Pyramids' claim to being a world wonder is not based on them being the largest graffiti collection in the world -- in fact, it's the opposite of that, they are giant graves/monuments that did not change all that much over millennia of their history. Wikipedia's whole point is in constantly improving amount and accuracy of collected information through a large co-operative effort. Currently Wikipedia arguably defeated its own purpose by having content controlled by incompetent people who care more about stroking their own egos than about anything productive.
Oh, for fuck sake! China stopped building warships because it adopted isolationist policy and therefore had no use for giant navy, not because suddenly every Chinese forgot some seekrit technology. It was a political decision -- and likely a very good one, considering what was going on in adjacent regions and how China needed to resolve its own conflicts and pull its shit together over that time.
The rest of your post argues with a massive army of strawmen.
I don't know who's post you're referring to, but I never mentioned, implied or referenced anything of the sort.
The one upper in the thread -- before you jumped in with your brand of patriotic nonsense.
Please re-read what exactly you have asked, and what I have answered. I have listed things that became inaccessible, impossible or greatly diminished from their former state. If you want to compare to China, it's not like Chinese suddenly forgot how to build ships.
And, of course, you seem to be completely unaware about the condition of restrictions forced on users who do not wish to buy software from a single "blessed" vendor of DRM'ed music players on PC architecture -- Microsoft.
Not that it is in any way relevant to the subject of this discussion -- my response to a ridiculous, retarded claim that Chinese are somehow obligated to treat some technology as exclusive property of some foreign nation.
Industrial infrastructure? Railroad network? Public transit? Public schools (at any usable level of quality)? Construction of nuclear power plants? Affordable healthcare? Use of video and audio recording to collect evidence of crimes against you (police brutality, corruption, etc. though not in all states)?
And, of course, "illegal downloading" now also covers things like playing blu-ray movies and receiving cable TV on non-Microsoft computers.
Spectrometer and probe will cost $4K -- but apparently without sufficient shielding and equipment to prepare food samples, so those things will have to be obtained or built separately. Not exactly beyond being affordable for a determined individual, but unless someone has huge amount of contaminated and uncontaminated samples to test, or a good reason to distrust people who are already doing it, it's not exactly useful.
And you can see on the map that my observations were correct. There were contaminated spots to the northeast from Gomel while city itself and especially area to the west and south were pretty much clean, despite being closer to the power plant.
geiger counters for testing food and other materials
Geiger counters are absolutely useless for testing anything other than minerals, background radiation and things like ventilation ducts (surprisingly a major collector of everything radioactive). After Chernobyl disaster I made, used and later calibrated a simple Geiger-counter-based ionizing radiation meter, and it was useful to determine how contaminated the areas around my city (Gomel) were. The result was exactly the same as what was confirmed later -- some short-lived contamination within the city (easily attributable to I-131 due to distinctive half-life around a week), mostly clean to the southwest, more contamination (longer-lived, counter was useless for determining its nature but later I have learned that it was Sr-90, Cs-134 and Cs-137) to the northeast.
However to test anything that even resembles food, you need a gamma spectrometer, complete with a test chamber made of lead bricks. I happened to participate in those measurements much later, and I am certain, Japanese environmental/food safety authorities are already using something similar now. You have absolutely no chance to get anything close to it on your own, so just don't.
He is talking about this fad of leasing a microscopic VM on some giant shared server that is supposedly managed by someone who calls it a "cloud".
There are actual "cloud" services that have interface for allocating various amounts of resources in clusters of servers, however the poster is clearly not qualified to use one (nor he has any use for one).
lol libertarians. This time some really ignorant ones.
Highways were planned and built by government. Railroads mostly were built by private companies -- in particular, in US they were built by the most powerful, most "free" companies that there ever were.
Of course, once government decided that it's more important to build highways, big business moved to feed from that trough (and now is just sucking directly on the oil teat, so cars are shit, too).
Start a company all by yourself all the while having no experience in any function necessary to run it.
Write security-sensitive applications while being at the skills level when your choice of IDE is in any way relevant and can affect (positively or negatively) the result of your work.
"Last Mile" is an industry term to mean the connection between an ISP and their customers. It's common usage and not a literal expression
Yes, I already said that. And it's a stupid name, too, however as I have pointed out, for most it's probably about a mile on average. It's not however a connection between different points of presence, (COs, etc.) that ISPs maintain (sometimes on their own, sometimes by routing through others), or then a connection between two Verizon customers in Los Angeles and New York would be "last mile". The term "last mile" first became prominent when describing a problem of serving customers in areas that are supposedly already covered by ISPs but lack local infrastructure ("last mile") to actually reach those customers with usable DSL or cable connections.
True, caching doesn't eliminate long haul bandwidth, but it can lower it by several orders of magnitude, which is sufficient to make it neglegable. Though space in data centers is expensive, data storage gets cheaper, denser, and lower power with time.
