time we need to use it.
On the other hand, not all positions in the industry are techincal, even though "us nerds" like to believe that. An HR consultant might need information on the organizational structure, a purchaser might need information on business partners and so on. In some cases the NDA could be seen as a "good thing".
However, if a company cannot bring themselves to trust a potential employee with information he needs to do his job, then I'd seriously consider if this was the company I'D like to work for. But if You must, then insist the NDA contains details on exactly what info You will be given and what parts of it You're not allowed to talk about. (I know some companies would prefer to not even let on that they're hiring!)
Buttom line: Trust goes to ways, an NDA kinda screws up that relationship. Makes ME think twice, should make You do the same.
True there are many sceptics. But consider the implications of waht You are saying.
First of, let's assume we will not meet intelligent life (biological or mechanical) on OUR solar system. That means traveling to another one to find it.
Let's next assume that there's not NATIVE and INTELLIGENT life in more than say one of 1000 solarsystems.
That means that if WE have to find THEM (rather than the other way around) we'd likely be traveling to a solar system more than 50 Lightyears away, and with theorethical speeds of up to 1 TENTH of the speed of light available (with current technology), that means 500 YEARS of space travel. Not really within the human lifespan. Agreed ?
Besides IF humans are to travel into space, let's also agree that our cumbersome bodies ARE a limiting factor. First off we need to breathe, we need to eat, shit, move around and much more. Ideally not something to do for 500 years.
HOWEVER, IF (and I do say if) we could manage to make an electronic copy of the human brain (hey it's all just biotrasistors anyways, right ?), would it not seem more reasonable to ship that "mechanizzed" consciousness into space possibly in a robots body ? This way the spacetravel WOULD be within a human lifespan, as we could/would live forever, though more "primitive" lifeforms would percieve the "space-traveling" man as mechanical.
If You can at least agree on SOME of these points, would it not seem likely that OTHER races might have done the same thing in order to explore space ? I would think so.
If we are ever to send PEOPLE to explore space (I am ofcourse referring to other starsystems), then it will not be possible with our current level of technology. However, that is not to say it will never be possible, I certainly hope it will happen, I am a realist though. So I believe that if I will ever go explorer the stars, I'll have to leave my "earthly" shell behind. If I can live on as a robot, fine, if I can't.. Hey, that's a whole other adenture to embark on....
I will agree as far as to the fact that to DoubleClick, this will make little or no diff, unless you REALLY try hard to avoid their detection (by only excahnging with the same 3-4 people all the time for a while, then slowly altering Your pattern to something else, or simply exchange the CONTENTS of the cookie in which case DoubleClick WOULD be screwed, as the IP would be the same, but the recorded "habits" change all the time).
However, for those of us who can now truly say: "Doubleclick thinks I'm bogus.. Yeah" there IS a difference, namely that we should no longer be counted as "reliable info" which at least keeps us out of their "target group" or whatever. And at the same time make us feel better, knowing that we've done our bit to make the world safe from democracy (pardon the pun).
Personally, I think that it would be much more efficient to mess with their data, but seeing as the number of people who would participate in a venture such as this would probably only mess up so small a percentage of their DB that they'd hardly notice, then what's the point ? I mean those of us who object are also the same ones who knows how to do something about the problem. WE are NOT the ones that give them accurate data by keeping the cookies. Like so many others, I just delete mine after a while.
No if we REALLY want to do something about DoubleClick, it should be transparent to the user. Something more like a "cookie-virus" that would mess up peoples double-click cookie without them knowing. This could easily hit a VERY large part of their users, and SERIOUSLY corrupt their data. Ofcourse having the cookie look into a "legit" cookie-excahgne DB to find new intresting values might not be a bad idea, in which case this program/DB would be nice to have.
But all in all.. The program on it's own is not worth much... Not ANYTHING really.
Yup.. And ofcourse the CPU's have EXACTLY the same instruction set, right ?
