Color me skeptical. The cost of the fuel and launcher alone would be a few more zero. The only way they could do it at that cost, would be to have hundred of people "buried" in the same launch.
I realize that it's too much to ask people to RTFA, but you could at least RTFS.
Costco is where you go once a month to buy things cheaply. You don't go to Costco because you're running low on toilet paper. Going to Costco is a planned, methodical, activity that involves making an inventory, determining what will need replacement soon, building a list, viewing the special offers, and then visiting the store.
I've seen RAID groups fail sort of violently (granted in some tough environments) where one disk crashed and so did the others next two it. Three out of five disks in a RAID 5 gone. Only option was backup. How would any filesystem survive that?
It is not the responsibility of the file system to maintain data integrity in the face of catastrophic failure of the underlying storage hardware.
I was modding in this story, but, after seeing the above, felt compelled to post and say this: You do realize that you can make exactly the same argument in support of the surveillance state, right? Be careful what you wish for.
An excellent argument on your part, and your point is well taken.
That said, I'll counter with the idea that your analogy (as all analogies are) is flawed. A more appropriate analogy would be the police leaving the bait car, with the keys in the ignition, the engine running, and a giant sign on it saying, "free car." I think there's a very important distinction between creating the opportunity for a theft to occur (as the police are) and actively encouraging it as a studio or their agent using a honeypot would be. "Please, please, download this movie" is a far cry from an anonymous vehicle in a parking lot.
Go to expedia, and price a flight leaving on thursday and returning on friday. Price another flight leaving on the same thursday and returning the next friday. Same route, same airline, same flight number, but one has an intervening saturday.
Example (I did not cherry pick, this was my first attempt): LGA -> IAH on Delta, leaving Sept 3rd, returning Sept 4th: $1,114.20. Leaving Sept 3rd, Returning Sept 11th, $276.20. Lest you think this date may be less attractive to flyers, I chose a return date of Sept 10th, and it was $10 cheaper. Lest you think the Thursday flight from IAH to LGA is less desirable, I chose same day flights, and it was $1,108.60.
This is not a case of directing passengers to flights for load, scheduling, or any other reason other than the perception (likely correct) that the out and back flyer is a business traveler, and likely less price sensitive as a result.
Please note that I am not taking a position on whether or not this is "right" or "wrong," only rebutting the argument that this is some kind of supply/demand issue. It's not, it's price shaping, pure and simple.
I don't know about anyone else, but Popcorn Time seems like a trap to me. Make a program that using bit torrent to share the movies between it's users. Let it run for a few years. Start testing the waters will a small lawsuit against a few users. If that succeeds, then use the info you gathered over the last few years to bring a lot of lawsuits against a lot of people.
Laches[1] and, probably, estoppel would apply, the former because the studio waited years to bring a claim despite having the knowledge of an issue for that whole time, and did nothing to prevent it, and estoppel because it's hard to argue that your movie is being pirated when you yourself are the one distributing it across bittorrent.
[1] - Laches may not apply, as the Supreme Court recently eviscerated it with regard to copyright law. That decision did not, however, touch on file sharing, and the reasoning used would be really hard to apply to a file sharing case ("we waited until the lawsuit was worth it" doesn't really work when the person you are suing will never, ever be able to afford to pay the statutory damages).
Airlines do this all the time. They charge more for last minute purchases or travel over holidays even though the customer is getting the same service -- moving them from point to point. Why? Because they can!!
Because there are fewer seats available at the last minute. When supply goes down, prices go up. Also, there is greater demand over holidays, so again prices go up.
This is true in general, but you're ignoring that airlines absolutely tailor fares based on who you are to maximize revenue, regardless of a route's capacity or load. If your travel pattern indicates that you are a "business flyer" your ticket will absolutely be more expensive than would otherwise be the case (for look at pricing on a round trip flight that does not have a Saturday in the middle of your itinerary, vs one that does. Same flights, same days even, but if you don't stay on Saturday, the ticket is significantly more expensive).
