"I suspect that the law is currently that the insurance companies are only ALLOWED to consider historical flood data when formulating their rates."
Which demonstrates (again) how stupid politicians can be. They should just pass a law forbidding the sea level to rise above 5 inches and done with it!
"Amazon is a POOR example. For one thing, what they wanted didn't really exist."
Oh, you mean that when Amazon was trying barely to survive nobody was in the business of running datacenters? After the dot-com boom days? Really?
But of course there were people in that business. But of course other on-line companies tried "the canonical path". Your very question highlights how much has Amazon succeeded with their strategy: they basically got to invent a entire line of business by empowering their IT.
"Amazon created a fine datacenter, and now that is one of their core competencies. "
Yes. But it was not back then. And now their "new" business line, that basically was created to pursue a virtuous cycle (I want the best datacenters -> that provides me with spare capacity -> I look to sell my spare capacity -> this allows me to produce even better datacenter services) has become a core business line. *Now*, not back then.
Which was enterily my point: there were a lot of Amazon wannabies back then, even Amazon was one of them. But only Amazon empowered their IT because Bezos was the only one that didn't see his IT as a mere cost center. And now, no matter how much you dislike it, Amazon is Amazon and, well, who remembers all those other wannabies?
"which only worked because I could break down technical issues for the non-technical people and I could understand them when they talked about thingies and whatchamacallits."
Which is all good and great but then it begs the question: why the CEO has no problems with the CFO when he starts talking about those damn double entry book-keepings or the need to sustain a healty maneouver found, or when the COO talks about the risk on breaking a stock line or the advantages of a six-sigma approach to production and then it's the "IT guy" problem when the same CEO doesn't give a damn about how, say, the IT technical debt is going to negatively impact the bottom line?
"What you want an MBA for is the newly-promoted director of engineering who's been an engineer all his life, knows everything about engineering and just needs a crash-course on the crap the other guys are talking about in the board meetings."
100% on this.
The problem is not the MBA guys themselves -an experienced professional that *then* gets an MBA is a very good asset at any company, the problem is the twenty-something MBA guys that start climbing the ladder without any real-world experience in any real-world position that, because of their lack of experience are ready to drink the "we are the master class" MBA kool-aid.
"I've seen so many companies not think about this fact, and only consider IT a cost center."
Even with that only, IT would be quite well considered. After all, who would want to return to the productivity of a company-without-computers even for a second?
But I'll tell you a secret. IT can do much more for the company if allowed. A glaring example: what does(did) Amazon? Amazon did sell books on-line. Now take your typical MBA: "a company must focus on its core competencies" I almost can hear. Well, Amazon's core competencies were certainly not maintaining hugh datacenters, so that task should have been subcontracted, shouldn't it, you out-of-the-mill Mr MBA?
Well, Bezos had a different idea... and a uber-fast growing now multi-billion bussiness out of those datacenters... along with a buoyant business selling those (now not only) books on-line because of his top-notch datacenter management abilities.
"Simple solution to get management to understand the value of IT have a no IT day. One day, no email, internet, IP phone etc. They'll come back crying before lunch time."
If that's the outcome you certainly deserve to be fired on the spot.
Which happens to be part of the problem. I consider myself to be, Dunningâ"Kruger notwithstanding, quite good at what I do, and therefore I know for certain that me going on strike would be a moot exercise: all the systems just would go humble-mumble for as long as the strike held. Certainly no new classes of services would get deployed, certainly in case of a bad luck strike something would fail (but even then, it would take two or three bad luck strikes in a raw for really critical systems to surrender) but day to day business just would go well along.
I wouldn't be a good professional otherwise but then, it is terribly difficult to look worthy to some kinds of PHBs working that way.
"The MBA classes do teach that the higher you pay a person the harder they will work (not the opposite)"
Good story. It's only it fails to explain why -oh why, there's a "... Forty-nine percent of U.S. companies having a hard time filling what workforce management firm ManpowerGroup calls mission-critical positions within their organizations. IT staff" on a country that just a decade ago had a surplus on such roles.
The MBA classes might teach whatever they (say) want. Quite a different issue is what their students learn... which basically ends up being "let's cry the government so we can get some more H1Bs on the cheap, get this quarter numbers fit and so get our bonuses and the hell with anything else".
"Yeah, how dare those cautious people who save money actually reap any benefit at all from their savings."