No ?
Oh well, but at least the TI chips have on-die cache memory, right ?
No ?
But then they surely must be able to run at clockspeeds in excess of 500 MHz ?
No ?
Then WHY THE HECK do You want to compare it to a laptop CPU ?
My point being that those CPU's are SPECIFICALLY designed for running weird maths and most have an extremely limited instruction set (some are smaller than the CISC, some might be bigger, but not many), so You'd probably have a hard time making it understand x86 instructions.
Now I work for a HUGE "hosting" company.. We host EVERYTHING... And as it is.. We HAVE one box with only CPU's (about 1000 of 'em) a box with only memory (gawd... Don't ASK how much) a few boxes with only harddrive space and some tape robots the size of my apartment.
:)
All of this machinery is running JUST FINE... We run everything we want on it. What's the diff if we run Linux or any other OS in a seperate memory space ? (oh yeah... Some of this IS IBM hardware BTW
My point being: We've done JUST THAT for about a few decades now... Why would this particular piece of machinery make things different ? Just wondering....
But HERE (read: Denmark) It's IS the law. AS per ruling by supirior court several months ago. E-mail is NOT to be considered "private" (it does go through the ISP's networks), and as such the (Danish) privacy act is NOT in effect. This means that if YOU decide to run an ISP service, and buy the webhosting from another ISP, in essence competing with them, and they read You email from clients, then responds with THEIR offer on the services You thought You could make a living on, This is not illegal. Because if You did not want the offending ISP to read You mail, You'd not send it via them, right ?
A fairly pointless and in my eyes dumb argument. But it's the law.
Now, form there and to allow people OTHER than the ISP to read the mail, in my eyes it's a small step. And I for one will start not only to encrypt my emails, but also to avoid countries with RIF or Canivore (or whatever), because they are no longer talking about "just email". They're also talking secure Business-2-Business comunication over the internet. I do not know/understand why more businesses have not stood up and argues their loss of profit. Because that WILL be a consequence.
Regardless, IF any laws are passed, I will (as I am now) avoid ANY and ALL comminucation with nodes that are "affected". In essence the discussion held on "cutting the US out of the internet". I for one MIGHT not have anything to hide, but that doesn't give ANYONE the right to look thourhg my communication which is DEEPLY personal (not that I'm buying sextoys or hookers on the internet, but I MIGHT), and the privacy should be respected. It would trouble me deeply to know that I could not send my mom an email without someone else (even if it's just a computer looking for "flagged words") reading it.
Having seen the few comments posted so far, I must say that I've been impressed with the quality and insight. However, I must also say that I feel that a point has been missed.
:)
Mainly: WHO are the companies offering free education ?
Because, if they are offering scolarships to universities... Fine... I'm all for that.. Even though this will only benefit those who can actually cut the grade to get to the University in the first place, and are these people REALLY the most deserving of our help ? Or should we instead try to (as the texan pointed out in an earlier post) help fight "illiteracy and ignorance" ?
Education is a multi-headed beast, and as the saying goes: "A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing".
Personally I've grown up in a "wellfare-society" which means that even though my mom was poor, I was still able to go to school, highschool and eventually college. For this I thank the politicians who gave our society this great system. And if business can help us out by providing the system with the money an enducation costs, fine...
However, as someone else pointed out, businesses are in business for the money. So even though a little goodwill is worth a lot of money, a lot of money itself might be a better motive. This is why most companies offering ME free education today, are simply the companies that want me to buy their stuff. They will be most happy to teach me C++, but ONLY using their compiler, editors help engines and whatever, so that when I get back from "studying", this will be the ONLY C++ tool that I know. And most people, unfortunately, do not have the sense (or time, or inclination or whatever) to see this as a problem, they just say "boss, I want THIS program for writing C++ programs". And so the company has gotten it's cash back.
