Like it or not the internet as we know it is made possible by online advertising. The vast majority of free sites out there, slashdot included, rely on advertisements to pay the bills.
Google, for example, would not exist in it's current form if it weren't for AdSense, which now makes up most (Or nearly all?) of their profit. AdSense advertisements are what keeps us in the cool free google products.
Without online advertising, the internet would be a hollow shell of it's present self, with VERY few of the sites that you know and love today.
Insane? No... Without considering extras it is not that much more expensive than the PetaBox solution.
I realize that you still need a computer, however you can hook up multiple XServe RAIDs to a single server via a fibre switch. I guess it comes down to bandwidth; if you load up an rack with 13 XServe RAIDs, 1 fibre switch, and then 1 server, you'll have 72.8TB in the rack, yes, but you'd be limited to whatever the max bandwidth of that one server is. Probably 1 or 2 gigabits, though you could go for something more customized.
Regardless, the XServes would still be immensely more reliable than the PetaBox nodes. If you want maximum uptime and reliability, then PetaBox is a disaster waiting to happen, unless they use software mirroring. And you'd have higher admin time for replacements, and worse management/monitoring tools.
True on those points, but racks and cabling can be had cheap, though fibre switches might drive up the cost.
You'd actually need 275 xserves to do the 1.5PB. According to apple it is typical for that many machines to need about 83kW, as opposed to the petabyte's 50kW. However the xserve uses less space, so what is more expensive, space or power? Usually the answer is space, from what I understand, but I guess it depends. As a totally apples to oranges comparison, where I live in residential power costs the difference (33kW) would be $1425 per month US. That much money barely buys any rack space, so I would say it is highly likely the xserves cost less to run even though they use more power.
As for cost per gig, with Apple the cost per gig for the 400GB drives is way less than the cost per gig with the 250GB drives. So the bigger drives cost less per gig, and at the same time require less space and power. It is a win/win/win situation. If you are referring to the cost of bare drives, the cost per gig at 400GB doesn't seem to be terribly more than at 250GB, but it depends on so many factors (Brand/store/specs/etc).
Has nobody noticed that this solution isn't really any better than competing solutions?
Take Apple XServe for example. Whereas the PetaBox is $2/GB, Apple's much more advanced (much more reliable and redundant) solution costs only $2.27/GB... And I bet that if you were buying XServes in groups of 12 to match the 64TB PetaBox offering, Apple would give you a bulk discount taking it down to $2 or under.
I say more advanced because Apple's solution supports 2gbit fibre channels, hardware RAID, redundant PSUs, cache battery backup, redundant cooling, and the PSUs and hard drives are hotswap.
Oh, and while the Petabox is 1.6TB per 1U, Apple's solution is ~1.9TB per 1U (5.6 in 3U).
So, it would seem that in all respects, Apple's XServe is immensely superior. Price is only slightly higher and the bulk discounts that you could probably get in order to match the PetaBox offerings would probably make it no more expensive.
So what is special about this PetaBox stuff? Why would anybody buy it? How can they claim to be the best when they are clearly not? Why do we CARE about it? Why did archive.org choose it?
Look at the section you quoted. Taken alone it supports my statement. The section prohibits distribution (uploading), not appropriation (downloading). In fact it makes NO mention of appropriation. It forbids selling, renting, distributing, or publicly exhibiting. It makes no mention of acquiring.
If that section is the sole definition of infringement of copyright, as one would expect it to be by the text "It is an infringement of copyright for any person to", downloading movies and games is NOT infringement of copyright.
It might be prohibited under law by other sections, but clearly it isn't copyright infringement. Try again.
Oh yes, food stamps and video games are on the same plane of "need". Clearly a bright one you are.
Did I say they were? I was simply pointing out that your argument didn't make sense. This particular section of your argument seems to mark the disadvantaged as "unworthy" of a good quality of life. Entertainment is part of a good quality of life, and I think it's obvious that the pursuit of happiness isn't going to happen when you spend every single moment of your life eating, working, and sleeping.
