You think that the language choice is what makes or breaks performance at the internet mega-site level? I'm starting to get a suspicion that you might not know what you're talking about.
Aldus lived in a different reality. Mass production was just getting started then, but it's in full-swing now. We're really good at making things but not as good at repairing things. That should make sense - you can automate making because it's the same every time. You cannot automate repairing because different things break, or the same thing breaks but in different ways.
This is the same principle that leads to things like 0-ohm resistors. The gains from automation are so big that they swamp any extra cost here and there for extra components, etc.
It used to take days of labor to make a sock and hours to mend one. Now it takes seconds of labor to make one and... hours to mend one. Replacing instead of repairing isn't wasteful, it's efficient.
The problem with setting up your own FTP server (and all the other services you'll need) isn't *expense*. It's *expertise*. Now, if you don't HAVE the expertise, then it's pretty expensive because you need to hire someone, or deal with the costly results of trying when you don't know how (i.e., getting hacked).
Well, that's your theory. Another theory would be that users upgrade because the new stuff isn't "shiny," it's faster, lighter, higher resolution has a better camera and is in all ways better.
That's MY theory, and it has the advantage of explaining the fact that folks with replaceable batteries upgrade at pretty much the same rate. You know, my theory fits the data.
Your theory lets you hate Apple and feel superior to iOS owners though, so I guess it fits your needs well enough even if it doesn't fit the data..
No one's got in-house talent for everything. If you're a media company, are you really going to do a better job of putting together a cloud to host your stuff than a dedicated cloud provider does?
Do you fix your own car and cook your own food? Did you BUILD your own car and GROW your own food? Do you understand comparative advantage at all?
What does "testosterone-fueled haze" even MEAN? Like, if I wanted to get into one, what would I have to do? Other than be male, which presumably our heroic REAL software engineers already are?
Are you suggesting that this mythical beast of "brogrammer" is injecting testosterone hormone?
Or is the simple act of going to the gym sufficient to produce the "haze?" How much gym is necessary? Is it possible to be in shape but avoid the "haze?"
Or is this just a bunch of fucking name-calling nonsense?
Ugh - false dichotomy. Woz and Jobs were both necessary. Take one out of the equation and there's no Apple, period.
We might as well argue whether sodium or chlorine is the "hero element" in salt.
Yes. We do need real data to test the hypotheses that the helmets are helping or that rule changes have made things better.
It's called science. You get baseline data, form hypotheses, change things, and then test the change in outcome. If you don't like or understand science that's cool, but you're in the wrong place.
A market economy working would be where airlines advertised the experience levels of their pilots and customers chose between more experience and cheaper flights. This isn't that. This is the government choosing a new equilibrium for everyone. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but it's pretty obviously not market economy at work.
You're a partisan hack. The change came before the election and probably would have come regardless of who was in charge. The FAR/AIM was a pretty fucking long document back when Bush II was in charge, and it was pretty long when Bush I was in charge and it was pretty long when Reagan was in charge...
Are you sure that trains are more viable? The US is pretty big. We have a lot of rail, but we use it for freight. We could use it for transport too, but we'd probably have to lay more (and better) track. That means buying land and building track. What land, and track where? Should we build up the route from Detroit to Pittsburgh? Would have made sense 40 years ago, but probably not today. California wants to build a route between SF (and Silicon Valley) and LA. That seems to make sense now, but will it make sense in 20 years if/when the rail is actually complete?
By comparison, say you wanted to increase the routes between SF and LA by air. You'd just fly more planes. Maybe SFO or LAX would need to build an extension to a terminal or add a parking garage, but the cost of that should be nothing compared with 500 miles of high-speed rail, right? You probably don't even need new runways - just run the route with larger planes.
Trains are awesome and they're obviously a major part of transit in high-density areas like NYC and most of Europe. Air travel has advantages though. You don't need to build jetways in the sky to add capacity. If you want to get from NYC to London or LA to Sydney, trains just don't seem like a good decision. Planes fly around mountains, but rail has to go (expensively) through them. Etc, etc.
There are. There are restricted airspaces around most military bases. DC is a special flight rules area. There are restrictions against flying too close to Airforce 1 or 2, flying over DisneyLand, over NFL stadiums during games, etc.
The airspaces in question are monitored by RADAR and if need be enforced by... well you don't want to find out.
There are tons of buildings that aren't covered by such restricted airspaces of course, but then again there are tons of buildings without car bomb barriers too.
Just about every GA craft has a radio (or, more likely, multiple radios). The ones that don't are generally really old or experimental or otherwise special. It's like asking if it should be a requirement that cars have a third brake light. Almost a ll do, only in special circumstances would one be absent.
