I meant the article, not the people involved. "Family in middle America has fucked up issues." Why is this interesting?
Keyword: Facebook
Similar to what made the Reiser murder/trial story news that matter (albeit slightly less intense). That murder trial had nothing to do with technology yet Wired had a day by day coverage of the trial.
They presumably did not have any expertise with building online services when they started building their infrastructure for iTunes... Yet now they have a all division for Music store, App Store, Book Store, MobileMe, etc...i
This came from the fact that they did a massive ad campaign for the iPod
Wait, you tell me that putting stylish iPod poster everywhere made the iTunes server work?
They presumably did not have any expertise dealing with cell phone technology, yet we all know what happened to iPhone...
It had the huge marketing campaign and just copied the concept of the Palm PDA (...). Again, nothing new from Apple just someone else technology with the Apple marketing campaign.
Wait, you are telling me that you just need a Concept and an Ad campaing the sell a few millions phone ?
I think people assume that Apple is only good at UI stuff because Apple does not really advertise the core technologies that they have behind the eye candy...
They have a very good core OS technology behind their computers and other devices, but really not something that anybody cares about... It think it would be naive to believe that Apple cannot gain or acquire the expertise and technology needed for a search engine if they wanted too...
I don't think Apple really advertises the core technologies that are beyond the eye candy because it's not theirs, it's just technology they 'borrowed' and farmed out really. (...) In the end, Apple doesn't make anything new, they make ads for product idea's they borrowed and rehashed from others.
Okay so thanks for proving my point which is:
Apple can ACQUIRE the technology they need and HIRE the expertise they need to do what they want to do, and Market it better than anyone else.
So if you apply this to a search engine, there is no reason that Apple could not steal/acquire the concepts and technology required to create a somewhat competitive search engine.... Then you would put their marketing machine (or Steve's RDF) to work and voila... iSearch...
I believe Apple is a Product company rather than a Technology company. They dont develop Technology for the sake of it. They develop Products. But they will develop or acquire the technology they need in the process, and integrate it into products with usually great results...
It's an old trick in parallel processing research: pick a slow algorithm, then speed it up via parallelism, rather than starting out with an efficient solution.
Actually its a very interesting trick.
There are so many slow algorithm in the wild that having a simple method to speed them all up would be very useful.
Ah, yes, this would not be a theoretical break-through, but a very practical one indeed...... if their claims can be substantiated of course
They presumably did not have any expertise with building online services when they started building their infrastructure for iTunes... Yet now they have a all division for Music store, App Store, Book Store, MobileMe, etc...
They presumably did not have any expertise dealing with cell phone technology, yet we all know what happened to iPhone...
I think people assume that Apple is only good at UI stuff because Apple does not really advertise the core technologies that they have behind the eye candy...
They have a very good core OS technology behind their computers and other devices, but really not something that anybody cares about... It think it would be naive to believe that Apple cannot gain or acquire the expertise and technology needed for a search engine if they wanted too...
The better question would be, would they really want to, and for what purpose ?
I think the real reason is that the (perceived) risk for using Google is still very very very low. And the cost of doing something else is too high.
There is real risk that data collected by Google can be leaked or misused, but they collect so much data that the risk of the data being leaked would affect you personally is probably insignificant. (thats my own perception)
I mean there have been many cases of credit cards numbers and other personal data being lost by banks, retailers or other organization, but people still use these...
Actually the actual study (2 links down the road though) acknowledge that much.
They try to analyze the effect on Safety rather than just speed. And their conclusion is this:
"Unfortunately, the safety analysis was not successful in finding a conclusive answer to the question about whether or not knowing the free flow speed on a road is useful for predicting its level of safety."
To quote the conclusion of the study:
"The objectives of the project were to answer the following questions: 1. Which road features are most useful for predicting expected running speeds? 2. Is knowing the actual running speed useful for predicting the expected number and/or severity of crashes on a roadway segment? 3. Which are the most significant features for designing a safe road in environments such as village and town centers, school zones and residential neighborhoods?"
Answer to 1: "These findings suggest that drivers slow down where the road feels “hemmedin” or there is noticeable street activity, and they speed up where the road feels “wide open” or street activity is less noticeable. This finding is not surprising,[...]"
Answer to 2: "The answer to the second question about relating observed free flow speed to safety is less definite. Speed was either not found to be significant for predicting crash count or severity or was significant with an unexpected coefficient (i.e., negative rather than positive)."
Answer to 3: "The less than definitive answer to the second question limits the scope of the possibility to answer the third question."
