Maybe they'd conquer Earth to turn it into some sort of weird alien spa.... All of your needs will be catered to by Terran slaves. We don't even mind if you break a few. We've got billions more.
The big reason you don't find that and it would be a tremendous breakthrough, is that it is currently believed to be actually impossible to get that. Have a look at the CAP Theorem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAP_theorem
Most CAP arguments seem to rely on some combination of not understanding the concepts behind token ring networks, not understanding distributed hash tables, not tolerating latency, and/or trying to scale to a very small number (like 2) instead of a large prime number of majority voting servers. Or it assumes ENIAC level MTBF rates of individual voting devices and vote counters, etc.
Don't get me wrong, CAP is a good theoretical argument, and educational to think about, it just doesn't apply to many real world. Kind of like theoretically unbreakable encryption cannot exist so we shouldn't even try crypto... however crypto schemes taking multiple universe lifetimes to crack are none the less useful, despite "perfection" being impossible.
The other big thing that I would love to have in a database is ability to scale the database to multiple machines, so have a logical database span multiple disks on multiple machines, have multiple postgres processes running against those multiple disks, but have it all as one scalable database in a way that's transparent to the application. That would be some sort of a breakthrough (SAN or not).
You need a middle-ware machine that understands enough SQL to send the correct request to the most optimized box, and a fallback slushware box to handle anything you didn't figure out how to manually optimize on the speedy indexed boxes.
I realize this is a postgresql article but at one time I had a herd of little mysql boxes (data was replicated outside mysql) and each had different custom indexes set up that matched certain queries. So depending on which set of disk drive filling indexes fit the best, my middle box shoved them out to the right box. Using horrible regexes. Icky, but it worked. Obviously this is simpler with lots of strange reads, not many joins, and few inserts.
A general generic extendable solution would probably take some kind of AI, or have a horrific overhead cost. Or both.
'At $499, why would you buy — it's like going to China and buying a [fake] Louis Vuitton bag, at the same price as the real Louis Vuitton bags. It doesn't make sense, when you know it's a rip-off product,' he said."
This statement makes no sense.
The ONLY reason to buy a louis vuitton bag for $500 is to show off to other people (especially possible dating partners) that you have the money to buy one, or you're romantically involved with someone who can afford it. On the scale of trashiness, its a bit above simply waving cash around, but not much above it. Humorously, it used to mean you had the money, but for a couple decades now it merely means you're willing to go into debt, which is not quite the same level of sex appeal as having the cash.
Anyway, as long as its well known that options A B or C all cost $500, all adequately serve the purpose of advertising that you spent the money. They could increase sales dramatically by engraving $500 on the "fake" bags or "fake" tablet case.
In a way, spending an ipad's worth of money on a bad copy, is even better, because it proves you can afford to buy something useless. Its one thing to have the dough to make a capital purchase for something that improves your life like an ipad. But you must really be loaded with money (or debt) if you are willing to buy something useless for about the same price.
Fundamental minimum mass of a fission reactor is immense compared to the minimum size of a RTG. Also "no moving parts" fission reactors are hardly off the shelf, although there are theoretical ideas based on pebble beds. I would imagine a pebble bed reactor in zero-G transitioning to midcourse thruster acceleration would be quite a handful to theoretically simulate.
Well, that combined with the fact that most NASA employees are in Texas and Florida
Ah but they've got sub contractors all over the country. In fact you can't really do anything there without involving as many states and districts as humanly possible. Its actually getting to be a problem, as the intentional destruction of our industrial capabilities means more and more work simply can't be done here anymore, and its not like China or India need foreign aid.
The thing is that Democrats, like Republicans only care about the jobs of people who will keep them in power.
NASA and their infinite collection of subcontractors was always a decent source of STEM-type jobs. I suppose if the kids today are smart enough not to go into STEM fields because all those jobs already have or soon will go to Chindia, then there is little lost by getting rid of the govt cheese jobs.
