Please don't tell me you are a hot single babe looking for a man, who lives at some location to which I cannot get, or I'm going to break down and cry;-)
I went as the Evil Queen from Snow White one year for Halloween, but nope, I'm a married guy with 3 kids in NY.
"What's the actual data capacity of a 747 full of DVDs (let's assume we're using the most effective possible storage medium and just calling it DVDs)?"
This is the only thing you wrote that I won't accept, because DVDs were specifically laid out in the initial requirements specification. Obviously, if I can start modifying the requirements I can change the resultant design quite drastically.
As much as this is a somewhat absurd hypothetical, it seemed like once we're going down this road we might as well do it right. In my mind the question is really about physical transfer of storage medium versus copper/fiber/whatever is current. I had assumed that "747 full of DVDs" was given not because it's the pinnacle of storage medium transfer methodology but because it fairly clearly states the concept with just a few words. I've often heard the same concept expressed as "A station wagon full of hard drives".
I kind of like the thought experiment of figuring out what the optimal vehicle for this would be, once you factor in things like unloading the storage medium from the vehicle and time required to read and verify the data. It seems like a faster and lower capacity vehicle would ultimately fill the niche better than a slower but higher capacity one. In fact, the ethernet concept is in my mind the ultimate endpoint for this. But I might be persuaded that an ocean liner full of multi-terabyte drives is better.
In any case, I think my initial point that the OPs emphatic statement in complete disregard to all of these factors was off base and probably incorrect in most if not all scenarios holds. Would you disagree?
I would agree with you. My objection was mostly about how you seemed to completely dismiss the possibility of redundancy. I don't dispute your other points.
and by the way, as silly as this discussion is, it is nice to be able to exchange points and counterpoints with someone who doesn't go immediately to the "you pointed out a possible error; what are you some kind of $DEROGATORY_LABEL ??!!! well.
I was looking for a nice, juicy spelling error in here that I could then call you a moron for having. Sadly, you disappoint.
I concede that I had not considered that option, however it is probably better to just burn one copy of each, utilize 100% bandwidth rather than 50%, and then fly back and burn the few DVDs that need re-burning.
At this point other factors start to enter in, such as:
What's the actual data capacity of a 747 full of DVDs (let's assume we're using the most effective possible storage medium and just calling it DVDs)?
What's the ratio of capacity to data needing transfer? Obviously at 0.5 or lower, redundancy starts to become a better option.
Are there partial data sets that can be useful? What chunk of the whole do you need? How long is the flight itself?
Those are just the one that spring to mind immediately for me.
If you're making constant repeat flights, then your method is certainly the one that's going to maximize bandwidth as you'd just put the re-burnt DVDs on the next flight with the rest of the space full of new stuff.
In order to implement redundancy you need to half your bandwidth and also burn twice as many DVDs, which is what takes the lions share of the time, so in fact building redundancy into the system is precluded.
Commercial burners burn multiple copies from a single source simultaneously. You'll lose capacity but the time to burn won't go up.
Don't forget that when one of those DVDs inevitably fails to properly read on the target system you need to fly back, burn a new one, and return.
There's nothing to prevent someone from building a little bit of redundancy into the system. Reduces your bandwidth some, but it solves that last problem.
Apparently it's about 94 miles on I-178, estimated driving time 2 hours 5 minutes, though it could be about 80 if you drew a straight line between the two.
I'm not trying to say it doesn't happen, or make any kind of comment about how much fun it might be. I'm just saying that this type of purchase is probably statistically irrelevant.
For example: I just bought a weird kitchen tool at the thrift store the other day and was puzzled as to its precise use until I typed in the patent number on it and found out that it was an ice cube chunker (it works pretty well, too -- no, I'm sorry, I forget the patent # off the top of my head). Had it not had a patent number on it, I'd probably still be trying to squeeze citrus with it or something!
I'm going to go out on a limb here and propose that this might just possibly be an edge case and that there's a chance most people are aware of the intended use of the product they are buying.
Well, let me rephrase that: I know I could come up with something, but I have no idea if it is truly the best course of action, how easy it will be to implement with existing systems, or any of the logistical stuff on how long each section will take under the rest of the team with their experience.
