If they bought actual servers with dual power supplies and got power from multiple PDUs at their data center, they would be much better off. If this is really because of a tripped breaker, then it's pretty inexcusable, since dual power supplies fed from separate circuits would have prevented it... unlike the LJ outage which was from the power being cut to all circuits.
But if they're going to cobble together some whitebox crap servers, and not change the architecture, they'll be right back to an outage next time it happens.
Well, sure, but there can be huge penalties associated with breaches due to insufficient security procedures, like for companies like ChoicePoint which were neglectful.
The article mentions the commoditization of grid computing by adhering to a set of standards, but past a certain point, it makes little sense for IBM or Sun to make their tools interoperable... that makes their consulting value-add on top of grid resources they offer diminish.
I think that for full standards compliance, you'll need to look to companies which don't offer their own computing resources -- platform-agnostic companies. But then who do you buy the compute resources from? Unless you're buying your own systems for use (which makes "utility computing" less viable), it's a bit of a catch-22.
Well, I just got your credit report from the 3 agencies, and I feel obliged to tell you that with an average FICO score of 559, you probably shouldn't be calling yourself lucky.
Well, the other question is whether or not the data that they do have on me is accurate. If they don't verify data about their customers, how sure can we be that they're verifying data about me or you?
Of course, they'll claim that they don't have to verify it, under whatever laws currently exist. I think that privacy laws like apply under HIPAA for medical records should be required for any business system which includes social security numbers.
For a bunch of principled Linux fanbois, you're really offputting because you don't even know how much IBM already gives back to the community. You just want to rail on about how information wants to be free, The Man is keeping everything down, etc. Hey, wake up. Linux is in the enterprise. Linux is making people money, and people are contributing back into Linux. The money people are making is largely coming from services provided, which is the model that the FOSS people want... free software, open source, if you want to make money from it, provide services... so IBM does that... but you need to be cynical little pricks about any corporation which is making money.
No, they made $2 billion using and pushing Linux and their products which either run Linux or run on top of it.
You make it sound like they're freeloading by pressing copies of Debian and selling them.
They may have had $2 billion in Linux-related revenues, but the cost of making those $2 billion in sales was significant in terms of engineering, training consultants, sales, cannibalizing other resources which were going elsewhere, etc.
How much did they sell in Windows-related purchases in that time?
People refer to the "semantic web" in a way that implies that there's an underlying meaning to everything which can be brought together somehow... which, I guess... is fine.
What I don't find fine is that this interface doesn't somehow derive meaning from documents and bring that meaning together, it's simply an interface to a hierarchical information store. Do we need a new name for that, or would "a bunch of windows that are interdependent" be fine for people who aren't being poseurs?
My first reaction was to say that corporate e-mails should be PGP (or similar) encrypted, but private keys would be subject to subpoena, wouldn't they?
It also says nothing about the journalists not having to testify against sources.
The only person you have a right not to incriminate, constitutionally, is yourself. Of course, other exceptions (physician, priest, attorney) have become protected, as have in many cases journalists, but while they may have a fundamental right to publish the information, they don't have the right not to testify about a crime which was committed just because they have the right to publish.
I don't know if you remember the Clipper Chip initiative from the Clinton Administration -- '93/'94, but the NSA was pushing to get a key-escrow encryption chip in production and mandated for use when communicating sensitive data with the Feds.
Of course, nobody outside the US would use it, since the gov't would keep a backdoor key...
Here's some info from NIST about it that plainly talks about the NSA's involvement.
Well, by signing up with them for an account, you agree to terms which aren't like those usually associated with browsing the web. If the pages are something you could get to without agreeing to terms, then it would be difficult to justify their position, but when you click "I Agree", you've agreed not to.
Of course, something like this is enforceable through technical means, which is probably more workable as a solution.
While there may be issues of precedence in the US legal system, does precedence hold importance in the USPTO, particularly with regard to an "inaction" of not granting a patent?
Slashdot Mirror
If they bought actual servers with dual power supplies and got power from multiple PDUs at their data center, they would be much better off. If this is really because of a tripped breaker, then it's pretty inexcusable, since dual power supplies fed from separate circuits would have prevented it... unlike the LJ outage which was from the power being cut to all circuits.
But if they're going to cobble together some whitebox crap servers, and not change the architecture, they'll be right back to an outage next time it happens.
Well, sure, but there can be huge penalties associated with breaches due to insufficient security procedures, like for companies like ChoicePoint which were neglectful.
Does Sarbanes-Oxley cover security at all? I was under the impression that it didn't.
Well, Intel or AMD could do the same, where only the CPU architecture would be non-agnostic.
