Please explain how this is funamentally different than the internet? Yes, it takes time for things to propagate, but its still a networking of computers across the globe.
No, stuff like this isn't important to consider. It's just same asshole who doesn't own a pet and doesn't think anyone else should either trying to guilt people into not getting a pet.
Of course you want to know what consumes even more resources than a pet? A child. And I seriously doubt anyone is going to consider THAT before having one.
Not to mention, who are you to force anyone to do anything? They're supposedly free men who own fishing boats and catch fish. If you don't like it don't buy their fish or pay more for pet food so it doesn't *cost them* money to bring in junk fish just so you can feed your dog. Truly I hate to sound like a libertarian but you throwing around like phrases like "force them to turn their "bycatch" to dogfood," makes you look like an mini fascist. Just because they own a boat and supply something that you rely on doesn't suddenly make them your personal slaves. Tell us what industry you're in so we can start discussing "forcing" you to do various things that cost you huge sums of money just to satisfy our own personal attitudes.
Their right to make a profit at fishing ends when they destroy the econsystem upon which we all depend.
Search is distributed. The fact that some servers are no in the same physical location is irrelevent. What new technology enables servers to be physically decentrialized? Nothing, that's already been there.
Cloud is a nonsense term used by people as marketing. I completely understand what it is; its the next SOA, the next meanlingless buzzword.
If you're asking this of a friend (which is what I'll assume) either question is valid. Usually friends (good ones at least) will want to help you. One of the reasons to have friends, so you can help each other. So either question has the same effect.
In your case, if you're really that nitpicky, I suspect you don't have friends as much as you have acquaintances. I used to have a friend as nitpicky as that... notice the "used to" part.
When the waitress says "If you need anything else, my name is Betty" Joe Random grunts and takes a bite of his meal. Programmer dude wonders what her name is if he doesn't need any thing else.
When the reporter says "For CNN, I'm Wolf Blitzer", programmer dude shouts at the TV demanding to know who the reporter is when he dons his lederhosen and cowboy hat and goes dancing.
I don't want my peers expecting me to treat her like a stripper.
Do you also not want your peers to expect you to treat a waitress like a waitress? Or a mechanic like a mechanic? How about a masseuse as a masseuse? Stripping is a job, its not (contrary to what some say) derogetory to women, disrespectful, etc. Its a job, just like any other service job.
Men loyal to their girlfriends and wives are men. Men who don't take strange women's clothes off are men.
So are men that aren't. Men who do are still men.
We don't all have to fit into the model that television and movies make us fit into.
Yet part of being a man is pursuing sex. Its part biology as well as rational thinking.
I've been put in this situation before and there was nothing I could do except play the game and shove money down her pants. The stripper knows it and she exploits it. Next time I encounter an event like that, I'm telling my coworkers to have fun, I'll walk straight out and tell the organizer to fuck off.
Ahh, so you're mad because you feel like you're not in control... or not the alpha male I guess. You see a shortcoming in yourself. I can understand you leaving, but no need to be rude. For many men (probably w/higher test. levels then you) strippers are fun entertainment.
Google isn't displaying my email box content to everyone.
Unless google isn't careful with it. I mean, its not like any arbitrary gmail user could ever read another gmail user's email, right? Or unless they are subpoenaed. Because thats JUST like needing a warrant.
Sure they admins can access it, but why the f**** would they have to care about my mom asking me how I'm doing.
Ya, you clearly fail understanding human nature.
Any service that you use, may it be online or IRL, anyone can gather info about you.
Which is why I'll keep as much of it as I can local. Oh, and if you cant see the difference about a paper file at some local joint and google's internet connected data store, I don't know what to tell you.
Why do everybody live happily without being paranoiac about your grocer stealing your credit card number or selling your nourishment profile to your insurance company that would really love to know if you eat healthy : trust.
Because there are safeguards. For one, the CC company DOESN'T GET A LIST OF ITEMS I BOUGHT. Second, the damage is limited; I can dispute the charge and get my money back. Once something is on the net though, its gone for good. Also, my insurance doesn't know where I shop.