Your definition does not enter into this discussion at all. Piracy is NOT what you have "defined" it as. Piracy has two meanings, the first has to do with treason on the high seas, and the second has to do with theft of intellectual property. You may or may not be confusing piracy with this thing called "theft". As an aside, you are guilty of theft. You have stolen intellectual property from someone.
Fine. I'll conceed that my definition of piracy doesn't matter. It's just a word, and its application to an action is meaningless in and of itself. It is the action itself that deserves judgement, not the label you put on it. This is where we differ in opinion. I feel that if an act of piracy causes no harm, it is not immoral. Thankfully, where I live, that is NOT against the law, and is currently perfectly legal, according to the Supreme Court of Canada. Before telling me how bad I am for breaking the law, ensure that I am actually breaking the law.
I think what you fail to understand here is that property and intellectual property are not different things. This is my point, and this is what you don't understand. If you say it is okay to steal the intellectual property inherent in a video game, where does it stop?
They clearly are two different things. One is a tangible object with physical value. The other is an intangible object with no physical value.
If I steal 1000 CDs from a record shop and burn them all, I have caused real damage. If I download a thousand copies of a CD and then delete them all, there is no monetary damage caused. You would seem to claim that these are the same thing, but their vastly different effects would seem to indicate otherwise.
another aside: you probably have a superiority complex. Previous comments you've made included you calling people demeaning names. I hope you feel yourself pushed up as you push anonymous internet strangers down
Says the individual who called me a "pinko commie bastard". Nice bit of hypocracy there. Do I have a superiority complex? Damned if I know, I'm not qualified to evaluate that. I might very well indeed. Of course, you are the one using demeaning names that insult several different groups, and condemning me as being immoral. I think you've got the situation reversed.
See a movie on your computer and if you like it buy it or go to the theater? Download an e-book and if you like it, read it? You are above the general economy that is built on intellectual property?
To a certain extent, yes. I feel that I have the right to make informed purchases, and I intend to take appropriate steps to ensure that. Luckily, I can legally do that in my country of residence. This may change in the future so that I can no longer do it legally. At that time, my income will have likely grown beyond that of a student, so I will not have to resort to this methodology.
-- if you think the business model that you've proposed makes sense for games, then you think it makes sense for IP in general. The fact is, nobody gives a hoot what you think is moral or not, the law is quite clear.
You've hit it on the nail exactly. I do think that the business model I've proposed works for IP in general. And the major corporations would seem to agree with me. Apple's iTunes music store is based on just this business model, and it is doing phenomenally well. Most major media-related IP is expected to move entirely to this business model at some point in the future.
This is flawed logic. You are placing anything that isn't tangible into a category and saying anything in this category is okay to steal. A lot of software pirates do this.
No, I'm saying that stealing it has no effect.
Wow. This "can't" be seen as piracy? I beg to differ, it certainly can, and does. And if you wanted to try the game out, that is entirely up to the game company to allow. You do not somehow fall inside the bounds of morality because you say that what you are doing gives the company free advertising.
How does one define piracy? I define it as an act of stealing that causes loss or damage. If somebody isn't going to buy a product for previously mentioned reasons, they're not causing any loss or damage; the result to the software developer is absolutely nothing. It makes no difference one way or another.
That is the biggest bunch of hogwash I've ever heard. You are putting rich people up to a different standard than poor people? (I say rich and poor meaning those who can afford and those who can't). Isn't that the whole point of capitalism? If you work hard and build up wealth, then you get more options then a person who has not built up this wealth. What you are proposing is that both rich and poor shall get the same treatment and product, but the rich must pay and the poor are allowed not to. Go back to Russia you pinko commie bastard.
Perhaps it helps that I don't think in the perversely capitalistic mindset that the US does (I have no idea if you are American or not). I do know that I live in Canada, a country that is significantly further to the socialist end of the spectrum than the US. However, what you say just doesn't make sense. By your logic, the poor should not get food stamps because that is treating them differently. By golly, the poor should not get food stamps or be allowed to use soup kitchens, or benefit from charity, because that would defeat the purpose of working hard and building up wealth! Food should be reserved for those who have lots of money!
