You know the problem with hiring an employee is that you can't get them to work their entire career at your company before you pay them.
Did you sue your parents for bringing you into the world without giving you a complete moment by moment view of your life from birth to death? The funny thing about life in general is that you don't get to try it before you commit to it.
Stop making excuses for taking other people's work without paying.
Finally, no our economy isn't based on convenience. Based on your post in general, I'm guessing that it's probably too much to hope that you'll actually try to be educated before spouting off.
Regardless of whether it's accidental, or difficult as the OP suggests, the reality is that both of those are merely excuses and rationalizations for externalizing the bad effects of behavior while privatizing the profits. Try translating those excuses to another industry and see how satisfying an answer they are. Consider medicine, there are undeniable benefits to modern therapies. However because it's hard to get right, we don't just accept any random treatment. Before companies unleash their new products upon the public we require that they take the time to ensure, as much as possible, that they are safe and don't have unintended effects. You may suggest that Google isn't a medical company whose products and services won't be killing anyone or causing them to grow a third eyeball, therefore they don't have the same obligations. OK, then how about banking? Credit reporting? Private investigators? Mining companies?
Entirely outside any other arguments, I find it hilariously ironic that Google -- the company staffed entirely by PhDs, by the most brilliant minds in the industry, by saints who'll do nothing wrong -- always comes back to "look we have this awesome idea with splendid (but vague and non-specific) benefits beyond making us incredibly wealthy, however there are significant downsides for the rest of you and those downsides are hard to avoid." Which makes me think that maybe they aren't so smart, which means that maybe their idea isn't so great. Isn't the point of being smart that you can do things that are hard? QED.
"the right equipment" is ANY WIFI CAPABLE DEVICE. My fucking cell phone can pick up open wifi networks.
Never done any war driving, eh? Because what your cell phone can do is pick up SSID broadcasts and join networks. What it doesn't have is a monitor mode and won't snarf up each and every transmitted packet whether it's joined the network or not.
What's more is that for most people, in the realm of consumer gear, their 802.11* traffic is invisible to people in the street. The power levels involved, the geometry, interference, walls, etc. all contribute to limiting the range of their gear. Your cell phone doesn't even see 90% of the access points you come within 100 meters of. The signal level just isn't there. Which is why people expect that their wireless traffic is private: because without specific intent and equipment it doesn't just leak out all over the place.
Google is making a map of access points. They do use high gain antennas. They do use monitor mode capable adapters. They have specifically outfitted their vehicles with the equipment necessary to extend the range where privacy violations will occur. It's exactly like a pervert climbing a tree with a pair of binoculars.
Analogy time....say somebody is in their front yard, holding up a big sign that has their "my bank password is xxx". Should someone passing by in the street get shit for looking over and noticing that?
How about a better analogy. You're in your front yard enjoying a nice glass of lemonade. Somebody drives by and shoots you in the chest. Is it your fault that you were using your front yard according to the social norms and not wearing bullet proof armor or is their fault for acting outside acceptable boundaries?
While it's true that anyone with the right equipment (high gain antenna, monitor mode capable wifi nic, software to drive it all) can capture your wireless packets, is it normal for you to expect that people are wandering around with that equipment? (Another analogy: is it the peeper with the high powered binoculars in the trees three blocks down the road who is at fault or is it you for not managing to get your third floor window blinds completely closed?)
It's a question of social norms and proper behavior in a civilized society. It's not a question of technical possibility.
Don't get me wrong, if you write queries that are exactly how Oracle likes them it's fast and solid, but I've worked with SQL Server, PostgreSQL and MySQL as well and the management tools are easier, the query optimizer is more flexible and the error messages more helpful. Particularly that Oracle wants queries their way, I've reused queries that run in seconds on SQL Server and take minutes on Oracle but hardly if ever the other way around.
Treating the database as a black box is the problem, not the solution. At least if you're dealing with more than trivial amounts of data with trivial queries. It is amazing how many developers are shocked that their app, that worked perfectly on their desktop against their own personally installed database with, gosh, nearly two megabytes of data, completely falls over when deployed into against the eight terabyte production database.
In other words, a database isn't a replacement for thinking.