But then they continue on to suggest:
"Consequently, it is reasonable to use reduced vehicle running speeds as a surrogate measure of effectiveness for safety in areas with significant pedestrian and sidewalk activity, or areas where such activity is desired or to be promoted, such as village and town centers, and residential neighborhoods. This objective suggests the following recommendations for designing roads and other elements of the right of way with respect to desired vehicle speeds: 1. Wide shoulders should only be used on roads intended for high speed through traffic, such as inter-urban roads in open land. Wide shoulders should be avoided in town and village centers or other areas where high speed traffic would be considered disruptive to the community."
That conclusion seems stupid and at odds with some other findings. If you want to encourage people walking, you should make them feel safe. Narrow shoulders will not make me feel safe. If you want to encourage pedestrian or bicycle traffic, and reduce car speed, what you should do is build wider sidewalk, wider bike lanes, and narrower roadway, and clearly separate the bike lane and sidewalk from the roadway so that the cars feel boxed in and slow down.
The more that we explain about the algorithm, the less effective it becomes.
Doesn't Google does the same thing with their pagerank algorithm ?
When people know too much about the algorithm, they can game it.
Same reason why credit scoring company wont release their algorithms... Well, they might have further economic motives for that, but still if I knew exactly how the algorithm for my credit score worked, I could certainly dramatically improve my credit without doing anything that actually show I'm credit worthy...
First how are they going to support all their customers PCs configurations ?
I mean, it was hard enough to get my PCI wifi card to work with linux. (Well, maybe they can work with those wifi chip company to finally open their specs...)
And some already mentioned that some people dont even have a CD drive anymore ? So they should probably think about USB...
In any case, I will still want to do my banking on my smartphone, so not even a usb thinkgy will help... but I might trust a dedicated signed app on a (non-jailbroken) iphone a little more than just safari. Oops... behold the power of the closed system like the iphone!
Re:A communications disruption can mean only one .
on
YouTube Is Down
·
· Score: 1
And here is the link to youtube (so that we stay on topic):
The Toshiba study contains two main claims: - How many GB/day their drive can support (22GB/day on their 64GB model) - Average usage for laptop users (9.2GB per day for heavy user)
Now, those are laptop users (presumably windows). And these are average numbers. There are no numbers in a server environment. I could not find what they consider a heavy user, or what the variance was on those numbers. Can your 4 year old find those numbers ?
What configuration where those laptops running? Dont know... What happen if I have a laptop with no such much DRAM, but I use a big swap file to compensate. How heavy is the use of the swap file ? Can your 4 year old tell me ?
What about write amplification? What happen if I use a Filesystem with smaller blocks ? Can your 4 year old tell me ?
The toshiba study shows that just enabling hibernate and auto-save double the amount of data written. What other feature may double that ? Can your 4 year old tell me ?
Btw, WD has their estimate at 17.5GB/day for their 64GB model. If this was a 40GB like your example it would be 10.9GB/day, not 50GB, so obviously their wear leveling algorithm are not as good as your fucking 4 year old think they are...
I read NAND flash datasheet as part of my job, and I'm really wondering what those guys are thinking and what it means for SSD.
There are two things I look at in the datasheet: - Data Retention - Program/Erase cycles.
Data Retention is how long the data on a flash will last before you need to refresh it. Program/Erase cycles is how many times you can re-program a flash sector before it stops working.
It seems that, as NAND flash get bigger capacity, and as they move from SLC to MLC technology, the shorter data retention get, and the smaller the number of P/E cycles get.
Right now, I see 5000 P/E cycles and 5 years data retention. Roadmaps show both of these getting worse.
Now, 5 years data retention is probably still okay for most use where you dont keep devices more than 5 years. But 5000 P/E cycles seems very low for a PC or even smartphones. I would think that wear leveling algorithm can only do so much....
This goes contrary to the degree of control Amazon likes
Forcing an "agency model" on any retailer is going contrary to both history and market standards. The general model for booksellers is to buy wholesale, at somewhere around 40%-50% of MSRP, and then sell at some price between that and MSRP.
This is another example of people clinging to an historical model. The same way MPAA/RIAA get blamed for trying to apply their old models to digital media.
There is no history or market standard for ebooks. The general model for booksellers does not apply to e-booksellers.
The RIAA, MPAA and other bad guys seems to often get bad press for trying to deal with "digital" or "IP" products in the same way we deal with physical products.
On the other hand, what we have here is a buyer doing the same thing, applying terms such as "buying" or "renting" to digital products and trying to relate them to the same terms as applied to physical products.