They are also oblivious to the huge long-term benefits of a space program, that you can't just will new technology into existence.
Technology is for China and India. We will become a nation of small retailers at the low end, like "pirate costume stores" and at the middle-higher end we will become rich selling each other insurance policies and real estate. Meanwhile the rich will always have their fraction of the national net worth and income increase, always. I know this sounds idiotic, because it is, but its how our leaders think, which explains a lot.
It's got nothing to do with the space race. NASA is one of the main agencies tracking climate change and it's a bit of an odd coincidence that the same party that denies climate change is the same party that seems to feel that NASA is no longer needed.
For the religious types, facts opposing them encourage them, shows the devil cares enough to try to tempt them.
I think its probably more a factor of apathy. Some paleo-conservatives on the far left believe there was or currently is a garden of eden across the planet and if we have to commit civilizational suicide so New Orleans sinks beneath the waves in 200 years instead of 100 years, well then lets fire up the ovens and sharpen the hatchets. Everyone else is like "eh".
Where I live has been under a mile deep sheet of ice, and has been a tropical sea, in the distant past. In the distant future it will again be under a mile of ice or become a tropical sea again. Not seeing the supposedly obvious moral and ethical virtue of committing cultural suicide somewhere in between the two.
Very few people hear NASA and think climate change. Mostly hear NASA and think landing on the moon when grandpa was young, and exploding shuttles, if anything.
Do I really have to say this... encrypt before you upload?
Or maybe
Don't back up files you wouldn't want to see in public? Seriously, its not tinfoil hat, what do you think happens during a lawsuit discovery process fishing expedition if its all documented via bills and credit card receipts? On the other hand, a USB thumb drive paid for by cash at best buy is pretty hard to legally compel discovery of, and frankly is probably more reliable than some fly by night site or boxed software.
An interesting middle ground is a simple safe deposit box at a bank a couple miles away. If the law wants it, they gets it, but everyone else is pretty much hands off, and its cheap, and requires little if any troubleshooting or support. Also its a great place for "paper backups" of important documents, etc.
But that was my point. It does take effort from the execs and money to purchase politicans, for practically no return. Outside of dotcoms, its hard to make investments with guaranteed negative return.
Look at it this way. They could have put the same time and money into death penalty for music sharers, or legalizing hacking of music sharers, or banning encrypted file transfers over the internet, or requiring licenses to set up a VPN, or any number of things that might have a more positive impact on their bottom line. That why their motivation is apparently non-monetary, its all about control.
Why is it that copyrights last for such a long time when compared to patents? Is the work done by artists that much mote important that the work done by scientists and engineers?
The argument I heard was "art is forever". In theory you should be able to sell a good novel for hundreds of years if not longer. On the other hand vacuum tube analog computer patents are pretty useless a couple decades later. Talking about ephemeral pop art and business method patents and submarine patents is fun and gets those people all worked up... I'm just passing along their argument and encouraging you to troll them like I do.
In summary, a painting of a rose is beautiful forever, a steam locomotive water injector not as long lived.
Just make your own music or learn to play Mozart piano concertos or something
Its a troll, but a very true and relevant point that almost all the money in the business is made off Miley Cyrus and that Selena Gomes and Justin Beiber whoever. As a percentage of revenue, no one cares about the Beetles or Mozart, less so all the tiny acts.
This is NOT about the money. The revenue on recordings of "The Monkeys" being resold for the next 20 years will not begin to pay the cost of getting the copyright extended, no matter how cheap it was to purchase the politicians. Its about showing who's boss, who owns you and your culture, and marginalizing the concept of the public domain. Also its about monopolizing culture. The only "culture" I can legally access is Justin Beiber. We are not to be allowed to listen to what we want, if what we want does not match up to what the recording execs decide we will want.
The point is to make more money, and they succeeded.
Can you make serious money selling Rolling Stones tracks on itunes? No. I think they're trying to make a political point about who owns our culture (them, not us), not actually make money.
