This is so true. I'm really good at a few things and pretty bad at a lot of things. In 20 years, I've developed two pretty impressive products, products that were a generation ahead of all competitors. I sure wish I had someone like Steve Jobs turning my good products into great companies!
I barely made a living from my products because I suck at marketing and I'm not very good at running a company. I sure wish I had someone with marketing and business talent to turn my products, like Clonebox, into highly successful businesses.
I've recently learned that in successful companies, the cost of the product or service itself is about 20%-30% of the selling price. Marketing, sales, etc are 60%-70%, and bottom-line profit is around 10%-20%. If the product or service is 25% of the revenue, that means MOST of what is important in a company isn't the product. A good product is important (it's 25%), but it's not as important as everything else.
Apple is an example in that Steve Jobs led Apple to success on several occasions with products that didn't involve Woz. Wozniak built computers, Jobs built (and rebuilt) companies.
Both are important roles.
If the purpose of Chrome is to get rid of ad blockers, why haven't they gotten rid of any ad blockers in Chrome? One specific ad blocker isn't 100% effective with the Youtube app. Few people even use the Youtube app. This doesn't have anything to do with the browser, you know.
Since you mentioned Reflections on Trusting Trust, that issue is easy enough to avoid. There are some simpler and more clever methods, but consider this:
Use Borland 1.0 to compile llvm. Use this new llvm binary to compile gcc. Chain a few more in you want to.
You don't need to trust the first compiler. It could be trojaned so as to trojan new copies of itself. You'd only be concerned if you thought that Borland 1.0 was trojaned in such a way as to add a trojan to the code of a compiler that didn't yet exist, llvm, AND that trojan wasn't for Borland or llvm, but for the current version of gcc - another compiler quite different from anything that existed when Borland 1.0 was created.
The perpetrators would have to not only be astronomically clever, they'd also have to see into the future, twice, in order to build such a trojan.
Understanding PR, one way of finding good pages relevant to Einstein is obvious:
1) You already have the PR, so you know how popular each page is. 2) Disregard all pages that don't mention Einstein. 3) Run PR again, starting with each page's general PR as the initial seed.
From this you'll find that many good pages which mention Einstein link to wikipedia.org/einstein/. Therefore, that page is probably relevant to people looking for information about Einstein.
If you want to, you can also subtract a portion of the page's non-Einstein PR. In other words, although Einstein pages link to blah.com, so do NON-einstein pages. Links from pages which do NOT mention Einstein weaken the inference that the page is relevant to einstein. So, total Einstein rank is the PR from Einstein pages minus the PR from non-Einstein pages.
It still "works" to create thousands of pages which link to the page which you want ranked high, but it doesn't (and didn't) work that that well because the feeder pages lack PR. I know of only two significant, but changes in that regard. As always, a page can only pass on the PR that it has. Because noone links to your feeder pages, they each have an actual PR of 1/(number of pages on the entire internet) . To have a really high PR without external links, the number of pages you create has to be a significant fraction of all pages on the internet. So millions of billions of pages WILL create PR.
Two simple new additions make manufacturing PR more difficult. First, duplicate page detection. You need millions of DIFFERENT pages. Second, and more important, Domain Rank. It's calculated just like page rank, but with domains instead of full URLs. If lots of different domains link to wkp.org, then wkp.org is ranked high. Pages on many different domains link to wikepedia.org, so wikipedia.org has strong domain rank. To manufacture this, you need not thousands of pages, but thousands of domains. From there, it's simple fraud detection to find the few people who buy up thousands of domains and put bogus pages on them. Are thousands of simar pages, devoid of content, hosted at the same place? Might be BS, and therefore penalized specifically- without changing the basic algorithm.
The key algorithms don't need to be secret, the thresholds for certain penalties do.
Kids everywhere like light sabers. Before light sabers, Zorro was big, and pirates, always swords.
In many parts of the US, the ADULTS have an irrational fear of weapons, the concepts of self-defense and defending others, etc. To the point that eating a sandwich got a kid suspended when the shape of remaining half of the sandwich triggered some administator's gun phobia.
Inertia? AltaVista, Hotbot, and Excite had the inertia. They were the big players when a couple of college students thought up the idea that became Google. AltaVista and the other established players had the inertia.