You trust your ISP not to repport law enforcement if you go online and download warez.
No I don't. Which isn't the reason I don't download warez, I don't do that because I'm not a scumbag that likes to take without consideration.
You trust your mechanics for not telling your car insurance company you've been driving with bad break for 10000 miles.
Bad brakes quickly fail, I hate to inform you. Clearly you don't own a car or pay for auto insurance. Also, you assume someone would knowningly drive with bad brakes. That's just plain stupid, because you're putting your life in danger. People may be really stupid, but they almost always can be counted on to watch out for themselves.
You You trust your MD not to tell everyone you've got STD.
No I don't, and neither did anyone else, which is why we have strong protections called HIPPA.
Trust is the base of a relationship. If people don't trust a company, they won't do business with it.
Well that's not true. I don't trust my bank, I demand a statement each month. I demand an itemized bill for car repairs. I've even demanded to see the replaced part and where they installed the new part. And none of this goes on on the internet, which has a habit of never forgetting.
If Google would sell your email to third party and that you'd end up with some offer in the real mail for something that you had wrote by email, without ever telling others, I guest you'd close your email account pretty fast.
After the damage is already done? What good is that?
Now, if you don't trust your cloud computing provider, then why are you doing business with him? Are cloud computing service provider less secure than ordinary webhoster that would offer you a virtual private server? Why don't they deserve the same trust?
I don't, which is why I do most things locally. The only things I do online already have force of law if they don't function as I expect them to. You clearly miss the big picture; most of a company (or my own) data ISN'T on some web server already. Its safely on MY COMPANY'S (or MY) server. And thats where the cloud fails.
All the cloud services being offered or suggested offer something on the remote side that you're likely not to have locally. Whether it's massive processing power and access to data (Google search); fast, highly specialised processing power (this Nvidia project); highly redundant cheap storage (Amazon S3); and so on
Computers are already more powerful than most people need. Search I'll grant you.. it'd be hard to index the web with only my computer. But is that really cloud? Doesn't seem to fit the bill. As for storage, that's already cheap too, and while it may be convient to have another company hold my personal data, it certainly doesn't make me feel good to store it there.
Cloud computing is a junk buzzword, and hopefully the latest Tmobile scafu will make it crystal clear to everyone why its junk.
Oh... and your search example the input is not small, as you must count the index as an input as well.
Apparently more people agree with me, which is why once MS started selling windows on netbooks, it quickly overtook the ones loaded with Linux.
but yea, keep your head in the sand... your attitude is exactly why Linux won't beat MS anytime soon, and why I went BACK to Windows after using linux for years.
Yeah, we could do away with all kinds of pesky specific descriptions, if we just call everything that touches the internet "internet-based computing". I mean, what idiot coined the tedious and unnecessary buzzword "World Wide Web"?
WWW refers to something specific on the internet; namely that web pages can link to each other even if on another server.
If you put up a web server and I browse it, that's internet-based computing, but it's not cloud computing.
Why isn't it? What if the web server has a web-based mortgage application being served on it? Why isn't that cloud computer? After all, its "doing some processing for me." A plain old web server is "doing some processing for me" as well when it loads the image I requested and sends it to me.
If your "web server" is actually a massively parallel server farm, spread across multiple datacentres worldwide, which splits the POVray rendering job across multiple nodes such that it completes in a fraction of the time and can tolerate individual nodes rebooting or dying altogether -- THAT would be cloud computing.
How is that any different than distributed computing? Oh, because you added "spread across multiple data centers." Please.
Likewise Amazon S3 is cloud computing rather than just remote storage, because the data you store is smeared (mirrored; cached) across multiple nodes so that node failure is routed around, and reads are fast for clients all over the world.
But I thought it had to be doing some processing for me, not just storing stuff? Please, make up your mind. Why throw "smeared" into the mix when you already have the necessary words? Oh right... to make it "cloud compatible."
