Handling flash congestions is a very big issue in networks. Those congestions propagate and bring down whole swathes of network areas, just like traffic jams.
Really? I spent years managing networks and never had this issue. I'd be interested in knowing how this could happen outside of DDOS type events.
Think of not only switch capabilities, but also computer nodes (CPU utilization, etc....). Every piece of the network has a capacity.
I wonder how well this would work for computer networks. Handling flash congestions is a very big issue in networks. Those congestions propagate and bring down whole swathes of network areas, just like traffic jams.
I've always made it a rule to keep node usage below 30% capacity to handle such congestions gracefully, but with a more optimal system we could increase that number and thus make the whole system more cost efficient.
Basically someone forgot that the soil needed to be much more stable than its default state. So they need to put a huge amount of weight on it to get it to settle, and then remove it and build the heavy stuff on top. That's it.
Not only fly, but the take-off procedures are already well underway. Some European countries are planning a full abolition of physical money.
Completely unfeasible at this stage. They can plan all they want, but capital flights would be massive.
Also, more than once I've been to restaurants where the smartcard readers weren't working. It still happens. So you'd need to carry a stack of 20 Euro bills just in case.
No, you wouldn't. You'd pay with your phone, either through phone billing or by direct transfer (giro). Because the transfer systems uses universal routing and is bank-agnostic (except for in the UK, which clings to its old fashioned branch based accounts) and is payer based unlike the US payee based, anyone can pay anyone else in seconds, and there's no "hold" time.
If all phone and internet services were down too, well, what would you do if a cash register was broken or you run out of change? It's not much different - you take people's names and addresses and send them a bill.
Let's talk about this when transfer fees are zero, and p2p payments are as easy as p2m. That's what cash does for you.
There's a difference between 500 Euros and 100 Dollars. About 5x difference. Imagine getting rid of everything above 20 Euros. Wouldn't fly at all.
Also, more than once I've been to restaurants where the smartcard readers weren't working. It still happens. So you'd need to carry a stack of 20 Euro bills just in case.
And what about all those cash countries using USD for transactions, where the local currency is too much in flux to serve as anything other than toilet paper? They'd instantly switch to a currency that has all those necessary bills.
You surmised properly. I did have an N95. The phone was great except that the UI was, well, Symbian, and the battery life was utter, absolute garbage. I was lucky to get 5 hours under wifi. There's absolutely no comparison between the N95 and the iPhone, even without the app store or copy-paste. Yes, iOS 1.0 was sorely lacking in some areas, but overall the iPhone was a giant leap forward. I never even touched the N95 after that.
That's complete bullshit. You have no idea what the original iPhone did then. That's exactly the point of @schnell's comment above. No one was using their "smartphone" (or super duper feature phone like the N95) because they were a disaster to use. What Apple did was create a complete package of software and hardware, and provided web apps functionality. It's only when users found out how amazing the package was that they said "Why did you short-change us!?!? That thing is great, let us use it all the way! We want native apps!"
When people saw my iPhone they'd ask me what I thought of it, and my answer was always that within 3 years everyone would have one or something similar. There was just no comparison, this was finally a usable handheld computer with a SIM card. So whether you call it a "feature phone" or a "smartphone" is irrelevant: it was a revolution in phones, and every single smartphone today is a direct descendant of the iPhone.
Put another way, the chasm between the phones before iPhone and the iPhone is immensely wider than the difference between the iPhone and today's smartphones.
"* Apple did not invent smartphones. They took the idea and made the first smartphone that was user-friendly enough that normal people wanted one instead of just work-issued mobile email tools, so lots and lots of people wanted to buy one."
No. The first iphone sold only 6M. At the time, there were numerous smartphones, most notably the N95, that sold a lot more. Also, the first iphone wasn't even a smartphone but a feature phone.
That's completely ludicrous: either you're trolling or you didn't go through the iPhone revolution. The first iPhone was as much a smartphone as the one you have in your pocket.
You think that the sun, rocks, and trees give comfort to humans? After losing a loved one?
Perhaps there is more confusion than you recognize regarding what actually exists, and your belief or disbelief doesn't change that.