That said, radio-less flight is allowed in certain low activity airports (you could never land at LAX without a radio). Navigational charts will show areas where skydiving takes place, so if the pilot in the radio-less craft has a current chart, he SHOULD know that you're there.
As usual in aviation though - it's best for everyone to keep their heads on a swivel and exercise caution, but it's a big sky which makes it hard to hit things by accident
Your legal brief on this matter seems air-tight. You should contact the judge and inform him that your expertise on the matter is available for his assistance!
For simpler static pages, a visual editor or CMS will probably be faster.
For anything complicated, you'll want to hand-code. The people that write "web applications" with fancy client-side behavior, server-side databases and things like that are going to be hard-coding everything.
It's like the difference between being a dental assistant and a dentist. They're two different jobs in the same field.
The smaller sites that you can throw together with Dreamweaver or a CMS won't pay as well, but they'll be easier to do and it'll probably be easier to self-employ. If you learn how to code instead of point-and-click, you can do a lot more and make a lot more money, but you'll probably end up doing a lot of it on a team.
YMMV, naturally. For me, I'm a software engineer, so I'm more comfortable coding. So much so that I hand-code whenever a small site design project comes my way. It's never been worth the effort for me to get to know any of the WYSIWIG stuff
What's the difference between a corrupt, monopolistic corporation and the corrupt, monopolistic government? If you want to, you can always stop giving your money to the corporation.
Why would Amazon want to take liability for your data's security? I'm sure they do their best to avoid breaches, but it seems to me that if you want a SLA that guarantees security that you should pay them for it (beyond what you're paying for the basic service).
What corporation would ever volunteer to take on extra liability?
Give me the money that has been spent in war and I will clothe every man, woman, and child in an attire of which kings and queens will be proud. I will build a schoolhouse in every valley over the whole earth. I will crown every hillside with a place of worship consecrated to peace. ~Charles Sumner
It'll be a great day when education gets all the money it wants and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy bombers. ~Author unknown, quoted in You Said a Mouthful edited by Ronald D. Fuchs
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron. ~Dwight D. Eisenhower, speech, American Society of Newspaper Editors, 16 April 1953
I'll just leave these in this thread...
Nice sentiments. But far too idealistic and unrealistic. Your problem is, human nature. Those who beat their swords into plowshares will till the soil for those who have not.
Somehow the Swiss seem to manage. They till their own soil and they don't get caught in fucking land wars in Asia. The trick to avoiding super-expensive (in blood and treasure) wars? Quit picking fights! The US military has been involved in operations almost non-stop since WWII, but with the exception of Pearl Harbor, no foreign nation has managed an attack on our borders in over 100 years. If the Department of Defense weren't the Department of Offense, we could save a lot of money.
That's like asking why you'd rent an existing house instead of purchasing a pre-made one, or building one from scratch.
What are your skills? If you can build a house, can you build a better one than the ones available for rent? If not, why would you build your own?
What are your requirements? Do you have 0 children? 3 children? 7 children? Does the amount of people staying in your house vary a lot? If you rent, you can just move to a bigger or smaller house so that you're never too low on rooms and also never paying for an empty room.
Some folks *could* do a better job at the infrastructure level than Amazon. By some, I mean a list of companies that probably could be counted on one hand. Google, Microsoft, IBM, Apple, maybe some others, maybe some of those don't make the list. If you work for somebody not on the list, Amazon is probably going to be better at this than you. Amazon won't be perfect, but they'll be better than you.
Many folks have no idea what their usage is going to be. Is the next game going to be a hit? Is the social site for the TV show going to have heavy traffic during airing hours and none otherwise? Is the business seasonal? For many use cases, we're talking about a house where you mostly have a couple with their child, a few hours a day you have 10 children, and then every so often you'll have a few thousand over. If you're building your own, you'd just have to WAY over purchase capacity in order to avoid the occasional slashdotting. If you're renting, you just launch a bunch more app servers, then release them after the wave. You pay by the hour, or tenth of an hour
What folks are saying is that this isn't a silver bullet. Just because you're in "the cloud" doesn't mean you don't have to think about service levels, redundancy and all that. You still have to do your job - figure out your in-house skills, your budget, your requirements, and solve the problems. It's just that, if you know what you're doing, you can use the cloud to save yourself a fuck-ton of money.
Slashdot Mirror
You think that the language choice is what makes or breaks performance at the internet mega-site level? I'm starting to get a suspicion that you might not know what you're talking about.
Aldus lived in a different reality. Mass production was just getting started then, but it's in full-swing now. We're really good at making things but not as good at repairing things. That should make sense - you can automate making because it's the same every time. You cannot automate repairing because different things break, or the same thing breaks but in different ways.