Storage may be getting cheaper, but energy spent on powering that storage and cooling is not, and size of data centers is limited, and power density remains constant over the lifetime of data center. This is why no one can actually fill all those racks with new equipment -- power consumption per unit (of rack height) is still rising. At the same time effectiveness of caching will to go down because "long tail" of relatively unpopular content is getting "fatter" with more diverse users subscribing -- to keep cache efficiency the cache size will have to grow much faster than the total size of content being offered. With video on demand services by Comcast and AT&T already offering most popular current content over separate and incompatible mechanism (but always available to their subscribers), caching becomes less and less efficient for Netflix -- Netflix pretty much exists because of wider range of content that it offers.
See 'Moores Law'. Bits get cheaper to store and transmit with time.
Moore's law has absolutely nothing to do with storage or bandwidth, it's about gate count/speed available for computing.
And if you really knew all this, then why the "one datacenter per square mile" quip?
Assume that phone cables are laid in a grid (what is closer to reality than all cables being straight from CO to each user, as there is city layout to consider), you will get one per two square miles.
Perhaps they really meant "last two miles", given all the caching that is done with ISPs to minimize traffic on the backbone. The point is that the NSA won't sniffing the any episodes of House.
1. This is not "last mile", this is providers' network with very much shared bandwidth. 2. Caching doesn't eliminate the need to transfer data over backbones, it merely reduces it. As more content is involved and subscribers become more diverse, it will become more and more expensive to keep large amount of storage everywhere (data centers' space is expensive).
I do know what it means. It means, connection to the phone company's CO or other kind of point of presence, that is performed over the media that reaches the user.
For DSL it's up to 3 miles, so on average it is actually close to a mile.
I suspect that is goes through exactly the same backbones, just probably is billed separately because of Netflix is paying for some of peering. I am pretty sure that not even Netflix can pay for physical equipment to be installed in enough phone company's COs, or (especially) in whatever Comcast calls their facilities.
Slashdot Mirror
Pyramids' claim to being a world wonder is not based on them being the largest graffiti collection in the world -- in fact, it's the opposite of that, they are giant graves/monuments that did not change all that much over millennia of their history. Wikipedia's whole point is in constantly improving amount and accuracy of collected information through a large co-operative effort. Currently Wikipedia arguably defeated its own purpose by having content controlled by incompetent people who care more about stroking their own egos than about anything productive.
The biggest misinformation scheme the world has ever seen?
No, that's Catholic Church.
And 4chan.
No, 4chan resembles plain idiocy.
my wife is going to one of those
[insert obvious troll here]
That's a wonder indeed...
Oh, for fuck sake! China stopped building warships because it adopted isolationist policy and therefore had no use for giant navy, not because suddenly every Chinese forgot some seekrit technology. It was a political decision -- and likely a very good one, considering what was going on in adjacent regions and how China needed to resolve its own conflicts and pull its shit together over that time.
The rest of your post argues with a massive army of strawmen.
I don't know who's post you're referring to, but I never mentioned, implied or referenced anything of the sort.
The one upper in the thread -- before you jumped in with your brand of patriotic nonsense.
And the history is full of failed projects.
Please re-read what exactly you have asked, and what I have answered. I have listed things that became inaccessible, impossible or greatly diminished from their former state. If you want to compare to China, it's not like Chinese suddenly forgot how to build ships.
And, of course, you seem to be completely unaware about the condition of restrictions forced on users who do not wish to buy software from a single "blessed" vendor of DRM'ed music players on PC architecture -- Microsoft.
Not that it is in any way relevant to the subject of this discussion -- my response to a ridiculous, retarded claim that Chinese are somehow obligated to treat some technology as exclusive property of some foreign nation.
Industrial infrastructure? Railroad network? Public transit? Public schools (at any usable level of quality)? Construction of nuclear power plants? Affordable healthcare? Use of video and audio recording to collect evidence of crimes against you (police brutality, corruption, etc. though not in all states)?
And, of course, "illegal downloading" now also covers things like playing blu-ray movies and receiving cable TV on non-Microsoft computers.
So the Chinese historically can invent and achieve great things, but their politicians eventually screw up any advantage it would give them.
Guess which other country comes to mind as a modern example?
But contaminated areas are already known. It's not like chunks of reactor are thrown all across Japan and are lying around undiscovered.
Spectrometer and probe will cost $4K -- but apparently without sufficient shielding and equipment to prepare food samples, so those things will have to be obtained or built separately. Not exactly beyond being affordable for a determined individual, but unless someone has huge amount of contaminated and uncontaminated samples to test, or a good reason to distrust people who are already doing it, it's not exactly useful.