The established search engines also had algorithms based on word frequency in various parts of the page. I did search engine optimisation back then, so I studied it in detail. The simplified explanation is that searching for "Einstein" would return whichever page had the word Einstein repeated the most on the page. Minus points for repeating it "too many" times.
Google had a revolutionary idea. If lots of good pages link to abouteinstein.com, It's probably a good page. That's Page Rank, and it worked quite well. That's the far and above the most important reason Google won - their ranking system was far superior because it was based on a different, better, idea.
* You might wonder how Google knows which pages are "good", in order to calculate which pages are linked to by good pages, and are therefore also good. It's recursive across the whole internet. If lots of pages link to princeton.edu/physics/, and princeton.edu/physics/ links to lab.gov/particles/, then lab.gov/particles/ gains some "good" points. Specifically, it gains an equal share of the Princeton's pages rank value as all other links on Princeton's page. In other words, whatever value a page has, that value is divided equally among each page it links to. So a page "vouches" for each page it links to, but if it links to many pages, it can also pass a small amount of credibility to each.
>> That isn't done very much in software. > Sure it is. You get a database from one supplier...
> Even a lot of commercial software contains components from other companies;
You write your software to communicate with MySQL or Oracle. Off-the-shelf MySQL. You don't normally have the MySQL team create a unique database engine to your specs in order to integrate it as part of your software. Like "body by Fisher", not "Interstate battery". I think they are pushing the "body by Fisher" model. So you'd hire my company to build the authentication system that goes into your product, a unique authentication system designed for your needs.
I don't know if their approach will work well or not.
As I mentioned in my original post, my plane can accept three engines, from two different companies. In long-term essential software especially, it's good not to be locked in to a single supplier.
My car also comes with three engine options. Each of those engines is also used in other cars and trucks, of different marques.
What I didn't mention is what they are suggesting that's "new". It's been done before, but they are suggesting that it may become the predominant model. That's outsourced components built to spec. Right now, an equipment manufacturer can ask Honda to build an engine that meets their specs. Toyota outsources 70% of their production this way, specifying what their suppliers will build for them. So they don't choose an alternator off-the-shelf, they specify that they want alternators that produce 70 amps, at X rpm, etc. Then the alternator manufacturer builds what Toyota ordered. That isn't done very much in software. You could ask me to build you a component which scrapes Slashdot stories and outputs XML and I wouldn't need to know what you're using it for. In some ways it could IMPROVE quality by enforcing disciplined encapsulation and making highlighting the assumptions that we often make.
No seriously my interpretation is that that they are proposing something like how airplanes are built. Some companies make engines, others make instruments like altimeters, others make seats. Someome designs the whole aircraft, assembling an engine from Rotax, Subaru, Pratt & Whitney, or some other engine maker, with instruments from a company that makes instruments, etc.
Toyota and Subaru sell the same car. Toyota made the engine and Subaru made the body. Or is it the other way around, I don't recall. It seems to work fine, though. And Subaru engines are used by many companies, in airplanes, boats, lots of places.
In some markets, Subaru engines compete with Rotax. Each company has a line of off-the-shelf engines you can order. Some plane designs can any of three different engines - two choices from Rotax, and one from Subaru.
Those same planes use instruments made by other companies, etc. A dozen different manufacturers might make stock components that can be used in different aircraft. Airplanes need to be 100% reliable, of course, so you don't often see DUMB design processes in aviation. If it works for aviation, it certainly might work for business software.
> Sure, if you assume no processing time is required
Let's give the system time to do a million processing operations. The GPU and CPU should be running at 1 Ghz or better, so we need 0.001 seconds to run a million operations.
70 MPH is 103 feet per second, or 1236 inches per second. So in the.0001 seconds required to do a million processor ops the car will travel 1.2 inches. You figure it could do more extensive processing, 10 million operations? Okay, that's 1 foot of travel.
Computer processors are really, really fast. Hard disks not so fast, but this system isn't reading the data from a hard drive.
> slam on the brakes... the moment anything enters the edge of your perception.
?!?!? I'm not sure how that comment has anything at all to do with what is being discussed. The ONLY time "slam on the brakes" would ever make sense would be if there was a large stationary object directly ahead. Most cases requiring action are for moving objects on a collision course, such as someone on a cross street who is on course to T-bone you at the upcoming intersection. Since the other car is moving, you can either tap the brakes and let them pass in front, or speed up a little and go through first. Or turn. Only a light tap on the brakes is needed from 100 feet away in order to give the other car the extra 1 second they need to pass in front of you rather than hit you.