It might cost the company a few hundred dollars for a teacher plus an initial investment cost of the PC's and other equipment used (but most companies will do that as a tax writeoff or maybe even have the stuff from internal use, so this cost is probably not relevant) to teach as many as 10-20 or even 30 people at a DAY and even on a week-long course with lunch served (lunch is cheap), all of this will be coming back with just ONE purchase of a $1500 peice of software. if the software is more expensive, or comes with a "pay pr. month license" or they sell more than one pr. course, then isn't that money well spent ?
And ofcourse once a company decides to actually BUY the products being tought, then their employees "should not have to make do with the sub-standard free courses" and would be encouraged to buy the "real" courses.
THIS is the reality of it. And I'm not saying it's bad for me, bad for my company or bad for anyone. As a matter of fact, I enjoy some of these sessions, as I get free lunches, some time off from my otherwise busy schedule and at the same time I learn something new. And I KNOW how to use the new knowledge with the tools I have available, as such I'm a "bad costumer" to the companies offering free education. But having me on the course might infer some credibility to it in the eyes of the other students, and for this reason they will also invite me to the next free course they hold.
No I truly think that the free courses are nice, but in reality someone is paying and that in the end is always the consumer. So the question is: Should we then take as much advantage of this as possible ? A fairly dumb idea as most people do not have this option, and this might bring about the downfall of the concept.
Or should we instead try to see this in a larger perspective, as generating business for businesses, and therefore as a good thing for the comunities it touches ? I think so.
So even though the value of this education is limited to most people, I think that it's a great idea. On the other hand if I had the choice to take the money spent on this and use it to teach people with sub-standard reading skills, or math-ablilties, then I would agree that that MIGHT seem like a better alternative.
For reasons of lenght, I will not argue this point, suffice to say: Go study economics for a few years, maybe some company will offer it as "free education"
you need at least 50% more memory than the indices
I HOPE TO GOD You don't really mean that !
I often run Oracle DBs (also MS-SQL, Informix, DB2 and others). Most of our DB's are more than 30 GB, and almost ALL of them have at least 30% of that being indices. Som even go as high as 60%. Reason being: For complex searches You DON'T want to do an index scan, You just want to use an index that holds the information You are Looking for. This means that You often will have 5, 6 or even more indices pr. table.
yeah, ok, some DB's know how to search through several indicies and copmare the info, but that's downright RARE to find. Most DB's either run rulebased optimised searches, or costbased optimised searches. And neither of these will be any good if You only have ONE index pr. table
My sentiments Exactly.
I've just finished posting the exact same argument... Oh well, At last I know SOMEONE is on my side (or am I on Yours ?)
And You also quite nice manage to change the question Yourself.
:)
Nobody said anything about Oracle. No wait.. I take that back... But the person posing the QUESTION didn't say anything about Using oracle for a DB. The question actualy stipulates a Sybase DB !
But anyway, to answer the question posed in the first place: Yes You COULD probably handle a UX/NT trasition of the data, but try not to change database as this often screws with the data. Not all tables are stored identically in all databases (probably one of the reasons there are more than one supplier of databases). So for gods sake.. Even IF You want to have a backup/mirror on the UX box, make sure You run the same DB.
But still, it sounds like you want to "exchange" the UX box for an Intel machine running Linux.. Am I right ?
If this is indeed the case, yes even a 30 (or 50 gig for that matter) DB is possible. The major pitfalls in this scenario are (I've been there myself):
1. Physical space for disks.
If you go buy a Intel machine You limit Yourself to say about 3-4 SCSI controllers, and unless You go and buy a shitload of External conenctivity (kabinets and such), which can be a pain, You're often limited to about 8-10 disk drives, so size Your DB with some future expansion in mind.
2.Backup solultion
Make Sure to have a decent and FAST backup. I've not yet been able to run parallel backups on Linux (maybe I'm just not very good at configuring it), and it DOES take a while to backup 30 Gigs, even on a DLT, so if the client wants high-availability, take this into consideration. However, in Your situation, this might be redundant, since this DB WILL be the mirror (but the point should be handled otherwise).