Both consumer and publisher should understand that old rules do not apply, and new rules needs to be made when dealing with digital product.
You cannot BUY an e-book in the same sense that you can buy an apple. Deal with it.
Unfortunately, since this seem to be limited to one practice which claim they are not regulated by FDA, I'm not sure we will ever see a serious study on the long term effects of their treatment.
It looks like they are basically operating outside any control...
The parent post was saying that Linus and Kolivas have similar attitudes based on the fact that they complained about something that somebody else was doing.
I point out that that their attitude was very different based on the fact that their reaction was very different.
The fact that Kolivas has a real job, while Linus was a computer student only reinforce my point, which is that you can comparing them is hardly fair.
Its like saying my car reminds me of the space shuttle because they are both white.
One wonders how the phone companies were able to solve those kind of issues without even having a common length of phone numbers.
Heck, many countries went from 6 digits number to 10 without many issues. And I can call any country from any country no matter how many digits the phone numbers have in either country.
No someone come in and explain to me why this cant be done with network addresses ?
Is somebody is going to tell me that the telephone tricks dont work because IP networks are packet-switched rather than circuit-switched ?
If pig anus taste that good, and is healthy, there shouldnt be any issue with you eating it. Unless you have a religious objection.
Religious preferences in IT should not become an issue.
Replace "pig anus" by "Microsoft" or your favorite bad guy and then you sentence become:
"I dont care how well it works, if its made by Microsoft I dont want it"
Thats is just a stupid reaction. The problem is people are not objective. You hear "its pig anus" and their mind make it taste bad. If instead somebody tell you a generic dish name like "cajun style pork" it will taste just fine.
Now, obviously the fact that it taste good doesnt always means its healthy but you get my point...
Slashdot Mirror
So you start from 4 numbers, all of them are estimates...
Then you arrive at a number which is somewhat far off the "official" Ubuntu number....
And from that you learn.... what ?
Absolutely nothing.
I meant the article, not the people involved. "Family in middle America has fucked up issues." Why is this interesting?
Keyword: Facebook
Similar to what made the Reiser murder/trial story news that matter (albeit slightly less intense).
That murder trial had nothing to do with technology yet Wired had a day by day coverage of the trial.
They presumably did not have any expertise with building online services when they started building their infrastructure for iTunes... Yet now they have a all division for Music store, App Store, Book Store, MobileMe, etc...i
This came from the fact that they did a massive ad campaign for the iPod
Wait, you tell me that putting stylish iPod poster everywhere made the iTunes server work?
They presumably did not have any expertise dealing with cell phone technology, yet we all know what happened to iPhone...
It had the huge marketing campaign and just copied the concept of the Palm PDA (...). Again, nothing new from Apple just someone else technology with the Apple marketing campaign.
Wait, you are telling me that you just need a Concept and an Ad campaing the sell a few millions phone ?
I think people assume that Apple is only good at UI stuff because Apple does not really advertise the core technologies that they have behind the eye candy...
They have a very good core OS technology behind their computers and other devices, but really not something that anybody cares about... It think it would be naive to believe that Apple cannot gain or acquire the expertise and technology needed for a search engine if they wanted too...
I don't think Apple really advertises the core technologies that are beyond the eye candy because it's not theirs, it's just technology they 'borrowed' and farmed out really. (...) In the end, Apple doesn't make anything new, they make ads for product idea's they borrowed and rehashed from others.
Okay so thanks for proving my point which is:
Apple can ACQUIRE the technology they need and HIRE the expertise they need to do what they want to do, and Market it better than anyone else.
So if you apply this to a search engine, there is no reason that Apple could not steal/acquire the concepts and technology required to create a somewhat competitive search engine.... Then you would put their marketing machine (or Steve's RDF) to work and voila... iSearch...
I believe Apple is a Product company rather than a Technology company. They dont develop Technology for the sake of it. They develop Products. But they will develop or acquire the technology they need in the process, and integrate it into products with usually great results...
So basically, they apply garbage collection techniques to regular malloc/free program
Not bad, all things considered...
It's an old trick in parallel processing research: pick a slow algorithm, then speed it up via parallelism, rather than starting out with an efficient solution.
Actually its a very interesting trick.
There are so many slow algorithm in the wild that having a simple method to speed them all up would be very useful.
Ah, yes, this would not be a theoretical break-through, but a very practical one indeed... ... if their claims can be substantiated of course
They presumably did not have any expertise with building online services when they started building their infrastructure for iTunes... Yet now they have a all division for Music store, App Store, Book Store, MobileMe, etc...