It didn't get caught in testing because testing is by far the most expensive and time-consuming part of the development process, and is always the first thing to get cut/trimmed/"streamlined". Just like it has been forever.
While what you say is, sadly, how the world actually works, the above should never occur with safety critical systems. "We'll fix the bugs in production" is absolutely unacceptable when your possible failure modes include dead people and hundreds of millions of dollars in damage.
I do not disagree with your reasoning, or the reasoning of the poster you are replying to. However, the question was "explain to me how Google will MITM my https connection to amazon?" rather than "why would Google, since they have so much to lose?"
As such, neither reply is actually a rebuttal of what I said--it WOULD be child's play for them to do so, regardless of whether or not they would want to.
Paranoia is strong with you today. Explain to me how a Google router will MITM attack my HTTPS connection to Amazon.com when I am entering my credit card #?
In the case we're discussing, you've actually placed a hardware device on your network, with them in complete control of the firmware, that all of your traffic gets routed through. It is child's play, since your browser (regardless of which browser you use) already trusts their certificates, for them to proxy whatever the hell they want to. Unless you're religious about looking at certificates (or happen to notice that a site you would expect an EV cert from doesn't indicate such in your browser (green address bar, or whatever)) then it's doubtful you'll even notice anything is wrong.
See "DPL-SSL" for an example of how this would work in practice.
Slap in a 1tb SSD and it really makes a difference I run 2 VM's daily on 16gb on a late 2011 MBP and the SSD make it faster than any brand new dell I have seen come in the office.
Throw 16GB of RAM and 1TB of SSD into one of the new Dells, and I think you might find they outperform your MBP...
I would have told them to move it now of fsck off and complain to someone who cares. Seriously, I've never understood what they can do other than complain at you. Assault you to keep you from moving it? I'd love that. The lawsuit would bankrupt the union. Maybe there's something in the agreement you signed to have a booth there, but if not...
No, they would assault you after the fact. There are some unions out there that are a positive influence (IBEW springs to mind) and some that are negative, and some that are absolute thugs. Teamsters[1] tend to fall into the latter category.
[1]- By no means do I mean to imply that all Teamsters are thugs, but their leadership tends heavily in that direction, and that leadership ALWAYS has a ready supply of people to do the dirty work.
That's fair enough--while the costs of building new fabs are astronomical (and growing) so that chip prices should not necessarily fall linearly with die size, it's fair to say that they've definitely been padding their margins, rather than cutting prices (and I'll agree that it's due to a lack of serious competition) so I think you win the point.
That said, the treadmill here is about to stop spinning (I think that I've read that 7nm (maybe 4nm?) is basically the last possible process node, because at that point you're at the atomic scale). They're probably counting their blessings that they have the opportunity to pad their margins now, because the lean years are coming--once they hit the wall, they won't be able to reduce manufacturing costs, and a market used to ever decreasing prices will not accept the opposite of that just to protect Intel's (already high) margins.
The above is what will probably kill x86 in the end... when they can't shrink their way out of a relative performance problem.
More US citizens were killed in conscription to foreign wars than lives destroyed while defending domestic civil rights.
Which would you rather fight for?
[citation needed]
The US suffered more dead in the civil war than in all other wars combined. Both sides in that war were fighting for domestic civil rights (with wildly differing definitions of what that meant, granted, but that doesn't change the numbers).
Intel hasn't had competition from AMD in years and this is the result.
I'm not sure this follows. Intel's primary focus for the last 5-10 years (some would say longer) has been process technology, and I don't think lack of competition from AMD has hurt that at all. You might make the argument that the previous generation's failure of desktop parts to materialize in real quantity, and this generation's tick-tock-THUNK cycle are signs that they're coasting because of lack of competition, but simply saying "my 28nm chip and my 14nm chip are fairly close in performance, damn you monopolistic Intel!" ignores the fact that they really HAVE been pushing hard to keep their edge. It's just that their goals and your goals for the technology are not aligned.