If the Beetles were promoted more heavily than Miley Cyrus, maybe I'd believe it was about the money.
The music industry is about manufacturing and selling "fresh" product. Songs and musicians older than a year or two are marginalized.
You're kind of naive. When the trade bodies in the UK are crowing for 70-year music copyright, what do you think David Cameron is going to do? Put up a brave fight, or fold like Superman on laundry day and complain about how "the EU bureaucracy already made the decision"?
Not in the least... I think you're missing my point, which is they merely advise, etc. It has formally been resolved that they should do it, not its already been done. The article makes it sound like they've passed it into law and it's going to be enforced at 70 years as of today 9/12/2011. Those not living under the EU boot heel probably don't know "how it works".
Lets try a/. car analogy to help you. Some automobile trade association says we, as a group of automakers, should try to make and sell more SUVs and giant trucks. That's nice that they all agree, golf clap for everyone. However, its up to Government Motors to actually roll em off the assembly line and sell them, and its highly likely they will attempt it and maybe even succeed. But don't make the mistake of thinking that the automobile trade association, in itself, by itself, at that meeting, is turning bolts on the assembly line and closing sales on the showroom floor.
There's a lot more "fun" before its done and over with. Expect plenty of follow up news stories as its actually implemented.
It does this without any formal powers, only the influence it has being composed of national leaders.
Its kind of like the CFR or any number of other groups... they do run the place, but not directly officially.
Its not their job to actually rewrite the laws to be 70 years or a million years, but it is somewhat likely that what they say should be done, will be done.
The three-year clock will start anew every time there's another copyright contribution.
Per product, or per version? How about forks?
What happens to the covenant in a bankruptcy hearing? Bankruptcy judges have relatively free reign... Could it be bad?
If starting anew, isn't it simpler / cleaner to have a non-profit that owns the open source code, and a private for-profit that applies the code? If not starting anew then you've got some pretty confusing balance sheet issues with transferring ownership, in which case the covenant makes sense.
Thus, the Open Source developer is assured that the work won't be taken private for a significant amount of time
Should I care? If version 7.4 is GPL, and they close 7.5 and above, can't I just fork off 7.4 and run it myself aside from any trademark problems?
If a company is planning on taking ye olde version 1.3 and going private with it in just 6 more months, perhaps because they're insane, regardless, wouldn't that encourage them to not accept security patches from the community? Not saying this "enforcement aspect" is good or bad, just saying it "is".
and the continued participation of Open Source developers provides a strong incentive for the company to never take the product private.
What if the management team intends to burn it to the ground to extract maximal profit for one quarter at the cost of permanent long term damage, in other words traditional American management style? Your design assumptions are both sides are perfectly informed, rational, and free actors, but they are not, which likely impacts the outcome.
Through the covenant, their use of dual-licensing, and their innovative software, HPCC Systems will gain broad acceptance of their product and will profit from its software and services.
Agreed, that is the most likely outcome. My criticisms are about using the new covenant in other "unlikely" situations. If everything's balloons and unicorns you don't need to worry about the downside, but if you're going to bother with the paperwork, you should be focusing intensely on the downside because that's when you most need the paperwork... Best case scenario you have a PR win. Worst case scenario is... better but not entirely perfect either.
Slashdot Mirror
You're not suddenly compelled to rip apart the latest Computer Science study as an armchair computer scientist because you haven't studied it.
Obviously he's new to slashdot
Yes, but how many have less gas than Uranus?
(sorry)
We'll send a goat, we'll let the "goatse" if that is correct or not...
If you find this too ridiculous then imagine Rick Perry saying it :)
Didn't have the world "god" in it, seems unlikely.
That would be the prerequisite for landing on our planet. As opposed to the other way around...
Talk like that, is going to predictably get the multicultural types all riled up about Columbus and conquistadors and all that.
Maybe they'd conquer Earth to turn it into some sort of weird alien spa. ... All of your needs will be catered to by Terran slaves. We don't even mind if you break a few. We've got billions more.
