There are a few technical problems with getting the algae to grow properly, unfortunately. Theoretically a good idea, pragmatically a little tough to implement. Sad to say, of course.
My point is not that there is a standard and continuous amount of money circulating. It's that the sudden accusations that anyone agreeing with the statement, "Microsoft eats more than its share," is a mercantilist and completely out of date are unwarranted and almost silly. I don't believe in a closed-pie system, but I do believe that the growth of said pie is not always instantaneous in relation to the size of each group consuming said pie. You're both attacking a straw man.
I also consider Microsoft a big proponent of becoming a broken window. They increase the cost of software artificially in an extreme ways, in the name of lining their own coffers. They do it through insider deals, and market strangulation. Overall, they crush a lot of small companies and individuals in the name of concentrating wealth. Which is fine for them, but something I consider morally reprehensible as well as bad for the overall economy.
So that 44 billion dollars that people spend on Microsoft stuff last year (and every year growing) comes from nowhere in any non-mercantile point of view? I have to say, that's just about the most wondrous thing I've ever heard. Can you create 44 billion dollars for me too? Even, say, 4-5 would be fine, I guess, but I'd prefer the big enchilada.
You really think the people in charge of this little venture know that 'mashup' is a word that sometimes doesn't involve food?
Be serious. This isn't going to end YouTube. This might cause a little healthy competition. Honestly, I'm kinda disappointed because YouTube isn't clusterf*d with video ads all the time, and this will be. There's little chance you'll get to watch short clips of pieces of the Daily Show. You'll get to watch the entire thing, and commercials will come with. Lame? Yeah, kinda.
And my bet is their solution will be DRM enhanced. Another little bit of lame.
Around here, C# is a silly thing to ask a question about.
As a side note, if you really want to learn C#, you can just go to M$'s website and poke around. There are piles of tutorials.
I hate to say it, but I don't recommend "Learning C#" from O'Reilly. They're great on lots of other stuff, but that particular book was a good primer on the syntax of C# - which is surely important - and not that great a primer on the actual functionality of Visual Studio. The only great thing about Microsoft development is the tools you have to do it with. Taking full advantage of them is extremely important.
It appears that the NYSE is running a Service Oriented Architecture. That leads to the second question as to which service failed and how to remedy that in the future.... It looks like they are using Java, so I would expect a Linux based architecture, although my searches mentioned IBM's Rational platform. Honestly, the IBM software I'm currently working with (ClearQuest) shows pretty extensive performance issues as well, so I'm not all that surprised.
What does that have to do with Microsoft? And how is that contributing to the problem Bill is whining about? I seem to remember a lawsuit a few years back attacking Microsoft over calling people who weren't engineers engineers. I seem to remember people being encouraged to not finish their CS degree so MS didn't have to pay them as much in the long run. I seem to remember twenty years of vicious market monopoly abuse. Two or three years of giving a little bit back doesn't make up for being a robber baron for twenty. In fact, I don't know if a hundred will, the way the foundation manages itself.
I'm going to grad school. I just have two years of physics, calculus, engineering and chemistry left to catch up on. My GRE scores will expire by then, though. Which is too bad, but then I wouldn't expect to do any worse the second time around.
WTFever. Honestly, I look at a post like that and am mildly incredulous about it.
I didn't do so well at studying in high school. Underachiever is the best word for it, I guess, although I felt I had accomplished things by the time I graduated (including programming Mandelbrot series representations in parallel. Fun stuff, actually) and I ended up not getting into a bunch of schools I wanted to because my grades sucked but my SAT scores were >1430.
My GRE score was a 1550 w/ perfect writing. I didn't even bother applying to grad schools because I knew that my 3.tiny GPA from a state school would hold me back. Getting into a good school is a matter of having good grades and good extracurricular activities. Write an exceptional essay that doesn't read like cardboard for your application.
I'm not really much of a Google fanboy anymore. I'm not saying the Great GOOG isn't a good company, but I'm under the impression they can do more wrong than I thought they could a few years ago. The question was what they got out of their 1.65B. My statement and argument were that it wasn't nothing.
Big companies naturally tend towards stifling development. Stratification comes in quickly, there's not as much motivation to produce quickly and excellently, and the tried and true features absolutely must continue to be pretty compatible with what they were before. GOOG tried to avoid the problems that come with these challenges. They have not, in my opinion, been surpassingly successful. I have hope, but doubt as well.
It's the little stories like this that sadden me quite a bit.
Um.... A little publicity, a little goodwill, ads next to the YouTube content, good programmers, and a method of distribution they consider the future. Not so good on a cash-on-a-barrel level, but quite good for a company with some vision....