The way it works, for humans or computers, is that you measure the distance to the object and it's vector - direction and speed. The hardware does this measurement rather faster human wetware does - it's a time differential thing, so it can be done directly in silicon, no code required if you want it very fast. Figure about 1,000 microseconds, or 1 ms. This measurement is passed to the processor, which does a bit of math to determine if the object is on a collision course with the car. Remember CPUs are really fast at math. That's the 1ms we discussed above.
So we have about 1 ms to detect vector, and 1 ms to determine whether or not it's a collision course. The car has traveled 2.4 inches during this time. Assuming it is a collision course, we continue. We already have these two pieces of information:
1. some is coming from the left
2. it is scheduled to collide with the left side of the vehicle, 120 feet from now
Given those two inputs, the car now needs to decide between three options: Slow a bit, allowing the other car to pass in front Speed up a bit, getting through the intersection before the other car Turn*
A million operations, or 1ms, is plenty to choose between the three.
* "Turn" is mainly useful if you assume the other car is TRYING to hit you, so rather than continuing to go straight they'll turn and you don't know where they'll end up. The one thing you DO know about where a speeding car will be three seconds from now is that it won't be in the same place it is now. So steer toward where it IS and you can be pretty sure it won't be THERE any more.
At highway speed, 70 MPH, a car needs 75 meters (dozens of meters) to come to a dead stop. Human reaction time requires further distance, but that doesn't apply to fully autonomous vehicles. It only partially applies to a technology-assisted safety system which augments the human driver.
That's a typical storm system. Notice 3/4 of the country is covered with clouds. It typically takes about a week for a storm system to pass across the country. The next week, it may be sunny or there may be another storm system.
Just the cost of reliable datacenter electricity alone costs more than that cheap spindle. Order that drive and see if it magically gets filled up with video, and magically makes backups of itself, which are stored for the proper amount of time before being rotated. Spindles are may 5% of enterprise storage costs (and they're not bottom of the barrel consumer drives).
If you're a cheapskate like me, you CAN do 5 TB for $3,000 NRC, plus $150 / month. Times two for a backup site, so $6,000 NRC plus $300 / month. Obviously you don't want to backup just once daily, you should have rolling backups, a backup copy from last week, a copy from last month, etc. So $12,000 NRC plus $1,200 / month. Plus daily transfer to the backup site sites, so $12,000 plus $1,600 / month. Plus a qualified admin to manage this, including testing backups, replacing failed spindles, etc @ $100 / hour.
If you use an email client for email, rather than a web browser, there's little reason you wouldn't have email from a decade ago handy. Unless you choose to delete the local copies, of course. What I do, is every year or two I make a subfolder under Sentbox, Sentbox/2012-213/ and drag the old emails there. Folders other than Sentbox and Trash generally don't get subfolders, "eBay receipts" has everything I've ever bought and sold on ebay.
Many people who use IMAP have it set to delete the local copies automatically, but there's no need to use that setting.
If the business has a debt, or any other liability, that liability of course continues regardless of changes in management. Assuming it's incorporated, the business carries liabilities completely independent of management or ownership. Which is why you can sue the business, you don't have to sue each individual stockholder for $1 each.
CULPABILITY is essentially a moral issue. Culpability refers to knowingly doing WRONG, to being guilty in an ethical sense. One cannot possibly be guilty (culpable) of something you didn't even know about, of an act that you had no part in.
You mentioned CSS, which is an interesting example. For those who don,t know, in CSS, each expression has two parts, the selector and attributes. The selector is something like "nav link !#subpage ". Which means: The intersection of set "nav" and set "link", minus (set difference) the set "subpage". So 100% set theory.
I set theory is mathematics, CSS is mathematics, because the left side of any CSS statement is pure set theory.
The right hand side attributes combine in more complex, thoroughly mathematical, ways.
I'm curious what definition of math you could possibly have that would let you reach that conclusion. Do you think of mathematics as being only arithmetic?