Today, their competitor isn't AMD. It's Global Foundries, TSMC, etc.
I wonder why people keep talking about how awful cars were in the 1970s? I'm old enough to remember those cars, but maybe I was too young to appreciate what was wrong with them.
The 1970s represents a nadir in the quality of US manufactured goods in general, and cars were an exceptional representation of that. Detroit saw itself as having a captive market, innovated nothing, and let stuff leave the factory that never should have. I'll agree there are some examples of interesting design (Chrysler, especially, produced some absolutely beautiful machines through the 70s) but they were poorly executed, built by an apathetic and self entitled workforce, and outside of the "cool" factor involved, I doubt you would actually want to drive one.
I'll agree that the average car of the 1980s was ugly as sin, and nearly as bad from a quality standpoint.
And people were buying them because they were the best alternative available in most cases. Yes they were very often crap but there was no non-crap option available.
That's a fair point, which is taken.
People like their products even when they probably shouldn't if they were being objective about it.... It's only not proof if you think people are nothing more than gullible sheep with no concept of what interests them. Since that isn't actually true we have to consider that people buy what actually appeals to them and that sales figures are actually the best data available on what constitutes a compelling product
This, however, was the point I was trying to make: brand loyalty is a thing (even in fleets, which is bizarre and should result in someone getting fired, but it still exists) and that, for many (even most?) people, buying a car is NOT the rational transaction that it should be, but a purely emotional one. I have no data to back this up, but I'm willing to bet that, in the US, that emotion favors the big three for a variety of reasons.
Right. That's why in 2014 GM sold 2.9 million, Ford sold 2.48 million, and Chrysler sold 2.09 million vehicles. Because it's really easy to sell over 7 million vehicles in a calendar year when you don't have any compelling products. (oops, did I leave the sarcasm bit on again? my bad)
In the 1970s, all of them were selling absolutely awful products by the metric shitload (10% more than a normal shitload), so it's not exactly without precedent. FWIW, I agree with you in principle that Detroit actually has some life in it, but making that point with sales numbers isn't actually convincing proof.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but I'm curious what relevance your "when I was a young man" story has to the GPs statement about the current corvette? Stating that something was not good in the past, and thus will never be good in the present, or the future, is not really a good argument.
I don't think police take people into custody without asserting some law has been broken - however wrong they may be. That's why the court is there. Fighting the police in real time is the worst way for an individual to change the system without ending up a martyr at best. Smart people don't fight the police directly...they change the leadership over time.
I agree wholeheartedly that smart people don't argue with cops, because you will lose every time, regardless of the merits (that seems to be what happened in the recent unpleasantness with the woman who may or may not have hanged herself in jail--she failed to, in the words of Eric Cartman, respect his authoritah, and as a result went to jail for the crime of failing to signal while changing lanes).
Whether or not this is the smart play does not, however, make it the just one. In a JUST society, we would discipline those who casually abuse their authority in an attempt to simply cut off debate about whether or not they are correct in their actions, and not argue about whether the victim of that abuse deserved it or not. Imagine a world where Rosa Parks simply obeyed the order to go to the back of the bus, that civil rights marchers simply obeyed the orders to disperse, and everyone else in that era simply did what they were told--because in the end, this is what "smart" people are advocating.
Once upon a time, our smartest people did not simply accede to the demands of power. Today, we do. You get the government you deserve.
Looks like Akamai did their homework and put up a good delivery system.
FTFY.
That was what I came here to say. To be fair, MS did "do their homework" by outsourcing their CDN to someone who actually knows what they are doing. That said, I can't help but wonder how they can claim to be competent to host something like Azure when they won't even run their own services on their platform (it's like back when they used to run Hotmail on BSD).
Slashdot Mirror
Color me skeptical. The cost of the fuel and launcher alone would be a few more zero. The only way they could do it at that cost, would be to have hundred of people "buried" in the same launch.
