My point still stands. School of hard knocks > 4 year "degree". Once you have 4-6 years of real world experience under your belt, you should have no need for a degree in your field, and HR should be bitchsmacked for casting those aside for not wasting their time on a piece of paper.
I dropped out of high school my junior year in 2000 to work as a sysadmin for a webdev startup. No prior experience, just knowing what I was doing. After 2 years and the dot com crash, I started a hosting company with 2 other guys. 3 years later, it was sold to a Chicago consulting firm for $8MM. After that, I got to work on the computing side of the Large Hadron Collider, and now I own a technology consulting firm and can retire before I'm 30.
Careful when you paint with a broad brush. Some of us just choose not to waste our time in the pathetic education institution that exists in the US. And that dropout you don't hire who may not have a degree, but has ambition and drive, might just replace your organization with something better.
Indeed. You definitely play the game. I've told people that if you need the job, can do the job, but they require a degree, lie about it. If it's required, you're not losing anything by trying, you're just playing the game. If they check, oh well. If they don't check, you've successfully played the game. Does that mean the system is broken? Yes.
Don't underestimate skills on paper; a good education can teach you in 4 years what it would take 40 years of trial and error to learn on your own.
I'd have to disagree. I spent 3-4 years building a startup while others were in college. I learned more doing that then any schooling would've ever taught. Business. Politics. People Skills. Learning on the fly. College? Today's college is expensive babysitting. You even get the courtesy of being unemployed with your 4 years of schooling under your belt if you're a recent graduate.
Being intelligent is not enough if you can not finish the work.
If you want a cog for the machine, go for it. When I hire folks for my business, I prefer either experience or a clean slate (fresh out of high school). I take college graduates only if I can't find either.
Are you looking at the highly redundant storage or the reduced redundancy storage? The reduced redundancy storage is cheaper, but maintains fewer copies of your data in the S3 storage system. It may make sense to use the reduced redundancy storage system while at the same time keeping a local backup on a 2TB SATA drive.
You could load a box up with 8-10TB of disk, share everything out with it to your home network, and then install backblaze for offsite backups. If I recall, they have no storage limitation but require the OS to be a non-server Windows OS (or a Mac OS).
If your photos are that valuable, have Flickr be primary and keep a second copy in Amazon S3. Or download them all every 6-12 months, stick them on a cheap 2TB drive and put them in a safety deposit box or at a friend's house.
But I'd argue it's inherently easier to accomplish in "cloud computing" environments. It's just a matter of ensuring source/destination hypervisors can run the virtual machine images you're using, store the same amount of data using the same methods, etc.
Think how Amazon AWS currently works. S3 and EBS for storage, EC2 for machine images, hell, they even have Route 53 for anycasted DNS (although it's not as good as dedicated DNS providers).
Now, if other providers can provide API-compliant, compatible environments, it's a matter of a) migrating your DNS with APIs, b) copying over your server images and starting them up, and c) migrating your storage. This can't be done easily why now?
I'm somewhat disappointed in the moderation on my post. It's not like I'm some PHB who doesn't understand technology.
It's a matter of thinking hard about your app, how it's designed, and the coding based on that design. Architect your environment properly, and have everything accessible via APIs. Want to move your DNS? API calls to replicate the records to another provider and update the nameserver information at the root (with yet another API). Your webservers should be able to scale horizontally, as well as your app servers (if you have them) and your database servers (or, depending on your app, use something like Cassandra that is easier to replicate between 10s to 100s of nodes than MySQL/PostgreSQL/etc). Any app is simply the function of several "cogs" of codes, some apps have more cogs than others (Amazon.com, for example, hence all the services that drive it can also drive AWS).
To dismiss my post is to dismiss the advancements in computing over the last two decades. If you do decide to dismiss me, don't say it's because it's hard and because we can't. That just seems to be an untenable conclusion.
Twilio runs 100% in the cloud. Technically we run in "the clouds"- using servers in multiple clouds based on the price, availability, failover & bandwidth of different offerings.
We already bring machines up and down and auto-configure them with the push of a button using a first-generation tool we built called boxconfig. (we know - soooooo original & creative)
We are looking for someone to take our mission-critical cloud infrastructure management system to the next level. This system will manage our telecommunications infrastructure cluster – it will orchestrate the provisioning, load balancing, dynamic configuration/re-configuration, monitoring and spend optimization of 10,000+ servers across providers, data centers, availability zones and myriad other variables we haven't even thought of yet.
You've been itching for the opportunity "do server management infrastructure right" for a while and are fired up to absolutely go to town on this - building scaling and healing automation that factors in security, failover, and quality/analytic tools to track stuff like packet loss, performance, latency, and more. You know, the stuff you'd build if world class infrastructure was the priority - and your boss wasn’t breathing down your neck about that i18n feature and the other whizbang things the marketing and sales VPs need yesterday.
