Except your analogy sucks because nobody has created alternative music content. Or the content that has been created, people do not want.
For whatever reason, people want that Top 40 crap. They want the MTV crap. I am not part of that demographic, but the demographic is huge. There is a cost to access that content.
Here in America, you either pay the cost, or you do without it. Or you break the law and steal it. Downloading music, streaming it without paying the artist, whatever are theft. I say this as someone who was swapping warez at 2400 baud and still has access to all of the free content that I want.
The whole, "If they weren't going to buy it in the first place, it's not a lost sale." argument does not work here. People obviously want the content. They are going to YouTube.com and consuming the content. Google is making money from the content via ads. But for some reason, people like you seem to think that Google not paying for content that they are making money on, is okay.
Let me put this in terms you might understand. Let's pretend that you work a 40 hour week. At the end of the week, you get a paycheck for 10% of what you were expecting. You whine to your boss about it. His response is that, "The work that you do could have been done by anyone. If you don't like my wages, go kick rocks." That is basically what is going on here. Your Boss is profiting from your labor in the same way that Google is profiting from the content created by the artists. Just like it wouldn't be okay for your boss to decide after the fact that he does not want to pay you what he owes you, it is not okay for Google to decide that they do not want to pay RIAA, ASCAP, whoever represents the artist in question, the fee for the content.
Let's use a grocery store then. If you can walk into a grocery store and take all of the food you want, does that make the food worthless? Does that make the price that the store is asking for it wrong?
They are not trying to put music back in the box. They are telling Google that Google needs to pay for the content.
As much as I dislike RIAA, they are right in this case. If a song plays on the radio, the artist gets paid. If a song is used in a movie, commercial or otherwise broadcast, the artist gets paid. But if a song is played on Google / YouTube, the artist DOESN'T get paid.
My understanding is that Google is trying to make the argument that, "Even though we are playing the song for the user, by virtue of viewing the video / hearing the song on YouTube, the user is more likely to buy the song. Therefore, we do not owe the artist any money."
If my understanding is correct, their argument is stupid. They are playing the song and they are generating ad revenue for all of the ads that are shown on youtube.com.
If "Cost of Song > Ad Revenue" then Google has a lame business model in this case and they need to scrap it. Or charge more for ads. Or negotiate lower rates for the songs until "Cost of Song Ad Revenue"
This is not about the artists / RIAA trying to put music back in the box. They are all for letting Google / YouTube broadcast the music. They would be stupid to fight THAT. What they are fighting is the idea that Google can broadcast the music for free, or at a rate that Google dictates. While the RIAA may suck, this is still America and producers get to set their prices. If the RIAA says the latest Top 40 track is worth X, it is worth X. Google can try to negotiate that rate, but they cannot out and out deny to pay.
To use a car analogy, music listeners are cars owners and the RIAA is a gasoline company. YouTube is the gas station. Right now, the gas station is directly connected to the oil refinery and they are filling up the cars of anyone who pulls into the gas station. They aren't charging anything for the gas, but they are making money on snacks in the convenience store. RIAA is saying, "If you want to use our gas to get people to come buy your snacks, you have to pay us for the gas." Google is saying, "No we don't. People like getting gas from us for free, and maybe in the future they'll pay you for it at another, non-Google gas station. The amount of money we make selling snacks is irrelevant."
Good luck with that. I had a guy who was similar and we ended up getting rid of him after a couple of years (and plenty of coaching) because I was having to spend too much time managing him.
My "favorite" side project of his was the time that he spent 2 days writing his own random number generator in Python. When I asked him why he did not just use random() he did told me that he, "..felt it was more valuable for him to learn to do it himself."
The guy was his own worst enemy. It was sad, because he was extremely smart. But he always wanted to work on his own projects, and always wanted to do things his own way.
At least your guy seems to be getting things "done". In my situation, the employee's tasks and projects were perpetually 85% complete. There was always "one little thing" left to do, that some how always seemed to take 8 times longer to get done than he thought it would, because he would over think and over complicate everything.
You need to be working on what your boss wants you to be working on. That is the point of being an employee.
If your boss is not giving you anything to work on, why are you going to work? What are you doing with your days?
If you have down time and want a side project, ask your boss what else you can be working on. If they do not have anything for you to do, then find something and ask them if they think it would be valuable to the company for you to work on it.
>>This seems like the kind of topic that has been popping up here more recently. It is like someone in management decided we, "We need an opinion question to keep the few people left on the site engaged." This one just seems particularly bad.