This is the same principle that leads to things like 0-ohm resistors. The gains from automation are so big that they swamp any extra cost here and there for extra components, etc.
It used to take days of labor to make a sock and hours to mend one. Now it takes seconds of labor to make one and... hours to mend one. Replacing instead of repairing isn't wasteful, it's efficient.
The next one will be way faster and have a better camera and higher resolution and more options, right?
That sounds awful!
The problem with setting up your own FTP server (and all the other services you'll need) isn't *expense*. It's *expertise*. Now, if you don't HAVE the expertise, then it's pretty expensive because you need to hire someone, or deal with the costly results of trying when you don't know how (i.e., getting hacked).
Well, that's your theory. Another theory would be that users upgrade because the new stuff isn't "shiny," it's faster, lighter, higher resolution has a better camera and is in all ways better.
That's MY theory, and it has the advantage of explaining the fact that folks with replaceable batteries upgrade at pretty much the same rate. You know, my theory fits the data.
Your theory lets you hate Apple and feel superior to iOS owners though, so I guess it fits your needs well enough even if it doesn't fit the data..
No one's got in-house talent for everything. If you're a media company, are you really going to do a better job of putting together a cloud to host your stuff than a dedicated cloud provider does?
Do you fix your own car and cook your own food? Did you BUILD your own car and GROW your own food? Do you understand comparative advantage at all?
What does "testosterone-fueled haze" even MEAN? Like, if I wanted to get into one, what would I have to do? Other than be male, which presumably our heroic REAL software engineers already are?
Are you suggesting that this mythical beast of "brogrammer" is injecting testosterone hormone?
Or is the simple act of going to the gym sufficient to produce the "haze?" How much gym is necessary? Is it possible to be in shape but avoid the "haze?"
Or is this just a bunch of fucking name-calling nonsense?
How about you get over YOURSELF, and realize that not everyone's needs are your needs?
Ugh - false dichotomy. Woz and Jobs were both necessary. Take one out of the equation and there's no Apple, period. We might as well argue whether sodium or chlorine is the "hero element" in salt.
Our country has a tradition of bitching about unnecessary restrictions on freedom.
You might say that our preference for freedom is a cause of rather than a result of our first-world status!
Yes. We do need real data to test the hypotheses that the helmets are helping or that rule changes have made things better.
It's called science. You get baseline data, form hypotheses, change things, and then test the change in outcome. If you don't like or understand science that's cool, but you're in the wrong place.
Do you shoot planes that fly over your house too? What personal definition of airspace are you using to justify your vandalism?
A market economy working would be where airlines advertised the experience levels of their pilots and customers chose between more experience and cheaper flights. This isn't that. This is the government choosing a new equilibrium for everyone. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but it's pretty obviously not market economy at work.
You're a partisan hack. The change came before the election and probably would have come regardless of who was in charge. The FAR/AIM was a pretty fucking long document back when Bush II was in charge, and it was pretty long when Bush I was in charge and it was pretty long when Reagan was in charge...
Are you sure that trains are more viable? The US is pretty big. We have a lot of rail, but we use it for freight. We could use it for transport too, but we'd probably have to lay more (and better) track. That means buying land and building track. What land, and track where? Should we build up the route from Detroit to Pittsburgh? Would have made sense 40 years ago, but probably not today. California wants to build a route between SF (and Silicon Valley) and LA. That seems to make sense now, but will it make sense in 20 years if/when the rail is actually complete?
By comparison, say you wanted to increase the routes between SF and LA by air. You'd just fly more planes. Maybe SFO or LAX would need to build an extension to a terminal or add a parking garage, but the cost of that should be nothing compared with 500 miles of high-speed rail, right? You probably don't even need new runways - just run the route with larger planes.
Trains are awesome and they're obviously a major part of transit in high-density areas like NYC and most of Europe. Air travel has advantages though. You don't need to build jetways in the sky to add capacity. If you want to get from NYC to London or LA to Sydney, trains just don't seem like a good decision. Planes fly around mountains, but rail has to go (expensively) through them. Etc, etc.
There are. There are restricted airspaces around most military bases. DC is a special flight rules area. There are restrictions against flying too close to Airforce 1 or 2, flying over DisneyLand, over NFL stadiums during games, etc.
The airspaces in question are monitored by RADAR and if need be enforced by... well you don't want to find out.
There are tons of buildings that aren't covered by such restricted airspaces of course, but then again there are tons of buildings without car bomb barriers too.
Why do you find it so hilarious? Because your favorite logical fallacy is tu quoque and you enjoy the irony of deploying it?