Clearly you don't understand the importance of sun, trees, rain et. al. to primitive humans. It literally meant life or death if the sun didn't shine enough, or the rain was missing, or the trees weren't bountiful. Hence the gods of such things. Perhaps the confusion is yours.
I know the parent is sarcastic, but replacing a battery in an iPhone costs $25 and 2 minutes in the store. I just did it for my iPhone 4S, and the difference was phenomenal. Basically after 3 years your battery goes to crap as soon as you hit 50% capacity as described by the OS. You blink and it's dead. Replace it and you are back to normal, and there's nothing incredibly hard about replacing an iPhone battery.
Wrong. HFT trader will bid 1.00 and sell, then as your trade comes in it won't be executed and you'll be forced to sell lower, say 0.98, which he'll gladly buy back from you. He got a completely unnecessary spread out of your pocket.
Because this is basically what's happening, is that these machines are taking advantage of a security flaw that allows them to see a transaction before it's complete
No. They see the completed transaction at one exchange for X shares, and assume you're doing the same thing at the other exchanges. They just race there faster and preempt your transactions that are on the way.
And they also consistently post fake offers that they retract in order to analyze the market appetite.
As for the front-running nonsense on 60 Minutes, that's always been illegal (contrary to what we're being told), and it is not at all how high frequency trading works. If someone was in fact doing that, then they're in a whole world of hurt with the SEC (and rightly so), but this entire exercise appears much more like a distraction: blame small outsider firms who've made the marketplace more effecient and tightened spreads for problems created by corruption within the big banks, and hope no one notices...at least until the next bank-induced crash.
This is absolutely not illegal. Here's how HFT gets one of its profit lines: Large trades often spread across multiple exchanges. Buy 30,000 shares here, 15,000 there, etc... The regular broker submits one purchase and it gets distributed across exchanges. As soon as it hits the first exchange, say after 30ms, an HFT algo picks up on the trade and assumes that it'll happen as well on the other exchanges. So it races ahead and front-runs in the other exchanges before the regular distributed trade has a chance to arrive there. There is nothing illegal whatsoever, since the trades are public. It's just that the HFT optimized their routes.
One of the major problem is when an HFT sees your making a trade in exchange A, it assumes you're going to be hitting the other exchanges for similar trades and beats you to them. I don't see how putting a delay in a trade at a single exchange would help.
There's a gripping article over at the NY Times (adapted from a just released book) that explains very well the pitfalls of HFT, where the problems are mostly due to the haves and have-nots, just like in most things. The article is at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04...
Not having a level playing deck in an exchange is a major problem for the correct functioning of said exchange.
Hell, back in the 80's it was common for kids under 10 to teach themselves how to program.
Um, I was around then. It wasn't "common" - it was only "common" among those who had aptitude for it. Like, you know, today.
Back in the 80's you had maybe 30% of kids who really knew how to use computers, let alone program. I'm not talking about games, I'm talking about being able to load up the OS, muck around, launch different programs and use them properly. Kids programming were the exception, just like they are now.
Just because a loop is obvious to you doesn't mean it's obvious to others:
"Why do we need these loop things? A counter? What's a counter? How does the computer know to go back and do it again? Where is the counter in the computer? What if I want to do it more times while I'm doing it? etc..."
Bullshit. I know how to code and I know how to speak. It's just a matter of spending the time and energy to LEARN TO SPEAK. Structuring your speech, engaging the audience, modulating your voice, moving your body. This can be easily learned. Emacs bindings are insanely tougher.
They should call them SHIVs and be done with it. That's exactly what the description is about: robots that are part of the squad and act upon orders from the squad leader.
(i.e., you don't have to squeeze your way out of your vehicle while trying not to bang the next car's door)
That brilliant plan has two massive shortcomings:
1) You still need to squeeze back into the car when you're ready to leave (assuming there is no "unpark" feature)
2) What are the odds that the driver of the car parked NEXT to your in your overly narrow space will ding your passenger side door trying to get into HIS car?
Well if anyone RTFAs (and RTFVs) then it's clear that there is indeed an "unpark" feature. That is pretty obviously necessary. Second, for #2 it's the chicken or egg: As more cars get the parking assists, this'll happen less and less. Also, in many cases you can get into your car from the passenger side and then switch to the driver's seat if it's that bad.