I realize that it's too much to ask people to RTFA, but you could at least RTFS.
Costco is where you go once a month to buy things cheaply. You don't go to Costco because you're running low on toilet paper. Going to Costco is a planned, methodical, activity that involves making an inventory, determining what will need replacement soon, building a list, viewing the special offers, and then visiting the store.
For you it is. For some people, not so much.
I've seen RAID groups fail sort of violently (granted in some tough environments) where one disk crashed and so did the others next two it. Three out of five disks in a RAID 5 gone. Only option was backup. How would any filesystem survive that?
It is not the responsibility of the file system to maintain data integrity in the face of catastrophic failure of the underlying storage hardware.
I'm pretty sure he meant knives, which pre-9/11 were allowed on aircraft.
I was modding in this story, but, after seeing the above, felt compelled to post and say this: You do realize that you can make exactly the same argument in support of the surveillance state, right? Be careful what you wish for.
An excellent argument on your part, and your point is well taken.
That said, I'll counter with the idea that your analogy (as all analogies are) is flawed. A more appropriate analogy would be the police leaving the bait car, with the keys in the ignition, the engine running, and a giant sign on it saying, "free car." I think there's a very important distinction between creating the opportunity for a theft to occur (as the police are) and actively encouraging it as a studio or their agent using a honeypot would be. "Please, please, download this movie" is a far cry from an anonymous vehicle in a parking lot.
Your argument above is easily disproven:
Go to expedia, and price a flight leaving on thursday and returning on friday. Price another flight leaving on the same thursday and returning the next friday. Same route, same airline, same flight number, but one has an intervening saturday.
Example (I did not cherry pick, this was my first attempt): LGA -> IAH on Delta, leaving Sept 3rd, returning Sept 4th: $1,114.20. Leaving Sept 3rd, Returning Sept 11th, $276.20. Lest you think this date may be less attractive to flyers, I chose a return date of Sept 10th, and it was $10 cheaper. Lest you think the Thursday flight from IAH to LGA is less desirable, I chose same day flights, and it was $1,108.60.
This is not a case of directing passengers to flights for load, scheduling, or any other reason other than the perception (likely correct) that the out and back flyer is a business traveler, and likely less price sensitive as a result.
Please note that I am not taking a position on whether or not this is "right" or "wrong," only rebutting the argument that this is some kind of supply/demand issue. It's not, it's price shaping, pure and simple.
I don't know about anyone else, but Popcorn Time seems like a trap to me. Make a program that using bit torrent to share the movies between it's users. Let it run for a few years. Start testing the waters will a small lawsuit against a few users. If that succeeds, then use the info you gathered over the last few years to bring a lot of lawsuits against a lot of people.
Laches[1] and, probably, estoppel would apply, the former because the studio waited years to bring a claim despite having the knowledge of an issue for that whole time, and did nothing to prevent it, and estoppel because it's hard to argue that your movie is being pirated when you yourself are the one distributing it across bittorrent.
[1] - Laches may not apply, as the Supreme Court recently eviscerated it with regard to copyright law. That decision did not, however, touch on file sharing, and the reasoning used would be really hard to apply to a file sharing case ("we waited until the lawsuit was worth it" doesn't really work when the person you are suing will never, ever be able to afford to pay the statutory damages).
Airlines do this all the time. They charge more for last minute purchases or travel over holidays even though the customer is getting the same service -- moving them from point to point. Why? Because they can!!
Because there are fewer seats available at the last minute. When supply goes down, prices go up. Also, there is greater demand over holidays, so again prices go up.
This is true in general, but you're ignoring that airlines absolutely tailor fares based on who you are to maximize revenue, regardless of a route's capacity or load. If your travel pattern indicates that you are a "business flyer" your ticket will absolutely be more expensive than would otherwise be the case (for look at pricing on a round trip flight that does not have a Saturday in the middle of your itinerary, vs one that does. Same flights, same days even, but if you don't stay on Saturday, the ticket is significantly more expensive).