They presumably did not have any expertise dealing with cell phone technology, yet we all know what happened to iPhone...
I think people assume that Apple is only good at UI stuff because Apple does not really advertise the core technologies that they have behind the eye candy...
They have a very good core OS technology behind their computers and other devices, but really not something that anybody cares about... It think it would be naive to believe that Apple cannot gain or acquire the expertise and technology needed for a search engine if they wanted too...
The better question would be, would they really want to, and for what purpose ?
I dont think thats the reason why.
I think the real reason is that the (perceived) risk for using Google is still very very very low. And the cost of doing something else is too high.
There is real risk that data collected by Google can be leaked or misused, but they collect so much data that the risk of the data being leaked would affect you personally is probably insignificant. (thats my own perception)
I mean there have been many cases of credit cards numbers and other personal data being lost by banks, retailers or other organization, but people still use these...
Actually the actual study (2 links down the road though) acknowledge that much.
They try to analyze the effect on Safety rather than just speed. And their conclusion is this:
"Unfortunately, the safety analysis was not successful in finding a conclusive
answer to the question about whether or not knowing the free flow speed on a road is
useful for predicting its level of safety."
To quote the conclusion of the study:
"The objectives of the project were to answer the following questions:
1. Which road features are most useful for predicting expected running speeds?
2. Is knowing the actual running speed useful for predicting the expected number
and/or severity of crashes on a roadway segment?
3. Which are the most significant features for designing a safe road in
environments such as village and town centers, school zones and residential
neighborhoods?"
Answer to 1:
"These findings suggest that drivers slow down where the road feels “hemmedin”
or there is noticeable street activity, and they speed up where the road feels “wide
open” or street activity is less noticeable. This finding is not surprising,[...]"
Answer to 2:
"The answer to the second question about relating observed free flow speed to
safety is less definite. Speed was either not found to be significant for predicting crash
count or severity or was significant with an unexpected coefficient (i.e., negative rather
than positive)."
Answer to 3:
"The less than definitive answer to the second question limits the scope of the
possibility to answer the third question."
But then they continue on to suggest:
"Consequently, it is reasonable to use reduced vehicle running speeds as a surrogate
measure of effectiveness for safety in areas with significant pedestrian and sidewalk
activity, or areas where such activity is desired or to be promoted, such as village and
town centers, and residential neighborhoods. This objective suggests the following
recommendations for designing roads and other elements of the right of way with respect
to desired vehicle speeds:
1. Wide shoulders should only be used on roads intended for high speed through
traffic, such as inter-urban roads in open land. Wide shoulders should be avoided
in town and village centers or other areas where high speed traffic would be
considered disruptive to the community."
That conclusion seems stupid and at odds with some other findings.
If you want to encourage people walking, you should make them feel safe. Narrow shoulders will not make me feel safe.
If you want to encourage pedestrian or bicycle traffic, and reduce car speed, what you should do is build wider sidewalk, wider bike lanes, and narrower roadway, and clearly separate the bike lane and sidewalk from the roadway so that the cars feel boxed in and slow down.
Of course, he follows up with this:
The more that we explain about the algorithm, the less effective it becomes.
Doesn't Google does the same thing with their pagerank algorithm ?
When people know too much about the algorithm, they can game it.
Same reason why credit scoring company wont release their algorithms... Well, they might have further economic motives for that, but still if I knew exactly how the algorithm for my credit score worked, I could certainly dramatically improve my credit without doing anything that actually show I'm credit worthy...
First how are they going to support all their customers PCs configurations ?
I mean, it was hard enough to get my PCI wifi card to work with linux. (Well, maybe they can work with those wifi chip company to finally open their specs...)
And some already mentioned that some people dont even have a CD drive anymore ? So they should probably think about USB...
In any case, I will still want to do my banking on my smartphone, so not even a usb thinkgy will help... but I might trust a dedicated signed app on a (non-jailbroken) iphone a little more than just safari. Oops... behold the power of the closed system like the iphone!
And here is the link to youtube (so that we stay on topic):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiBooRQcl7c
Wow, indeed that made you real made... I'm sorry, I was thinking with my ass, (but thats slashdot)..
In the meantime I found some links to some study by Toshiba:
http://silvertonconsulting.com/blog/2010/01/08/toshiba-studies-laptop-write-rates-confirming-ssd-longevity/
The Toshiba study contains two main claims:
- How many GB/day their drive can support (22GB/day on their 64GB model)
- Average usage for laptop users (9.2GB per day for heavy user)
Now, those are laptop users (presumably windows). And these are average numbers. There are no numbers in a server environment. I could not find what they consider a heavy user, or what the variance was on those numbers. Can your 4 year old find those numbers ?