Commendable, but ultimately wishful thinking unfortunately. The NSA will just tap the underwater cables or enlist the "help" of technicians at the Brazil data exchanges to split the data feeds. When the adversary has this much money and next to no scruples, the battle is difficult if not impossible.
From TFA, "Maintaining those indexes is expensive and slows down transaction processing. Let's get rid of them," Ellison remarked. "Let's throw all of those analytic indexes away and replace the indexes with in-memory column sort."
This merely minimizes the penalties of poor indexing and RBAR by making complete table scans on arbitrary columns faster. Apparently Mr. Ellison has forgotten his algoithmics and combinatorics - Oh, wait, no he didn't, he dropped out as a sophmore. Pity, because had he stayed, he would have learned that even with a 1000x slower storage medium, an O(log N) algorithm (index seek) will eventually beat an O(N log N) algorithm (column sort).
I think you misunderstand the way columnar databases work. They are not doing a column sort the way you think. The column itself is an index. Of course the inanities coming out of Ellison's mouth don't help explain things correctly. No Larry, you don't do away with indexes. You mostly store indexes on everything, automatically.
Thanks, Larry, but you want to make Oracle faster? Remove cursors from the core language, and although that alone won't "fix" it, you'll see all the hacks who can't think in set-based logic drop out overnight.
I don't think it's in the same ballpark. The SQL Server column store seems to be purely for read-only:
Keep in mind that once you add a column store to a table, though, you cannot delete, insert or update the data – it is READ ONLY.
That's nowhere near the complexity of what Oracle is doing, simultaneously providing both a row and column based access to the data. Not that I think this is a good thing, I don't. In most cases you're much better off using a kickass columnar db and handling the batch updates from the upstream app servers. When you plan for building a col-based architecture, you can be much more efficient. Just look at kdb & co.
Slashdot Mirror
Handling flash congestions is a very big issue in networks. Those congestions propagate and bring down whole swathes of network areas, just like traffic jams.
Really? I spent years managing networks and never had this issue. I'd be interested in knowing how this could happen outside of DDOS type events.
Think of not only switch capabilities, but also computer nodes (CPU utilization, etc....). Every piece of the network has a capacity.
I wonder how well this would work for computer networks. Handling flash congestions is a very big issue in networks. Those congestions propagate and bring down whole swathes of network areas, just like traffic jams.
I've always made it a rule to keep node usage below 30% capacity to handle such congestions gracefully, but with a more optimal system we could increase that number and thus make the whole system more cost efficient.
Because when:
1- you can't buy it
2- you can't run it
3- it's worthy of archival
4- to figure out who can invoke the DMCA would be extremely costly
for society recovering abandonware into a state that is usable is better than losing the product.
Basically someone forgot that the soil needed to be much more stable than its default state. So they need to put a huge amount of weight on it to get it to settle, and then remove it and build the heavy stuff on top.
That's it.
Not only fly, but the take-off procedures are already well underway. Some European countries are planning a full abolition of physical money.
Completely unfeasible at this stage. They can plan all they want, but capital flights would be massive.
Also, more than once I've been to restaurants where the smartcard readers weren't working. It still happens. So you'd need to carry a stack of 20 Euro bills just in case.
No, you wouldn't. You'd pay with your phone, either through phone billing or by direct transfer (giro). Because the transfer systems uses universal routing and is bank-agnostic (except for in the UK, which clings to its old fashioned branch based accounts) and is payer based unlike the US payee based, anyone can pay anyone else in seconds, and there's no "hold" time.
If all phone and internet services were down too, well, what would you do if a cash register was broken or you run out of change? It's not much different - you take people's names and addresses and send them a bill.
Let's talk about this when transfer fees are zero, and p2p payments are as easy as p2m. That's what cash does for you.
There's a difference between 500 Euros and 100 Dollars. About 5x difference. Imagine getting rid of everything above 20 Euros. Wouldn't fly at all.
Also, more than once I've been to restaurants where the smartcard readers weren't working. It still happens. So you'd need to carry a stack of 20 Euro bills just in case.
And what about all those cash countries using USD for transactions, where the local currency is too much in flux to serve as anything other than toilet paper? They'd instantly switch to a currency that has all those necessary bills.
