China will soon surpass the USA as the largest consumer of fuel oil and by 2025 will likely be the most productive economy on the face of the Earth. Whose interweb do you want to be on -- your trading partner's, or the Other Guys?
BushCo and ICANN are shooting themselves in the foot (well, more like their constituents, but who the fuck cares about numbers in a Diebold machine anyways?). Of course, they're not going to be tasked with cleaning up their mess, whereas the Chinese will have to make their mess work. Who's got the better motive here?
nb. by 'the Chinese' I mean the Party apparatchiks. The other 1.25 billion Chinese being oppressed by them have my empathy (I'd say 'sympathy' but at least they seem not to be complacent sheep-like Americans).
Are you people in denial? The Chinese are not particularly nice people, but their manufacturing economy would run a lot smoother over an interoperable Internet. Given the choice of maintaining the Great Firewall of China vs. maintaining their own damn Internet, I suspect even the PRC would choose the former if it were in any way easier.
> I suggest that the field and the general user experience would be greatly enhanced by > limiting access to compilers/assemblers (by means of pricing and with the cooperation of > the open source community) and by separating macros or other executable content from > documents.
[eg. the premise: artificially raise the cost of compilers and nastybad people will stop writing viruses, etc. just like gangsters in New York improvised zip guns when guns cost too much... oh, wait, that's a bad analogy... bad people just make do.]
You should also consider separating "clueless" from "malicious" in your thought process. HTH.
> Think about it; in what other field do we "educate" "users"?
Other than prenatal care, disaster response, home safety, poison control, vehicular operation, wildfire control, diabetes management, power tools, gun storage, and how to program your VCR? Can't think of any offhand...
> We don't try to educate people > with electrical outlets and let any curious individual perform as a licensed electrician.
But we'll sell wire cutters and conduit to any moron at Home Depot, along with a Hole Hawg and a 3 foot masonry bit. Surprisingly, a license is not required to burn down your house as a DIY repairman, nor is it required to pack a thousand pounds of fertilizer, some gasoline, and some nails into the back of a van, detonate it, and cause much worse harm.
Cars are deadly weapons, as are guns; both require a license to operate, but in neither case does that eliminate fatalities caused thereby. (In fact, on the evening news last night, I noticed that a Class C licensed bus driver rolled over an embankment, killing 2 people and one fetus, injuring the other 39 people on the bus. More than likely, a smaller percentage of licensed commercial drivers do this than, say, unregulated Pakistani mountain bus jockeys, but I have no useful measure of the protective effect conferred by this certifying process.)
Bad people will still be bad people, and "the cooperation of the opensource community" is not something I think you can depend on for this venture. (cf. PGP and SSL export restrictions)
Stack protection, virtualization, perhaps legal penalties for willfully distributing software known to pose a risk to the users without their awareness or education (cf. the Theramed); maybe an overhaul of the communications system, and use of (NON-unicode) certificates required for financial communications. I don't know for certain, but I do believe that your rant about compilers holds little relevance to phishing at this point in time.
Full disclosure: I learned to program on an HP-80 and a Timex-Sinclair ZX-81. I was using Usenet before AOL 'broke' it. And I still think you're chasing the wrong idea.
Having used both MySQL and Postgres pretty close to each system's limitations, for years (~5 years in each case), I must admit that I now prefer PostgreSQL (again). I've gone back and forth.
One major problem with MySQL is that you have to choose EITHER fulltext indices OR transactional tables (InnoDB). You can't have both. With Postgresql, you can.
CiteSeer was the previous work of a current Google employee. That was what he was up to *prior* to starting at Google. There is absolutely no reason why they cannot improve upon it now, with their massively larger corpus and massively more responsive CPU farm.
I have seen ASCI red, white, and blue, and none of them come anywhere close to the distributed power of Google's machines. These jokers just have no idea.
(nb. a friend of mine worked for Weta on the Twin Towers. Weta is a great bunch, but they fucked up in this interview.)
Why pay that sort of overhead? It's not like they can't just lure the appropriate engineers away from IBM or SGI. Hell, Google recently moved into SGI's old headquarters. You tell me who has more financial sense... here's a hint, it's not SGI.
