From the perspective of his empire, it was a tiny entity, an easy choice. The reason he closed it so quick was to get rid of a bunch of the people involved, trying to show he could clean up the problem easily. He was probably hoping that would immediately wash his hands of this and prevent any serious investigation. I don't think it was from public pressure.
I was thinking the same thing, so I looked into it a bit (no pun intended). Apparently "true" 64-bit processing uses a more modern instruction set on the CPU, so I suppose there are additional performance and security benefits to using it.
Now, if they'd said that they'd finally ripped their DVD collection to streaming, or even somewhere near it, I'd listen. Or perhaps they're finally going to get more recent titles in line with Blockbuster or Redbox. But they're not. This is a pure, unadulterated money grab.
You do realize that Netflix doesn't get to decide what's on streaming, right? It's the content owners that put in the restrictions. You're angry at the middle-man, not the source of the problem.
This is what I don't understand. With all the discussions over this, how has this not been fully tested and answered? How can we not have a definitive answer by now? And if it has been answered, why it is still being debated?
In this particular case, it sounds like the server-side power required per user is very large. So I would imagine it's impractical at the moment regardless of networking issues.
Why was there ever an assumption that a moon is required for complex life? Stabilization of the axis and climate regions? Or did we just assume it because it worked here?
In general I think you're right. But in Microsoft's particular case they're stuck with very few profit centers (mostly Windows and Office). And those are potentially under attack, or at least stagnating. So I could see their strong desire to diversify.
I disagree. I think the US will do anything to avoid all-out war with China. They can easily grow their army to tens of millions of soldiers and change their factories to building war machines.
MS systems can scale as much as you like, if you have the money for licensing, hardware, MS support, and system administration. It's not ideal, but technically it can work.
And if he has money he should buy managed hosting, cloud or otherwise. An ideal, but expensive, solution for his situation is a managed Rackspace server. For a few hundred a month he won't have to deal with system maintenance, OS upgrades, or emergencies. He would be able to focus on his applications.
To be fair, though, if he promised no more security breaches everyone would laugh since every system is vulnerable at some point. He really can't win no matter what he says.
The short answer is that data is somewhat compartmentalized by department. Each CC transaction first comes through the mainframes, which are very restricted, mostly just for IT. That data is fed nightly to the data warehouse (basically one massive database). A lot of IT get direct access as needed. Some business / reporting applications are then written to query directly from it, limited to the departments that would require it. Any department which needs aggregate data has separate database servers, with data warehouse IT staff facilitating the automatic feed and aggregation of the data.
Requests for data from outside the company are taken case-by-case. So, for example, when I had to write reports for a particular bank (a Mastercard member), I was careful to only pull that bank's data. I didn't filter anything that was specific to their cardholders. For applications which got aggregate data, individual transactions and CC-specific data was never sent to the application's database servers. It was carefully aggregated first at the warehouse, then transmitted. I have to say there wasn't much general oversight, but it's simply enforced by management throughout the company.
I've listened to many of his speeches. No matter how intelligent he appears, I can't get past the incredible hypocrisy and racism. He brushes off the criticism with arrogance.
Mastercard has been giving aggregate data back to its member banks for at least 20 years. This is just another set of aggregate data, but given to corporate card holders. Even if they gave card numbers, names, and addresses, it's only going back to the owners of the cards.
I worked with Mastercard's data warehouse for 5 years. So if anyone has any questions about what *really* goes on there I might be able to answer (although I can only speculate about this particular program).
Slashdot Mirror
From the perspective of his empire, it was a tiny entity, an easy choice. The reason he closed it so quick was to get rid of a bunch of the people involved, trying to show he could clean up the problem easily. He was probably hoping that would immediately wash his hands of this and prevent any serious investigation. I don't think it was from public pressure.
I was thinking the same thing, so I looked into it a bit (no pun intended). Apparently "true" 64-bit processing uses a more modern instruction set on the CPU, so I suppose there are additional performance and security benefits to using it.