Just about every GA craft has a radio (or, more likely, multiple radios). The ones that don't are generally really old or experimental or otherwise special. It's like asking if it should be a requirement that cars have a third brake light. Almost a ll do, only in special circumstances would one be absent.
That said, radio-less flight is allowed in certain low activity airports (you could never land at LAX without a radio). Navigational charts will show areas where skydiving takes place, so if the pilot in the radio-less craft has a current chart, he SHOULD know that you're there.
As usual in aviation though - it's best for everyone to keep their heads on a swivel and exercise caution, but it's a big sky which makes it hard to hit things by accident
Your legal brief on this matter seems air-tight. You should contact the judge and inform him that your expertise on the matter is available for his assistance!
iToys. Because something *I* like is a tool and something *YOU* like is a toy. Gag me.
For simpler static pages, a visual editor or CMS will probably be faster.
For anything complicated, you'll want to hand-code. The people that write "web applications" with fancy client-side behavior, server-side databases and things like that are going to be hard-coding everything.
It's like the difference between being a dental assistant and a dentist. They're two different jobs in the same field.
The smaller sites that you can throw together with Dreamweaver or a CMS won't pay as well, but they'll be easier to do and it'll probably be easier to self-employ. If you learn how to code instead of point-and-click, you can do a lot more and make a lot more money, but you'll probably end up doing a lot of it on a team.
YMMV, naturally. For me, I'm a software engineer, so I'm more comfortable coding. So much so that I hand-code whenever a small site design project comes my way. It's never been worth the effort for me to get to know any of the WYSIWIG stuff
What's the difference between a corrupt, monopolistic corporation and the corrupt, monopolistic government? If you want to, you can always stop giving your money to the corporation.
Why would Amazon want to take liability for your data's security? I'm sure they do their best to avoid breaches, but it seems to me that if you want a SLA that guarantees security that you should pay them for it (beyond what you're paying for the basic service). What corporation would ever volunteer to take on extra liability?
Give me the money that has been spent in war and I will clothe every man, woman, and child in an attire of which kings and queens will be proud. I will build a schoolhouse in every valley over the whole earth. I will crown every hillside with a place of worship consecrated to peace. ~Charles Sumner
It'll be a great day when education gets all the money it wants and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy bombers. ~Author unknown, quoted in You Said a Mouthful edited by Ronald D. Fuchs
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron. ~Dwight D. Eisenhower, speech, American Society of Newspaper Editors, 16 April 1953
I'll just leave these in this thread...
Nice sentiments. But far too idealistic and unrealistic. Your problem is, human nature. Those who beat their swords into plowshares will till the soil for those who have not.
Somehow the Swiss seem to manage. They till their own soil and they don't get caught in fucking land wars in Asia. The trick to avoiding super-expensive (in blood and treasure) wars? Quit picking fights! The US military has been involved in operations almost non-stop since WWII, but with the exception of Pearl Harbor, no foreign nation has managed an attack on our borders in over 100 years. If the Department of Defense weren't the Department of Offense, we could save a lot of money.
That's like asking why you'd rent an existing house instead of purchasing a pre-made one, or building one from scratch.
What are your skills? If you can build a house, can you build a better one than the ones available for rent? If not, why would you build your own?
What are your requirements? Do you have 0 children? 3 children? 7 children? Does the amount of people staying in your house vary a lot? If you rent, you can just move to a bigger or smaller house so that you're never too low on rooms and also never paying for an empty room.
Some folks *could* do a better job at the infrastructure level than Amazon. By some, I mean a list of companies that probably could be counted on one hand. Google, Microsoft, IBM, Apple, maybe some others, maybe some of those don't make the list. If you work for somebody not on the list, Amazon is probably going to be better at this than you. Amazon won't be perfect, but they'll be better than you.
Many folks have no idea what their usage is going to be. Is the next game going to be a hit? Is the social site for the TV show going to have heavy traffic during airing hours and none otherwise? Is the business seasonal? For many use cases, we're talking about a house where you mostly have a couple with their child, a few hours a day you have 10 children, and then every so often you'll have a few thousand over. If you're building your own, you'd just have to WAY over purchase capacity in order to avoid the occasional slashdotting. If you're renting, you just launch a bunch more app servers, then release them after the wave. You pay by the hour, or tenth of an hour
What folks are saying is that this isn't a silver bullet. Just because you're in "the cloud" doesn't mean you don't have to think about service levels, redundancy and all that. You still have to do your job - figure out your in-house skills, your budget, your requirements, and solve the problems. It's just that, if you know what you're doing, you can use the cloud to save yourself a fuck-ton of money.