What configuration where those laptops running? Dont know... What happen if I have a laptop with no such much DRAM, but I use a big swap file to compensate. How heavy is the use of the swap file ? Can your 4 year old tell me ?
What about write amplification? What happen if I use a Filesystem with smaller blocks ? Can your 4 year old tell me ?
The toshiba study shows that just enabling hibernate and auto-save double the amount of data written. What other feature may double that ? Can your 4 year old tell me ?
Btw, WD has their estimate at 17.5GB/day for their 64GB model. If this was a 40GB like your example it would be 10.9GB/day, not 50GB, so obviously their wear leveling algorithm are not as good as your fucking 4 year old think they are...
I read NAND flash datasheet as part of my job, and I'm really wondering what those guys are thinking and what it means for SSD.
There are two things I look at in the datasheet:
- Data Retention
- Program/Erase cycles.
Data Retention is how long the data on a flash will last before you need to refresh it.
Program/Erase cycles is how many times you can re-program a flash sector before it stops working.
It seems that, as NAND flash get bigger capacity, and as they move from SLC to MLC technology, the shorter data retention get, and the smaller the number of P/E cycles get.
Right now, I see 5000 P/E cycles and 5 years data retention. Roadmaps show both of these getting worse.
Now, 5 years data retention is probably still okay for most use where you dont keep devices more than 5 years. But 5000 P/E cycles seems very low for a PC or even smartphones. I would think that wear leveling algorithm can only do so much....
Forcing an "agency model" on any retailer is going contrary to both history and market standards. The general model for booksellers is to buy wholesale, at somewhere around 40%-50% of MSRP, and then sell at some price between that and MSRP.
This is another example of people clinging to an historical model. The same way MPAA/RIAA get blamed for trying to apply their old models to digital media.
There is no history or market standard for ebooks. The general model for booksellers does not apply to e-booksellers.
The RIAA, MPAA and other bad guys seems to often get bad press for trying to deal with "digital" or "IP" products in the same way we deal with physical products.
On the other hand, what we have here is a buyer doing the same thing, applying terms such as "buying" or "renting" to digital products and trying to relate them to the same terms as applied to physical products.
Both consumer and publisher should understand that old rules do not apply, and new rules needs to be made when dealing with digital product.
You cannot BUY an e-book in the same sense that you can buy an apple. Deal with it.
Unfortunately, since this seem to be limited to one practice which claim they are not regulated by FDA, I'm not sure we will ever see a serious study on the long term effects of their treatment.
It looks like they are basically operating outside any control...
Off course they do!!!
$ apt-get install r2d2
my iceweasel on debian: unique
my iphone: like any other iphone...
"Returns" mean that he left, so my point stands.
In any case I'm not saying that Con is less worthy than Linus, or wasnt right to do what he did.
The point is that comparing Kolivas and Torvalds is comparing apples and oranges.
The parent post was saying that Linus and Kolivas have similar attitudes based on the fact that they complained about something that somebody else was doing.
I point out that that their attitude was very different based on the fact that their reaction was very different.
The fact that Kolivas has a real job, while Linus was a computer student only reinforce my point, which is that you can comparing them is hardly fair.
Its like saying my car reminds me of the space shuttle because they are both white.
One wonders how the phone companies were able to solve those kind of issues without even having a common length of phone numbers.
Heck, many countries went from 6 digits number to 10 without many issues. And I can call any country from any country no matter how many digits the phone numbers have in either country.
No someone come in and explain to me why this cant be done with network addresses ?
Is somebody is going to tell me that the telephone tricks dont work because IP networks are packet-switched rather than circuit-switched ?
Close, but no... You just missed one strategically placed 'S' to get it...
dry erase board is better: i can erase only a small part of it to make corrections.
Yet Linus reaction was to create his own kernel.
While Kolivas reaction was to give up kernel development.
If pig anus taste that good, and is healthy, there shouldnt be any issue with you eating it.
Unless you have a religious objection.
Religious preferences in IT should not become an issue.
Replace "pig anus" by "Microsoft" or your favorite bad guy and then you sentence become:
"I dont care how well it works, if its made by Microsoft I dont want it"
Thats is just a stupid reaction. The problem is people are not objective. You hear "its pig anus" and their mind make it taste bad. If instead somebody tell you a generic dish name like "cajun style pork" it will taste just fine.
Now, obviously the fact that it taste good doesnt always means its healthy but you get my point...