From the summary, it was at least strike four...
It didn't get caught in testing because testing is by far the most expensive and time-consuming part of the development process, and is always the first thing to get cut/trimmed/"streamlined". Just like it has been forever.
While what you say is, sadly, how the world actually works, the above should never occur with safety critical systems. "We'll fix the bugs in production" is absolutely unacceptable when your possible failure modes include dead people and hundreds of millions of dollars in damage.
I do not disagree with your reasoning, or the reasoning of the poster you are replying to. However, the question was "explain to me how Google will MITM my https connection to amazon?" rather than "why would Google, since they have so much to lose?"
As such, neither reply is actually a rebuttal of what I said--it WOULD be child's play for them to do so, regardless of whether or not they would want to.
Paranoia is strong with you today. Explain to me how a Google router will MITM attack my HTTPS connection to Amazon.com when I am entering my credit card #?
In the case we're discussing, you've actually placed a hardware device on your network, with them in complete control of the firmware, that all of your traffic gets routed through. It is child's play, since your browser (regardless of which browser you use) already trusts their certificates, for them to proxy whatever the hell they want to. Unless you're religious about looking at certificates (or happen to notice that a site you would expect an EV cert from doesn't indicate such in your browser (green address bar, or whatever)) then it's doubtful you'll even notice anything is wrong.
See "DPL-SSL" for an example of how this would work in practice.
Slap in a 1tb SSD and it really makes a difference I run 2 VM's daily on 16gb on a late 2011 MBP and the SSD make it faster than any brand new dell I have seen come in the office.
Throw 16GB of RAM and 1TB of SSD into one of the new Dells, and I think you might find they outperform your MBP...
I would have told them to move it now of fsck off and complain to someone who cares. Seriously, I've never understood what they can do other than complain at you. Assault you to keep you from moving it? I'd love that. The lawsuit would bankrupt the union. Maybe there's something in the agreement you signed to have a booth there, but if not...
No, they would assault you after the fact. There are some unions out there that are a positive influence (IBEW springs to mind) and some that are negative, and some that are absolute thugs. Teamsters[1] tend to fall into the latter category.
[1]- By no means do I mean to imply that all Teamsters are thugs, but their leadership tends heavily in that direction, and that leadership ALWAYS has a ready supply of people to do the dirty work.
That's fair enough--while the costs of building new fabs are astronomical (and growing) so that chip prices should not necessarily fall linearly with die size, it's fair to say that they've definitely been padding their margins, rather than cutting prices (and I'll agree that it's due to a lack of serious competition) so I think you win the point.
That said, the treadmill here is about to stop spinning (I think that I've read that 7nm (maybe 4nm?) is basically the last possible process node, because at that point you're at the atomic scale). They're probably counting their blessings that they have the opportunity to pad their margins now, because the lean years are coming--once they hit the wall, they won't be able to reduce manufacturing costs, and a market used to ever decreasing prices will not accept the opposite of that just to protect Intel's (already high) margins.
The above is what will probably kill x86 in the end... when they can't shrink their way out of a relative performance problem.
More US citizens were killed in conscription to foreign wars than lives destroyed while defending domestic civil rights.
Which would you rather fight for?
[citation needed]
The US suffered more dead in the civil war than in all other wars combined. Both sides in that war were fighting for domestic civil rights (with wildly differing definitions of what that meant, granted, but that doesn't change the numbers).
Just want to say that discussions like this are why I still come here. Thanks for the great posts.
Intel hasn't had competition from AMD in years and this is the result.
I'm not sure this follows. Intel's primary focus for the last 5-10 years (some would say longer) has been process technology, and I don't think lack of competition from AMD has hurt that at all. You might make the argument that the previous generation's failure of desktop parts to materialize in real quantity, and this generation's tick-tock-THUNK cycle are signs that they're coasting because of lack of competition, but simply saying "my 28nm chip and my 14nm chip are fairly close in performance, damn you monopolistic Intel!" ignores the fact that they really HAVE been pushing hard to keep their edge. It's just that their goals and your goals for the technology are not aligned.
