Add some portable phone handsets and it gets even worse. I had a client with an older Panasonic 2.4GHz handset that would immediately take any wireless connection it was with in a few hundred feet of to a few Kbps. The problem with public wireless is anyone, either accidentally or maliciously can make the entire network useless.
If you have a bad experience and go to the product review and the other reviews are bad, you are apt to write a review confirming what you are reading.
On the other hand if you have a bad experience and all the other product reviews are good you may have a moment of self doubt (did I mess up with the product) which makes you less willing to post a negative review.
Aircraft with human pilots are generally large and expensive units. Pilots are also very expensive too. These expense issues are what keeps multiple planes from flying around at all times spying on us.
>Back in 2000, the rule, and it worked, was one app per server.
Which was great at 2000 memory and processor levels where I might have a 32 bit operating system and a few gig of ram on a server. For the same price in U.S. dollars I can buy vastly larger hardware resources now.
>Now assholes are piling on the virtual servers
Or people who would rather buy fewer boxes and use the resources efficiently and be able to easily manage and migrate the virtual infrastructure. If you don't know how to use your resource monitoring tools, it doesn't matter if you have 100 or 1 computer systems.
>and piling as many apps as possible onto each server.
Assholes have always done that. 'Oh look, exchange, AD, and file serving all on the same installation, hmm I wonder why this doesn't work'. Bad design is timeless. There was never 'the good ole days'.
>Ever notice that games take as long or longer to load now than before, even though computer systems are orders of magnitude more powerful now?
Storage latency. Spinning hard disks are not orders of magnitude faster when loading gigabytes of random data then the 64k off of what ever medium 20+ years ago. Load that same huge game off a fast SSD or RAMdisk and it's pretty much instant.
> then cutting the price of the resource in half will be met by more than twice the original quantity demanded
In the history of computing so far, this has happened 'naturally'. Moores law up to this point has lead to a doubling of chip sizes (and therefore processing power) every 18 months. Your gas analogy is not compatible with the general trend of computing technology. Users would be surprised if there next car they bought didn't get double the gas mileage (halving the price of gas in usage) in digital computing.
The question then turns in to 'is there still tasks that can be made faster or better with more computing resources'. That answer varies greatly depending on the business, but in theory the amount of computing we could find use for is much much larger then the amount we currently have.
There is a very long Wikipedia article on this topic that contains a great deal of information on what occurred. While a great deal of work has been done to show that it is not fully the oil companies fault, drilling in to a hydrothermically unstable area with a faulty well design is a recipe for disaster.
A 7 character password is stupidly short these days. This is just retarded, as a brute force attack against a password that short takes very little time now (few hours at most). Even a 'leetspeak' password at double that length would take much much longer, but still get knocked out in less than a month.
>Can you say Cloud systems are more reliable than physical medium? Not really.
Compared to a single spinning disk. Yes.
>Hard disk reliability is mostly linear.
When you compare very many hard drives across a wide range of models. If you think that matters when looking at the possibility of failure in your single hard drive you're engaging in a gamblers fallacy.
The reliability of 'cloud' vs 'in house disks' completely and totally depends on the quality of equipment and software and the ability of your staff to monitor it and do proper backups.
Re:Got that finger pointed the wrong way...
on
Beware the Internet
·
· Score: 1
>All measurements show increasing quality and length of life
>The idea that "disconnecting critical infrastructure from the Internet is the best way to protect it" seems simple,
Even disconnected networks are not simple to protect. Stuxnet shows how USB keys can jump the gap. Also the proliferation of wireless makes it very, difficult to verify that your network is truly separate. You still have to spend the money to make sure each host, along with the network is secure.
>Since 9/11, we've also had about 420,000 traffic fatalities.
So spending 1 TRILLION+ on a war when we could have spent it on infrastructure and public safety is a good idea? I'm guessing you reap the benefits of government defense contracts.
> What interests me is that if SSDs mount a major invasion of server-rooms and data-centers worldwide it also means that we will now finally start to see SSD pricing drop like rock.
I'd think the opposite may occur. SSD flash is currently limited by the amount we can produce at a reasonable price.
It depends how many disks it replaces to get the same throughput, and at other times an individual machine will use more power with an SSD because it will spend less time in an IO-WAIT state. In general SSDs reduce the amount of equipment in total needed on most loads because of higher potential processor usage.
>that the guy who is supposed to handle the roadblock isn't even at the meeting
That is a management problem.
>obviously that will make the user feel like what the fuck is he paying the developers for..
Only if your user is a fucking idiot. Don't worry, lots of users are. They imagine that you the developer can see right in to their head and make the software happen and get angry when you don't. I've seen a few 'agile-like' projects where the end user was brought in early and major changes to the way the work flow works on the interface was changed before it became a huge issue. The user realized what they originally wanted just didn't work smoothly.
I would think that any software development type would probably fail if it has mindless low level managers, foolish high level managers, and poor abused slobs.
Slashdot Mirror
Add some portable phone handsets and it gets even worse. I had a client with an older Panasonic 2.4GHz handset that would immediately take any wireless connection it was with in a few hundred feet of to a few Kbps. The problem with public wireless is anyone, either accidentally or maliciously can make the entire network useless.
I'd say it's far more complicated then that.
If you have a bad experience and go to the product review and the other reviews are bad, you are apt to write a review confirming what you are reading.
On the other hand if you have a bad experience and all the other product reviews are good you may have a moment of self doubt (did I mess up with the product) which makes you less willing to post a negative review.
Yes.
Aircraft with human pilots are generally large and expensive units. Pilots are also very expensive too. These expense issues are what keeps multiple planes from flying around at all times spying on us.
>Back in 2000, the rule, and it worked, was one app per server.
