Your last para would be interesting if it applied. I had no stake in the initial attempt, and have come in after the fact on the second.
HTTP being stateless is irrelevant. J2EE containers enable one to simulate state easily and effectively in large scalable architectures, and we do this. It's almost painless. (I'm not familiar enough with PHP to know how effectively this could be done)
As for the "bound to fail" claim, I claimed no such thing. I made the statement that Perl failed us because the maintenance for just about anything started to take more and more time (the general growth of cruft over time issue). I'll state now the same happens with Java/J2EE if care isn't taken, but it seems to happen at a much slower rate, especially if the original design is sound.
I noticed that you completely glossed over the multiple DB type and DBs themselves. That issue is a pita within Perl, but can be handled. J2EE makes handling that scenario trivial. For this use case, J2EE is far superior to Perl.
Wrongo. The root problem lay in the fact that the actual layout of dynamic items changes on a regular basis, and large parts are multiple DB driven, across multiple pages for a single transaction.
Layout is partially data driven, and changes in data necessitate changes in code
For forum type things, where the content is data driven, but the layout is static, Perl/PHP/etc are great. Same box, over and over again. Perfect solution. Forums are also a nice example of largely stateless connections, again lending itself to LAMP. Other commercial sites aren't.
When you have roughly 26 pieces of data describing a single transaction, and those pieces of data refer to other pieces of data (objects, cached, for performance reasons) all of a sudden, Perl etc aren't the cornucopia they're made out to be.
We would agree on the point of lack of designers/builders skills, though we disagree that it's acceptable for the first few apps to be dogfood. Hire someone who knows something, and mentor your newbies.
On the other hand, I'm working for a household-name client now that's banned Java across the board because they got sick of the 'buy more chips' solution to performance problems. Acceptable platforms: LAMP and.NET
That just cracks me up. Must not be a large-scale operation. Seriously, my shop, another household name that's huge, used to run a Perl based site. They switched to Java, with better results and less hardware. Scalability really isn't an issue, at least not from the front-end. DB... well, that's another question.
As for.NET, I know that Ebay converted to it, and their site has blown chunks ever since. Connections sporadically time out, things are lost, direct links are sometimes broken. I wish they'd stayed with whatever they were running.
try maintaining a large commercial website in something non-structured such as Perl/PHP. Yick! (Been there, have the T-shirt and a really bad taste...)
Don't get me wrong, Perl and PHP have their uses, but running large commercial websites is not their strong suite, at least not with the additional maintenance requirements on ours.
Tell me about it. Looks like the PR campaign ("Fear Fear Fear Terror Terror Terror War War War" worked).
On the other hand, note that this sitting president won by 1 or 2% of the vote, which by no means is a mandate. (And that's not even been fully certified, as far as I know. Be interesting if those Diebold machines wind up having given a key state to Bush.)
if they finally did find the actual atlantis. They believe they've found the real Troy, finding the real Atlantis will hopefully put much speculation to rest.
Personally, I'm just eager to see what they find, if it is found. Ancient archeological surprises are pretty cool, as it always astounds me how relatively advanced some of these civilizations were, to only fall back into ignorance before we finally moved into the modern age.
With a deal with Comcast that places their box directly into homes without the specter of competition, MS is a shoe in for a large percentage of homes if this is exclusive. If people have to pay extra for it, MS may not "win". Comcast does already have a DVR offering at the moment, after all.
As the previous 2 posters noted, There are independent 66MHz 64-bit PCI buses. That will get you quite high up the bandwidth - about 528 MB/s. So, the PCI bottle neck is a myth for those into serious hardware.
Also, while the interface supports up to 150MB/s on SATA, the most that will be downloaded at that speed is 8MB (the cache size on most drives in that category) and that's theoretical, as the entire cache would have to be "hit" to support that, and there's the issue of the cache speed, and whether the cache on the drive supports that throughput. More realistically, the actual bottleneck will be the platter to external transfer rate, which more than likely falls below 40MB/s on those "150MB/s" interface drives.