Multinational corporation CEO's are space aliens?
Or Posleen
... the increase in gravity isn't all that much: "For example, a planet with 5 times Earth’s mass but twice the radius ...
So, they're saying its kind of like the difference in average weight between shopping at Target vs Walmart? I guess thats OK then.
But I run Debian Stable on all my servers.
Insensitive clod!
Keep an eye on backports.debian.org
The big reason you don't find that and it would be a tremendous breakthrough, is that it is currently believed to be actually impossible to get that. Have a look at the CAP Theorem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAP_theorem
Most CAP arguments seem to rely on some combination of not understanding the concepts behind token ring networks, not understanding distributed hash tables, not tolerating latency, and/or trying to scale to a very small number (like 2) instead of a large prime number of majority voting servers. Or it assumes ENIAC level MTBF rates of individual voting devices and vote counters, etc.
Don't get me wrong, CAP is a good theoretical argument, and educational to think about, it just doesn't apply to many real world. Kind of like theoretically unbreakable encryption cannot exist so we shouldn't even try crypto... however crypto schemes taking multiple universe lifetimes to crack are none the less useful, despite "perfection" being impossible.
The other big thing that I would love to have in a database is ability to scale the database to multiple machines, so have a logical database span multiple disks on multiple machines, have multiple postgres processes running against those multiple disks, but have it all as one scalable database in a way that's transparent to the application. That would be some sort of a breakthrough (SAN or not).
You need a middle-ware machine that understands enough SQL to send the correct request to the most optimized box, and a fallback slushware box to handle anything you didn't figure out how to manually optimize on the speedy indexed boxes.
I realize this is a postgresql article but at one time I had a herd of little mysql boxes (data was replicated outside mysql) and each had different custom indexes set up that matched certain queries. So depending on which set of disk drive filling indexes fit the best, my middle box shoved them out to the right box. Using horrible regexes. Icky, but it worked. Obviously this is simpler with lots of strange reads, not many joins, and few inserts.
A general generic extendable solution would probably take some kind of AI, or have a horrific overhead cost. Or both.
'At $499, why would you buy — it's like going to China and buying a [fake] Louis Vuitton bag, at the same price as the real Louis Vuitton bags. It doesn't make sense, when you know it's a rip-off product,' he said."
This statement makes no sense.
The ONLY reason to buy a louis vuitton bag for $500 is to show off to other people (especially possible dating partners) that you have the money to buy one, or you're romantically involved with someone who can afford it. On the scale of trashiness, its a bit above simply waving cash around, but not much above it. Humorously, it used to mean you had the money, but for a couple decades now it merely means you're willing to go into debt, which is not quite the same level of sex appeal as having the cash.
Anyway, as long as its well known that options A B or C all cost $500, all adequately serve the purpose of advertising that you spent the money. They could increase sales dramatically by engraving $500 on the "fake" bags or "fake" tablet case.
In a way, spending an ipad's worth of money on a bad copy, is even better, because it proves you can afford to buy something useless. Its one thing to have the dough to make a capital purchase for something that improves your life like an ipad. But you must really be loaded with money (or debt) if you are willing to buy something useless for about the same price.
Fundamental minimum mass of a fission reactor is immense compared to the minimum size of a RTG. Also "no moving parts" fission reactors are hardly off the shelf, although there are theoretical ideas based on pebble beds. I would imagine a pebble bed reactor in zero-G transitioning to midcourse thruster acceleration would be quite a handful to theoretically simulate.
Well, that combined with the fact that most NASA employees are in Texas and Florida
Ah but they've got sub contractors all over the country. In fact you can't really do anything there without involving as many states and districts as humanly possible. Its actually getting to be a problem, as the intentional destruction of our industrial capabilities means more and more work simply can't be done here anymore, and its not like China or India need foreign aid.
The thing is that Democrats, like Republicans only care about the jobs of people who will keep them in power.