BP is a huge global company. They have revenue from all around the world. As of about two weeks ago their daily cost for dealing with the issue in the gulf as 50% of their daily global profit.
why is that? isn't that a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
No it's like throwing out an idiot who thinks that their personal crusades are more important than doing the job I'm hiring them for.
Employers aren't interested in your ideologies. When they are paying you, they expect you to stay within the bounds of your job description and your interests should be put aside and the company's interests should come to the fore. And no, some newly hired developer isn't in a position to have better perspective of the business' needs than the people who hired him.
So wait! Do you or don't you believe that Moore's Law is tapering off? I mean you had a bit of an outburst there, almost involuntary, where you ranted about something entirely not Moore's Law. But then you finished with "Well, yeah, you're completely, entirely, 100% correct."
His direct bosses don't make the rules, the elected officials do.
That's pretty much untrue. Most of the regulations in running the business of the city are made by unelected employees. Same thing at the state and federal levels. Elected officials may make statute, but I'd be interested in seeing the statute that lays out the policies of IT operations. It just doesn't happen.
That's interesting, but it is a bit humorous that someone who isn't a name in the enterprise storage market wants to tell us that their storage device is 100x more reliable that the current offerings available. Also "10,000,000 Mean Time Before Failure"? Ten million what? If they don't know the language, I don't know that I believe they know the actual needs of the market.
Really? I'm curious, let's say I have an SSD. I write block 0. The SSD controller, being the affable chap that it is, happily puts that in some cell somewhere on the device. I write block 0 again. The SSD controller, still being quite affable, knows that if it keeps rewriting the same cell the cell will fail in time. So it remaps block 0 to some other cell. I turn off the power. Turn it back on. Then I ask my SSD controller to read me back block 0. Where does it get the data from? The first cell I wrote to or the second cell? For correct functioning that's going to be the second cell. How does it know? Perhaps it writes a table of block->cell mappings. And that table is stored where? In flash memory perhaps. Now that bit of flash memory is going to get the hell written out of it. In fact that bit will get a write for every remapping that the controller does. And what is the life time of that bit of memory?
I'm actually serious about this. I've never met anyone who could explain to my what that doesn't happen.
Solaris certainly doesn't. What developer would ever code this kind of behavior? Non-dirty filesystem data in the cache is already on disk, what would be the rational to write it out to another part of the disk? That's just stupid. Non-dirty pages are thrown away when RAM is in demand. Dirty filesystem data is just written to disk. Then the pages become non-dirty and can be freed at any time. Possibly immediately if there is demand.
Scenario A:
1. File is read and data is copied into system memory where is it buffered. Time passes. 2. Memory usage skyrockets. 3. Kernel writes data to swap space and frees the memory for use by other processes. 4. Later an application wants that data. Kernel reads data from swap space.
Scenario B:
1. File is read and data is copied into system memory where is it buffered. Time passes. 2. Memory usage skyrockets. 3. Kernel locates non-dirty cached data and frees that page for use by other processes. 4. Later an application wants that data. Kernel reads data from original file on disk.
Differences between scenario A & B:
Scenario A has two disk IOs (steps 3&4) during memory pressure. Scenario B has one (step 4). Scenario A uses limited swap space to store duplicate data. Scenario B doesn't.
And no, Solaris doesn't cache slow devices (tape, dvd-rom, etc.) either. If you choose to access those types of devices, that is your choice. The OS isn't going to save your ass. If you want it cached, make your application do the caching.
Also, I'm not considering special purpose systems such as ZFS's l2arc or other similar/more generalized systems that utilize SSD as a midway point between RAM and HDD. We're talking generic swap space and filesystem caches.
As people have pointed out there are many reasons not to use ANI. But why should it be either-or? Let the caller continue to set their outbound ID to whatever they want, just make the ANI available to the receiver.
You know, I don't really care what the caller wants to display on my phone. It's my phone! If they want to call it, it should be on my terms, not theirs. And my terms are: that I know who the fuck is calling me.
Apple's not going to depart from their favored 4:3 aspect ratio, despite that looking all Ozzie and Harriet now, and all the might of the world moving on to 16:9.
The iphone has a 3:2 screen aspect.
There certainly is something to see here. Namely that if you like the iphone platform, you can look forward to hardware that is competitive with other phones. That's pretty nice.