Cloud is as private as any other thing you would put on in a web application : Privacy is bound to your service provider usage term. Their tem of use are a contract between you and them.
Ya, so in other worse, there is no privacy.
They are as bound to it as you are, except they have the right to change it anytime and you have the right to refuse the modifications and quit using their service.
And don't forget, lose access to my data. Great, thanks.
If they break their term and for any reason your data end up in someone else hands, than you could always go after your service provider and the one that cause the leak.
Ya, ok. You go sue some huge company and let me know how successful you are.
Now if you fear that your info end-up in the government hands, then you've got a bigger problem than worrying about the cloud.
Right... because if you've got nothing to hide you should show everything to the world, right?
Its not nonsensical, it makes perfect sense. Why send data to a server to process over a slow link when I could get the result faster by processing that data locally? That's the question he's asking.
If the fatalties we're talking about are all also focusing on the US population (which they are), it is the same.
One of the odd things we know about the 1918 epidemic is that healthy people were MORE likely to die than unhealthy ones whop were infected. One theory is that the deaths were caused by cytokine storm, where your immune system freaks out.
And in this case, people with obesity have a weaker immune system and are the ones dying. If you exlude from your definition of healthy those that are obese, this strain isn't killing high amounts of healthy people at all.
The CDC has said that H1N1 doesn't appear to be causing that; however, H1N1 is killing FAR more healthy people than regular seasonal flu does.
Again, this is because they are NOT using obesity in their definition of healthy. If you do infact rule out obese people as healthy (because obesity compromises your immune system) things don't look frighting at all.
What are you talking about? the flu vaccine has beena rounf since the 40's. remember the last bad flu? 1918, quite a few people died, and the population wasn't nearly as dense.
And there was not mention of it growing up. Nobody said anything about it, it wasn't be developed on a large scale. It didn't appear on the news, nothing. It was there, but not really being used like it is today.
I don't call 30+ thousand almost NOBODY.
When the world population is rapidly approaching 7 BILLION people, I do. I call that a fluke. I call that LESS THAN THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE KILLED IN CAR ACCIDENTS IN THE US.
"In 1931, viral growth in embryonated hens' eggs was discovered, and in the 1940s, the US military developed the first approved inactivated vaccines for influenza, which were used in the Second World War (Baker 2002, Hilleman 2000)."
Yet where was the mass vaccination push? Where was it when I was growing up? If the vaccine is so effective and good, why hasn't it done to the flu what the MMR vaccine has done for those diseases? The fact is the flu vaccine wasn't done on this scale until fairly recently and yet people were not dropping dead of the flu prior.
1918-20 - Spanish Flu, 500 million ill, at least 20-40 million died of H1N1
Yes, because we haven't learned anything about washing hands and other preventative measures since then, have we?
1957-58 - Asian Flu, 1 to 1.5 million died of H2N2 1968-69 - Hong Kong Flu, 3/4 to 1 million died of H3N2
Well, thank god I'm not in some backwater country that doesn't have modern medical treaments available.
Yet users only care about running Word processors, not how the kernel is built so long as it allows them to run the word processor.
And I'm not even talking word processors... the desktop interface if Linux is behind both Windows and Mac, and has been for about a decade now. My point, since you so clearly missed it, is that Linux has its strengths, which is a better performing kernel, and Windows has its strengths, which is that is an OS your average consumer can use.
Slashdot Mirror
Please explain how this is funamentally different than the internet? Yes, it takes time for things to propagate, but its still a networking of computers across the globe.
All of our red meat is pretty much buffalo. It takes better, and the fats in it are healthier than beef.
No, stuff like this isn't important to consider. It's just same asshole who doesn't own a pet and doesn't think anyone else should either trying to guilt people into not getting a pet.
Of course you want to know what consumes even more resources than a pet? A child. And I seriously doubt anyone is going to consider THAT before having one.