Here's a reasonable definition / description from Encyclopedia Britannica: The science of structure, order, and relation
If you're not familiar with relations in the mathematical sense, a relation is basically a table. A relation is an (unordered) set of tuples. What specific discipline is concerned with manipulating relations, or tables? That would of course be relational database, like MySQL.
It says structure. What discipline is concerned with manipulating structures of numbers and other data, like this?:
struct Person {
integer height,
int64 birthdate... }
The author doesn't seem to understand what math IS, how and why programming IS math. The author writes that you don't do a lot of algebra and such in typical web pages. Does your PHP script use SQL? That's algebra, relational algebra. It's not that you need to remember mathematical formulas; it's that have a half decent design for your software, you need mathematical THINKING. If your high school algebra homework was wrong, your sql is probably wrong too.
The author likes to copy and paste a lot. Yeah, I've seen a lot of that kind of code, mostly while rewriting it to work properly. Programmers with a clue #include, they don't copy-paste.
It's not that you need to write the tangent function from scratch, and purely from memory. It's realizing that tangent() SHOULD be a function, which you should call from libmath. The author managed to copy-paste code that computes a tangent into the middle of the onclick() handler. That's Doing It Wrong.
On the other hand, the "wrt" in dd-wrt and openwrt refers to the WRT-54 line of routers from Linksys. It was the first one that had widely available third-party firmware.
When Linksys changed their internal architecture to use less expensive parts, they also starting selling a special modder version which retained dd-wrt compatible internals. So that's one example of _catering_ to people who choose open firmware.
On a related note in a different industry, Roomba did the same.
Indeed. In my long comment I submitted to the FCC, I mentioned that their legitimate purpose could be implemented by a rule requiring a separate chip which limits power and frequency, rather than prohibiting important updates to the OS or utilities.
Slashdot Mirror
This is so true. I'm really good at a few things and pretty bad at a lot of things. In 20 years, I've developed two pretty impressive products, products that were a generation ahead of all competitors. I sure wish I had someone like Steve Jobs turning my good products into great companies!
I barely made a living from my products because I suck at marketing and I'm not very good at running a company. I sure wish I had someone with marketing and business talent to turn my products, like Clonebox, into highly successful businesses.
I've recently learned that in successful companies, the cost of the product or service itself is about 20%-30% of the selling price. Marketing, sales, etc are 60%-70%, and bottom-line profit is around 10%-20%. If the product or service is 25% of the revenue, that means MOST of what is important in a company isn't the product. A good product is important (it's 25%), but it's not as important as everything else.
Apple is an example in that Steve Jobs led Apple to success on several occasions with products that didn't involve Woz. Wozniak built computers, Jobs built (and rebuilt) companies.
Both are important roles.
If the purpose of Chrome is to get rid of ad blockers, why haven't they gotten rid of any ad blockers in Chrome? One specific ad blocker isn't 100% effective with the Youtube app. Few people even use the Youtube app. This doesn't have anything to do with the browser, you know.
Since you mentioned Reflections on Trusting Trust, that issue is easy enough to avoid. There are some simpler and more clever methods, but consider this:
Use Borland 1.0 to compile llvm.
Use this new llvm binary to compile gcc.
Chain a few more in you want to.
You don't need to trust the first compiler. It could be trojaned so as to trojan new copies of itself. You'd only be concerned if you thought that Borland 1.0 was trojaned in such a way as to add a trojan to the code of a compiler that didn't yet exist, llvm, AND that trojan wasn't for Borland or llvm, but for the current version of gcc - another compiler quite different from anything that existed when Borland 1.0 was created.
The perpetrators would have to not only be astronomically clever, they'd also have to see into the future, twice, in order to build such a trojan.
Understanding PR, one way of finding good pages relevant to Einstein is obvious:
1) You already have the PR, so you know how popular each page is.
2) Disregard all pages that don't mention Einstein.
3) Run PR again, starting with each page's general PR as the initial seed.
From this you'll find that many good pages which mention Einstein link to wikipedia.org/einstein/. Therefore, that page is probably relevant to people looking for information about Einstein.
If you want to, you can also subtract a portion of the page's non-Einstein PR. In other words, although Einstein pages link to blah.com, so do NON-einstein pages. Links from pages which do NOT mention Einstein weaken the inference that the page is relevant to einstein. So, total Einstein rank is the PR from Einstein pages minus the PR from non-Einstein pages.