You see why your argument doesn't make any sense.
I would also like to point out that Russia isn't a communist state (Perhaps you meant China), but it's obvious that those still shaking their fists at "those damned ruskie bastards" are beyond reasoning.
The problem is that, as you point out yourself, that logic only works for physical products.
If an 8 year old pirates a game that he could never afford, it costs the game maker nothing; it is essentially not piracy, because it has not caused a loss of sale. There is zero impact. The 8 year old boy has not done anything that would affect anybody else in any manner.
However, while it can't be seen as piracy, it can be seen as free marketing; while that 8 year old might not be able to afford games now, he may be able to in several years. The game he "pirated" years earlier might have an impact on what he chooses to purchase years later.
It is a different story for those who CAN afford products, use them regularly, but don't buy them. I don't pretend to condone that, and that is why I avoid that situation whenever possible. I have purchased every game that I have played for an appreciable amount of time for the last several years, because I can afford it.
Same here. When I was younger with no income I pirated every game I played. Once I started making money I started buying games. Had I not pirated those games earlier, it's unlikely that I would be as much of a gamer today as I was back then.
In other words, pirating those early games that I never would have purchased has resulted in actual income for the industry. They should have encouraged it. Some did, by providing good quality demos and shareware.
I purchased UT2004 solely based on my experience with the demo. Had there been no demo, as is the case for many games, I would never have purchased it. Take Warcraft 3 for example. I pirated it shortly before it's release, and loved it. As a result, I purchased it. Had I not initially pirated it, I would NOT have purchased it several days later.
I would be more worried about running a well dry, though. But wouldn't the pump cost more to run than the municipal water would? Water is pretty cheap here (Hydro, and we sell off excess to the US), as is electricity, but to be somewhere that has it's own well, I'd imagine electricity wouldn't be very cheap at all.
Icewater is fine and dandy, but very difficult to obtain in sufficient quantities.
Now, if you simply take the hose and, instead of dunking it in the garbage can, just attach it to a faucet. Turn on the cold water and you have an infinite supply of cool water for your cooling.
It depends on where you live though. It shouldn't be any more expensive than watering your lawn, but some places have watering restrictions or expensive water. I'm lucky that where I live the water is extremely cheap and there are no restrictions on use.
I would imagine that the fact that the water isn't quite as cool could be offset by the fact that by using a faucet you can get much faster water flow. it'd really depend on how expensive your water is. If it's really cheap, you can just open the tap full bore and let the thing cool as much as it can. If your water is more expensive, you might want to restrict the flow.
Still, where I live, tapwater makes more sense than a garbage can full of icewater.
He should teach himself about slashdotting. The idiot managed to slashdot himself. When somebody ELSE slashdots you, it's obvious that you can't prepare. But when you are submitting your own story, there is no excuse for not preparing. The least he could have done was to coralize the link in his slashdot post.
I'm worried about the delay, though. When I'm expecting an email, or ask somebody to email me something, say, over the phone, I don't want a 1-hour delay.
5 minutes might be more tolerable, but 1 hour is just too long. And since the delay is on the client-side, I doubt there is any way to control it.
Perhaps there is currently (or could be) an extension or method via SMTP to specify how long the remote PC should wait to try again? One would expect that even a 1-minute try-again-later would be just as effective as 1-hour for blocking spam, since the whole idea is that spam won't retry at all.
Instead of blindly insulting me, perhaps you could back up the insult and grace us with your reasoning as to WHY I am a moron? Do you not feel that a fully loaded blade chassis would break a teraflop?
They claim that the MediaMVP is a linux box running with an IBM PowerPC. Wouldn't there be enough power on the PowerPC to decode MPEG-4 in realtime, or is it a really slow PPC?
If B is acting as a go-between between A and C, that is wasted bandwidth. As a general P2P app, it is destined to fail if this go-between behaviour is supposed to happen with any regularity.
Yep, and even the xbox 360 clocks in at 1 teraflop, though that is for CPU + GPU.