You surmised properly. I did have an N95. The phone was great except that the UI was, well, Symbian, and the battery life was utter, absolute garbage. I was lucky to get 5 hours under wifi. There's absolutely no comparison between the N95 and the iPhone, even without the app store or copy-paste. Yes, iOS 1.0 was sorely lacking in some areas, but overall the iPhone was a giant leap forward. I never even touched the N95 after that.
That's complete bullshit. You have no idea what the original iPhone did then. That's exactly the point of @schnell's comment above. No one was using their "smartphone" (or super duper feature phone like the N95) because they were a disaster to use. What Apple did was create a complete package of software and hardware, and provided web apps functionality. It's only when users found out how amazing the package was that they said "Why did you short-change us!?!? That thing is great, let us use it all the way! We want native apps!"
When people saw my iPhone they'd ask me what I thought of it, and my answer was always that within 3 years everyone would have one or something similar. There was just no comparison, this was finally a usable handheld computer with a SIM card. So whether you call it a "feature phone" or a "smartphone" is irrelevant: it was a revolution in phones, and every single smartphone today is a direct descendant of the iPhone.
Put another way, the chasm between the phones before iPhone and the iPhone is immensely wider than the difference between the iPhone and today's smartphones.
"* Apple did not invent smartphones. They took the idea and made the first smartphone that was user-friendly enough that normal people wanted one instead of just work-issued mobile email tools, so lots and lots of people wanted to buy one."
No. The first iphone sold only 6M. At the time, there were numerous smartphones, most notably the N95, that sold a lot more. Also, the first iphone wasn't even a smartphone but a feature phone.
That's completely ludicrous: either you're trolling or you didn't go through the iPhone revolution. The first iPhone was as much a smartphone as the one you have in your pocket.
You think that the sun, rocks, and trees give comfort to humans? After losing a loved one?
Perhaps there is more confusion than you recognize regarding what actually exists, and your belief or disbelief doesn't change that.
Clearly you don't understand the importance of sun, trees, rain et. al. to primitive humans. It literally meant life or death if the sun didn't shine enough, or the rain was missing, or the trees weren't bountiful. Hence the gods of such things.
Perhaps the confusion is yours.
I know the parent is sarcastic, but replacing a battery in an iPhone costs $25 and 2 minutes in the store. I just did it for my iPhone 4S, and the difference was phenomenal. Basically after 3 years your battery goes to crap as soon as you hit 50% capacity as described by the OS. You blink and it's dead. Replace it and you are back to normal, and there's nothing incredibly hard about replacing an iPhone battery.
Wrong. HFT trader will bid 1.00 and sell, then as your trade comes in it won't be executed and you'll be forced to sell lower, say 0.98, which he'll gladly buy back from you. He got a completely unnecessary spread out of your pocket.
Because this is basically what's happening, is that these machines are taking advantage of a security flaw that allows them to see a transaction before it's complete
No. They see the completed transaction at one exchange for X shares, and assume you're doing the same thing at the other exchanges. They just race there faster and preempt your transactions that are on the way.
And they also consistently post fake offers that they retract in order to analyze the market appetite.
There is nothing illegal whatsoever, since the trades are public. It's just that the HFT optimized their routes.
Sure not illegal per se, but only a finite number of people can get that sort of access, so now the playing field isn't level.
Exactly. That's one of the major complaints regarding HFT, and why the IEX exchange why created.
As for the front-running nonsense on 60 Minutes, that's always been illegal (contrary to what we're being told), and it is not at all how high frequency trading works. If someone was in fact doing that, then they're in a whole world of hurt with the SEC (and rightly so), but this entire exercise appears much more like a distraction: blame small outsider firms who've made the marketplace more effecient and tightened spreads for problems created by corruption within the big banks, and hope no one notices...at least until the next bank-induced crash.
This is absolutely not illegal. Here's how HFT gets one of its profit lines:
Large trades often spread across multiple exchanges. Buy 30,000 shares here, 15,000 there, etc... The regular broker submits one purchase and it gets distributed across exchanges. As soon as it hits the first exchange, say after 30ms, an HFT algo picks up on the trade and assumes that it'll happen as well on the other exchanges. So it races ahead and front-runs in the other exchanges before the regular distributed trade has a chance to arrive there.