Hyperbole much? Again, who said encrypt it? Sequester it? Lose it? Oh, that was you, not me. Who the hell are you arguing with?
By your logic the only possible "solution" is to hire a bunch of "librarians" who each take a printed copy, go to the each resident's home, put a gun to their heads and force them to read it page by page... Whee, what a fun game strawmen can be!
Maybe, if we can get back to my original point: don't waste tax dollars. We worked hard for our money, it's contingent on the people we employ to handle the day to day business of our states to act judiciously and not just indulge themselves in compulsive spending.
All of that data is already publicly available - you just have to drive down to the individual offices.
Which is a fine situation to be in. The vast majority of people won't have any use for this data being online. So why spend millions of dollars to benefit a very small percentage of the population. I would hope that they could find something better to do with the tax dollars they collect. Hell, if they've got extra cash burning a hole in their pocket, perhaps they could just take less from us next year?
Do you even understand what it means to be of a given race? And do you understand what a culture is? They're aren't even remotely the same. And yes, I'm totally supporting eugenics because I don't embrace every culture that has ever existed. I mean, who can't love the cannibalism, mass human sacrifice, xenophobia and genocide. In case you can't tell, that's sarcasm.
I think you're taking both sides here. First, freedom of the press isn't restricted to literal presses. It's all communications: radios, televisions, newspapers, fliers, whatever. Second, please differentiate "publishing" from hiring a production company to make you a television spot and then paying television stations to carry your spot?
Well, now you've changed your position. Race != culture. The whole reason the more enlightened among us believe that discrimination is bad is because 1) people don't get to choose what race they are, and 2) we are assuming that the apparent differences between races aren't important when it comes to judging the quality and character of a human being.
As far as your new position goes, no, not all cultures are beautiful and important. Some are ugly and should be wiped from the face of the earth. Some are so primitive and are practiced by so few people that they are just irrelevant (e.g. the cultural mores lead to survival rather than prosperity.) Some have good aspects and bad aspects and should be seen, studied and perhaps incorporated into our own lives. But the idea that we shouldn't discriminate regarding cultures is just stupid. Do you believe that the world should have preserved the cultures of Apartheid South Africa, Feudal Europe, the City-States of the Middle Ages? Absolute Monarchs? The Mongol Hordes?
Seriously, cultural discrimination is a good thing. And even things that aren't bad don't necessarily have to be embraced.
Slashdot Mirror
You know the problem with hiring an employee is that you can't get them to work their entire career at your company before you pay them.
Did you sue your parents for bringing you into the world without giving you a complete moment by moment view of your life from birth to death? The funny thing about life in general is that you don't get to try it before you commit to it.
Stop making excuses for taking other people's work without paying.
Finally, no our economy isn't based on convenience. Based on your post in general, I'm guessing that it's probably too much to hope that you'll actually try to be educated before spouting off.
I see you can't make an argument that addresses my actual point. The fact that you see some traffic doesn't mean you're seeing all traffic.
Regardless of whether it's accidental, or difficult as the OP suggests, the reality is that both of those are merely excuses and rationalizations for externalizing the bad effects of behavior while privatizing the profits. Try translating those excuses to another industry and see how satisfying an answer they are. Consider medicine, there are undeniable benefits to modern therapies. However because it's hard to get right, we don't just accept any random treatment. Before companies unleash their new products upon the public we require that they take the time to ensure, as much as possible, that they are safe and don't have unintended effects. You may suggest that Google isn't a medical company whose products and services won't be killing anyone or causing them to grow a third eyeball, therefore they don't have the same obligations. OK, then how about banking? Credit reporting? Private investigators? Mining companies?
Entirely outside any other arguments, I find it hilariously ironic that Google -- the company staffed entirely by PhDs, by the most brilliant minds in the industry, by saints who'll do nothing wrong -- always comes back to "look we have this awesome idea with splendid (but vague and non-specific) benefits beyond making us incredibly wealthy, however there are significant downsides for the rest of you and those downsides are hard to avoid." Which makes me think that maybe they aren't so smart, which means that maybe their idea isn't so great. Isn't the point of being smart that you can do things that are hard? QED.