Saved money is just pretty colored papers. It is money building bridges and highways or founding succeeding companies the one that is of any value. Since under a deflationary economy there's less incentive to put that money into motion, a deflationary economy is a bad thing.
"at one point people who believe they can "afford" a more lavish lifestyle will spend more"
More... of what? As soon as they start expending their money they'll be a higher demand/offer ratio which can't be coped with instantly so, what could naturally happen? That a same amount of money will allow to buy less things tomorrow than today. Of course you know how that's known, right? Inflation, of course.
"Of course the real trick is to be the one printing the money."
Even Adam Smith knew two things: 1) That value is independent of currency. 2) That even on fixed currency like under the gold standard there *is* inflation in growing countries.
"I doubt it. They're corporations. What they really want is return on investment. They're unlikley to have any great religion with regard to a specific technology."
"Right, 'people', not 'person'. The population of the world - 1."
It doesn't look too much different when you say it that way. But once you consider it is that just one what made the software be to start with... yes it still is 1 versus 7.000.000.000 (minus one), but it is the one that makes the difference.
"Language's true value is for communicating ideas and information"
So if doesn't get to this, it's a failure.
"However, it can also be used to entertain"
Never got a failured joke?
"show off, humiliate, and abuse."
Doesn't hurt he who wants to, but he who can, etc. This thread started with someone lessening value to some other's failure to comunicate -on the premise that as long as the intend is achieved is all well and good. I just pointed out that's not so easy goal -each and every "whooosh" here in slashdot is my witness.
"Something like BSD is meant to make the people free"
Not. The BSD is mean to make *other* people free (abusingly free, I may add, but that's just IMHO).
The original author gains no freedom from the BSD. It gains (basically) free access to published derivations of his work in the case of the GPL, on the other hand.
"The purpose of a patent is to protect the idea from being stolen"
No, it is not.
Currently, patents are widly used to protect the idea. That's neither the intent nor the purpose of patents. Patents' purpose is to protect a given practical implementation of an idea, making at the same time the idea by means of its practical implementation, well, patent (as in publicly reacheable just going to the patent office and reading the patent description) to anybody.
Oh! and, by the way, ideas can't be stolen, they are shared.
"The problem with stealing a bomb is that somebody will notice it pretty much immediately. They're big, and difficult to transport. While you could fit one in an 18-wheeler..."
Well, let's see what wikipedia has to say about the W62, the 170 kilotons warhead of which the Minuteman loads three: "The exact dimensions of the W62 are classified, but it fits within the Mark-12 reentry vehicle which is 22 inches in diameter and 72 inches long".
Kind of ridiculously tiny 18-wheeler, I should say.
"I'm referring somewhat-sarcastically to the RDBMS proponents who reject NoSQL out of hand."
Not out of hand but out of pragmatism.
I'm old enough to have delevoped B-trees over filesystems for "plain database" access (well, more like ordered filesystem) so I basically understand (because I already did it) when and why fast access to loosly coupled datasets is advantageous and I know my way on relational databases while I know I'm not an expert on them too.
Given that background I asure you that just systematically answering "no, you are wrong" to whoever comes to you talking about how nosql is a perfect fit for their project is the sounded decision. If and when one out of one hundred happens not to be the case, the one talking about nosql will know better arguments and, even if he doesn't, not so much will be lost than giving a chance to the other ninety nine.
Slashdot Mirror
"I suspect that the law is currently that the insurance companies are only ALLOWED to consider historical flood data when formulating their rates."
Which demonstrates (again) how stupid politicians can be. They should just pass a law forbidding the sea level to rise above 5 inches and done with it!
"Amazon is a POOR example. For one thing, what they wanted didn't really exist."
Oh, you mean that when Amazon was trying barely to survive nobody was in the business of running datacenters? After the dot-com boom days? Really?
But of course there were people in that business. But of course other on-line companies tried "the canonical path". Your very question highlights how much has Amazon succeeded with their strategy: they basically got to invent a entire line of business by empowering their IT.
"Amazon created a fine datacenter, and now that is one of their core competencies. "
Yes. But it was not back then. And now their "new" business line, that basically was created to pursue a virtuous cycle (I want the best datacenters -> that provides me with spare capacity -> I look to sell my spare capacity -> this allows me to produce even better datacenter services) has become a core business line. *Now*, not back then.
