Some minor corrections to my post above. 2TB is 2^41 bytes (not bits). 3.5" form factor is 1" x 4" x 5.75" (not 5.25").
Someone mentioned power usage. Assuming 5W/drive typical/average power, 5 x 2^47 = ~700TW. This is approximately 47x the 2008 worldwide energy consumption rate.
Well, here's a better visual. Using 2TB (2^41 bits), you would need 2^47 drives. Using 3.5" (1" x 4" x 5.25") drives, arranged into cubes 24 high x 6 wide x 4 deep (allowing ~1/4" for power and data cables on the depth), you get 476 drives in a 24" cube (2'). For simplicity, let's call it 256 (2^8) drives in a 2' cube, allowing some space for cooling and mounting hardware. That means you need 2^39 such cubes. That's a cube 2^13 (8192) x 2' on each side. 8192 x 2 = 16384' = ~ 3.1mi (~5km) per side. That's 4x as high as the tallest building in the world and larger than the largest "downtown" in the world. Alter the shape into a more conical structure and you have a literal mountain of hard drives.
When faced with a battle between two questionable characters, I side with the one who is better at covering his tracks. I call this one for Zuckerberg.
"...by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
I'm not wrong. Yes, the goal is to promote progress, and yes the mechanism is be protecting the inventors. I have nothing confused, you assumed things that I didn't say. You want to argue semantics, but the fact is they are intended to protect the inventors, just like I stated.
Your experience at IBM demonstrates my point quite clearly. Had the patents been yours (as the inventor), not IBM's, you would have been free to bring them to market, either by yourself, by bring on investors, or by licensing them to a partner (IBM or otherwise).
As for monopolies, competition, etc. Unregulated capitalism doesn't work, you end up with exactly what we had in the late 1800's and early 1900's. Free markets don't work when companies/corporations have the power to control supply and set prices. You end up exactly where we are today. The current model for regulating companies is completely flawed and ineffective. It's not that we need more or less regulation, it's that we need effective regulation. In most cases, that can be accomplished with fewer, well written, regulations vs what we have now.
Patents weren't intended to protect the interests of big companies, they're intended to protect the interests of individual inventors. Apply for a patent, publish the info, use the patent to help bring products to market, and prevent bigger, better funded competitors from using your idea without paying you a royalty.
That the system is broken (patents issued that clearly shouldn't be, etc.), has been corrupted by big money, and has been abused by "patent trolls", doesn't make patents bad or evil. It makes for a broken, corrupt, and abused system that doesn't work the way it was intended. Conflating the broken system with the idea of patents does not help at all.
"Smart" devices, particularly automotive chargers can also ramp and/or limit their power draw to allow time for supplies to increase/decrease. Randomization of start times combined with ramped power draw and communication with the grid make it a non-issue.
Latency and storage. You have to be able to consolidate enough data at each node to be able to perform a useful amount of the search. The more you can store at each node, the fewer machines will be involved in the query. We're talking about indexing over 500 exabytes of data, so even a tiny slice is still a lot of data. With more machines involved in any single search, the communications latency quickly grows to the point that it's not useful.
Bandwidth. While most users have significant download bandwidth, they're much more restricted in upload bandwidth. So, while they may be able to perform a reasonable portion of a search, sending the search results back to the user in a timely fashion is likely to be a problem.
Security. Making sure that spammers/scammers can't join the network and manipulate the search results. Not everyone on the internet plays nicely.
It's inappropriate to call it a puck mouse. It wasn't nearly tough enough to be used as an actual hockey puck.
But then, while the ergonomics sucked, it worked well. That's a lot more than I can say for many of the other mice that have been on the market, including a few from MS, Logitech, and other major brand names.
Flash (almost?) never adds usability. Flash may add some level of interactivity, but usually no more than JS can and JS will do it with lower CPU utilization and fewer security vulnerabilities.
If you're going be an a$$hole when replying, you might want to double check your facts first. Here's a hint, your Mac installed base numbers are way low. And if you can't deal with feigned ignorance of a product that gets 90% of it's 11% usage simply by virtue of the fact that it's the default search engine in IE, then you either work for M$ or you need to lighten up. Windows 7 is more than 30% of the installed base, has Bing as it's default search engine, and can't keep those most of those users. By almost any measure, Bing is a failure in the marketplace.