NASA and their infinite collection of subcontractors was always a decent source of STEM-type jobs. I suppose if the kids today are smart enough not to go into STEM fields because all those jobs already have or soon will go to Chindia, then there is little lost by getting rid of the govt cheese jobs.
They are also oblivious to the huge long-term benefits of a space program, that you can't just will new technology into existence.
Technology is for China and India. We will become a nation of small retailers at the low end, like "pirate costume stores" and at the middle-higher end we will become rich selling each other insurance policies and real estate. Meanwhile the rich will always have their fraction of the national net worth and income increase, always. I know this sounds idiotic, because it is, but its how our leaders think, which explains a lot.
It's got nothing to do with the space race. NASA is one of the main agencies tracking climate change and it's a bit of an odd coincidence that the same party that denies climate change is the same party that seems to feel that NASA is no longer needed.
For the religious types, facts opposing them encourage them, shows the devil cares enough to try to tempt them.
I think its probably more a factor of apathy. Some paleo-conservatives on the far left believe there was or currently is a garden of eden across the planet and if we have to commit civilizational suicide so New Orleans sinks beneath the waves in 200 years instead of 100 years, well then lets fire up the ovens and sharpen the hatchets. Everyone else is like "eh".
Where I live has been under a mile deep sheet of ice, and has been a tropical sea, in the distant past. In the distant future it will again be under a mile of ice or become a tropical sea again. Not seeing the supposedly obvious moral and ethical virtue of committing cultural suicide somewhere in between the two.
Very few people hear NASA and think climate change. Mostly hear NASA and think landing on the moon when grandpa was young, and exploding shuttles, if anything.
If he's already made up his mind it'll have to be over the internet for buzzword compliance, then all of that simply doesn't matter.
If he had considered that, he probably would have decided on some kind of physical system anyway.
Either way those questions won't matter.
Do I really have to say this ... encrypt before you upload?
Or maybe
Don't back up files you wouldn't want to see in public? Seriously, its not tinfoil hat, what do you think happens during a lawsuit discovery process fishing expedition if its all documented via bills and credit card receipts? On the other hand, a USB thumb drive paid for by cash at best buy is pretty hard to legally compel discovery of, and frankly is probably more reliable than some fly by night site or boxed software.
An interesting middle ground is a simple safe deposit box at a bank a couple miles away. If the law wants it, they gets it, but everyone else is pretty much hands off, and its cheap, and requires little if any troubleshooting or support. Also its a great place for "paper backups" of important documents, etc.
but if it doesn't take any effort, why not ?
But that was my point. It does take effort from the execs and money to purchase politicans, for practically no return. Outside of dotcoms, its hard to make investments with guaranteed negative return.
Look at it this way. They could have put the same time and money into death penalty for music sharers, or legalizing hacking of music sharers, or banning encrypted file transfers over the internet, or requiring licenses to set up a VPN, or any number of things that might have a more positive impact on their bottom line. That why their motivation is apparently non-monetary, its all about control.
Why is it that copyrights last for such a long time when compared to patents? Is the work done by artists that much mote important that the work done by scientists and engineers?
The argument I heard was "art is forever". In theory you should be able to sell a good novel for hundreds of years if not longer. On the other hand vacuum tube analog computer patents are pretty useless a couple decades later. Talking about ephemeral pop art and business method patents and submarine patents is fun and gets those people all worked up... I'm just passing along their argument and encouraging you to troll them like I do.
In summary, a painting of a rose is beautiful forever, a steam locomotive water injector not as long lived.
it's overrated anyway
Just make your own music or learn to play Mozart piano concertos or something
Its a troll, but a very true and relevant point that almost all the money in the business is made off Miley Cyrus and that Selena Gomes and Justin Beiber whoever. As a percentage of revenue, no one cares about the Beetles or Mozart, less so all the tiny acts.