Who says Wikipedia doesn't already have a sugar daddy? It's not closed yet. It has made its funding goals every time I've seen it put one up. Noone linked to the Wikipedia Foundation ever said they had fiscal troubles. I mean, it's one of the lowest-rent basic services in the world. I can't imagine one much cheaper. There's not much of a chance it will ever close, without there being a major catastrophe.
Wikipedia has made it this far and I wouldn't bet against it at this point. If it were really close to extinction, I'd give fourty bucks a year at least for the service it provides me, and if there are merely 50,000 people like me it can easily continue operation.
.20$ / gb is a high bandwidth cost. Bulk, wholesale, right off the pipe like Wikipedia pays for it, I'd say something like.01-.03$ / gb. I can buy, pseudo retail, at.045 - and that's expensive. Really very much so. HOWEVER, Wikipedia went through ~192,600$ in staff and power and bandwidth costs in Q4 2006. A huge chunk of that is bandwidth. So yes, it's expensive to run Wikipedia.
If you're transferring more than about 100 GB / month with Amazon, by the way, you're getting ripped off to no end. Buying at end-consumer prices when you shouldn't be.
Doesn't that just mean that services like Akamai's are suddenly much more valuable and necessary? I mean, they've been around for almost ten years, (I think) not a household name, but if suddenly backbone bandwidth becomes extremely expensive it's time for them to get more market saturation.
The physically distributed datacenters being bought up left and right might make a difference too. The way the US is doing things, it will be possible for Comcast or Qwest to build a large datacenter that caches downstream content effectively. Currently, there's no way that as much individualized upstream content is created as downstream. Caching YouTube in a distributed manner is not only possible, but kinda a good idea. The only things that require heavy real-time upstream bandwidth usage are videoconferencing, gaming, and um...... Camho's? I don't know. Can't really think of a third. But the point is that unless media changes in ways that are extremely abnormal compared to current usage, this is a non-issue.
Big, fat, huge undersea network cables that transmit lots and lots of data and can really only be maintained by submarines. Hang around and read enough Slashdot, and you'll see people who know to complain about sharks attacking them if they're not properly shielded.
The likelihood of them being overwhelmed is quite............. silly to contemplate. In reality, the market would adjust, and technology would quickly be built to compensate for it. Google's already prepping.
People who manage are sometimes tards. Ideally, in a streamlined shop, there is a lot of use for data warehousing. Instead, because it's a tech task that can be sold as a big budget increase, it sometimes gets a lot of people working on it and produces huge piles of crud.
If instead of producing reams and reams of reports noone needs, what if the people in charge were capable of and willing to dig into the warehouse and find out what was going right and what was going wrong? Or hire someone to do so? That's what data warehousing would be great for. It's not used that way because of organizational factors, but the fact is that it is a tool, and expanding its usefulness or making it more useful has nothing to do with whether that tool is well used. The best managers I have known are interested in acquiring as much information as possible in an organized format. And redefining the format again and again in the hopes that it means something. Your particular set seems to be more interested in process; that's fine sometimes. But don't assume that that is the way it always goes.
What good is a huge pile of data with no order? Someone has to pay the bills, someone has to see where the profits are, someone has to see which shipments went out late. These are reporting functions. You create data once, but use it many, many times if you are paying attention to it. I'm sorry you feel differently.
Execution of insert queries is extremely important and time sensitive. Execution of everything else is often not quite as mission critical, but it is still important enough to be worthwhile, or noone would do it.
Depends. Reporting and data warehousing are pretty important; Business Objects / Crystal Reports / etc. all seem to be slower than they could. If you were to be able to throw in the rows as quickly as in MySQL or Postgres and then report on it with ten times the efficiency, you've got a decent demand in store for you. If, say, Google or Amazon could run with 1/10th the overall servers I have this feeling they would. Just a guess though. It's always possible a new approach to the old problems has resulted in real performance increase. I have my doubts, but it's a DBMS so noone REALLY gets validated either way for at least a couple years.
Does anyone else think that creating a black hole on earth might be a bad idea? I mean, when you talk about hazardous waste, a black hole is about as hazardous as things get. Could you even theoretically shoot it far enough away from Earth for it to not be dangerous? It just seems that um... Something that naturally grows larger and larger while sucking everything in it into oblivion is something that we should, say, not create on the surface of a planet. At least, not where I live.
Slashdot Mirror
There are a few technical problems with getting the algae to grow properly, unfortunately. Theoretically a good idea, pragmatically a little tough to implement. Sad to say, of course.