Great, who's gonna put up the $50,000+ for the first month so I can even begin to gather enough data to start performing useful searches. And that's not counting any development time or the learning curve to get familiar with EC2. Got an investor with a few million to spare?
And the big one was thinking that a dominant OS vendor could/would create anything that was truly cross platform. From the beginning it was clear that.NET was a Windows first system, anyone else would be on their own. No matter how good the design and concept of.NET may be, while it's under MS control, it is fundamentally subjugated to keeping people on Windows. And while that may have sounded good to the executives at MS, it's a terrible way to address any threat they felt from Java. There is also the pressure from MS to have.NET support all the latest/greatest things in Windows, which is a backwards model. If they really wanted a sustainable and/or cross platform development/runtime, the Windows developers should bring their latest/greatest to.NET, if there are comparable capabilities on other platforms, then the.NET team might extend it in a way that supports portability. If not, but the Windows features are compelling enough, then developers would use them with the knowledge that such things are platform specific.
In short, the.NET team being part of MS put them in the position of having to support two masters, and that's always a no win scenario. They needed to be a separate entity with separate decision making authority and separate accounting, even if MS owned the majority of that entity.
I agree, most users don't notice, and most understand quite well with a 1-2 minute explanation about what file extensions are and which ones are executable. I've supported hundreds of users, only had 1-2 who seemed to have any difficulty grasping the concept of file name extensions and the fundamental difference between executable files vs data files. Of course, when you have data files that can include scripts, macros, etc. the distinction gets blurred, but they do grasp the basics.
Slashdot Mirror
Some minor corrections to my post above. 2TB is 2^41 bytes (not bits). 3.5" form factor is 1" x 4" x 5.75" (not 5.25").
Someone mentioned power usage. Assuming 5W/drive typical/average power, 5 x 2^47 = ~700TW. This is approximately 47x the 2008 worldwide energy consumption rate.
Well, here's a better visual. Using 2TB (2^41 bits), you would need 2^47 drives. Using 3.5" (1" x 4" x 5.25") drives, arranged into cubes 24 high x 6 wide x 4 deep (allowing ~1/4" for power and data cables on the depth), you get 476 drives in a 24" cube (2'). For simplicity, let's call it 256 (2^8) drives in a 2' cube, allowing some space for cooling and mounting hardware. That means you need 2^39 such cubes. That's a cube 2^13 (8192) x 2' on each side. 8192 x 2 = 16384' = ~ 3.1mi (~5km) per side. That's 4x as high as the tallest building in the world and larger than the largest "downtown" in the world. Alter the shape into a more conical structure and you have a literal mountain of hard drives.
When faced with a battle between two questionable characters, I side with the one who is better at covering his tracks. I call this one for Zuckerberg.
That only protects the owners, not the officers. The officers can still be held financially accountable for the debts of the LLC.
"...by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
I'm not wrong. Yes, the goal is to promote progress, and yes the mechanism is be protecting the inventors. I have nothing confused, you assumed things that I didn't say. You want to argue semantics, but the fact is they are intended to protect the inventors, just like I stated.
Your experience at IBM demonstrates my point quite clearly. Had the patents been yours (as the inventor), not IBM's, you would have been free to bring them to market, either by yourself, by bring on investors, or by licensing them to a partner (IBM or otherwise).
As for monopolies, competition, etc. Unregulated capitalism doesn't work, you end up with exactly what we had in the late 1800's and early 1900's. Free markets don't work when companies/corporations have the power to control supply and set prices. You end up exactly where we are today. The current model for regulating companies is completely flawed and ineffective. It's not that we need more or less regulation, it's that we need effective regulation. In most cases, that can be accomplished with fewer, well written, regulations vs what we have now.
These are not the faulty drivers you're looking for.
Patents weren't intended to protect the interests of big companies, they're intended to protect the interests of individual inventors. Apply for a patent, publish the info, use the patent to help bring products to market, and prevent bigger, better funded competitors from using your idea without paying you a royalty.
That the system is broken (patents issued that clearly shouldn't be, etc.), has been corrupted by big money, and has been abused by "patent trolls", doesn't make patents bad or evil. It makes for a broken, corrupt, and abused system that doesn't work the way it was intended. Conflating the broken system with the idea of patents does not help at all.