Now, if they'd said that they'd finally ripped their DVD collection to streaming, or even somewhere near it, I'd listen. Or perhaps they're finally going to get more recent titles in line with Blockbuster or Redbox. But they're not. This is a pure, unadulterated money grab.
You do realize that Netflix doesn't get to decide what's on streaming, right? It's the content owners that put in the restrictions. You're angry at the middle-man, not the source of the problem.
Except these "apps" would just be web pages in a browser. No more or less secure then browsing a website today.
As for privacy it's identical to what people plug into Facebook today.
There's nothing new or surprising here.
This is what I don't understand. With all the discussions over this, how has this not been fully tested and answered? How can we not have a definitive answer by now? And if it has been answered, why it is still being debated?
In this particular case, it sounds like the server-side power required per user is very large. So I would imagine it's impractical at the moment regardless of networking issues.
Must... resist... weiner... joke...
Once again iTunes is passing off fundamentally flawed technology as a good thing, and the press is eating it up.
Where does it say you must use the Match service to use the iCloud service? You're making a lot of assumptions from very little information.
Why was there ever an assumption that a moon is required for complex life? Stabilization of the axis and climate regions? Or did we just assume it because it worked here?
Actually, my entire office is on Macs. Even worse for Microsoft.
In general I think you're right. But in Microsoft's particular case they're stuck with very few profit centers (mostly Windows and Office). And those are potentially under attack, or at least stagnating. So I could see their strong desire to diversify.
His company is now a significant owner. He has the right to ask for such things. Nothing wrong with it at all.
He wasn't much better.
I think of it more like mutually assured destruction. Can't do anything too devious to the other or you potentially destroy the entire world economy.
I disagree. I think the US will do anything to avoid all-out war with China. They can easily grow their army to tens of millions of soldiers and change their factories to building war machines.
Any attempt to seriously harm the US through economic methods would also hurt themselves.
This is ridiculous. You know absolutely nothing about the application itself, yet you're telling him what tools to use to build it.
That's why it's good he came here. We can tell him he needs to hire a system administrator or purchase a completely managed hosting package.
MS systems can scale as much as you like, if you have the money for licensing, hardware, MS support, and system administration. It's not ideal, but technically it can work.
And if he has money he should buy managed hosting, cloud or otherwise. An ideal, but expensive, solution for his situation is a managed Rackspace server. For a few hundred a month he won't have to deal with system maintenance, OS upgrades, or emergencies. He would be able to focus on his applications.
To be fair, though, if he promised no more security breaches everyone would laugh since every system is vulnerable at some point. He really can't win no matter what he says.
The short answer is that data is somewhat compartmentalized by department. Each CC transaction first comes through the mainframes, which are very restricted, mostly just for IT. That data is fed nightly to the data warehouse (basically one massive database). A lot of IT get direct access as needed. Some business / reporting applications are then written to query directly from it, limited to the departments that would require it. Any department which needs aggregate data has separate database servers, with data warehouse IT staff facilitating the automatic feed and aggregation of the data.
Requests for data from outside the company are taken case-by-case. So, for example, when I had to write reports for a particular bank (a Mastercard member), I was careful to only pull that bank's data. I didn't filter anything that was specific to their cardholders. For applications which got aggregate data, individual transactions and CC-specific data was never sent to the application's database servers. It was carefully aggregated first at the warehouse, then transmitted. I have to say there wasn't much general oversight, but it's simply enforced by management throughout the company.
I've listened to many of his speeches. No matter how intelligent he appears, I can't get past the incredible hypocrisy and racism. He brushes off the criticism with arrogance.
Mastercard has been giving aggregate data back to its member banks for at least 20 years. This is just another set of aggregate data, but given to corporate card holders. Even if they gave card numbers, names, and addresses, it's only going back to the owners of the cards.
I worked with Mastercard's data warehouse for 5 years. So if anyone has any questions about what *really* goes on there I might be able to answer (although I can only speculate about this particular program).
I agree, but Netflix will need to be a lot bigger to win this fight. Right now they have to play nice or they'll get squeezed out of many markets.