This isn't one count, it's about four thousand counts of fraud. I'm sure that complying with the takedown notices cost Google a non-trivial amount of money, too.
If you're the LSE, isn't it likely to be 1) easier 2) cheaper and 3) more realistic to achieve 'five-nines' uptime by having two redundant but fully operational 'three-nines' systems and hoping they don't both crap out at the same time?
Yes, It Depends, and Yes.
Tandem and Stratus are the canonical examples of redundant hardware approaches to reliability. Whenever you started a process on a Tandem system, a shadow process would start on another CPU, which would take over if the first one failed to send out its "I'm alive" messages on schedule.
Tandem was expensive, so they tended to get used anywhere that downtime meant a serious loss of money. So, if a failure is more expensive than the delta in the system cost (which this problem at the LSE must have been), then going with a more expensive, but reliable system is a win.
Man, I can't tell you how much I miss the Tandem NonStop II systems. One friend of mine was a Tandem field tech, and on one occasion he had to move a machine from one floor to another, and he did it while they were running the customer's nightly accounting jobs. He was able to just unplug each CPU cabinet from the power, get them on the elevator and over to their new location, and reconnect them to power, while they continued to run on their UPS's.
Plug them back in, and you get a whole lot of alarms on the system console, but that's it. The machines didn't go down, the work wasn't interrupted.
Windows has set the bar extremely low, so much so that a lot of people think UNIX is reliable.
Windows does suck, building any mission-critical system on a fundamentally botched foundation is begging for trouble, and knowing that TradElect was built on quicksand is prima facie evidence of negligence. IOW, it probably failed because windows sucks, not the other way around.
Let me explain computers to you
Let me explain stock exchanges to you: if they go down during a trading day, a lot of people lose a lot of money. In years past, this kind of work was typically done on Tandem, Stratus or IBM systems which were so reliable that any unscheduled reboot merited a visit from the factory.
BTW, I've worked on trading systems for Salomon Brothers, Phibro Energy, JP Morgan, and UBS/Warburg. If anyone had suggested running mission-critical back-office apps (like the system of record of a major stock exchange) on windows, they would have been laughed out of the room. I'm astounded that the LSE could be so sloppy.
You're right, it should be, but in 1913 the same people who stole all of our gold amended the constitution to make direct, unapportioned taxes possible.
Sorry, but taking money by force or threat of force is still theft, even if you then spend that money on things you presume that the victim would find worthwhile.
You have taken the ideological stance that government == bad, free market == good.
No, I did not. I stated what the proper roles are for each of them, respectively. FDA's legitimate role was in its original name, "The Pure Food and Drug Administration". FDA does not have a constitutional or moral prerogative to overrule the decisions individuals make as to what drugs or treatments they will buy or use.
something like the FDA can so easily be created to minimize such tragedies!
Wishing doesn't make it so, sunshine. The FDA kills people every day by prohibiting treatments that save lives.
I didn't make the absolute assertions that you are trying to claim I did, and the question at hand is whether one specific agency is a net benefit or detriment. The FDA kills people, and that's apparently fine and dandy with you.
subjugate your mental model of reality to what actually happens in the reality that exists.
That's advice you would do well to follow. Go and find out how many people the FDA kills in a year by keeping drugs off the market, despite the clinical experience in other countries that shows how well they work.
WTF are you talking about? UL performs safety testing of electrical devices, and has no governmental authority whatsoever. All they do is test what people submit to them, and decide whether to approve them for UL listing.
The FDA is doing a lousy job in keeping unsafe drugs off the market.
Exactly. They fail at their ostensible purpose, and they are under no danger of going out of business for that failure. They've actually approved injecting botulism toxin into people's faces for treating wrinkles, for crying out loud! Worse still, people will do stupid things like take dangerous treatments on the assumption that if FDA's approved them, they must be safe.
The proper role for an organization like the FDA is to enforce laws that say if you sell a bottle labeled as containing ibuprofen, it better not be sugar pills. Studying the safety and effectiveness of drugs is far better left to the private sector. Just look at the effectiveness of the Underwriters' Laboratories, versus the useless work rules promulgated by OSHA.
The treatments I ingest to treat any conditions I want treated are nobody's business but my own, and whatever doctor, pharmacist, or insurance organization I voluntarily do business with.
There is a legitimate role for the federal government, although it's far less than what the feds do now. Rolling them back to the limits of the constitution would be a good start.
Nope, it's dead. It's been dead since the federal government decided that it no longer had to limit itself to the powers that the constitution grants it.
Slashdot Mirror
You've got it straight.
In many ways, it sucks to try to do business in this country, particularly if your company is big enough to plunder.
-jcr
Nobody will prosecute the case if the only impact was $20,000 of Google's money spent on handling the notices.
The prosecutor gets to bring an open-and-shut felony fraud case. Looks good on his record when he runs for office.
-jcr
This isn't one count, it's about four thousand counts of fraud. I'm sure that complying with the takedown notices cost Google a non-trivial amount of money, too.
-jcr
You tried to speak from authority
Nope, I merely observed the obvious.
But you came off like a dumbass.
Well, fuck you too.
-jcr
Define "suck".
How about unreliable, unsecurable, and inefficient, to name three?
-jcr
If you're the LSE, isn't it likely to be 1) easier 2) cheaper and 3) more realistic to achieve 'five-nines' uptime by having two redundant but fully operational 'three-nines' systems and hoping they don't both crap out at the same time?
Yes, It Depends, and Yes.