If deploying vast numbers of cheap redundant computers was core to your business model, would YOU outsource it? Not if you're smart, you wouldn't. Not if you had smart engineers (in the true sense of the word -- people who build stuff).
Do some patent searches and you may eventually find out the real answer.
So, were your disks running continuously, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year? And did some of your desktops have more than two (say, 4, 6, or even 8) disks piled into them? Your calculations are on the right track, but your assumptions are flawed.
10,000 nodes is no big deal unless they're all continuously active. Multiply that several fold, into multiple data centers, and you start to see statistically valid patterns emerge. One of those patterns is that drive manufacturers are rather optimistic about their MTBF. Another is that even ECC RAM has more flaws than you would expect (!).
Google Has Over 10,000 Computers... how many more, no one who has signed an NDA is permitted to say.
But I'll tell you one thing, Google has never paid $3000 for an ordinary production server and never will... that would be apostasy.
VS.NET plugin. (project page, with downloads, normally here but currently blown away by the load. Maybe grab it from the Google cache of the page but that too seems to be overloaded. Oh well. You could always use TortoiseSVN instead.)
There was an old VC++ plugin "Subway" but it sucks.
wow, that's fucking hysterical! nothing like a child being molested, murdered, and tossed in a dumpster to brighten your day./. is such an insightful bunch!
If a person qualified and motivated to pick up development was out there, one might imagine that a full calendar year would be enough time for them to orient to the code, and resume hacking on it.
This does not appear to be the case.
Of course, if you are a slashbot who neither reads nor digests articles, I guess it is unreasonable to expect your opinions to be well-formed, relevant, or useful. I sincerely hope you are not one of the people clamoring for better editorial controls at Slashdot, if you cannot be bothered even to read the 'why' document (it's short, no big words... could even Ctrl-F for 'Sourceforge').
You've heard of this phenomenon, yes? Assigning many machines to a task? That's how rendering is done. Machine 1 handles scene 1 or frame 1, machine 2 handles frame 36, blah, blah, blah...
It's not a 1024-CPU box... it's several hundred boxes with one or more CPU's. Hence the term 'render farm', along the lines of 'server farm'...
I posted this in response to another thread, but there used to be a (slower) implementation of the RIB-standard scene rendering process called Blue Moon Render Tools. See here:
It was later commercially expanded into a faster program called 'entropy'. Exluna was a company that Larry Gritz and some coworkers from Pixar (Gritz joined and then left Pixar) founded. Apparently entropy was fast enough for commercial use (eg. LOTR-scale projects that required photorealistic scenes). Pixar did not like this. At all. The sequelae were as documented here:
Now this is probably not relevant to you if you're working at wetafx or ILM or other big shops, but it's still kind of a shame that, when a product came along that WAS able to compete with PRMan, Pixar chose to squash it with lawyers rather than innovation. I'm not claiming that the case was clear-cut, but the original lawsuit apparently lacked legal merit, and Pixar then went after the individual founders of the company in an effort to drain their resources, which is rather unimpressive.
So the point is that, for a time, there WAS an alternative to PRman for big (cinematic) projects, and Pixar used lawsuits to bury it.
Slashdot Mirror
China will soon surpass the USA as the largest consumer of fuel oil and by 2025 will likely be the most productive economy on the face of the Earth. Whose interweb do you want to be on -- your trading partner's, or the Other Guys?
BushCo and ICANN are shooting themselves in the foot (well, more like their constituents, but who the fuck cares about numbers in a Diebold machine anyways?). Of course, they're not going to be tasked with cleaning up their mess, whereas the Chinese will have to make their mess work. Who's got the better motive here?
nb. by 'the Chinese' I mean the Party apparatchiks. The other 1.25 billion Chinese being oppressed by them have my empathy (I'd say 'sympathy' but at least they seem not to be complacent sheep-like Americans).
Are you people in denial? The Chinese are not particularly nice people, but their manufacturing economy would run a lot smoother over an interoperable Internet. Given the choice of maintaining the Great Firewall of China vs. maintaining their own damn Internet, I suspect even the PRC would choose the former if it were in any way easier.