Which was great at 2000 memory and processor levels where I might have a 32 bit operating system and a few gig of ram on a server. For the same price in U.S. dollars I can buy vastly larger hardware resources now.
>Now assholes are piling on the virtual servers
Or people who would rather buy fewer boxes and use the resources efficiently and be able to easily manage and migrate the virtual infrastructure. If you don't know how to use your resource monitoring tools, it doesn't matter if you have 100 or 1 computer systems.
>and piling as many apps as possible onto each server.
Assholes have always done that. 'Oh look, exchange, AD, and file serving all on the same installation, hmm I wonder why this doesn't work'. Bad design is timeless. There was never 'the good ole days'.
>Ever notice that games take as long or longer to load now than before, even though computer systems are orders of magnitude more powerful now?
Storage latency. Spinning hard disks are not orders of magnitude faster when loading gigabytes of random data then the 64k off of what ever medium 20+ years ago. Load that same huge game off a fast SSD or RAMdisk and it's pretty much instant.
>Not much different than running all your apps on the one piece of hardware
Do you even sysadmin?
> Virtualization: A solution in search of a problem
I'll take that as a no.
> then cutting the price of the resource in half will be met by more than twice the original quantity demanded
In the history of computing so far, this has happened 'naturally'. Moores law up to this point has lead to a doubling of chip sizes (and therefore processing power) every 18 months. Your gas analogy is not compatible with the general trend of computing technology. Users would be surprised if there next car they bought didn't get double the gas mileage (halving the price of gas in usage) in digital computing.
The question then turns in to 'is there still tasks that can be made faster or better with more computing resources'. That answer varies greatly depending on the business, but in theory the amount of computing we could find use for is much much larger then the amount we currently have.
There is a very long Wikipedia article on this topic that contains a great deal of information on what occurred. While a great deal of work has been done to show that it is not fully the oil companies fault, drilling in to a hydrothermically unstable area with a faulty well design is a recipe for disaster.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidoarjo_mud_flow
A 7 character password is stupidly short these days. This is just retarded, as a brute force attack against a password that short takes very little time now (few hours at most). Even a 'leetspeak' password at double that length would take much much longer, but still get knocked out in less than a month.
>Can you say Cloud systems are more reliable than physical medium? Not really.
Compared to a single spinning disk. Yes.
>Hard disk reliability is mostly linear.
When you compare very many hard drives across a wide range of models. If you think that matters when looking at the possibility of failure in your single hard drive you're engaging in a gamblers fallacy.
The reliability of 'cloud' vs 'in house disks' completely and totally depends on the quality of equipment and software and the ability of your staff to monitor it and do proper backups.
>All measurements show increasing quality and length of life
I wouldn't say 'All'
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/21/us/life-expectancy-for-less-educated-whites-in-us-is-shrinking.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
>The idea that "disconnecting critical infrastructure from the Internet is the best way to protect it" seems simple,
Even disconnected networks are not simple to protect. Stuxnet shows how USB keys can jump the gap. Also the proliferation of wireless makes it very, difficult to verify that your network is truly separate. You still have to spend the money to make sure each host, along with the network is secure.
>but that happened back in the '70s when there were hardly any cryptographers or computers in the world.
What? You do realize a large portion of the computers of the time were working on cryptography issues, cold war and all.
http://www.ubuntu.com/usn/usn-612-2/
Weaknesses in key generation will create encrypted code that IS AES (or whatever), but it's not cryptographically secure. Huge difference.
>Since 9/11, we've also had about 420,000 traffic fatalities.
So spending 1 TRILLION+ on a war when we could have spent it on infrastructure and public safety is a good idea? I'm guessing you reap the benefits of government defense contracts.
Way to make his point for him.
> What interests me is that if SSDs mount a major invasion of server-rooms and data-centers worldwide it also means that we will now finally start to see SSD pricing drop like rock.
I'd think the opposite may occur. SSD flash is currently limited by the amount we can produce at a reasonable price.
http://searchstorage.techtarget.com/news/2240181971/NAND-shortage-could-slow-pace-of-flash-price-drops-squeeze-SSD-makers
http://www.seagate.com/point-of-view/nand-flash-supply-market-master-pov/
It depends how many disks it replaces to get the same throughput, and at other times an individual machine will use more power with an SSD because it will spend less time in an IO-WAIT state. In general SSDs reduce the amount of equipment in total needed on most loads because of higher potential processor usage.
What I don't get is why no one looked up
http://www.blackbox.com/Store/Detail.aspx/Network-Power-Switch-Jr/SWI080A%C4%82R3
A networked power switch. Plug a switch in to that that goes to the main network and the device and you can power it up and down at will
Or, was there a flurry of honking that was ignored? Sound does contain a lot of useful information.
>that the guy who is supposed to handle the roadblock isn't even at the meeting
That is a management problem.
>obviously that will make the user feel like what the fuck is he paying the developers for..
Only if your user is a fucking idiot. Don't worry, lots of users are. They imagine that you the developer can see right in to their head and make the software happen and get angry when you don't. I've seen a few 'agile-like' projects where the end user was brought in early and major changes to the way the work flow works on the interface was changed before it became a huge issue. The user realized what they originally wanted just didn't work smoothly.
I think we detected the Rambo in the group.
I would think that any software development type would probably fail if it has mindless low level managers, foolish high level managers, and poor abused slobs.
http://xsisupport.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/softimage2013cer.png
I'd suggest that Autodesk and its ilk crashes far more often than NASA software.
I'm assuming they are pretty sure that it is the fridge. It's not very hard to triangulate the position of a transmitter and then check it locally.
There is no legal liability if the owner stops using it once made aware. That's what the parent was saying.