Today, their competitor isn't AMD. It's Global Foundries, TSMC, etc.
I wonder why people keep talking about how awful cars were in the 1970s? I'm old enough to remember those cars, but maybe I was too young to appreciate what was wrong with them.
The 1970s represents a nadir in the quality of US manufactured goods in general, and cars were an exceptional representation of that. Detroit saw itself as having a captive market, innovated nothing, and let stuff leave the factory that never should have. I'll agree there are some examples of interesting design (Chrysler, especially, produced some absolutely beautiful machines through the 70s) but they were poorly executed, built by an apathetic and self entitled workforce, and outside of the "cool" factor involved, I doubt you would actually want to drive one.
I'll agree that the average car of the 1980s was ugly as sin, and nearly as bad from a quality standpoint.
And people were buying them because they were the best alternative available in most cases. Yes they were very often crap but there was no non-crap option available.
That's a fair point, which is taken.
People like their products even when they probably shouldn't if they were being objective about it. ... It's only not proof if you think people are nothing more than gullible sheep with no concept of what interests them. Since that isn't actually true we have to consider that people buy what actually appeals to them and that sales figures are actually the best data available on what constitutes a compelling product
This, however, was the point I was trying to make: brand loyalty is a thing (even in fleets, which is bizarre and should result in someone getting fired, but it still exists) and that, for many (even most?) people, buying a car is NOT the rational transaction that it should be, but a purely emotional one. I have no data to back this up, but I'm willing to bet that, in the US, that emotion favors the big three for a variety of reasons.
Right. That's why in 2014 GM sold 2.9 million, Ford sold 2.48 million, and Chrysler sold 2.09 million vehicles. Because it's really easy to sell over 7 million vehicles in a calendar year when you don't have any compelling products. (oops, did I leave the sarcasm bit on again? my bad)
In the 1970s, all of them were selling absolutely awful products by the metric shitload (10% more than a normal shitload), so it's not exactly without precedent. FWIW, I agree with you in principle that Detroit actually has some life in it, but making that point with sales numbers isn't actually convincing proof.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but I'm curious what relevance your "when I was a young man" story has to the GPs statement about the current corvette? Stating that something was not good in the past, and thus will never be good in the present, or the future, is not really a good argument.
I don't think police take people into custody without asserting some law has been broken - however wrong they may be. That's why the court is there. Fighting the police in real time is the worst way for an individual to change the system without ending up a martyr at best. Smart people don't fight the police directly...they change the leadership over time.
I agree wholeheartedly that smart people don't argue with cops, because you will lose every time, regardless of the merits (that seems to be what happened in the recent unpleasantness with the woman who may or may not have hanged herself in jail--she failed to, in the words of Eric Cartman, respect his authoritah, and as a result went to jail for the crime of failing to signal while changing lanes).
Whether or not this is the smart play does not, however, make it the just one. In a JUST society, we would discipline those who casually abuse their authority in an attempt to simply cut off debate about whether or not they are correct in their actions, and not argue about whether the victim of that abuse deserved it or not. Imagine a world where Rosa Parks simply obeyed the order to go to the back of the bus, that civil rights marchers simply obeyed the orders to disperse, and everyone else in that era simply did what they were told--because in the end, this is what "smart" people are advocating.
Once upon a time, our smartest people did not simply accede to the demands of power. Today, we do. You get the government you deserve.
Looks like Akamai did their homework and put up a good delivery system.
FTFY.
That was what I came here to say. To be fair, MS did "do their homework" by outsourcing their CDN to someone who actually knows what they are doing. That said, I can't help but wonder how they can claim to be competent to host something like Azure when they won't even run their own services on their platform (it's like back when they used to run Hotmail on BSD).