Either way, even with regular machines I would imagine that a 3U or 4U blade chassis would have WAY more than a teraflop. And it takes up less than 10% of one rack, not a whole room.
The Anandtech article brings up one important point that everybody else here seems to miss; CrossFire is not only about multi-GPU rendering.
CrossFire contains a rather neat implementation of multi-GPU antialiasing that provides double the samples compared to single-card anti-aliasing. This works on all games, even those that don't work with normal multi-GPU acceleration, or those that don't see any benefit.
The new CrossFire AA features not only normal AA (8x or 12x) but the first implementation of super-sampling AA on a modern card. ATI is actually doing a mixed mode, where you get 8x or 12x multisampling AA, and 2x rotated-grid supersampled AA. This will be, of course, the highest quality AA we've seen in videocards to date. It will help with things like the chain link fences in HL2, since it will antialias the whole scene (including textures) instead of just polygon edges.
I highly reccomend people read the Anandtech article and check it out. Interesting stuff.
My experience was indeed MySQL based. But it was a very low-end server.
When I was worrying about such things, it was cheaper to get 4 low-end servers than one high-end as you described. Of course it's a bitch to manage multiple servers instead of just one.
And of course 100k pageviews per day (Which eventually grew to 300k on a different server) simply didn't justify anything more than a low-end server.
That's exactly what I mean though. Heavy traffic means different things to different people, and you can't just say "What do I need to handle heavy traffic" and get answers that are relevant.
Not ONLY does it depend on how MUCH heavy traffic is, it depends on WHAT you're doing. A simple page that makes a few database queries is going to be a lot faster than a complex page with a bunch of very complex queries that does a lot of mangling with the data returned.
It's dangerous thinking, though, to take the number of pageviews one gets in a day and divide by number of seconds to get a pageview-per-second value. Bursts of visitors and hourly traffic patterns make such calculations useless.
I was dealing with something like 150k pageviews per day. I considered that heavy at the time, because in my circumstances it was; it was eating up about 2000GB/mth of traffic, and during peak times was using up most of my serving resources. But look at somebody in your position, who receives 8000 hits per second, which to you is heavy traffic.
You're really supporting my point, which is that heavy means different things to different people doing different things;)
Interestingly, Samsung just announced that they are dropping the price for an 8gbit nand flash chip (That's 1GB) from $56 US to $30 US. Obviously if Samsung is selling it for that, it costs them quite a bit less to make.
For 16GB, that would be $480. Very expensive compared to regular HDDs, but quite reasonable considering $480 would have bought you 1GB a short few years ago.
If Samsung bundles 16 of these things (or 8 of the newer 16gbit chips) and sells them much closer to margin (Making money on the drive rather than the chips), they could pull this off as something people might buy. I could see them selling the 16GB drive for $300 or under (or at least it's possible), which would place it in line with a mid to high end platter-based drive.
The company went out of business because somebody dropped a DVD? That makes no sense. What happened to the companies dozens or hundreds of other DVD backups? What happened to the company's data on the production servers that had just been backed up? How did simply dropping a DVD get it so scratched that it couldn't even be resurfaced?
Your story strikes me as highly unlikely. Your story requires us to believe that the company backed up their data on to DVD, and while the backup was being walked the the vault, had a catastrophic system failure. After that happened, whoever was carrying the DVD dropped it, and somehow scratched it badly enough that it couldn't be resurfaced. Since the company had never done any backups before, all was lost.
Did this company really have a system failure while carrying the DVD to the "vault"? Did really drag the DVD around on the ground long enough to seriously scratch it? Did they then refuse to pay a few cents to have it resurfaced? Did they really not have any other backups?
It seems to me like such a company deserved to be bankrupt through gross stupidity.
Slashdot Mirror
Like it or not the internet as we know it is made possible by online advertising. The vast majority of free sites out there, slashdot included, rely on advertisements to pay the bills.
Google, for example, would not exist in it's current form if it weren't for AdSense, which now makes up most (Or nearly all?) of their profit. AdSense advertisements are what keeps us in the cool free google products.