Not to mention, who are you to force anyone to do anything? They're supposedly free men who own fishing boats and catch fish. If you don't like it don't buy their fish or pay more for pet food so it doesn't *cost them* money to bring in junk fish just so you can feed your dog. Truly I hate to sound like a libertarian but you throwing around like phrases like "force them to turn their "bycatch" to dogfood," makes you look like an mini fascist. Just because they own a boat and supply something that you rely on doesn't suddenly make them your personal slaves. Tell us what industry you're in so we can start discussing "forcing" you to do various things that cost you huge sums of money just to satisfy our own personal attitudes.
Their right to make a profit at fishing ends when they destroy the econsystem upon which we all depend.
You are making the wholly unfounded assumption that half of the dead kids were obese. Where is your justification for that?
Over half the US population is obese.
It sounds like you have a personal issue with obese people. That's well and good, but that doesn't translate into "data"
Ya, but i'm not putting together the data, I'm just telling you about it. Really, is google now beyond the means of the average /.er?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-07-10-swine-flu_N.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/19/AR2009051902609.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601202&sid=aM.7Dg3Z_msI
http://www.naturalnews.com/006781.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/dec/11/medicalresearch.health
http://health.families.com/blog/a-link-between-obesity-and-your-immune-system
Search is distributed. The fact that some servers are no in the same physical location is irrelevent. What new technology enables servers to be physically decentrialized? Nothing, that's already been there.
Cloud is a nonsense term used by people as marketing. I completely understand what it is; its the next SOA, the next meanlingless buzzword.
Socially inept..
If you're asking this of a friend (which is what I'll assume) either question is valid. Usually friends (good ones at least) will want to help you. One of the reasons to have friends, so you can help each other. So either question has the same effect.
In your case, if you're really that nitpicky, I suspect you don't have friends as much as you have acquaintances. I used to have a friend as nitpicky as that... notice the "used to" part.
When the waitress says "If you need anything else, my name is Betty" Joe Random grunts and takes a bite of his meal. Programmer dude wonders what her name is if he doesn't need any thing else.
When the reporter says "For CNN, I'm Wolf Blitzer", programmer dude shouts at the TV demanding to know who the reporter is when he dons his lederhosen and cowboy hat and goes dancing.
No, only a socially intept dummy thinks that.
It's disrespectful to men.
No, I don't really see how.
I don't want a stripper begging me for money.
I don't think anyone was forced on stage.
I don't want my peers expecting me to treat her like a stripper.
Do you also not want your peers to expect you to treat a waitress like a waitress? Or a mechanic like a mechanic? How about a masseuse as a masseuse? Stripping is a job, its not (contrary to what some say) derogetory to women, disrespectful, etc. Its a job, just like any other service job.
Men loyal to their girlfriends and wives are men. Men who don't take strange women's clothes off are men.
So are men that aren't. Men who do are still men.
We don't all have to fit into the model that television and movies make us fit into.
Yet part of being a man is pursuing sex. Its part biology as well as rational thinking.
I've been put in this situation before and there was nothing I could do except play the game and shove money down her pants. The stripper knows it and she exploits it. Next time I encounter an event like that, I'm telling my coworkers to have fun, I'll walk straight out and tell the organizer to fuck off.
Ahh, so you're mad because you feel like you're not in control... or not the alpha male I guess. You see a shortcoming in yourself. I can understand you leaving, but no need to be rude. For many men (probably w/higher test. levels then you) strippers are fun entertainment.
Most people who get offended about things similar to this are really showing their own insecurities.
So members of NOW aren't serious? Because I've heard them say pretty much exactly that.
Google isn't displaying my email box content to everyone.
Unless google isn't careful with it. I mean, its not like any arbitrary gmail user could ever read another gmail user's email, right? Or unless they are subpoenaed. Because thats JUST like needing a warrant.
Sure they admins can access it, but why the f**** would they have to care about my mom asking me how I'm doing.
Ya, you clearly fail understanding human nature.
Any service that you use, may it be online or IRL, anyone can gather info about you.
Which is why I'll keep as much of it as I can local. Oh, and if you cant see the difference about a paper file at some local joint and google's internet connected data store, I don't know what to tell you.