And you can see on the map that my observations were correct. There were contaminated spots to the northeast from Gomel while city itself and especially area to the west and south were pretty much clean, despite being closer to the power plant.
geiger counters for testing food and other materials
Geiger counters are absolutely useless for testing anything other than minerals, background radiation and things like ventilation ducts (surprisingly a major collector of everything radioactive). After Chernobyl disaster I made, used and later calibrated a simple Geiger-counter-based ionizing radiation meter, and it was useful to determine how contaminated the areas around my city (Gomel) were. The result was exactly the same as what was confirmed later -- some short-lived contamination within the city (easily attributable to I-131 due to distinctive half-life around a week), mostly clean to the southwest, more contamination (longer-lived, counter was useless for determining its nature but later I have learned that it was Sr-90, Cs-134 and Cs-137) to the northeast.
However to test anything that even resembles food, you need a gamma spectrometer, complete with a test chamber made of lead bricks. I happened to participate in those measurements much later, and I am certain, Japanese environmental/food safety authorities are already using something similar now. You have absolutely no chance to get anything close to it on your own, so just don't.
Then you don't ever use lighting rods. And paper. And rockets.
You know that Chinese had them long before you, don't you?
He is talking about this fad of leasing a microscopic VM on some giant shared server that is supposedly managed by someone who calls it a "cloud".
There are actual "cloud" services that have interface for allocating various amounts of resources in clusters of servers, however the poster is clearly not qualified to use one (nor he has any use for one).
lol libertarians. This time some really ignorant ones.
Highways were planned and built by government. Railroads mostly were built by private companies -- in particular, in US they were built by the most powerful, most "free" companies that there ever were.
Of course, once government decided that it's more important to build highways, big business moved to feed from that trough (and now is just sucking directly on the oil teat, so cars are shit, too).
Your opinion of the sensability of the term changes nothing.
This is not my opinion, this is how the term was used by everyone except you.
Also "sensability" is not a word in any language.
Host your web site in VM on your home box.
Start a company all by yourself all the while having no experience in any function necessary to run it.
Write security-sensitive applications while being at the skills level when your choice of IDE is in any way relevant and can affect (positively or negatively) the result of your work.
I also recommend drinking a lot of bleach.
"Last Mile" is an industry term to mean the connection between an ISP and their customers. It's common usage and not a literal expression
Yes, I already said that. And it's a stupid name, too, however as I have pointed out, for most it's probably about a mile on average. It's not however a connection between different points of presence, (COs, etc.) that ISPs maintain (sometimes on their own, sometimes by routing through others), or then a connection between two Verizon customers in Los Angeles and New York would be "last mile". The term "last mile" first became prominent when describing a problem of serving customers in areas that are supposedly already covered by ISPs but lack local infrastructure ("last mile") to actually reach those customers with usable DSL or cable connections.
True, caching doesn't eliminate long haul bandwidth, but it can lower it by several orders of magnitude, which is sufficient to make it neglegable. Though space in data centers is expensive, data storage gets cheaper, denser, and lower power with time.
Storage may be getting cheaper, but energy spent on powering that storage and cooling is not, and size of data centers is limited, and power density remains constant over the lifetime of data center. This is why no one can actually fill all those racks with new equipment -- power consumption per unit (of rack height) is still rising. At the same time effectiveness of caching will to go down because "long tail" of relatively unpopular content is getting "fatter" with more diverse users subscribing -- to keep cache efficiency the cache size will have to grow much faster than the total size of content being offered. With video on demand services by Comcast and AT&T already offering most popular current content over separate and incompatible mechanism (but always available to their subscribers), caching becomes less and less efficient for Netflix -- Netflix pretty much exists because of wider range of content that it offers.
See 'Moores Law'. Bits get cheaper to store and transmit with time.
Moore's law has absolutely nothing to do with storage or bandwidth, it's about gate count/speed available for computing.
And if you really knew all this, then why the "one datacenter per square mile" quip?
Assume that phone cables are laid in a grid (what is closer to reality than all cables being straight from CO to each user, as there is city layout to consider), you will get one per two square miles.
Perhaps they really meant "last two miles", given all the caching that is done with ISPs to minimize traffic on the backbone. The point is that the NSA won't sniffing the any episodes of House.
1. This is not "last mile", this is providers' network with very much shared bandwidth.
2. Caching doesn't eliminate the need to transfer data over backbones, it merely reduces it. As more content is involved and subscribers become more diverse, it will become more and more expensive to keep large amount of storage everywhere (data centers' space is expensive).
I do know what it means. It means, connection to the phone company's CO or other kind of point of presence, that is performed over the media that reaches the user.
For DSL it's up to 3 miles, so on average it is actually close to a mile.
I suspect that is goes through exactly the same backbones, just probably is billed separately because of Netflix is paying for some of peering. I am pretty sure that not even Netflix can pay for physical equipment to be installed in enough phone company's COs, or (especially) in whatever Comcast calls their facilities.
One datacenter per a hexagon two miles in diameter. Assumong that all providers are wireless, so all connections go in a straight line. Happy now?
With one datacenter per square mile?