On the other hand, with SCSI and a good RAID controller, you can actually load a SCSI channel for the full theoretical throughput via careful design. For instance, my Mylex 3 channel 1164 card can support 240 MB/s continuous throughput in it's current configuration with 16 LVD drives attached in 2 RAID 5 sets. (RAID 50, that's cool - 2 raid 5 stripe sets striped across 3 SCSI channels). What's even better is that SCSI supports multiple simultaneous file access, including large file transfers, without a hiccup.
I've yet to find out whether SATA drives finally overcome the multiple queue request problems of PATA drives, which in my view are merely good for average PCs or mass storage (my main use).
I agree that the linked article was a little light.
It definitely won't quell the creationists, because nothing ever will. You cannot prove the nonexistence of god, because it is virtually impossible to prove a negative. All you can hope to do is to force a retreat into "god worked through evolution over millions of years", and be happy that they at least acknowledge evolution and the timeline.
It's similar to a delusional person who thinks donning tin foil hats prevent alien brain control, nothing you say or show them will persuade them otherwise. (They're not under alien control: it's working!;)
I'd question the sanity of a corporation throwing "advertising" dollars into musical venues, etc, that are money losers. They're basically venture capitalists trying to create money where there is none. And if you don't think money put into a band isn't speculative, you're insane. It's the same thing as backing a startup, you get lucky some of the time, but certainly not all. A 10% success rate would be excellent.
On the other side, true artists generally aren't concerned about making $100M. They're concerned about creating what they love. Those that do "art" as a job aren't artists, in general. (IMNSHO)
As for your assertion about "music creation" being a business, maybe that's why so much of that "created music" sucks and is a money loser.
Actually, I believe "Green Day" is a perfect example of a band that falls into your almost slanderous
The only artists creating for the sake of creation are those sitting in their garages, having spent all their own money on all their own equipment, playing for their 6 stoned friends on the couch.
They really created their music for themselves, they were popular enough in their locale that they started generating buzz, and then, after they'd already done a lot of self-promotion, an RIAA entity had an epihpany and thought they could squeeze lots of cash out of them. And they did. Green Day by no means is the only one.
As for an RIAA entity earning back their cash, that's truly asking for crocodile tears.
You're under a miconception: RIAA et al, aka the music industry, doesn't produce a thing in the sense of creating music. They're manufacturers and distributers. The artists are the producers.
So, yes, Sony is directly competing with the manufacturing and distribution network of the pirates. Now, if the pirates are making $1B/yr+ with their manufacturing/distribution system, perhaps Sony et al should revise where they are spending their money, unless, of course, it's all profit. (Yes, there's the additional cost of paying the artist, but that piddling amount pales in comparison to the cost of a CD)
Reminds me more of one of several Star Trek episodes, namely the one where two worlds had computerized war and the people would be "dead" and walk over to the "vaporization" chamber.
Let's see - I'm going to blackmail a candidate to come onto my noted openly hostile station for a grilling, or I'll show this "documentary".
Sinclair claims this is a newsworthy documentary. If it's so newsworthy, then it will be equally newsworthy on Nov 3.
They only have one goal, either way - to malign Kerry. To think anything else is misguided at best. Do note that they refused to give Kerry the same 90 minute window. (Perhaps he would have shown F9-11?)
No they didn't. They sold the demo to IBM prior to obtaining the rights to SCP QDOS. Now, if you're talking about selling it to end-users, that's a different story and I'd agree with your statement.
What a conundrum. On this score, I'd have to agree that if anyone is to regulate the VoIP market, it should be at the federal level. I actually agree with his statement that otherwise you'd get a patchwork of regs, which would be bad.
On the other hand, this is the same FCC that hasn't moved an inch on Sinclair's intended abuse of the airwaves, is working incredibly hard to remove that "obscene" breast (that'd be the same breast most babies see multiple times a day!) from TV, and does other sundry things.
Comparing free enterprise Java to the $100 home user version is like... well, there's no comparison. One's an enterprise level free software package, the other is $100+ of not enterprise level software package.
Slashdot Mirror
Your last para would be interesting if it applied. I had no stake in the initial attempt, and have come in after the fact on the second.