Without online advertising, the internet would be a hollow shell of it's present self, with VERY few of the sites that you know and love today.
Insane? No... Without considering extras it is not that much more expensive than the PetaBox solution.
I realize that you still need a computer, however you can hook up multiple XServe RAIDs to a single server via a fibre switch. I guess it comes down to bandwidth; if you load up an rack with 13 XServe RAIDs, 1 fibre switch, and then 1 server, you'll have 72.8TB in the rack, yes, but you'd be limited to whatever the max bandwidth of that one server is. Probably 1 or 2 gigabits, though you could go for something more customized.
Regardless, the XServes would still be immensely more reliable than the PetaBox nodes. If you want maximum uptime and reliability, then PetaBox is a disaster waiting to happen, unless they use software mirroring. And you'd have higher admin time for replacements, and worse management/monitoring tools.
True on those points, but racks and cabling can be had cheap, though fibre switches might drive up the cost.
You'd actually need 275 xserves to do the 1.5PB. According to apple it is typical for that many machines to need about 83kW, as opposed to the petabyte's 50kW. However the xserve uses less space, so what is more expensive, space or power? Usually the answer is space, from what I understand, but I guess it depends. As a totally apples to oranges comparison, where I live in residential power costs the difference (33kW) would be $1425 per month US. That much money barely buys any rack space, so I would say it is highly likely the xserves cost less to run even though they use more power.
As for cost per gig, with Apple the cost per gig for the 400GB drives is way less than the cost per gig with the 250GB drives. So the bigger drives cost less per gig, and at the same time require less space and power. It is a win/win/win situation. If you are referring to the cost of bare drives, the cost per gig at 400GB doesn't seem to be terribly more than at 250GB, but it depends on so many factors (Brand/store/specs/etc).
Has nobody noticed that this solution isn't really any better than competing solutions?
Take Apple XServe for example. Whereas the PetaBox is $2/GB, Apple's much more advanced (much more reliable and redundant) solution costs only $2.27/GB... And I bet that if you were buying XServes in groups of 12 to match the 64TB PetaBox offering, Apple would give you a bulk discount taking it down to $2 or under.
I say more advanced because Apple's solution supports 2gbit fibre channels, hardware RAID, redundant PSUs, cache battery backup, redundant cooling, and the PSUs and hard drives are hotswap.
Oh, and while the Petabox is 1.6TB per 1U, Apple's solution is ~1.9TB per 1U (5.6 in 3U).
So, it would seem that in all respects, Apple's XServe is immensely superior. Price is only slightly higher and the bulk discounts that you could probably get in order to match the PetaBox offerings would probably make it no more expensive.
So what is special about this PetaBox stuff? Why would anybody buy it? How can they claim to be the best when they are clearly not? Why do we CARE about it? Why did archive.org choose it?
Look at the section you quoted. Taken alone it supports my statement. The section prohibits distribution (uploading), not appropriation (downloading). In fact it makes NO mention of appropriation. It forbids selling, renting, distributing, or publicly exhibiting. It makes no mention of acquiring.
If that section is the sole definition of infringement of copyright, as one would expect it to be by the text "It is an infringement of copyright for any person to", downloading movies and games is NOT infringement of copyright.
It might be prohibited under law by other sections, but clearly it isn't copyright infringement. Try again.
Oh yes, food stamps and video games are on the same plane of "need". Clearly a bright one you are.
Did I say they were? I was simply pointing out that your argument didn't make sense. This particular section of your argument seems to mark the disadvantaged as "unworthy" of a good quality of life. Entertainment is part of a good quality of life, and I think it's obvious that the pursuit of happiness isn't going to happen when you spend every single moment of your life eating, working, and sleeping.
Your definition does not enter into this discussion at all. Piracy is NOT what you have "defined" it as. Piracy has two meanings, the first has to do with treason on the high seas, and the second has to do with theft of intellectual property. You may or may not be confusing piracy with this thing called "theft". As an aside, you are guilty of theft. You have stolen intellectual property from someone.