This is NOT about the money. The revenue on recordings of "The Monkeys" being resold for the next 20 years will not begin to pay the cost of getting the copyright extended, no matter how cheap it was to purchase the politicians. Its about showing who's boss, who owns you and your culture, and marginalizing the concept of the public domain. Also its about monopolizing culture. The only "culture" I can legally access is Justin Beiber. We are not to be allowed to listen to what we want, if what we want does not match up to what the recording execs decide we will want.
The point is to make more money, and they succeeded.
Can you make serious money selling Rolling Stones tracks on itunes? No. I think they're trying to make a political point about who owns our culture (them, not us), not actually make money.
If the Beetles were promoted more heavily than Miley Cyrus, maybe I'd believe it was about the money.
The music industry is about manufacturing and selling "fresh" product. Songs and musicians older than a year or two are marginalized.
You're kind of naive. When the trade bodies in the UK are crowing for 70-year music copyright, what do you think David Cameron is going to do? Put up a brave fight, or fold like Superman on laundry day and complain about how "the EU bureaucracy already made the decision"?
Not in the least... I think you're missing my point, which is they merely advise, etc. It has formally been resolved that they should do it, not its already been done. The article makes it sound like they've passed it into law and it's going to be enforced at 70 years as of today 9/12/2011. Those not living under the EU boot heel probably don't know "how it works".
Lets try a /. car analogy to help you. Some automobile trade association says we, as a group of automakers, should try to make and sell more SUVs and giant trucks. That's nice that they all agree, golf clap for everyone. However, its up to Government Motors to actually roll em off the assembly line and sell them, and its highly likely they will attempt it and maybe even succeed. But don't make the mistake of thinking that the automobile trade association, in itself, by itself, at that meeting, is turning bolts on the assembly line and closing sales on the showroom floor.
There's a lot more "fun" before its done and over with. Expect plenty of follow up news stories as its actually implemented.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Council
It does this without any formal powers, only the influence it has being composed of national leaders.
Its kind of like the CFR or any number of other groups ... they do run the place, but not directly officially.
Its not their job to actually rewrite the laws to be 70 years or a million years, but it is somewhat likely that what they say should be done, will be done.
The three-year clock will start anew every time there's another copyright contribution.
Per product, or per version? How about forks?
What happens to the covenant in a bankruptcy hearing? Bankruptcy judges have relatively free reign... Could it be bad?
If starting anew, isn't it simpler / cleaner to have a non-profit that owns the open source code, and a private for-profit that applies the code? If not starting anew then you've got some pretty confusing balance sheet issues with transferring ownership, in which case the covenant makes sense.
Thus, the Open Source developer is assured that the work won't be taken private for a significant amount of time
Should I care? If version 7.4 is GPL, and they close 7.5 and above, can't I just fork off 7.4 and run it myself aside from any trademark problems?
If a company is planning on taking ye olde version 1.3 and going private with it in just 6 more months, perhaps because they're insane, regardless, wouldn't that encourage them to not accept security patches from the community? Not saying this "enforcement aspect" is good or bad, just saying it "is".
and the continued participation of Open Source developers provides a strong incentive for the company to never take the product private.
What if the management team intends to burn it to the ground to extract maximal profit for one quarter at the cost of permanent long term damage, in other words traditional American management style? Your design assumptions are both sides are perfectly informed, rational, and free actors, but they are not, which likely impacts the outcome.
Through the covenant, their use of dual-licensing, and their innovative software, HPCC Systems will gain broad acceptance of their product and will profit from its software and services.
Agreed, that is the most likely outcome. My criticisms are about using the new covenant in other "unlikely" situations. If everything's balloons and unicorns you don't need to worry about the downside, but if you're going to bother with the paperwork, you should be focusing intensely on the downside because that's when you most need the paperwork... Best case scenario you have a PR win. Worst case scenario is ... better but not entirely perfect either.
I wasn't aware of the fact that we had eliminated the scarcity of authors who write things we want to read. When did that happen?
Around the time of the invention of "the blog" and "the google" ?