> I suggest that the field and the general user experience would be greatly enhanced by
> limiting access to compilers/assemblers (by means of pricing and with the cooperation of
> the open source community) and by separating macros or other executable content from
> documents.
[eg. the premise: artificially raise the cost of compilers and nastybad people will stop writing viruses, etc. just like gangsters in New York improvised zip guns when guns cost too much... oh, wait, that's a bad analogy... bad people just make do.]
You should also consider separating "clueless" from "malicious" in your thought process. HTH.
> Think about it; in what other field do we "educate" "users"?
Other than prenatal care, disaster response, home safety, poison control, vehicular operation, wildfire control, diabetes management, power tools, gun storage, and how to program your VCR? Can't think of any offhand...
> We don't try to educate people
> with electrical outlets and let any curious individual perform as a licensed electrician.
But we'll sell wire cutters and conduit to any moron at Home Depot, along with a Hole Hawg and a 3 foot masonry bit. Surprisingly, a license is not required to burn down your house as a DIY repairman, nor is it required to pack a thousand pounds of fertilizer, some gasoline, and some nails into the back of a van, detonate it, and cause much worse harm.
Cars are deadly weapons, as are guns; both require a license to operate, but in neither case does that eliminate fatalities caused thereby. (In fact, on the evening news last night, I noticed that a Class C licensed bus driver rolled over an embankment, killing 2 people and one fetus, injuring the other 39 people on the bus. More than likely, a smaller percentage of licensed commercial drivers do this than, say, unregulated Pakistani mountain bus jockeys, but I have no useful measure of the protective effect conferred by this certifying process.)
Bad people will still be bad people, and "the cooperation of the opensource community" is not something I think you can depend on for this venture. (cf. PGP and SSL export restrictions)
Stack protection, virtualization, perhaps legal penalties for willfully distributing software known to pose a risk to the users without their awareness or education (cf. the Theramed); maybe an overhaul of the communications system, and use of (NON-unicode) certificates required for financial communications. I don't know for certain, but I do believe that your rant about compilers holds little relevance to phishing at this point in time.
Full disclosure: I learned to program on an HP-80 and a Timex-Sinclair ZX-81. I was using Usenet before AOL 'broke' it. And I still think you're chasing the wrong idea.
http://del.icio.us/ being in production for well over a year ought to provide sufficient prior art...
Should have linked to OpenFTS.sourceforge.net.
Oopsie.
Take a look at openFTS.
Having used both MySQL and Postgres pretty close to each system's limitations, for years (~5 years in each case), I must admit that I now prefer PostgreSQL (again). I've gone back and forth.
One major problem with MySQL is that you have to choose EITHER fulltext indices OR transactional tables (InnoDB). You can't have both. With Postgresql, you can.
The phrase is "puff puff give", you insensitive clod.
CiteSeer was the previous work of a current Google employee. That was what he was up to *prior* to starting at Google. There is absolutely no reason why they cannot improve upon it now, with their massively larger corpus and massively more responsive CPU farm.
the two are not mutually exclusive -- alternative splicing (combining different pieces of the same gene to make different proteins) is well established as a means of getting multiple outputs from the ''same'' input (eg. a string of DNA). see for example >this website on alternative splicing</a> (didn't expect THAT when I typed it in to Google...).
Note that the cassette model of alternative splicing is not mutually exclusive with the 'different ways to combine the same protein' that you mentioned, it is a matter of semantics. Although if you're talking about post-translational modifications that's an entirely other kettle of fish.
"MetaSploit isn't being taken seriously enough" by his peers in government security, the DoD employee added.
Google: 20,000 processors ( " + a LOT " )
I have seen ASCI red, white, and blue, and none of them come anywhere close to the distributed power of Google's machines. These jokers just have no idea.
(nb. a friend of mine worked for Weta on the Twin Towers. Weta is a great bunch, but they fucked up in this interview.)
Why pay that sort of overhead? It's not like they can't just lure the appropriate engineers away from IBM or SGI. Hell, Google recently moved into SGI's old headquarters. You tell me who has more financial sense... here's a hint, it's not SGI.