Why do everybody live happily without being paranoiac about your grocer stealing your credit card number or selling your nourishment profile to your insurance company that would really love to know if you eat healthy : trust.
Because there are safeguards. For one, the CC company DOESN'T GET A LIST OF ITEMS I BOUGHT. Second, the damage is limited; I can dispute the charge and get my money back. Once something is on the net though, its gone for good. Also, my insurance doesn't know where I shop.
You trust your ISP not to repport law enforcement if you go online and download warez.
No I don't. Which isn't the reason I don't download warez, I don't do that because I'm not a scumbag that likes to take without consideration.
You trust your mechanics for not telling your car insurance company you've been driving with bad break for 10000 miles.
Bad brakes quickly fail, I hate to inform you. Clearly you don't own a car or pay for auto insurance. Also, you assume someone would knowningly drive with bad brakes. That's just plain stupid, because you're putting your life in danger. People may be really stupid, but they almost always can be counted on to watch out for themselves.
You You trust your MD not to tell everyone you've got STD.
No I don't, and neither did anyone else, which is why we have strong protections called HIPPA.
Trust is the base of a relationship. If people don't trust a company, they won't do business with it.
Well that's not true. I don't trust my bank, I demand a statement each month. I demand an itemized bill for car repairs. I've even demanded to see the replaced part and where they installed the new part. And none of this goes on on the internet, which has a habit of never forgetting.
If Google would sell your email to third party and that you'd end up with some offer in the real mail for something that you had wrote by email, without ever telling others, I guest you'd close your email account pretty fast.
After the damage is already done? What good is that?
Now, if you don't trust your cloud computing provider, then why are you doing business with him? Are cloud computing service provider less secure than ordinary webhoster that would offer you a virtual private server? Why don't they deserve the same trust?
I don't, which is why I do most things locally. The only things I do online already have force of law if they don't function as I expect them to. You clearly miss the big picture; most of a company (or my own) data ISN'T on some web server already. Its safely on MY COMPANY'S (or MY) server. And thats where the cloud fails.
All the cloud services being offered or suggested offer something on the remote side that you're likely not to have locally. Whether it's massive processing power and access to data (Google search); fast, highly specialised processing power (this Nvidia project); highly redundant cheap storage (Amazon S3); and so on
Computers are already more powerful than most people need. Search I'll grant you.. it'd be hard to index the web with only my computer. But is that really cloud? Doesn't seem to fit the bill. As for storage, that's already cheap too, and while it may be convient to have another company hold my personal data, it certainly doesn't make me feel good to store it there.
Cloud computing is a junk buzzword, and hopefully the latest Tmobile scafu will make it crystal clear to everyone why its junk.
Oh... and your search example the input is not small, as you must count the index as an input as well.
Apparently more people agree with me, which is why once MS started selling windows on netbooks, it quickly overtook the ones loaded with Linux.
but yea, keep your head in the sand... your attitude is exactly why Linux won't beat MS anytime soon, and why I went BACK to Windows after using linux for years.
Yeah, we could do away with all kinds of pesky specific descriptions, if we just call everything that touches the internet "internet-based computing". I mean, what idiot coined the tedious and unnecessary buzzword "World Wide Web"?
WWW refers to something specific on the internet; namely that web pages can link to each other even if on another server.
If you put up a web server and I browse it, that's internet-based computing, but it's not cloud computing.
Why isn't it? What if the web server has a web-based mortgage application being served on it? Why isn't that cloud computer? After all, its "doing some processing for me." A plain old web server is "doing some processing for me" as well when it loads the image I requested and sends it to me.
If your "web server" is actually a massively parallel server farm, spread across multiple datacentres worldwide, which splits the POVray rendering job across multiple nodes such that it completes in a fraction of the time and can tolerate individual nodes rebooting or dying altogether -- THAT would be cloud computing.
How is that any different than distributed computing? Oh, because you added "spread across multiple data centers." Please.
Likewise Amazon S3 is cloud computing rather than just remote storage, because the data you store is smeared (mirrored; cached) across multiple nodes so that node failure is routed around, and reads are fast for clients all over the world.