Fine. I'll conceed that my definition of piracy doesn't matter. It's just a word, and its application to an action is meaningless in and of itself. It is the action itself that deserves judgement, not the label you put on it. This is where we differ in opinion. I feel that if an act of piracy causes no harm, it is not immoral. Thankfully, where I live, that is NOT against the law, and is currently perfectly legal, according to the Supreme Court of Canada. Before telling me how bad I am for breaking the law, ensure that I am actually breaking the law.
I think what you fail to understand here is that property and intellectual property are not different things. This is my point, and this is what you don't understand. If you say it is okay to steal the intellectual property inherent in a video game, where does it stop?
They clearly are two different things. One is a tangible object with physical value. The other is an intangible object with no physical value.
If I steal 1000 CDs from a record shop and burn them all, I have caused real damage. If I download a thousand copies of a CD and then delete them all, there is no monetary damage caused. You would seem to claim that these are the same thing, but their vastly different effects would seem to indicate otherwise.
another aside: you probably have a superiority complex. Previous comments you've made included you calling people demeaning names. I hope you feel yourself pushed up as you push anonymous internet strangers down
Says the individual who called me a "pinko commie bastard". Nice bit of hypocracy there. Do I have a superiority complex? Damned if I know, I'm not qualified to evaluate that. I might very well indeed. Of course, you are the one using demeaning names that insult several different groups, and condemning me as being immoral. I think you've got the situation reversed.
See a movie on your computer and if you like it buy it or go to the theater? Download an e-book and if you like it, read it? You are above the general economy that is built on intellectual property?
To a certain extent, yes. I feel that I have the right to make informed purchases, and I intend to take appropriate steps to ensure that. Luckily, I can legally do that in my country of residence. This may change in the future so that I can no longer do it legally. At that time, my income will have likely grown beyond that of a student, so I will not have to resort to this methodology.
-- if you think the business model that you've proposed makes sense for games, then you think it makes sense for IP in general. The fact is, nobody gives a hoot what you think is moral or not, the law is quite clear.
You've hit it on the nail exactly. I do think that the business model I've proposed works for IP in general. And the major corporations would seem to agree with me. Apple's iTunes music store is based on just this business model, and it is doing phenomenally well. Most major media-related IP is expected to move entirely to this business model at some point in the future.
This is flawed logic. You are placing anything that isn't tangible into a category and saying anything in this category is okay to steal. A lot of software pirates do this.
No, I'm saying that stealing it has no effect.
Wow. This "can't" be seen as piracy? I beg to differ, it certainly can, and does. And if you wanted to try the game out, that is entirely up to the game company to allow. You do not somehow fall inside the bounds of morality because you say that what you are doing gives the company free advertising.
How does one define piracy? I define it as an act of stealing that causes loss or damage. If somebody isn't going to buy a product for previously mentioned reasons, they're not causing any loss or damage; the result to the software developer is absolutely nothing. It makes no difference one way or another.
That is the biggest bunch of hogwash I've ever heard. You are putting rich people up to a different standard than poor people? (I say rich and poor meaning those who can afford and those who can't). Isn't that the whole point of capitalism? If you work hard and build up wealth, then you get more options then a person who has not built up this wealth. What you are proposing is that both rich and poor shall get the same treatment and product, but the rich must pay and the poor are allowed not to. Go back to Russia you pinko commie bastard.
Perhaps it helps that I don't think in the perversely capitalistic mindset that the US does (I have no idea if you are American or not). I do know that I live in Canada, a country that is significantly further to the socialist end of the spectrum than the US. However, what you say just doesn't make sense. By your logic, the poor should not get food stamps because that is treating them differently. By golly, the poor should not get food stamps or be allowed to use soup kitchens, or benefit from charity, because that would defeat the purpose of working hard and building up wealth! Food should be reserved for those who have lots of money!
You see why your argument doesn't make any sense.
I would also like to point out that Russia isn't a communist state (Perhaps you meant China), but it's obvious that those still shaking their fists at "those damned ruskie bastards" are beyond reasoning.