If deploying vast numbers of cheap redundant computers was core to your business model, would YOU outsource it? Not if you're smart, you wouldn't. Not if you had smart engineers (in the true sense of the word -- people who build stuff).
Do some patent searches and you may eventually find out the real answer.
All of the above may have been correct at one point in time, but the specifics have all changed.
;-)
For starters, Foundry switches are trash
So, were your disks running continuously, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year? And did some of your desktops have more than two (say, 4, 6, or even 8) disks piled into them? Your calculations are on the right track, but your assumptions are flawed.
10,000 nodes is no big deal unless they're all continuously active. Multiply that several fold, into multiple data centers, and you start to see statistically valid patterns emerge. One of those patterns is that drive manufacturers are rather optimistic about their MTBF. Another is that even ECC RAM has more flaws than you would expect (!).
Google Has Over 10,000 Computers... how many more, no one who has signed an NDA is permitted to say.
But I'll tell you one thing, Google has never paid $3000 for an ordinary production server and never will... that would be apostasy.
Too bad there's not a mod option for "(+1, Horrifying)"
especially when fully compatible alternatives like Postfix exist and have been around for years
There is: AnkhSVN.
VS.NET plugin. (project page, with downloads, normally here but currently blown away by the load. Maybe grab it from the Google cache of the page but that too seems to be overloaded. Oh well. You could always use TortoiseSVN instead.)
There was an old VC++ plugin "Subway" but it sucks.
wow, that's fucking hysterical! nothing like a child being molested, murdered, and tossed in a dumpster to brighten your day. /. is such an insightful bunch!
If a person qualified and motivated to pick up development was out there, one might imagine that a full calendar year would be enough time for them to orient to the code, and resume hacking on it.
This does not appear to be the case.
Of course, if you are a slashbot who neither reads nor digests articles, I guess it is unreasonable to expect your opinions to be well-formed, relevant, or useful. I sincerely hope you are not one of the people clamoring for better editorial controls at Slashdot, if you cannot be bothered even to read the 'why' document (it's short, no big words... could even Ctrl-F for 'Sourceforge').
wow, you can't use Qpdf or anything on the Zaurus, no sir ... on a 760 you can actually READ your PDF's.
and (heh) let's say I wanted to read 'On Lisp' as a PDF while working through it in CLISP. Try that on your Axim. Works great on my 760.
comes immediately to mind.
Michael... BOLTON?!?
You've heard of this phenomenon, yes? Assigning many machines to a task? That's how rendering is done. Machine 1 handles scene 1 or frame 1, machine 2 handles frame 36, blah, blah, blah...
It's not a 1024-CPU box... it's several hundred boxes with one or more CPU's. Hence the term 'render farm', along the lines of 'server farm'...
Seeing as to how Bush stole the election, and DC cannot elect a Congressman or Senator with voting rights, I'm not sure I see your point...
What do you use for webserving?
What about database service? MySQL has poor functionality in the fully-GPL version, and PostgreSQL is BSD-licensed.
Either you're an idiot or you're trolling. There is no in between. Personally, I think you're an idiot.
http://www.dctsystems.freeserve.co.uk/rmanBasics.
It was later commercially expanded into a faster program called 'entropy'. Exluna was a company that Larry Gritz and some coworkers from Pixar (Gritz joined and then left Pixar) founded. Apparently entropy was fast enough for commercial use (eg. LOTR-scale projects that required photorealistic scenes). Pixar did not like this. At all. The sequelae were as documented here:
http://www.renderman.org/RMR/OtherLinks/blackSIGG
Now this is probably not relevant to you if you're working at wetafx or ILM or other big shops, but it's still kind of a shame that, when a product came along that WAS able to compete with PRMan, Pixar chose to squash it with lawyers rather than innovation. I'm not claiming that the case was clear-cut, but the original lawsuit apparently lacked legal merit, and Pixar then went after the individual founders of the company in an effort to drain their resources, which is rather unimpressive.
So the point is that, for a time, there WAS an alternative to PRman for big (cinematic) projects, and Pixar used lawsuits to bury it.
D'oh.