So I have to put in the time to demand a feature? I'd happily write a check. I'd support openstack financially with $10K or $20K if I knew it wouldn't help Rackspace out.
Some of us can make enough cash to buy the things we need, because time (as my nick points out) is quite often more expensive than cash.
Until I can migrate from clustered computing environment to clustered computing environment (first person to say "cloud" gets punched in the chest) with one click (with DNS, IP management, etc all handled my a hypervisor headmaster), there is still a fair amount of lock-in.
Usually it's when we're falling asleep and just want to throw something on, I wouldn't be doing something useful anyway. Also, I may have overestimated the time. It's probably closer to 20-25 hours a month (~45 minute show around the time we're crashing, and maybe a couple of movies throughout the month).
It's not like I'm also doing other things (full time job, welding/material sciences/fabricating classes, volunteering, etc). It's just to kill time when I wouldn't be otherwise productive anyway.
I'll have to investigate further. I do admit the one time I was having problems it was because I was choking my upstream with Flickr uploads, but I fancy having continued quality streaming from Netflix.
I wonder why Google doesn't buy Netflix. They have the cash, the ability to strongarm content providers, and it's their mission to organize the world's data (and that content would fall under that). *shrugs*
No no! I didn't mean you didn't believe me, just like you said, we have different tastes. I watch *a lot* of Nova/PBS/Frontline documentaries, Discovery shows like Mythbusters and Dirty Jobs, and shows like Bones, Lie To Me, etc that are on there.
Netflix has a market cap bigger than some studios. If they want the content, they'll just buy the studios or the copyright rights wholesale. Who is going to stop them? Blockbuster?
Seriously? My wife and I watch maybe 40-50 hours a month of Netflix Streaming content over our Comcast connection, and have only had a problem once. I'll live with that to have an entire content library at my fingertips.
+1 Life Lessons. The less you need your employer, the more leverage you have. Be a slave only to your own wishes (and maybe you family, depending on your outlook).
Slashdot Mirror
My point still stands. School of hard knocks > 4 year "degree". Once you have 4-6 years of real world experience under your belt, you should have no need for a degree in your field, and HR should be bitchsmacked for casting those aside for not wasting their time on a piece of paper.
Cool story bro time:
I dropped out of high school my junior year in 2000 to work as a sysadmin for a webdev startup. No prior experience, just knowing what I was doing. After 2 years and the dot com crash, I started a hosting company with 2 other guys. 3 years later, it was sold to a Chicago consulting firm for $8MM. After that, I got to work on the computing side of the Large Hadron Collider, and now I own a technology consulting firm and can retire before I'm 30.
Careful when you paint with a broad brush. Some of us just choose not to waste our time in the pathetic education institution that exists in the US. And that dropout you don't hire who may not have a degree, but has ambition and drive, might just replace your organization with something better.
Indeed. You definitely play the game. I've told people that if you need the job, can do the job, but they require a degree, lie about it. If it's required, you're not losing anything by trying, you're just playing the game. If they check, oh well. If they don't check, you've successfully played the game. Does that mean the system is broken? Yes.
Don't underestimate skills on paper; a good education can teach you in 4 years what it would take 40 years of trial and error to learn on your own.
I'd have to disagree. I spent 3-4 years building a startup while others were in college. I learned more doing that then any schooling would've ever taught. Business. Politics. People Skills. Learning on the fly. College? Today's college is expensive babysitting. You even get the courtesy of being unemployed with your 4 years of schooling under your belt if you're a recent graduate.
Being intelligent is not enough if you can not finish the work.
If you want a cog for the machine, go for it. When I hire folks for my business, I prefer either experience or a clean slate (fresh out of high school). I take college graduates only if I can't find either.
Very true. Don't rely on assumed physical traits. When in doubt, wipe like the $three_letter_agency is at the door.
I much prefer, "Science, it works bitches"
http://www.xkcd.com/54/
Laugh if you want, people are building the feature set as we speak:
http://twilio.jobscore.com/job_seeker/jobs/job_posting?job_id=bSHjYWq2Sr37U6eJe4aGWH&ref=rss
Are you looking at the highly redundant storage or the reduced redundancy storage? The reduced redundancy storage is cheaper, but maintains fewer copies of your data in the S3 storage system. It may make sense to use the reduced redundancy storage system while at the same time keeping a local backup on a 2TB SATA drive.
No, just jpegs. Use Amazon S3 for RAW images.
You could load a box up with 8-10TB of disk, share everything out with it to your home network, and then install backblaze for offsite backups. If I recall, they have no storage limitation but require the OS to be a non-server Windows OS (or a Mac OS).
If your photos are that valuable, have Flickr be primary and keep a second copy in Amazon S3. Or download them all every 6-12 months, stick them on a cheap 2TB drive and put them in a safety deposit box or at a friend's house.