It still "works" to create thousands of pages which link to the page which you want ranked high, but it doesn't (and didn't) work that that well because the feeder pages lack PR. I know of only two significant, but changes in that regard. As always, a page can only pass on the PR that it has. Because noone links to your feeder pages, they each have an actual PR of 1/(number of pages on the entire internet) . To have a really high PR without external links, the number of pages you create has to be a significant fraction of all pages on the internet. So millions of billions of pages WILL create PR.
Two simple new additions make manufacturing PR more difficult. First, duplicate page detection. You need millions of DIFFERENT pages. Second, and more important, Domain Rank. It's calculated just like page rank, but with domains instead of full URLs. If lots of different domains link to wkp.org, then wkp.org is ranked high. Pages on many different domains link to wikepedia.org, so wikipedia.org has strong domain rank. To manufacture this, you need not thousands of pages, but thousands of domains. From there, it's simple fraud detection to find the few people who buy up thousands of domains and put bogus pages on them. Are thousands of simar pages, devoid of content, hosted at the same place? Might be BS, and therefore penalized specifically- without changing the basic algorithm.
The key algorithms don't need to be secret, the thresholds for certain penalties do.
Kids everywhere like light sabers. Before light sabers, Zorro was big, and pirates, always swords.
In many parts of the US, the ADULTS have an irrational fear of weapons, the concepts of self-defense and defending others, etc. To the point that eating a sandwich got a kid suspended when the shape of remaining half of the sandwich triggered some administator's gun phobia.
> It seems to work well. They learn to solve math problems, to create graphic art, and even make simple shoot-em-up games.
They don't get suspended if their long division vaguely resembles a musket? Are you in Texas, or Montana?
Inertia? AltaVista, Hotbot, and Excite had the inertia. They were the big players when a couple of college students thought up the idea that became Google. AltaVista and the other established players had the inertia.
The established search engines also had algorithms based on word frequency in various parts of the page. I did search engine optimisation back then, so I studied it in detail. The simplified explanation is that searching for "Einstein" would return whichever page had the word Einstein repeated the most on the page. Minus points for repeating it "too many" times.
Google had a revolutionary idea. If lots of good pages link to abouteinstein.com, It's probably a good page. That's Page Rank, and it worked quite well. That's the far and above the most important reason Google won - their ranking system was far superior because it was based on a different, better, idea.
* You might wonder how Google knows which pages are "good", in order to calculate which pages are linked to by good pages, and are therefore also good. It's recursive across the whole internet. If lots of pages link to princeton.edu/physics/, and princeton.edu/physics/ links to lab.gov/particles/, then lab.gov/particles/ gains some "good" points. Specifically, it gains an equal share of the Princeton's pages rank value as all other links on Princeton's page. In other words, whatever value a page has, that value is divided equally among each page it links to. So a page "vouches" for each page it links to, but if it links to many pages, it can also pass a small amount of credibility to each.
>> That isn't done very much in software. ...
> Sure it is. You get a database from one supplier
> Even a lot of commercial software contains components from other companies;
You write your software to communicate with MySQL or Oracle. Off-the-shelf MySQL. You don't normally have the MySQL team create a unique database engine to your specs in order to integrate it as part of your software. Like "body by Fisher", not "Interstate battery". I think they are pushing the "body by Fisher" model. So you'd hire my company to build the authentication system that goes into your product, a unique authentication system designed for your needs.
I don't know if their approach will work well or not.
As I mentioned in my original post, my plane can accept three engines, from two different companies. In long-term essential software especially, it's good not to be locked in to a single supplier.
My car also comes with three engine options. Each of those engines is also used in other cars and trucks, of different marques.
What I didn't mention is what they are suggesting that's "new". It's been done before, but they are suggesting that it may become the predominant model. That's outsourced components built to spec. Right now, an equipment manufacturer can ask Honda to build an engine that meets their specs. Toyota outsources 70% of their production this way, specifying what their suppliers will build for them. So they don't choose an alternator off-the-shelf, they specify that they want alternators that produce 70 amps, at X rpm, etc. Then the alternator manufacturer builds what Toyota ordered. That isn't done very much in software. You could ask me to build you a component which scrapes Slashdot stories and outputs XML and I wouldn't need to know what you're using it for. In some ways it could IMPROVE quality by enforcing disciplined encapsulation and making highlighting the assumptions that we often make.