3. High Availability.
Your client might want the DB to be accessible at ALL times, and we all know that when a PSU or CPU goes in a NT box, the machine is pretty darned worthless. And getting a decent service level on a Intel box is almost impossible (usually 24 hours is as good as it gets). Also You should consider if this mirror should be used as a fail-over in case of whatever.
4. Remote access.
Remote servicing is a bit easier though, as You can easily set up Telnet or whatever. However, You can get some goot remote programs for Windows machines also, just not AS good. But this should only factor in if You need to access the machine frequently. If the choice is between UNIX/Linux, it's the same diff. But if it's UX/NT, then think about it for a while.
5. Maintanence
Maintenance is a BIT heavier, especially when the machine gets older, but the first year or two, how gives a S***. Also, whatever peole might say of UNIX harddirves, they're EXACTLY the same as the ones sold for Windows machines. They're just formatted differently. So You will save a bundle on the costs of aqusition, which should cover for the added maintenance of trading in old components that can no longer hack it (MB's, Networking cards, SCSI controllers, RAM etc.), All of the components which are NOT the same
6. Choosing the right hardware.
You might want to make sure to spend a few more dollars on the right hardware. Whatever people might say, the UNIX boxes are most often put together with the best of hardware, ECC ram, Redundancy controllers, and hot-swap drives (and sometimes also other pieces can be swapped whilst power is still on). DON'T save more money here than absolutely nessesary. A good point to make would be: It's basically the same hardware, only the software is different.
These are my thoughs/experiences on this matter. As for "FascDot Killed My Pr". I REALLY have to say: I've been running an Oracle DB (8.04) on an NT for over two years now, not a single glitch yet. And YES, it's a development DB, so there ARE active users. And installation was as sweet as pie. Only major flaw in my opinion is the inability of older Oracles to "bundle together", You could not have more than one major relase DB installed on one system, You have to add another logical DB to the exising one, or install a different major relase version of oracle as the second DB. But that's SUPPOSEDLY done away with in version 8 and up (not that I'm not haveing problems with it anyway)
Or NOOOT.
Well, first concern is not valid. I don't believe King would just drop the novel after writing two thirds of it.
Maybe not... But he will almost certainly not release it in the "public domain". The first two chapters wont be. More likely he will broker a deal with his publisher. So everyone who payed a buck (or two) will then have to shell out another 10-30 bucks to read the end.
I for one think the SPP is in essence good. It also allows me to read the book and THEN take a position on weather or not I should pay for it... Kinda like shareware.. I might not like when it comes right down to it.
If it's all a matter of money, then do like King does, and publish in parts. But write two parts, and give away part one. Then when people pay for part two, they get it, and when enough people have payed for part two, make it free.
I know this stands out a little bit from the basic idea of the SPP, but it certainly would have made me bother to download. As it is I didn't, and I wont.
I also doubt this will work. I've tried something similar myself once, where I made a script allowing people to use my webspace as a sort of BBS system, leaving files and messages for others. I quickly found the need to moderate far greater than was my intention. People just start abusing this much too quickly.
:)
In this case giving away Your account info is just plain dumb. With several hundreds if people uploading whatever they want, giving away the addy for friends, or linking or whatever, and the next guy deleting the files, overwriting them or something else. Nah... This will never work....
Even geeks will goof it...
The point is very valid. And knowing these percantages would be nice if there was a proposition to tax countries on the amount of traffic they send though the US. However, the hypo is: "What if the US was cut away", not "how is the traffic being routed now".
So even though the information is very interesting, it does not provide the discussion with say an idea of what would happen to this traffic if the cut was made.
Based on the report, One can speculate that Mexico would wither and die, seing as they aparantly have NO alterntes routing, but seeing as no other coutry is 100% dependant on the US for routing, things might slow down a bit, but nothing else.