There is nothing illegal whatsoever, since the trades are public. It's just that the HFT optimized their routes.
One of the major problem is when an HFT sees your making a trade in exchange A, it assumes you're going to be hitting the other exchanges for similar trades and beats you to them. I don't see how putting a delay in a trade at a single exchange would help.
There's a gripping article over at the NY Times (adapted from a just released book) that explains very well the pitfalls of HFT, where the problems are mostly due to the haves and have-nots, just like in most things. The article is at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04...
Not having a level playing deck in an exchange is a major problem for the correct functioning of said exchange.
Hell, back in the 80's it was common for kids under 10 to teach themselves how to program.
Um, I was around then. It wasn't "common" - it was only "common" among those who had aptitude for it. Like, you know, today.
Back in the 80's you had maybe 30% of kids who really knew how to use computers, let alone program. I'm not talking about games, I'm talking about being able to load up the OS, muck around, launch different programs and use them properly. Kids programming were the exception, just like they are now.
Just because a loop is obvious to you doesn't mean it's obvious to others:
"Why do we need these loop things? A counter? What's a counter? How does the computer know to go back and do it again? Where is the counter in the computer? What if I want to do it more times while I'm doing it? etc..."
Bullshit. I know how to code and I know how to speak. It's just a matter of spending the time and energy to LEARN TO SPEAK.
Structuring your speech, engaging the audience, modulating your voice, moving your body. This can be easily learned. Emacs bindings are insanely tougher.
Oh wow, GeoWorks. Brings back memories.
And OpenStep is the one that aged the best. We could go back to NextStep and apart from the 4-grey screen, it is still the most elegant of them all.
They should call them SHIVs and be done with it. That's exactly what the description is about: robots that are part of the squad and act upon orders from the squad leader.
(i.e., you don't have to squeeze your way out of your vehicle while trying not to bang the next car's door)
That brilliant plan has two massive shortcomings:
1) You still need to squeeze back into the car when you're ready to leave (assuming there is no "unpark" feature)
2) What are the odds that the driver of the car parked NEXT to your in your overly narrow space will ding your passenger side door trying to get into HIS car?
Well if anyone RTFAs (and RTFVs) then it's clear that there is indeed an "unpark" feature. That is pretty obviously necessary.
Second, for #2 it's the chicken or egg: As more cars get the parking assists, this'll happen less and less. Also, in many cases you can get into your car from the passenger side and then switch to the driver's seat if it's that bad.
Commendable, but ultimately wishful thinking unfortunately.
The NSA will just tap the underwater cables or enlist the "help" of technicians at the Brazil data exchanges to split the data feeds. When the adversary has this much money and next to no scruples, the battle is difficult if not impossible.
From TFA, "Maintaining those indexes is expensive and slows down transaction processing. Let's get rid of them," Ellison remarked. "Let's throw all of those analytic indexes away and replace the indexes with in-memory column sort."
This merely minimizes the penalties of poor indexing and RBAR by making complete table scans on arbitrary columns faster. Apparently Mr. Ellison has forgotten his algoithmics and combinatorics - Oh, wait, no he didn't, he dropped out as a sophmore. Pity, because had he stayed, he would have learned that even with a 1000x slower storage medium, an O(log N) algorithm (index seek) will eventually beat an O(N log N) algorithm (column sort).
I think you misunderstand the way columnar databases work. They are not doing a column sort the way you think. The column itself is an index.
Of course the inanities coming out of Ellison's mouth don't help explain things correctly. No Larry, you don't do away with indexes. You mostly store indexes on everything, automatically.
Thanks, Larry, but you want to make Oracle faster? Remove cursors from the core language, and although that alone won't "fix" it, you'll see all the hacks who can't think in set-based logic drop out overnight.
Can't argue there!
I don't think it's in the same ballpark. The SQL Server column store seems to be purely for read-only:
Keep in mind that once you add a column store to a table, though, you cannot delete, insert or update the data – it is READ ONLY.
That's nowhere near the complexity of what Oracle is doing, simultaneously providing both a row and column based access to the data. Not that I think this is a good thing, I don't. In most cases you're much better off using a kickass columnar db and handling the batch updates from the upstream app servers. When you plan for building a col-based architecture, you can be much more efficient. Just look at kdb & co.