Which was enterily my point: there were a lot of Amazon wannabies back then, even Amazon was one of them. But only Amazon empowered their IT because Bezos was the only one that didn't see his IT as a mere cost center. And now, no matter how much you dislike it, Amazon is Amazon and, well, who remembers all those other wannabies?
"which only worked because I could break down technical issues for the non-technical people and I could understand them when they talked about thingies and whatchamacallits."
Which is all good and great but then it begs the question: why the CEO has no problems with the CFO when he starts talking about those damn double entry book-keepings or the need to sustain a healty maneouver found, or when the COO talks about the risk on breaking a stock line or the advantages of a six-sigma approach to production and then it's the "IT guy" problem when the same CEO doesn't give a damn about how, say, the IT technical debt is going to negatively impact the bottom line?
"What you want an MBA for is the newly-promoted director of engineering who's been an engineer all his life, knows everything about engineering and just needs a crash-course on the crap the other guys are talking about in the board meetings."
100% on this.
The problem is not the MBA guys themselves -an experienced professional that *then* gets an MBA is a very good asset at any company, the problem is the twenty-something MBA guys that start climbing the ladder without any real-world experience in any real-world position that, because of their lack of experience are ready to drink the "we are the master class" MBA kool-aid.
"I've seen so many companies not think about this fact, and only consider IT a cost center."
Even with that only, IT would be quite well considered. After all, who would want to return to the productivity of a company-without-computers even for a second?
But I'll tell you a secret. IT can do much more for the company if allowed. A glaring example: what does(did) Amazon? Amazon did sell books on-line. Now take your typical MBA: "a company must focus on its core competencies" I almost can hear. Well, Amazon's core competencies were certainly not maintaining hugh datacenters, so that task should have been subcontracted, shouldn't it, you out-of-the-mill Mr MBA?
Well, Bezos had a different idea... and a uber-fast growing now multi-billion bussiness out of those datacenters... along with a buoyant business selling those (now not only) books on-line because of his top-notch datacenter management abilities.
That's IT.
"Simple solution to get management to understand the value of IT have a no IT day. One day, no email, internet, IP phone etc. They'll come back crying before lunch time."
If that's the outcome you certainly deserve to be fired on the spot.
Which happens to be part of the problem. I consider myself to be, Dunningâ"Kruger notwithstanding, quite good at what I do, and therefore I know for certain that me going on strike would be a moot exercise: all the systems just would go humble-mumble for as long as the strike held. Certainly no new classes of services would get deployed, certainly in case of a bad luck strike something would fail (but even then, it would take two or three bad luck strikes in a raw for really critical systems to surrender) but day to day business just would go well along.
I wouldn't be a good professional otherwise but then, it is terribly difficult to look worthy to some kinds of PHBs working that way.
"Loss of confidentiality was completely acceptable, loss of integrity was almost completely acceptable"
Look at the real world: what's the price tag to that? (hint: nil).
"Loss of availability was totally unacceptable particularly for exchange, web browsing, and the database."
Look at the real world: what's the price tag to that? (hint: measure that in that manager's dollars. High).
So what's surprising about the latter being higher up than the former on that manager's account?
"The MBA classes do teach that the higher you pay a person the harder they will work (not the opposite)"
Good story. It's only it fails to explain why -oh why, there's a "... Forty-nine percent of U.S. companies having a hard time filling what workforce management firm ManpowerGroup calls mission-critical positions within their organizations. IT staff" on a country that just a decade ago had a surplus on such roles.
The MBA classes might teach whatever they (say) want. Quite a different issue is what their students learn... which basically ends up being "let's cry the government so we can get some more H1Bs on the cheap, get this quarter numbers fit and so get our bonuses and the hell with anything else".
"I don't wish someone would die very often"
Oh, don't worry. Dying just once is usually quite enough.
"Yeah, how dare those cautious people who save money actually reap any benefit at all from their savings."
Saved money is just pretty colored papers. It is money building bridges and highways or founding succeeding companies the one that is of any value. Since under a deflationary economy there's less incentive to put that money into motion, a deflationary economy is a bad thing.
"at one point people who believe they can "afford" a more lavish lifestyle will spend more"
More... of what? As soon as they start expending their money they'll be a higher demand/offer ratio which can't be coped with instantly so, what could naturally happen? That a same amount of money will allow to buy less things tomorrow than today. Of course you know how that's known, right? Inflation, of course.