Never done any war driving, eh? Because what your cell phone can do is pick up SSID broadcasts and join networks. What it doesn't have is a monitor mode and won't snarf up each and every transmitted packet whether it's joined the network or not.
What's more is that for most people, in the realm of consumer gear, their 802.11* traffic is invisible to people in the street. The power levels involved, the geometry, interference, walls, etc. all contribute to limiting the range of their gear. Your cell phone doesn't even see 90% of the access points you come within 100 meters of. The signal level just isn't there. Which is why people expect that their wireless traffic is private: because without specific intent and equipment it doesn't just leak out all over the place.
Google is making a map of access points. They do use high gain antennas. They do use monitor mode capable adapters. They have specifically outfitted their vehicles with the equipment necessary to extend the range where privacy violations will occur. It's exactly like a pervert climbing a tree with a pair of binoculars.
How about a better analogy. You're in your front yard enjoying a nice glass of lemonade. Somebody drives by and shoots you in the chest. Is it your fault that you were using your front yard according to the social norms and not wearing bullet proof armor or is their fault for acting outside acceptable boundaries?
While it's true that anyone with the right equipment (high gain antenna, monitor mode capable wifi nic, software to drive it all) can capture your wireless packets, is it normal for you to expect that people are wandering around with that equipment? (Another analogy: is it the peeper with the high powered binoculars in the trees three blocks down the road who is at fault or is it you for not managing to get your third floor window blinds completely closed?)
It's a question of social norms and proper behavior in a civilized society. It's not a question of technical possibility.
Treating the database as a black box is the problem, not the solution. At least if you're dealing with more than trivial amounts of data with trivial queries. It is amazing how many developers are shocked that their app, that worked perfectly on their desktop against their own personally installed database with, gosh, nearly two megabytes of data, completely falls over when deployed into against the eight terabyte production database.
In other words, a database isn't a replacement for thinking.
BP is a huge global company. They have revenue from all around the world. As of about two weeks ago their daily cost for dealing with the issue in the gulf as 50% of their daily global profit.
http://entertainment.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1324427&cid=28936879
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=183628&cid=15167528
http://everything2.com/title/%2524rtbl
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=26315&cid=2850660
If you moderated that post you've been permanently banned from moderating.
See "Other trolls" at this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Timwi/Slashdot_trolling_phenomena
Shooting fish in a barrel?
No it's like throwing out an idiot who thinks that their personal crusades are more important than doing the job I'm hiring them for.
Employers aren't interested in your ideologies. When they are paying you, they expect you to stay within the bounds of your job description and your interests should be put aside and the company's interests should come to the fore. And no, some newly hired developer isn't in a position to have better perspective of the business' needs than the people who hired him.
So wait! Do you or don't you believe that Moore's Law is tapering off? I mean you had a bit of an outburst there, almost involuntary, where you ranted about something entirely not Moore's Law. But then you finished with "Well, yeah, you're completely, entirely, 100% correct."
That's pretty much untrue. Most of the regulations in running the business of the city are made by unelected employees. Same thing at the state and federal levels. Elected officials may make statute, but I'd be interested in seeing the statute that lays out the policies of IT operations. It just doesn't happen.
That's interesting, but it is a bit humorous that someone who isn't a name in the enterprise storage market wants to tell us that their storage device is 100x more reliable that the current offerings available. Also "10,000,000 Mean Time Before Failure"? Ten million what? If they don't know the language, I don't know that I believe they know the actual needs of the market.
Really? I'm curious, let's say I have an SSD. I write block 0. The SSD controller, being the affable chap that it is, happily puts that in some cell somewhere on the device. I write block 0 again. The SSD controller, still being quite affable, knows that if it keeps rewriting the same cell the cell will fail in time. So it remaps block 0 to some other cell. I turn off the power. Turn it back on. Then I ask my SSD controller to read me back block 0. Where does it get the data from? The first cell I wrote to or the second cell? For correct functioning that's going to be the second cell. How does it know? Perhaps it writes a table of block->cell mappings. And that table is stored where? In flash memory perhaps. Now that bit of flash memory is going to get the hell written out of it. In fact that bit will get a write for every remapping that the controller does. And what is the life time of that bit of memory?
I'm actually serious about this. I've never met anyone who could explain to my what that doesn't happen.