HTTP being stateless is irrelevant. J2EE containers enable one to simulate state easily and effectively in large scalable architectures, and we do this. It's almost painless. (I'm not familiar enough with PHP to know how effectively this could be done)
As for the "bound to fail" claim, I claimed no such thing. I made the statement that Perl failed us because the maintenance for just about anything started to take more and more time (the general growth of cruft over time issue). I'll state now the same happens with Java/J2EE if care isn't taken, but it seems to happen at a much slower rate, especially if the original design is sound.
I noticed that you completely glossed over the multiple DB type and DBs themselves. That issue is a pita within Perl, but can be handled. J2EE makes handling that scenario trivial. For this use case, J2EE is far superior to Perl.
Wrongo. The root problem lay in the fact that the actual layout of dynamic items changes on a regular basis, and large parts are multiple DB driven, across multiple pages for a single transaction.
Layout is partially data driven, and changes in data necessitate changes in code
For forum type things, where the content is data driven, but the layout is static, Perl/PHP/etc are great. Same box, over and over again. Perfect solution. Forums are also a nice example of largely stateless connections, again lending itself to LAMP. Other commercial sites aren't.
When you have roughly 26 pieces of data describing a single transaction, and those pieces of data refer to other pieces of data (objects, cached, for performance reasons) all of a sudden, Perl etc aren't the cornucopia they're made out to be.
We would agree on the point of lack of designers/builders skills, though we disagree that it's acceptable for the first few apps to be dogfood. Hire someone who knows something, and mentor your newbies.
On the other hand, I'm working for a household-name client now that's banned Java across the board because they got sick of the 'buy more chips' solution to performance problems. Acceptable platforms: LAMP and .NET
That just cracks me up. Must not be a large-scale operation. Seriously, my shop, another household name that's huge, used to run a Perl based site. They switched to Java, with better results and less hardware. Scalability really isn't an issue, at least not from the front-end. DB... well, that's another question.
As for .NET, I know that Ebay converted to it, and their site has blown chunks ever since. Connections sporadically time out, things are lost, direct links are sometimes broken. I wish they'd stayed with whatever they were running.
try maintaining a large commercial website in something non-structured such as Perl/PHP. Yick! (Been there, have the T-shirt and a really bad taste...)
Don't get me wrong, Perl and PHP have their uses, but running large commercial websites is not their strong suite, at least not with the additional maintenance requirements on ours.
Tell me about it. Looks like the PR campaign ("Fear Fear Fear Terror Terror Terror War War War" worked).
On the other hand, note that this sitting president won by 1 or 2% of the vote, which by no means is a mandate. (And that's not even been fully certified, as far as I know. Be interesting if those Diebold machines wind up having given a key state to Bush.)
Also note the mass exodus of his staff.
Personally, I'm just eager to see what they find, if it is found. Ancient archeological surprises are pretty cool, as it always astounds me how relatively advanced some of these civilizations were, to only fall back into ignorance before we finally moved into the modern age.
Take a look at the initial numbers reported for AMD dual-core chips. Those are truly astounding.
Imagine AMD's speed with AMD's architectural benefits. Wait....
With a deal with Comcast that places their box directly into homes without the specter of competition, MS is a shoe in for a large percentage of homes if this is exclusive. If people have to pay extra for it, MS may not "win". Comcast does already have a DVR offering at the moment, after all.
As the previous 2 posters noted, There are independent 66MHz 64-bit PCI buses. That will get you quite high up the bandwidth - about 528 MB/s. So, the PCI bottle neck is a myth for those into serious hardware.
Also, while the interface supports up to 150MB/s on SATA, the most that will be downloaded at that speed is 8MB (the cache size on most drives in that category) and that's theoretical, as the entire cache would have to be "hit" to support that, and there's the issue of the cache speed, and whether the cache on the drive supports that throughput. More realistically, the actual bottleneck will be the platter to external transfer rate, which more than likely falls below 40MB/s on those "150MB/s" interface drives.
On the other hand, with SCSI and a good RAID controller, you can actually load a SCSI channel for the full theoretical throughput via careful design. For instance, my Mylex 3 channel 1164 card can support 240 MB/s continuous throughput in it's current configuration with 16 LVD drives attached in 2 RAID 5 sets. (RAID 50, that's cool - 2 raid 5 stripe sets striped across 3 SCSI channels). What's even better is that SCSI supports multiple simultaneous file access, including large file transfers, without a hiccup.