This line would actually make me want to hire you. You might screw it up, but it sounds like you would learn. We had a designer position open at a previous job, and when the CTO asked me what we should look for, one of the things I said was "A guy who's screwed up and knows it"
The ruling, from what I understand of the summary, is saying that the act of covert recording in and of itself is not a criminal act. It says nothing about admissibility of said recordings in other cases, merely that you cannot be charged solely for having made a covert recording.
First, I'll start with what I agree with: $8 billion sounds way too low. But I do have some issues with your comparisons:
High Speed 1 in the UK (our first 'high speed' but really only reaching 180mph, which people do on their motorbikes nowadays)
- 67 miles, £5.2 billion ($8 billion)
Cross-Rail (our newest train project in London, crossing the capital)
- 73 miles, £16 billion ($25 billion)
I don't think it's necessarily valid to compare UK costs to US ones. I could be wrong, but I suspect labor and raw material costs are dissimilar between the two.
The 'big dig' in Boston
- 3.5 miles, $22 billion
The Big Dig is an exceptional case. It was poorly planned, the bad plan was then poorly executed, and even outside of those details it involved excavation in middle of a major city. It also involves automobile traffic, which incurs a set of additional costs.
I'm raising my hand. Rupert Murdoch is a billionaire for a reason.
I think, historically, he's made some brilliant moves. More recently however he has displayed a total lack of understanding as to the myriad ways the internet has reshaped the business world.
Slashdot Mirror
my post is actually from "Dr. Ann De Wees Allen"
Just thought I'd point out you actually said that.
When I'm not in NY, I'm out hunting people who deliberately parse my sentences wrong :)
Please don't tell me you are a hot single babe looking for a man, who lives at some location to which I cannot get, or I'm going to break down and cry ;-)
I went as the Evil Queen from Snow White one year for Halloween, but nope, I'm a married guy with 3 kids in NY.
"What's the actual data capacity of a 747 full of DVDs (let's assume we're using the most effective possible storage medium and just calling it DVDs)?"
This is the only thing you wrote that I won't accept, because DVDs were specifically laid out in the initial requirements specification. Obviously, if I can start modifying the requirements I can change the resultant design quite drastically.
As much as this is a somewhat absurd hypothetical, it seemed like once we're going down this road we might as well do it right. In my mind the question is really about physical transfer of storage medium versus copper/fiber/whatever is current. I had assumed that "747 full of DVDs" was given not because it's the pinnacle of storage medium transfer methodology but because it fairly clearly states the concept with just a few words. I've often heard the same concept expressed as "A station wagon full of hard drives".
I kind of like the thought experiment of figuring out what the optimal vehicle for this would be, once you factor in things like unloading the storage medium from the vehicle and time required to read and verify the data. It seems like a faster and lower capacity vehicle would ultimately fill the niche better than a slower but higher capacity one. In fact, the ethernet concept is in my mind the ultimate endpoint for this. But I might be persuaded that an ocean liner full of multi-terabyte drives is better.
In any case, I think my initial point that the OPs emphatic statement in complete disregard to all of these factors was off base and probably incorrect in most if not all scenarios holds. Would you disagree?
I would agree with you. My objection was mostly about how you seemed to completely dismiss the possibility of redundancy. I don't dispute your other points.
and by the way, as silly as this discussion is, it is nice to be able to exchange points and counterpoints with someone who doesn't go immediately to the "you pointed out a possible error; what are you some kind of $DEROGATORY_LABEL ??!!! well.
I was looking for a nice, juicy spelling error in here that I could then call you a moron for having. Sadly, you disappoint.
I concede that I had not considered that option, however it is probably better to just burn one copy of each, utilize 100% bandwidth rather than 50%, and then fly back and burn the few DVDs that need re-burning.
At this point other factors start to enter in, such as:
What's the actual data capacity of a 747 full of DVDs (let's assume we're using the most effective possible storage medium and just calling it DVDs)?
What's the ratio of capacity to data needing transfer? Obviously at 0.5 or lower, redundancy starts to become a better option.
Are there partial data sets that can be useful? What chunk of the whole do you need?