> Who is actually making the software
Make.
No seriously my interpretation is that that they are proposing something like how airplanes are built. Some companies make engines, others make instruments like altimeters, others make seats. Someome designs the whole aircraft, assembling an engine from Rotax, Subaru, Pratt & Whitney, or some other engine maker, with instruments from a company that makes instruments, etc.
Toyota and Subaru sell the same car. Toyota made the engine and Subaru made the body. Or is it the other way around, I don't recall. It seems to work fine, though. And Subaru engines are used by many companies, in airplanes, boats, lots of places.
In some markets, Subaru engines compete with Rotax. Each company has a line of off-the-shelf engines you can order. Some plane designs can any of three different engines - two choices from Rotax, and one from Subaru.
Those same planes use instruments made by other companies, etc. A dozen different manufacturers might make stock components that can be used in different aircraft. Airplanes need to be 100% reliable, of course, so you don't often see DUMB design processes in aviation. If it works for aviation, it certainly might work for business software.
> Sure, if you assume no processing time is required
Let's give the system time to do a million processing operations. The GPU and CPU should be running at 1 Ghz or better, so we need 0.001 seconds to run a million operations.
70 MPH is 103 feet per second, or 1236 inches per second. So in the .0001 seconds required to do a million processor ops the car will travel 1.2 inches. You figure it could do more extensive processing, 10 million operations? Okay, that's 1 foot of travel.
Computer processors are really, really fast. Hard disks not so fast, but this system isn't reading the data from a hard drive.
> slam on the brakes ... the moment anything enters the edge of your perception.
?!?!? I'm not sure how that comment has anything at all to do with what is being discussed. The ONLY time "slam on the brakes" would ever make sense would be if there was a large stationary object directly ahead. Most cases requiring action are for moving objects on a collision course, such as someone on a cross street who is on course to T-bone you at the upcoming intersection. Since the other car is moving, you can either tap the brakes and let them pass in front, or speed up a little and go through first. Or turn. Only a light tap on the brakes is needed from 100 feet away in order to give the other car the extra 1 second they need to pass in front of you rather than hit you.
The way it works, for humans or computers, is that you measure the distance to the object and it's vector - direction and speed. The hardware does this measurement rather faster human wetware does - it's a time differential thing, so it can be done directly in silicon, no code required if you want it very fast. Figure about 1,000 microseconds, or 1 ms. This measurement is passed to the processor, which does a bit of math to determine if the object is on a collision course with the car. Remember CPUs are really fast at math. That's the 1ms we discussed above.
So we have about 1 ms to detect vector, and 1 ms to determine whether or not it's a collision course. The car has traveled 2.4 inches during this time. Assuming it is a collision course, we continue. We already have these two pieces of information:
1. some is coming from the left
2. it is scheduled to collide with the left side of the vehicle, 120 feet from now
Given those two inputs, the car now needs to decide between three options:
Slow a bit, allowing the other car to pass in front
Speed up a bit, getting through the intersection before the other car
Turn*
A million operations, or 1ms, is plenty to choose between the three.
* "Turn" is mainly useful if you assume the other car is TRYING to hit you, so rather than continuing to go straight they'll turn and you don't know where they'll end up. The one thing you DO know about where a speeding car will be three seconds from now is that it won't be in the same place it is now. So steer toward where it IS and you can be pretty sure it won't be THERE any more.
At highway speed, 70 MPH, a car needs 75 meters (dozens of meters) to come to a dead stop. Human reaction time requires further distance, but that doesn't apply to fully autonomous vehicles. It only partially applies to a technology-assisted safety system which augments the human driver.
Do you need Delrin, or can you remake the parts from a different material? This company makes adhesives for Delrin:
http://reltekllc.com/adhesives...
In case anyone took this comment seriously, because I know some on here wish that were so:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ba...
That's a typical storm system. Notice 3/4 of the country is covered with clouds. It typically takes about a week for a storm system to pass across the country. The next week, it may be sunny or there may be another storm system.
Just the cost of reliable datacenter electricity alone costs more than that cheap spindle. Order that drive and see if it magically gets filled up with video, and magically makes backups of itself, which are stored for the proper amount of time before being rotated. Spindles are may 5% of enterprise storage costs (and they're not bottom of the barrel consumer drives).