The problem is that, as you point out yourself, that logic only works for physical products.
If an 8 year old pirates a game that he could never afford, it costs the game maker nothing; it is essentially not piracy, because it has not caused a loss of sale. There is zero impact. The 8 year old boy has not done anything that would affect anybody else in any manner.
However, while it can't be seen as piracy, it can be seen as free marketing; while that 8 year old might not be able to afford games now, he may be able to in several years. The game he "pirated" years earlier might have an impact on what he chooses to purchase years later.
It is a different story for those who CAN afford products, use them regularly, but don't buy them. I don't pretend to condone that, and that is why I avoid that situation whenever possible. I have purchased every game that I have played for an appreciable amount of time for the last several years, because I can afford it.
Same here. When I was younger with no income I pirated every game I played. Once I started making money I started buying games. Had I not pirated those games earlier, it's unlikely that I would be as much of a gamer today as I was back then.
In other words, pirating those early games that I never would have purchased has resulted in actual income for the industry. They should have encouraged it. Some did, by providing good quality demos and shareware.
I purchased UT2004 solely based on my experience with the demo. Had there been no demo, as is the case for many games, I would never have purchased it. Take Warcraft 3 for example. I pirated it shortly before it's release, and loved it. As a result, I purchased it. Had I not initially pirated it, I would NOT have purchased it several days later.
I would be more worried about running a well dry, though. But wouldn't the pump cost more to run than the municipal water would? Water is pretty cheap here (Hydro, and we sell off excess to the US), as is electricity, but to be somewhere that has it's own well, I'd imagine electricity wouldn't be very cheap at all.
Icewater is fine and dandy, but very difficult to obtain in sufficient quantities.
Now, if you simply take the hose and, instead of dunking it in the garbage can, just attach it to a faucet. Turn on the cold water and you have an infinite supply of cool water for your cooling.
It depends on where you live though. It shouldn't be any more expensive than watering your lawn, but some places have watering restrictions or expensive water. I'm lucky that where I live the water is extremely cheap and there are no restrictions on use.
I would imagine that the fact that the water isn't quite as cool could be offset by the fact that by using a faucet you can get much faster water flow. it'd really depend on how expensive your water is. If it's really cheap, you can just open the tap full bore and let the thing cool as much as it can. If your water is more expensive, you might want to restrict the flow.
Still, where I live, tapwater makes more sense than a garbage can full of icewater.
He should teach himself about slashdotting. The idiot managed to slashdot himself. When somebody ELSE slashdots you, it's obvious that you can't prepare. But when you are submitting your own story, there is no excuse for not preparing. The least he could have done was to coralize the link in his slashdot post.
That would solve the problem, because if you wanted somebody to send you something you could just mail them and tell them to reply to it.
I'm worried about the delay, though. When I'm expecting an email, or ask somebody to email me something, say, over the phone, I don't want a 1-hour delay.
5 minutes might be more tolerable, but 1 hour is just too long. And since the delay is on the client-side, I doubt there is any way to control it.
Perhaps there is currently (or could be) an extension or method via SMTP to specify how long the remote PC should wait to try again? One would expect that even a 1-minute try-again-later would be just as effective as 1-hour for blocking spam, since the whole idea is that spam won't retry at all.
Instead of blindly insulting me, perhaps you could back up the insult and grace us with your reasoning as to WHY I am a moron? Do you not feel that a fully loaded blade chassis would break a teraflop?
They claim that the MediaMVP is a linux box running with an IBM PowerPC. Wouldn't there be enough power on the PowerPC to decode MPEG-4 in realtime, or is it a really slow PPC?
If B is acting as a go-between between A and C, that is wasted bandwidth. As a general P2P app, it is destined to fail if this go-between behaviour is supposed to happen with any regularity.
Yep, and even the xbox 360 clocks in at 1 teraflop, though that is for CPU + GPU.
Either way, even with regular machines I would imagine that a 3U or 4U blade chassis would have WAY more than a teraflop. And it takes up less than 10% of one rack, not a whole room.