"Of course the real trick is to be the one printing the money."
Even Adam Smith knew two things:
1) That value is independent of currency.
2) That even on fixed currency like under the gold standard there *is* inflation in growing countries.
"I doubt it. They're corporations. What they really want is return on investment. They're unlikley to have any great religion with regard to a specific technology."
Two words: planned obsolescence.
"Right, 'people', not 'person'. The population of the world - 1."
It doesn't look too much different when you say it that way. But once you consider it is that just one what made the software be to start with... yes it still is 1 versus 7.000.000.000 (minus one), but it is the one that makes the difference.
"It depends on the intended goal of the user."
Which only makes the "if" even bigger.
"Language's true value is for communicating ideas and information"
So if doesn't get to this, it's a failure.
"However, it can also be used to entertain"
Never got a failured joke?
"show off, humiliate, and abuse."
Doesn't hurt he who wants to, but he who can, etc. This thread started with someone lessening value to some other's failure to comunicate -on the premise that as long as the intend is achieved is all well and good. I just pointed out that's not so easy goal -each and every "whooosh" here in slashdot is my witness.
"Something like BSD is meant to make the people free"
Not. The BSD is mean to make *other* people free (abusingly free, I may add, but that's just IMHO).
The original author gains no freedom from the BSD. It gains (basically) free access to published derivations of his work in the case of the GPL, on the other hand.
"This guy patented the free trial/shareware/try and buy concept"
If that was really the case, it would be another case of a void patent.
Concepts are not patent subjects.
"The purpose of a patent is to protect the idea from being stolen"
No, it is not.
Currently, patents are widly used to protect the idea. That's neither the intent nor the purpose of patents. Patents' purpose is to protect a given practical implementation of an idea, making at the same time the idea by means of its practical implementation, well, patent (as in publicly reacheable just going to the patent office and reading the patent description) to anybody.
Oh! and, by the way, ideas can't be stolen, they are shared.
"If the job is done"
Quite a big "if".
"The problem with stealing a bomb is that somebody will notice it pretty much immediately. They're big, and difficult to transport. While you could fit one in an 18-wheeler..."
Well, let's see what wikipedia has to say about the W62, the 170 kilotons warhead of which the Minuteman loads three: "The exact dimensions of the W62 are classified, but it fits within the Mark-12 reentry vehicle which is 22 inches in diameter and 72 inches long".
Kind of ridiculously tiny 18-wheeler, I should say.
"Yes, I wonder how long it takes for North Korea to start calling its nuclear program a "tactical nuclear weapons program""
That would be a total nonsense. Everybody knows that "tactical nuclear weapons" are those launched from Germany, aimed at a target in Germany.
"By your standard, if you buy a new car, and the manufacture 'knows' that the hoses and tires will wear out after so many miles/years"
Perfect analogy, yessir. Because the ones and zeroes in a computer program wear out too.
"I'm referring somewhat-sarcastically to the RDBMS proponents who reject NoSQL out of hand."
Not out of hand but out of pragmatism.
I'm old enough to have delevoped B-trees over filesystems for "plain database" access (well, more like ordered filesystem) so I basically understand (because I already did it) when and why fast access to loosly coupled datasets is advantageous and I know my way on relational databases while I know I'm not an expert on them too.
Given that background I asure you that just systematically answering "no, you are wrong" to whoever comes to you talking about how nosql is a perfect fit for their project is the sounded decision. If and when one out of one hundred happens not to be the case, the one talking about nosql will know better arguments and, even if he doesn't, not so much will be lost than giving a chance to the other ninety nine.
"It's so enterprise ready Google custom built their own version. Mmhmm, good show."
Yeah, exactly like every other big company which have their own Windows image to deploy onto their PCs. Your point is?
"Go ahead and try to manage a few thousand Ubuntu boxes"
You mean, like Google?
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/12/05/12/219226/google-talks-about-its-ubuntu-experience
"Nonsense.
They all run the same kernel and libraries.
You can "install" an app on Linux just by decompressing a tarball"
Then I challenge you to make a multinode Openstack deployment on anything not being Ubuntu.
Yes, it can be done but, hell, don't tell me all distributions are born equal because they are not (and it's the case that I don't even like Ubuntu).
"but this is like cars costing $0"
Only if you don't value your time.