But I thought it had to be doing some processing for me, not just storing stuff? Please, make up your mind. Why throw "smeared" into the mix when you already have the necessary words? Oh right... to make it "cloud compatible."
Cloud is as private as any other thing you would put on in a web application : Privacy is bound to your service provider usage term. Their tem of use are a contract between you and them.
Ya, so in other worse, there is no privacy.
They are as bound to it as you are, except they have the right to change it anytime and you have the right to refuse the modifications and quit using their service.
And don't forget, lose access to my data. Great, thanks.
If they break their term and for any reason your data end up in someone else hands, than you could always go after your service provider and the one that cause the leak.
Ya, ok. You go sue some huge company and let me know how successful you are.
Now if you fear that your info end-up in the government hands, then you've got a bigger problem than worrying about the cloud.
Right... because if you've got nothing to hide you should show everything to the world, right?
Its not nonsensical, it makes perfect sense. Why send data to a server to process over a slow link when I could get the result faster by processing that data locally? That's the question he's asking.
Can you source when it started becoming widely available like it has since 2003?
If the fatalties we're talking about are all also focusing on the US population (which they are), it is the same.
One of the odd things we know about the 1918 epidemic is that healthy people were MORE likely to die than unhealthy ones whop were infected. One theory is that the deaths were caused by cytokine storm, where your immune system freaks out.
And in this case, people with obesity have a weaker immune system and are the ones dying. If you exlude from your definition of healthy those that are obese, this strain isn't killing high amounts of healthy people at all.
The CDC has said that H1N1 doesn't appear to be causing that; however, H1N1 is killing FAR more healthy people than regular seasonal flu does.
Again, this is because they are NOT using obesity in their definition of healthy. If you do infact rule out obese people as healthy (because obesity compromises your immune system) things don't look frighting at all.
What are you talking about? the flu vaccine has beena rounf since the 40's. remember the last bad flu? 1918, quite a few people died, and the population wasn't nearly as dense.
And there was not mention of it growing up. Nobody said anything about it, it wasn't be developed on a large scale. It didn't appear on the news, nothing. It was there, but not really being used like it is today.
I don't call 30+ thousand almost NOBODY.
When the world population is rapidly approaching 7 BILLION people, I do. I call that a fluke. I call that LESS THAN THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE KILLED IN CAR ACCIDENTS IN THE US.
"In 1931, viral growth in embryonated hens' eggs was discovered, and in the 1940s, the US military developed the first approved inactivated vaccines for influenza, which were used in the Second World War (Baker 2002, Hilleman 2000)."
Yet where was the mass vaccination push? Where was it when I was growing up? If the vaccine is so effective and good, why hasn't it done to the flu what the MMR vaccine has done for those diseases? The fact is the flu vaccine wasn't done on this scale until fairly recently and yet people were not dropping dead of the flu prior.
1918-20 - Spanish Flu, 500 million ill, at least 20-40 million died of H1N1
Yes, because we haven't learned anything about washing hands and other preventative measures since then, have we?
1957-58 - Asian Flu, 1 to 1.5 million died of H2N2
1968-69 - Hong Kong Flu, 3/4 to 1 million died of H3N2
Well, thank god I'm not in some backwater country that doesn't have modern medical treaments available.
Yet users only care about running Word processors, not how the kernel is built so long as it allows them to run the word processor.
And I'm not even talking word processors... the desktop interface if Linux is behind both Windows and Mac, and has been for about a decade now. My point, since you so clearly missed it, is that Linux has its strengths, which is a better performing kernel, and Windows has its strengths, which is that is an OS your average consumer can use.
You pick one feature, which may or may not be the same as what Linux is doing, then use that to claim Windows is behind the times?
Meanwhile, normal people can't use a Linux desktop worth a damn.
Um, the OSS community IS a free labor force.
Last March you were both well aware of the economy, jobs and foreign policy. Not much has changed... except you CHOSE to start a family.