Third vote for Flickr Pro. I have 250GB+ of photos stored in there from the last 10 years, for $25/year. DEAL.
But I'd argue it's inherently easier to accomplish in "cloud computing" environments. It's just a matter of ensuring source/destination hypervisors can run the virtual machine images you're using, store the same amount of data using the same methods, etc.
Think how Amazon AWS currently works. S3 and EBS for storage, EC2 for machine images, hell, they even have Route 53 for anycasted DNS (although it's not as good as dedicated DNS providers).
Now, if other providers can provide API-compliant, compatible environments, it's a matter of a) migrating your DNS with APIs, b) copying over your server images and starting them up, and c) migrating your storage. This can't be done easily why now?
I'm somewhat disappointed in the moderation on my post. It's not like I'm some PHB who doesn't understand technology.
It's a matter of thinking hard about your app, how it's designed, and the coding based on that design. Architect your environment properly, and have everything accessible via APIs. Want to move your DNS? API calls to replicate the records to another provider and update the nameserver information at the root (with yet another API). Your webservers should be able to scale horizontally, as well as your app servers (if you have them) and your database servers (or, depending on your app, use something like Cassandra that is easier to replicate between 10s to 100s of nodes than MySQL/PostgreSQL/etc). Any app is simply the function of several "cogs" of codes, some apps have more cogs than others (Amazon.com, for example, hence all the services that drive it can also drive AWS).
To dismiss my post is to dismiss the advancements in computing over the last two decades. If you do decide to dismiss me, don't say it's because it's hard and because we can't. That just seems to be an untenable conclusion.
If you don't believe that this is the direction we're going in, I'd think others would disagree: http://twilio.jobscore.com/job_seeker/jobs/job_posting?job_id=bSHjYWq2Sr37U6eJe4aGWH&ref=rss
About the Job:
Twilio runs 100% in the cloud. Technically we run in "the clouds"- using servers in multiple clouds based on the price, availability, failover & bandwidth of different offerings.
We already bring machines up and down and auto-configure them with the push of a button using a first-generation tool we built called boxconfig. (we know - soooooo original & creative)
We are looking for someone to take our mission-critical cloud infrastructure management system to the next level. This system will manage our telecommunications infrastructure cluster – it will orchestrate the provisioning, load balancing, dynamic configuration/re-configuration, monitoring and spend optimization of 10,000+ servers across providers, data centers, availability zones and myriad other variables we haven't even thought of yet.
You've been itching for the opportunity "do server management infrastructure right" for a while and are fired up to absolutely go to town on this - building scaling and healing automation that factors in security, failover, and quality/analytic tools to track stuff like packet loss, performance, latency, and more. You know, the stuff you'd build if world class infrastructure was the priority - and your boss wasn’t breathing down your neck about that i18n feature and the other whizbang things the marketing and sales VPs need yesterday.
So I have to put in the time to demand a feature? I'd happily write a check. I'd support openstack financially with $10K or $20K if I knew it wouldn't help Rackspace out.
Some of us can make enough cash to buy the things we need, because time (as my nick points out) is quite often more expensive than cash.
Until I can migrate from clustered computing environment to clustered computing environment (first person to say "cloud" gets punched in the chest) with one click (with DNS, IP management, etc all handled my a hypervisor headmaster), there is still a fair amount of lock-in.
Usually it's when we're falling asleep and just want to throw something on, I wouldn't be doing something useful anyway. Also, I may have overestimated the time. It's probably closer to 20-25 hours a month (~45 minute show around the time we're crashing, and maybe a couple of movies throughout the month).
It's not like I'm also doing other things (full time job, welding/material sciences/fabricating classes, volunteering, etc). It's just to kill time when I wouldn't be otherwise productive anyway.
I'll have to investigate further. I do admit the one time I was having problems it was because I was choking my upstream with Flickr uploads, but I fancy having continued quality streaming from Netflix.
I wonder why Google doesn't buy Netflix. They have the cash, the ability to strongarm content providers, and it's their mission to organize the world's data (and that content would fall under that).
*shrugs*
No no! I didn't mean you didn't believe me, just like you said, we have different tastes. I watch *a lot* of Nova/PBS/Frontline documentaries, Discovery shows like Mythbusters and Dirty Jobs, and shows like Bones, Lie To Me, etc that are on there.
I have 15 movies in my Netflix DVD queue, 212 in my Watch It Now. I'd be happy to screen cap and link.
Netflix has a market cap bigger than some studios. If they want the content, they'll just buy the studios or the copyright rights wholesale. Who is going to stop them? Blockbuster?
Seriously? My wife and I watch maybe 40-50 hours a month of Netflix Streaming content over our Comcast connection, and have only had a problem once. I'll live with that to have an entire content library at my fingertips.
+1 Life Lessons. The less you need your employer, the more leverage you have. Be a slave only to your own wishes (and maybe you family, depending on your outlook).