If you're a cheapskate like me, you CAN do 5 TB for $3,000 NRC, plus $150 / month.
Times two for a backup site, so $6,000 NRC plus $300 / month.
Obviously you don't want to backup just once daily, you should have rolling backups, a backup copy from last week, a copy from last month, etc.
So $12,000 NRC plus $1,200 / month.
Plus daily transfer to the backup site sites, so $12,000 plus $1,600 / month.
Plus a qualified admin to manage this, including testing backups, replacing failed spindles, etc @ $100 / hour.
If you use an email client for email, rather than a web browser, there's little reason you wouldn't have email from a decade ago handy. Unless you choose to delete the local copies, of course. What I do, is every year or two I make a subfolder under Sentbox, Sentbox/2012-213/ and drag the old emails there. Folders other than Sentbox and Trash generally don't get subfolders, "eBay receipts" has everything I've ever bought and sold on ebay.
Many people who use IMAP have it set to delete the local copies automatically, but there's no need to use that setting.
If the business has a debt, or any other liability, that liability of course continues regardless of changes in management. Assuming it's incorporated, the business carries liabilities completely independent of management or ownership. Which is why you can sue the business, you don't have to sue each individual stockholder for $1 each.
CULPABILITY is essentially a moral issue. Culpability refers to knowingly doing WRONG, to being guilty in an ethical sense. One cannot possibly be guilty (culpable) of something you didn't even know about, of an act that you had no part in.
Here's an example for you. Is this math:?
The intersection of set "nav" and set "link", minus (set difference) the set "subpage".
Sounds like set mathematics to me. The author of the article would express that in CSS syntax as:
"nav link !#subpage ".
Every statement in CSS begins with such a set expression.
Programming would be defining a order of functions to evaluate the set expression, in order to apply it to the correct members.
You mentioned CSS, which is an interesting example. For those who don,t know, in CSS, each expression has two parts, the selector and attributes. The selector is something like "nav link !#subpage ". Which means:
The intersection of set "nav" and set "link", minus (set difference) the set "subpage". So 100% set theory.
I set theory is mathematics, CSS is mathematics, because the left side of any CSS statement is pure set theory.
The right hand side attributes combine in more complex, thoroughly mathematical, ways.
I'm curious what definition of math you could possibly have that would let you reach that conclusion. Do you think of mathematics as being only arithmetic?
Here's a reasonable definition / description from Encyclopedia Britannica:
The science of structure, order, and relation
If you're not familiar with relations in the mathematical sense, a relation is basically a table. A relation is an (unordered) set of tuples. What specific discipline is concerned with manipulating relations, or tables? That would of course be relational database, like MySQL.
It says structure. What discipline is concerned with manipulating structures of numbers and other data, like this?:
struct Person { ...
integer height,
int64 birthdate
}
That would be programming.
The author doesn't seem to understand what math IS, how and why programming IS math. The author writes that you don't do a lot of algebra and such in typical web pages. Does your PHP script use SQL? That's algebra, relational algebra. It's not that you need to remember mathematical formulas; it's that have a half decent design for your software, you need mathematical THINKING. If your high school algebra homework was wrong, your sql is probably wrong too.
The author likes to copy and paste a lot. Yeah, I've seen a lot of that kind of code, mostly while rewriting it to work properly.
Programmers with a clue #include, they don't copy-paste.
It's not that you need to write the tangent function from scratch, and purely from memory. It's realizing that tangent() SHOULD be a function, which you should call from libmath. The author managed to copy-paste code that computes a tangent into the middle of the onclick() handler. That's Doing It Wrong.
Some certainly don't care for it.
On the other hand, the "wrt" in dd-wrt and openwrt refers to the WRT-54 line of routers from Linksys. It was the first one that had widely available third-party firmware.
When Linksys changed their internal architecture to use less expensive parts, they also starting selling a special modder version which retained dd-wrt compatible internals. So that's one example of _catering_ to people who choose open firmware.
On a related note in a different industry, Roomba did the same.
Indeed. In my long comment I submitted to the FCC, I mentioned that their legitimate purpose could be implemented by a rule requiring a separate chip which limits power and frequency, rather than prohibiting important updates to the OS or utilities.