My point is not that there is a standard and continuous amount of money circulating. It's that the sudden accusations that anyone agreeing with the statement, "Microsoft eats more than its share," is a mercantilist and completely out of date are unwarranted and almost silly. I don't believe in a closed-pie system, but I do believe that the growth of said pie is not always instantaneous in relation to the size of each group consuming said pie. You're both attacking a straw man.
I also consider Microsoft a big proponent of becoming a broken window. They increase the cost of software artificially in an extreme ways, in the name of lining their own coffers. They do it through insider deals, and market strangulation. Overall, they crush a lot of small companies and individuals in the name of concentrating wealth. Which is fine for them, but something I consider morally reprehensible as well as bad for the overall economy.
What's funny is that you both missed my point entirely. I personally think you're both guilty of broken window fallacies.
So that 44 billion dollars that people spend on Microsoft stuff last year (and every year growing) comes from nowhere in any non-mercantile point of view? I have to say, that's just about the most wondrous thing I've ever heard. Can you create 44 billion dollars for me too? Even, say, 4-5 would be fine, I guess, but I'd prefer the big enchilada.
Um...........
You really think the people in charge of this little venture know that 'mashup' is a word that sometimes doesn't involve food?
Be serious. This isn't going to end YouTube. This might cause a little healthy competition. Honestly, I'm kinda disappointed because YouTube isn't clusterf*d with video ads all the time, and this will be. There's little chance you'll get to watch short clips of pieces of the Daily Show. You'll get to watch the entire thing, and commercials will come with. Lame? Yeah, kinda.
And my bet is their solution will be DRM enhanced. Another little bit of lame.
Around here, C# is a silly thing to ask a question about. As a side note, if you really want to learn C#, you can just go to M$'s website and poke around. There are piles of tutorials. I hate to say it, but I don't recommend "Learning C#" from O'Reilly. They're great on lots of other stuff, but that particular book was a good primer on the syntax of C# - which is surely important - and not that great a primer on the actual functionality of Visual Studio. The only great thing about Microsoft development is the tools you have to do it with. Taking full advantage of them is extremely important.
It appears that the NYSE is running a Service Oriented Architecture. That leads to the second question as to which service failed and how to remedy that in the future.... It looks like they are using Java, so I would expect a Linux based architecture, although my searches mentioned IBM's Rational platform. Honestly, the IBM software I'm currently working with (ClearQuest) shows pretty extensive performance issues as well, so I'm not all that surprised.
What does that have to do with Microsoft? And how is that contributing to the problem Bill is whining about? I seem to remember a lawsuit a few years back attacking Microsoft over calling people who weren't engineers engineers. I seem to remember people being encouraged to not finish their CS degree so MS didn't have to pay them as much in the long run. I seem to remember twenty years of vicious market monopoly abuse. Two or three years of giving a little bit back doesn't make up for being a robber baron for twenty. In fact, I don't know if a hundred will, the way the foundation manages itself.
Of course. But it's so appropriate for this site.
Beowulf clusters aren't drives, they're for distributed processing. Bet you don't know much about beautiful and dangerous women, either. ;)
I just have to say, you undoubtedly have one of the best usernames I've ever seen on Slashdot. Brilliant.
I'm going to grad school. I just have two years of physics, calculus, engineering and chemistry left to catch up on. My GRE scores will expire by then, though. Which is too bad, but then I wouldn't expect to do any worse the second time around.
WTFever. Honestly, I look at a post like that and am mildly incredulous about it.
I didn't do so well at studying in high school. Underachiever is the best word for it, I guess, although I felt I had accomplished things by the time I graduated (including programming Mandelbrot series representations in parallel. Fun stuff, actually) and I ended up not getting into a bunch of schools I wanted to because my grades sucked but my SAT scores were >1430.
My GRE score was a 1550 w/ perfect writing. I didn't even bother applying to grad schools because I knew that my 3.tiny GPA from a state school would hold me back. Getting into a good school is a matter of having good grades and good extracurricular activities. Write an exceptional essay that doesn't read like cardboard for your application.
Using the Great Repository of Knowledge Myspace as a guide, they are apparrently one and the same.
I'm not really much of a Google fanboy anymore. I'm not saying the Great GOOG isn't a good company, but I'm under the impression they can do more wrong than I thought they could a few years ago. The question was what they got out of their 1.65B. My statement and argument were that it wasn't nothing.
Big companies naturally tend towards stifling development. Stratification comes in quickly, there's not as much motivation to produce quickly and excellently, and the tried and true features absolutely must continue to be pretty compatible with what they were before. GOOG tried to avoid the problems that come with these challenges. They have not, in my opinion, been surpassingly successful. I have hope, but doubt as well.
It's the little stories like this that sadden me quite a bit.