Of course, maybe they meant REALLY small rooms.
The Anandtech article brings up one important point that everybody else here seems to miss; CrossFire is not only about multi-GPU rendering.
CrossFire contains a rather neat implementation of multi-GPU antialiasing that provides double the samples compared to single-card anti-aliasing. This works on all games, even those that don't work with normal multi-GPU acceleration, or those that don't see any benefit.
The new CrossFire AA features not only normal AA (8x or 12x) but the first implementation of super-sampling AA on a modern card. ATI is actually doing a mixed mode, where you get 8x or 12x multisampling AA, and 2x rotated-grid supersampled AA. This will be, of course, the highest quality AA we've seen in videocards to date. It will help with things like the chain link fences in HL2, since it will antialias the whole scene (including textures) instead of just polygon edges.
I highly reccomend people read the Anandtech article and check it out. Interesting stuff.
My experience was indeed MySQL based. But it was a very low-end server.
When I was worrying about such things, it was cheaper to get 4 low-end servers than one high-end as you described. Of course it's a bitch to manage multiple servers instead of just one.
And of course 100k pageviews per day (Which eventually grew to 300k on a different server) simply didn't justify anything more than a low-end server.
That's exactly what I mean though. Heavy traffic means different things to different people, and you can't just say "What do I need to handle heavy traffic" and get answers that are relevant.
;)
Not ONLY does it depend on how MUCH heavy traffic is, it depends on WHAT you're doing. A simple page that makes a few database queries is going to be a lot faster than a complex page with a bunch of very complex queries that does a lot of mangling with the data returned.
It's dangerous thinking, though, to take the number of pageviews one gets in a day and divide by number of seconds to get a pageview-per-second value. Bursts of visitors and hourly traffic patterns make such calculations useless.
I was dealing with something like 150k pageviews per day. I considered that heavy at the time, because in my circumstances it was; it was eating up about 2000GB/mth of traffic, and during peak times was using up most of my serving resources. But look at somebody in your position, who receives 8000 hits per second, which to you is heavy traffic.
You're really supporting my point, which is that heavy means different things to different people doing different things
It is impossible to answer your question unless you define "heavy" traffic.
Some people might consider a hundred thousand pageviews per day to be heavy. Others might consider a million pageviews per day to be heavy.
From experience a hundred thousand for a reasonable application can be handled on one server. A million would probably require 2 to 4.
Interestingly, Samsung just announced that they are dropping the price for an 8gbit nand flash chip (That's 1GB) from $56 US to $30 US. Obviously if Samsung is selling it for that, it costs them quite a bit less to make.
For 16GB, that would be $480. Very expensive compared to regular HDDs, but quite reasonable considering $480 would have bought you 1GB a short few years ago.
If Samsung bundles 16 of these things (or 8 of the newer 16gbit chips) and sells them much closer to margin (Making money on the drive rather than the chips), they could pull this off as something people might buy. I could see them selling the 16GB drive for $300 or under (or at least it's possible), which would place it in line with a mid to high end platter-based drive.
But hundreds of millions of dollars Lucas and Fox will make, regardless of piracy it will. The loss of a few thousand dollars a problem is not.
The company went out of business because somebody dropped a DVD? That makes no sense. What happened to the companies dozens or hundreds of other DVD backups? What happened to the company's data on the production servers that had just been backed up? How did simply dropping a DVD get it so scratched that it couldn't even be resurfaced?
Your story strikes me as highly unlikely. Your story requires us to believe that the company backed up their data on to DVD, and while the backup was being walked the the vault, had a catastrophic system failure. After that happened, whoever was carrying the DVD dropped it, and somehow scratched it badly enough that it couldn't be resurfaced. Since the company had never done any backups before, all was lost.
Did this company really have a system failure while carrying the DVD to the "vault"? Did really drag the DVD around on the ground long enough to seriously scratch it? Did they then refuse to pay a few cents to have it resurfaced? Did they really not have any other backups?
It seems to me like such a company deserved to be bankrupt through gross stupidity.