I recall that Intel was at least incubating a renderfarm company.
The article mentions the commoditization of grid computing by adhering to a set of standards, but past a certain point, it makes little sense for IBM or Sun to make their tools interoperable... that makes their consulting value-add on top of grid resources they offer diminish.
I think that for full standards compliance, you'll need to look to companies which don't offer their own computing resources -- platform-agnostic companies. But then who do you buy the compute resources from? Unless you're buying your own systems for use (which makes "utility computing" less viable), it's a bit of a catch-22.
Get Google to link every instance of MAME to be found on the web to your own site via their toolbar.
Well, I just got your credit report from the 3 agencies, and I feel obliged to tell you that with an average FICO score of 559, you probably shouldn't be calling yourself lucky.
Well, the other question is whether or not the data that they do have on me is accurate. If they don't verify data about their customers, how sure can we be that they're verifying data about me or you?
Of course, they'll claim that they don't have to verify it, under whatever laws currently exist. I think that privacy laws like apply under HIPAA for medical records should be required for any business system which includes social security numbers.
Netcraft is dying.
If we already have all this CO2 in the atmosphere, and even if we reduce emissions... won't the CO2 in the air still keep the earth building up heat?
What work is being done to remove the CO2 in the air that's already there.
For a bunch of principled Linux fanbois, you're really offputting because you don't even know how much IBM already gives back to the community. You just want to rail on about how information wants to be free, The Man is keeping everything down, etc. Hey, wake up. Linux is in the enterprise. Linux is making people money, and people are contributing back into Linux. The money people are making is largely coming from services provided, which is the model that the FOSS people want... free software, open source, if you want to make money from it, provide services... so IBM does that... but you need to be cynical little pricks about any corporation which is making money.
Pitiful and sickening.
No, they made $2 billion using and pushing Linux and their products which either run Linux or run on top of it.
You make it sound like they're freeloading by pressing copies of Debian and selling them.
They may have had $2 billion in Linux-related revenues, but the cost of making those $2 billion in sales was significant in terms of engineering, training consultants, sales, cannibalizing other resources which were going elsewhere, etc.
How much did they sell in Windows-related purchases in that time?
People refer to the "semantic web" in a way that implies that there's an underlying meaning to everything which can be brought together somehow... which, I guess... is fine.
What I don't find fine is that this interface doesn't somehow derive meaning from documents and bring that meaning together, it's simply an interface to a hierarchical information store. Do we need a new name for that, or would "a bunch of windows that are interdependent" be fine for people who aren't being poseurs?
The passphrase is used to encrypt the private key, "unlocking" it for use.
I'm not sure about the feasibility of brute-forcing the passphrase to get the private key (stored on disk, USB key, whatever medium).
My first reaction was to say that corporate e-mails should be PGP (or similar) encrypted, but private keys would be subject to subpoena, wouldn't they?
Am I the only one finding it curious that nowhere in the specs do they mention how much RAM there is per node or in the aggregate?
It mentions how many nodes, how many CPUs, how many racks, how much storage, but not how much RAM.
Is IMDB the model for Wikipedia going forward?
Free not-necessarily-accurate data for everyone, fact-checked and extended commercial data for some?
It also says nothing about the journalists not having to testify against sources.
The only person you have a right not to incriminate, constitutionally, is yourself. Of course, other exceptions (physician, priest, attorney) have become protected, as have in many cases journalists, but while they may have a fundamental right to publish the information, they don't have the right not to testify about a crime which was committed just because they have the right to publish.
Just because it's not the subject of this article, don't assume that they're not watching your traffic.
Echelon doesn't get much coverage these days, but I'm sure it's still out there.
I don't know if you remember the Clipper Chip initiative from the Clinton Administration -- '93/'94, but the NSA was pushing to get a key-escrow encryption chip in production and mandated for use when communicating sensitive data with the Feds.
Of course, nobody outside the US would use it, since the gov't would keep a backdoor key...
Here's some info from NIST about it that plainly talks about the NSA's involvement.
We for one reject our software patent wielding overlords!
loyalty-free
Is it French?
Well, by signing up with them for an account, you agree to terms which aren't like those usually associated with browsing the web. If the pages are something you could get to without agreeing to terms, then it would be difficult to justify their position, but when you click "I Agree", you've agreed not to.
Of course, something like this is enforceable through technical means, which is probably more workable as a solution.
It's kind of like life... changing your parents' diapers when they get old.
While there may be issues of precedence in the US legal system, does precedence hold importance in the USPTO, particularly with regard to an "inaction" of not granting a patent?