Tandem and Stratus are the canonical examples of redundant hardware approaches to reliability. Whenever you started a process on a Tandem system, a shadow process would start on another CPU, which would take over if the first one failed to send out its "I'm alive" messages on schedule.
Tandem was expensive, so they tended to get used anywhere that downtime meant a serious loss of money. So, if a failure is more expensive than the delta in the system cost (which this problem at the LSE must have been), then going with a more expensive, but reliable system is a win.
-jcr
You based your entire rant on this baseless, meaningless statement and treated it as a fact. It's not a fact. You can't prove it as a fact.
You're kidding, right? You seriously are staking out the position that Windows doesn't suck?
-jcr
Man, I can't tell you how much I miss the Tandem NonStop II systems. One friend of mine was a Tandem field tech, and on one occasion he had to move a machine from one floor to another, and he did it while they were running the customer's nightly accounting jobs. He was able to just unplug each CPU cabinet from the power, get them on the elevator and over to their new location, and reconnect them to power, while they continued to run on their UPS's.
Plug them back in, and you get a whole lot of alarms on the system console, but that's it. The machines didn't go down, the work wasn't interrupted.
Windows has set the bar extremely low, so much so that a lot of people think UNIX is reliable.
-jcr
Windows does suck, building any mission-critical system on a fundamentally botched foundation is begging for trouble, and knowing that TradElect was built on quicksand is prima facie evidence of negligence. IOW, it probably failed because windows sucks, not the other way around.
Let me explain computers to you
Let me explain stock exchanges to you: if they go down during a trading day, a lot of people lose a lot of money. In years past, this kind of work was typically done on Tandem, Stratus or IBM systems which were so reliable that any unscheduled reboot merited a visit from the factory.
BTW, I've worked on trading systems for Salomon Brothers, Phibro Energy, JP Morgan, and UBS/Warburg. If anyone had suggested running mission-critical back-office apps (like the system of record of a major stock exchange) on windows, they would have been laughed out of the room. I'm astounded that the LSE could be so sloppy.
-jcr
Not much of a sub, it sounds like. TFA doesn't mention anything about how deep it can go.
-jcr
Just as when I am mugged, my money is lost and there is no benefit to me or society.
One other thing in the mugger's favor is that the mugger doesn't interfere with how you earn the money he steals.
-jcr
Which damn well should be unconstitutional.
You're right, it should be, but in 1913 the same people who stole all of our gold amended the constitution to make direct, unapportioned taxes possible.
-jcr
Theft? And what is using the roads...
Sorry, but taking money by force or threat of force is still theft, even if you then spend that money on things you presume that the victim would find worthwhile.
-jcr
You have taken the ideological stance that government == bad, free market == good.
No, I did not. I stated what the proper roles are for each of them, respectively. FDA's legitimate role was in its original name, "The Pure Food and Drug Administration". FDA does not have a constitutional or moral prerogative to overrule the decisions individuals make as to what drugs or treatments they will buy or use.
something like the FDA can so easily be created to minimize such tragedies!
Wishing doesn't make it so, sunshine. The FDA kills people every day by prohibiting treatments that save lives.
-jcr
Calling taxes theft is ridiculous.
You seem to have a considerable emotional attachment to that position. Why is that?
-jcr
Trying to equate taxes with being mugged is pure idiocy.
They're both theft. The difference is that you can defend yourself against the mugger.
-jcr
Evading taxes is stealing money from society
What utter crap. If I don't tell a mugger about the money in my sock, am I stealing money from the mugger?
What's really sad is how many people believe that the people are the property of the government.
-jcr
Not to mention the Cubans, the North Koreans, and any other country where people were encouraged to spy on their neighbors.
-jcr
Shift goalposts much?
I didn't make the absolute assertions that you are trying to claim I did, and the question at hand is whether one specific agency is a net benefit or detriment. The FDA kills people, and that's apparently fine and dandy with you.
-jcr
subjugate your mental model of reality to what actually happens in the reality that exists.
That's advice you would do well to follow. Go and find out how many people the FDA kills in a year by keeping drugs off the market, despite the clinical experience in other countries that shows how well they work.
-jcr
I've got a printer that does just fine feeding checks and envelopes.
-jcr
WTF are you talking about? UL performs safety testing of electrical devices, and has no governmental authority whatsoever. All they do is test what people submit to them, and decide whether to approve them for UL listing.
-jcr
The FDA is doing a lousy job in keeping unsafe drugs off the market.
Exactly. They fail at their ostensible purpose, and they are under no danger of going out of business for that failure. They've actually approved injecting botulism toxin into people's faces for treating wrinkles, for crying out loud! Worse still, people will do stupid things like take dangerous treatments on the assumption that if FDA's approved them, they must be safe.
The proper role for an organization like the FDA is to enforce laws that say if you sell a bottle labeled as containing ibuprofen, it better not be sugar pills. Studying the safety and effectiveness of drugs is far better left to the private sector. Just look at the effectiveness of the Underwriters' Laboratories, versus the useless work rules promulgated by OSHA.
The treatments I ingest to treat any conditions I want treated are nobody's business but my own, and whatever doctor, pharmacist, or insurance organization I voluntarily do business with.
-jcr
There is a legitimate role for the federal government, although it's far less than what the feds do now. Rolling them back to the limits of the constitution would be a good start.
-jcr
The Constitution is a living document
Nope, it's dead. It's been dead since the federal government decided that it no longer had to limit itself to the powers that the constitution grants it.
-jcr