Patents are not bad. However, our patent system is seriously flawed, and has been corrupted.
Unfortunately, I think we've got a long way to go to get to 10%.
"Smart" devices, particularly automotive chargers can also ramp and/or limit their power draw to allow time for supplies to increase/decrease. Randomization of start times combined with ramped power draw and communication with the grid make it a non-issue.
AB better be implementing a large scale code review, or the next article will be about their vulnerabilities.
The issues with either of those are:
Latency and storage. You have to be able to consolidate enough data at each node to be able to perform a useful amount of the search. The more you can store at each node, the fewer machines will be involved in the query. We're talking about indexing over 500 exabytes of data, so even a tiny slice is still a lot of data. With more machines involved in any single search, the communications latency quickly grows to the point that it's not useful.
Bandwidth. While most users have significant download bandwidth, they're much more restricted in upload bandwidth. So, while they may be able to perform a reasonable portion of a search, sending the search results back to the user in a timely fashion is likely to be a problem.
Security. Making sure that spammers/scammers can't join the network and manipulate the search results. Not everyone on the internet plays nicely.
It's inappropriate to call it a puck mouse. It wasn't nearly tough enough to be used as an actual hockey puck.
But then, while the ergonomics sucked, it worked well. That's a lot more than I can say for many of the other mice that have been on the market, including a few from MS, Logitech, and other major brand names.
Good point. "Bing it" just doesn't have the same ring to it, does it?
"You've been Binged!" sounds much better (as long as you're not the one being Binged).
+1 Informative.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
You can however simultaneous prepare for and prevent having sex. Many men accomplish this daily.
+1 Insightful.
Flash (almost?) never adds usability. Flash may add some level of interactivity, but usually no more than JS can and JS will do it with lower CPU utilization and fewer security vulnerabilities.
If you're going be an a$$hole when replying, you might want to double check your facts first. Here's a hint, your Mac installed base numbers are way low. And if you can't deal with feigned ignorance of a product that gets 90% of it's 11% usage simply by virtue of the fact that it's the default search engine in IE, then you either work for M$ or you need to lighten up. Windows 7 is more than 30% of the installed base, has Bing as it's default search engine, and can't keep those most of those users. By almost any measure, Bing is a failure in the marketplace.
Great, who's gonna put up the $50,000+ for the first month so I can even begin to gather enough data to start performing useful searches. And that's not counting any development time or the learning curve to get familiar with EC2. Got an investor with a few million to spare?
I love that Bing. Great voice, great entertainer.
But I need access to a data center with thousands of servers, petabytes of storage, and gigabits/s of bandwidth to demonstrate it.
What's "Bing"?
Friendly Reminder: Apple, Google, Nintendo and Valve are the for-profit corporations a Slashdotter is permitted to like.
Since when is it acceptable to post anything even suggesting you like Apple? Apparently, I missed that memo.
And the big one was thinking that a dominant OS vendor could/would create anything that was truly cross platform. From the beginning it was clear that .NET was a Windows first system, anyone else would be on their own. No matter how good the design and concept of .NET may be, while it's under MS control, it is fundamentally subjugated to keeping people on Windows. And while that may have sounded good to the executives at MS, it's a terrible way to address any threat they felt from Java. There is also the pressure from MS to have .NET support all the latest/greatest things in Windows, which is a backwards model. If they really wanted a sustainable and/or cross platform development/runtime, the Windows developers should bring their latest/greatest to .NET, if there are comparable capabilities on other platforms, then the .NET team might extend it in a way that supports portability. If not, but the Windows features are compelling enough, then developers would use them with the knowledge that such things are platform specific.
In short, the .NET team being part of MS put them in the position of having to support two masters, and that's always a no win scenario. They needed to be a separate entity with separate decision making authority and separate accounting, even if MS owned the majority of that entity.
I agree, most users don't notice, and most understand quite well with a 1-2 minute explanation about what file extensions are and which ones are executable. I've supported hundreds of users, only had 1-2 who seemed to have any difficulty grasping the concept of file name extensions and the fundamental difference between executable files vs data files. Of course, when you have data files that can include scripts, macros, etc. the distinction gets blurred, but they do grasp the basics.