How long is the flight itself?
Those are just the one that spring to mind immediately for me.
If you're making constant repeat flights, then your method is certainly the one that's going to maximize bandwidth as you'd just put the re-burnt DVDs on the next flight with the rest of the space full of new stuff.
In order to implement redundancy you need to half your bandwidth and also burn twice as many DVDs, which is what takes the lions share of the time, so in fact building redundancy into the system is precluded.
Commercial burners burn multiple copies from a single source simultaneously. You'll lose capacity but the time to burn won't go up.
Don't forget that when one of those DVDs inevitably fails to properly read on the target system you need to fly back, burn a new one, and return.
There's nothing to prevent someone from building a little bit of redundancy into the system. Reduces your bandwidth some, but it solves that last problem.
From the article:
all of Google Inc.'s sites combined, including YouTube, the free Gmail e-mail program, Google news and other content sites
search itself might not be a time sink, but youtube and gmail probably are.
Apparently it's about 94 miles on I-178, estimated driving time 2 hours 5 minutes, though it could be about 80 if you drew a straight line between the two.
I think #9 on that list is my favorite:
North, South Carolina
So you did it years before she was born? I got my account in roughly 2002 +/- 1 year.
I'm not trying to say it doesn't happen, or make any kind of comment about how much fun it might be. I'm just saying that this type of purchase is probably statistically irrelevant.
For example: I just bought a weird kitchen tool at the thrift store the other day and was puzzled as to its precise use until I typed in the patent number on it and found out that it was an ice cube chunker (it works pretty well, too -- no, I'm sorry, I forget the patent # off the top of my head). Had it not had a patent number on it, I'd probably still be trying to squeeze citrus with it or something!
I'm going to go out on a limb here and propose that this might just possibly be an edge case and that there's a chance most people are aware of the intended use of the product they are buying.
Well, let me rephrase that: I know I could come up with something, but I have no idea if it is truly the best course of action, how easy it will be to implement with existing systems, or any of the logistical stuff on how long each section will take under the rest of the team with their experience.
This line would actually make me want to hire you. You might screw it up, but it sounds like you would learn. We had a designer position open at a previous job, and when the CTO asked me what we should look for, one of the things I said was "A guy who's screwed up and knows it"
With a title like that, do you need another reason?
The ruling, from what I understand of the summary, is saying that the act of covert recording in and of itself is not a criminal act. It says nothing about admissibility of said recordings in other cases, merely that you cannot be charged solely for having made a covert recording.
First, I'll start with what I agree with: $8 billion sounds way too low. But I do have some issues with your comparisons:
High Speed 1 in the UK (our first 'high speed' but really only reaching 180mph, which people do on their motorbikes nowadays)
- 67 miles, £5.2 billion ($8 billion)
Cross-Rail (our newest train project in London, crossing the capital)
- 73 miles, £16 billion ($25 billion)
I don't think it's necessarily valid to compare UK costs to US ones. I could be wrong, but I suspect labor and raw material costs are dissimilar between the two.
The 'big dig' in Boston
- 3.5 miles, $22 billion
The Big Dig is an exceptional case. It was poorly planned, the bad plan was then poorly executed, and even outside of those details it involved excavation in middle of a major city. It also involves automobile traffic, which incurs a set of additional costs.
argh. Dividing by one is hard...
I'm not even sure what to say about this statement
You could say that clearly there are about 2.5 bytes per loc. Doesn't everyone code that way?
There is a newly discovered vulnerability in Mozilla's flagship Firefox browser
So all of Mozilla's other browsers are okay?
I'm raising my hand. Rupert Murdoch is a billionaire for a reason.
I think, historically, he's made some brilliant moves. More recently however he has displayed a total lack of understanding as to the myriad ways the internet has reshaped the business world.
raise your hand. What, no one can hear me? IF YOU THINK THIS WILL WORK, RAISE YOUR HAND! Is this thing on?
he'll
I've usua'lly only seen the "here comes an s!" version of the unnecessary apostrophe.
'civilised' ? More like the league of dirty, no good z haters.
I've always seen them signed as "10 items or less" (or 15, or 12, or a few other relatively small numbers).