I've yet to find out whether SATA drives finally overcome the multiple queue request problems of PATA drives, which in my view are merely good for average PCs or mass storage (my main use).
I agree that the linked article was a little light.
It definitely won't quell the creationists, because nothing ever will. You cannot prove the nonexistence of god, because it is virtually impossible to prove a negative. All you can hope to do is to force a retreat into "god worked through evolution over millions of years", and be happy that they at least acknowledge evolution and the timeline.
It's similar to a delusional person who thinks donning tin foil hats prevent alien brain control, nothing you say or show them will persuade them otherwise. (They're not under alien control: it's working!;)
Since when have logic and "knowing better" ever stood in the way of an RIAA lawsuit?
I'd question the sanity of a corporation throwing "advertising" dollars into musical venues, etc, that are money losers. They're basically venture capitalists trying to create money where there is none. And if you don't think money put into a band isn't speculative, you're insane. It's the same thing as backing a startup, you get lucky some of the time, but certainly not all. A 10% success rate would be excellent.
On the other side, true artists generally aren't concerned about making $100M. They're concerned about creating what they love. Those that do "art" as a job aren't artists, in general. (IMNSHO)
As for your assertion about "music creation" being a business, maybe that's why so much of that "created music" sucks and is a money loser.
Actually, I believe "Green Day" is a perfect example of a band that falls into your almost slanderous
They really created their music for themselves, they were popular enough in their locale that they started generating buzz, and then, after they'd already done a lot of self-promotion, an RIAA entity had an epihpany and thought they could squeeze lots of cash out of them. And they did. Green Day by no means is the only one.As for an RIAA entity earning back their cash, that's truly asking for crocodile tears.
I either missed the end, or they left it hanging. I don't think they solved anything in that episode, other than getting their ship back.
You're under a miconception: RIAA et al, aka the music industry, doesn't produce a thing in the sense of creating music. They're manufacturers and distributers. The artists are the producers.
So, yes, Sony is directly competing with the manufacturing and distribution network of the pirates. Now, if the pirates are making $1B/yr+ with their manufacturing/distribution system, perhaps Sony et al should revise where they are spending their money, unless, of course, it's all profit. (Yes, there's the additional cost of paying the artist, but that piddling amount pales in comparison to the cost of a CD)
Reminds me more of one of several Star Trek episodes, namely the one where two worlds had computerized war and the people would be "dead" and walk over to the "vaporization" chamber.
Who knows, Gates may become just a footnote in history in 10 years. We can only hope.
Let's see - I'm going to blackmail a candidate to come onto my noted openly hostile station for a grilling, or I'll show this "documentary".
Sinclair claims this is a newsworthy documentary. If it's so newsworthy, then it will be equally newsworthy on Nov 3.
They only have one goal, either way - to malign Kerry. To think anything else is misguided at best. Do note that they refused to give Kerry the same 90 minute window. (Perhaps he would have shown F9-11?)
No they didn't. They sold the demo to IBM prior to obtaining the rights to SCP QDOS. Now, if you're talking about selling it to end-users, that's a different story and I'd agree with your statement.
Got news for you - teenagers were having sex as far back as history goes. They don't get the idea from TV.
Another funny fact is that abortions decreased under Clinton, but increase under Bush. Interesting factoid, that.
Oh, as for moral decay, just when did you think that there was a moral time? I'm curious.
What a conundrum. On this score, I'd have to agree that if anyone is to regulate the VoIP market, it should be at the federal level. I actually agree with his statement that otherwise you'd get a patchwork of regs, which would be bad.
On the other hand, this is the same FCC that hasn't moved an inch on Sinclair's intended abuse of the airwaves, is working incredibly hard to remove that "obscene" breast (that'd be the same breast most babies see multiple times a day!) from TV, and does other sundry things.
since my multi-proc machines run Debian or Red Hat anyways.
Comparing free enterprise Java to the $100 home user version is like... well, there's no comparison. One's an enterprise level free software package, the other is $100+ of not enterprise level software package.
And I wonder whether eclipse and java had more to do with that than anything else? I recall that their compilers used to cost a fortune.
It'd be interesting if whomever owns that IP now would file suit. Copyrights last a long long time. I wonder what the damages would be....