Solaris certainly doesn't. What developer would ever code this kind of behavior? Non-dirty filesystem data in the cache is already on disk, what would be the rational to write it out to another part of the disk? That's just stupid. Non-dirty pages are thrown away when RAM is in demand. Dirty filesystem data is just written to disk. Then the pages become non-dirty and can be freed at any time. Possibly immediately if there is demand.
Scenario A:
1. File is read and data is copied into system memory where is it buffered. Time passes.
2. Memory usage skyrockets.
3. Kernel writes data to swap space and frees the memory for use by other processes.
4. Later an application wants that data. Kernel reads data from swap space.
Scenario B:
1. File is read and data is copied into system memory where is it buffered. Time passes.
2. Memory usage skyrockets.
3. Kernel locates non-dirty cached data and frees that page for use by other processes.
4. Later an application wants that data. Kernel reads data from original file on disk.
Differences between scenario A & B:
Scenario A has two disk IOs (steps 3&4) during memory pressure. Scenario B has one (step 4).
Scenario A uses limited swap space to store duplicate data. Scenario B doesn't.
And no, Solaris doesn't cache slow devices (tape, dvd-rom, etc.) either. If you choose to access those types of devices, that is your choice. The OS isn't going to save your ass. If you want it cached, make your application do the caching.
Also, I'm not considering special purpose systems such as ZFS's l2arc or other similar/more generalized systems that utilize SSD as a midway point between RAM and HDD. We're talking generic swap space and filesystem caches.
You know, I don't really care what the caller wants to display on my phone. It's my phone! If they want to call it, it should be on my terms, not theirs. And my terms are: that I know who the fuck is calling me.
The iphone has a 3:2 screen aspect.
There certainly is something to see here. Namely that if you like the iphone platform, you can look forward to hardware that is competitive with other phones. That's pretty nice.
Oh yeah? How do we explain YOU then?
Hyperbole much? Again, who said encrypt it? Sequester it? Lose it? Oh, that was you, not me. Who the hell are you arguing with?
By your logic the only possible "solution" is to hire a bunch of "librarians" who each take a printed copy, go to the each resident's home, put a gun to their heads and force them to read it page by page... Whee, what a fun game strawmen can be!
Maybe, if we can get back to my original point: don't waste tax dollars. We worked hard for our money, it's contingent on the people we employ to handle the day to day business of our states to act judiciously and not just indulge themselves in compulsive spending.
Who said we don't need the information? My point is that we don't need to spend the money to put it online.
Which is a fine situation to be in. The vast majority of people won't have any use for this data being online. So why spend millions of dollars to benefit a very small percentage of the population. I would hope that they could find something better to do with the tax dollars they collect. Hell, if they've got extra cash burning a hole in their pocket, perhaps they could just take less from us next year?
Do you even understand what it means to be of a given race? And do you understand what a culture is? They're aren't even remotely the same. And yes, I'm totally supporting eugenics because I don't embrace every culture that has ever existed. I mean, who can't love the cannibalism, mass human sacrifice, xenophobia and genocide. In case you can't tell, that's sarcasm.
I think you're taking both sides here. First, freedom of the press isn't restricted to literal presses. It's all communications: radios, televisions, newspapers, fliers, whatever. Second, please differentiate "publishing" from hiring a production company to make you a television spot and then paying television stations to carry your spot?
Well, now you've changed your position. Race != culture. The whole reason the more enlightened among us believe that discrimination is bad is because 1) people don't get to choose what race they are, and 2) we are assuming that the apparent differences between races aren't important when it comes to judging the quality and character of a human being.
As far as your new position goes, no, not all cultures are beautiful and important. Some are ugly and should be wiped from the face of the earth. Some are so primitive and are practiced by so few people that they are just irrelevant (e.g. the cultural mores lead to survival rather than prosperity.) Some have good aspects and bad aspects and should be seen, studied and perhaps incorporated into our own lives. But the idea that we shouldn't discriminate regarding cultures is just stupid. Do you believe that the world should have preserved the cultures of Apartheid South Africa, Feudal Europe, the City-States of the Middle Ages? Absolute Monarchs? The Mongol Hordes?
Seriously, cultural discrimination is a good thing. And even things that aren't bad don't necessarily have to be embraced.