Um.... A little publicity, a little goodwill, ads next to the YouTube content, good programmers, and a method of distribution they consider the future. Not so good on a cash-on-a-barrel level, but quite good for a company with some vision....
Who says Wikipedia doesn't already have a sugar daddy? It's not closed yet. It has made its funding goals every time I've seen it put one up. Noone linked to the Wikipedia Foundation ever said they had fiscal troubles. I mean, it's one of the lowest-rent basic services in the world. I can't imagine one much cheaper. There's not much of a chance it will ever close, without there being a major catastrophe.
Wikipedia has made it this far and I wouldn't bet against it at this point. If it were really close to extinction, I'd give fourty bucks a year at least for the service it provides me, and if there are merely 50,000 people like me it can easily continue operation.
.20$ / gb is a high bandwidth cost. Bulk, wholesale, right off the pipe like Wikipedia pays for it, I'd say something like .01-.03$ / gb. I can buy, pseudo retail, at .045 - and that's expensive. Really very much so. HOWEVER, Wikipedia went through ~192,600$ in staff and power and bandwidth costs in Q4 2006. A huge chunk of that is bandwidth. So yes, it's expensive to run Wikipedia.
If you're transferring more than about 100 GB / month with Amazon, by the way, you're getting ripped off to no end. Buying at end-consumer prices when you shouldn't be.
Doesn't that just mean that services like Akamai's are suddenly much more valuable and necessary? I mean, they've been around for almost ten years, (I think) not a household name, but if suddenly backbone bandwidth becomes extremely expensive it's time for them to get more market saturation.
The physically distributed datacenters being bought up left and right might make a difference too. The way the US is doing things, it will be possible for Comcast or Qwest to build a large datacenter that caches downstream content effectively. Currently, there's no way that as much individualized upstream content is created as downstream. Caching YouTube in a distributed manner is not only possible, but kinda a good idea. The only things that require heavy real-time upstream bandwidth usage are videoconferencing, gaming, and um...... Camho's? I don't know. Can't really think of a third. But the point is that unless media changes in ways that are extremely abnormal compared to current usage, this is a non-issue.
Big, fat, huge undersea network cables that transmit lots and lots of data and can really only be maintained by submarines. Hang around and read enough Slashdot, and you'll see people who know to complain about sharks attacking them if they're not properly shielded.
The likelihood of them being overwhelmed is quite............. silly to contemplate. In reality, the market would adjust, and technology would quickly be built to compensate for it. Google's already prepping.
This particular post is one wherein I am disappointed that the mod system only lets you go up to five.
People who manage are sometimes tards. Ideally, in a streamlined shop, there is a lot of use for data warehousing. Instead, because it's a tech task that can be sold as a big budget increase, it sometimes gets a lot of people working on it and produces huge piles of crud.
If instead of producing reams and reams of reports noone needs, what if the people in charge were capable of and willing to dig into the warehouse and find out what was going right and what was going wrong? Or hire someone to do so? That's what data warehousing would be great for. It's not used that way because of organizational factors, but the fact is that it is a tool, and expanding its usefulness or making it more useful has nothing to do with whether that tool is well used. The best managers I have known are interested in acquiring as much information as possible in an organized format. And redefining the format again and again in the hopes that it means something. Your particular set seems to be more interested in process; that's fine sometimes. But don't assume that that is the way it always goes.
Heh.
I'm always amazed at the vehemence.
What good is a huge pile of data with no order? Someone has to pay the bills, someone has to see where the profits are, someone has to see which shipments went out late. These are reporting functions. You create data once, but use it many, many times if you are paying attention to it. I'm sorry you feel differently.
Execution of insert queries is extremely important and time sensitive. Execution of everything else is often not quite as mission critical, but it is still important enough to be worthwhile, or noone would do it.
Depends. Reporting and data warehousing are pretty important; Business Objects / Crystal Reports / etc. all seem to be slower than they could. If you were to be able to throw in the rows as quickly as in MySQL or Postgres and then report on it with ten times the efficiency, you've got a decent demand in store for you. If, say, Google or Amazon could run with 1/10th the overall servers I have this feeling they would. Just a guess though. It's always possible a new approach to the old problems has resulted in real performance increase. I have my doubts, but it's a DBMS so noone REALLY gets validated either way for at least a couple years.
Does anyone else think that creating a black hole on earth might be a bad idea? I mean, when you talk about hazardous waste, a black hole is about as hazardous as things get. Could you even theoretically shoot it far enough away from Earth for it to not be dangerous? It just seems that um... Something that naturally grows larger and larger while sucking everything in it into oblivion is something that we should, say, not create on the surface of a planet. At least, not where I live.