This is a good post. I have a similar story, only I dropped out of college in the late 90s and got into consulting right before the big dot com crash. I had developed my own basic computer skills as a kid, and was fortunate enough to find an employer who was willing to take a chance and train me. In my case, aptitude plus opportunity equals success. I am never going to be rich at the rate that I am going, but I am making comfortable money at a stable company.
My dad was a programmer in the mid to late 70s. I still remember him telling me that some of the best programmers he worked with were women English majors. The same neural patterns that are required to understand English or a "foreign" language make it easier to pick up computer "languages".
I misspoke. It is not built around military SPENDING specifically. It is built around the military, and the preferred access to resources that our military provides.
We have the largest military in the world, and military bases in more countries than any other nation on earth. We also have the largest and most powerful navy, and with it the implicit control of the seas.
All of that military power assures that foreign countries need to hold US dollars. Specifically the petro dollar underpins our economy. Just look at whatever happens when the leader of another country tries to stop selling oil in dollars.
To understand how the military supports the economy, you have to stop thinking in paper currency and look at resources. Look at how many resources are being dedicated to maintaining a military footprint around the world, and how many resources are not being allocated to maintain basic infrastructure at home.
It has been almost a century since Smedley Butler declared that "war is a racket" and not much has changed since then.
You have started to address the reality of the American economy. By and large, our entire economic system is built around military spending. It is almost impossible to have a real discussion about reducing military spending in any meaningful way because there are so many jobs tied up in it.
This has so many add on effects. When all you have is a military, every challenge looks like a potential conflict.
I believe that it does not matter with Linux. I am as certain as I can be based on nothing but observation and a modicum of understanding about operating systems that it has to do with MS DLLs being optimized. It probably has something to do with how they are compiled, and the compiler being designed to leverage optimizations for the Intel architecture. If the optimizations are not there, the code branches to the 'other' execution pipeline for 'generic x86 instruction set' or whatever.
You don't read it from disk. You put it into memory. As was suggested, you should be investigating indexing strategies. If you need both OLTP and OLAP from the same set of data, you are likely going to have to partition out multiple copies. I do not know of any use cases where organizations are doing both, at large scale, from the same database. You should also setup views if possible so that you can hone in on the specific portions of the table that you need, or the relationships that are relevant to the application.
FWIW - Where I work, we are dealing with 5TB+ SQL databases running on servers with 1.5TB of RAM. (SQL 2012 R2). Our DBAs are getting decent enough query performance that most of the transactions are completing in under 10 seconds. Even the largest tables have no more than 5 indexes, and they are reorganized nightly. TempDB is 80GB (8 x 10GB) and both data and logs are on EMC XtremIO.
Agreed. On the GPU side, it is slightly more cut and dried. The hardware vendors implement specific effects and then work with the studios who want to leverage those effects. The CPUs are decidedly more complex because at some point the high level object code needs to be broken down into machine code. Without compiler optimizations at the low level, or structural changes at the higher level in terms of functions or what have you, it is difficult to make the most of any CPU architectural enhancements.
Sounds like an interesting project and challenge to solve. How do you define "big relational tables" in this context? Hundreds of gigabytes? Terabytes?
Do they fit into RAM or are you having to pull data from the disk subsystem?
I was going to make a similar comment, so I will add it in here.
Just because AMD can work with game developers to optimize code for the CPU does not necessarily mean that the game developers want to, or can even afford to, optimize their code for two different platforms.
Where do things go from here?
Do we see a fragmentation in the market, where the chip manufacturers try to woo AAA studios to provide "exclusive optimizations" targeted at a specific platform?
Do the developers of the game engines themselves (FrostBite, Unreal, Unity, etc.) have to shoulder the burden of writing a "universal" platform that ultimately optimizes for both CPU architectures? Is such a thing even possible? Would it result in in two different installers, each targeted at a different architecture? Sort of like we still have 32 and 64 bit installers for most applications?
I have been building my own computers since the 1990s, and I have given a couple of AMD chips a chance over the years. My anecdotal experience, sample size of one experience has been that the AMD chips never "feel" as fast. The OS (Windows) is not as responsive. Applications are not as snappy. I am sure that has gotten better and may even be negligible at this point. I hope that is the case. But the impression that I have been left with is that there is an inherent bias towards Intel baked in at this point. Whether it is at the compiler level where the defaults are configured in such a way as to leverage Intel specific instructions, or maybe it's at the application layer where key OS DLLs are similarly optimized for proprietary Intel instruction sets. But there is definitely/something/ going on. The term WinTel was coined for a reason.
I grew up in Orange. I lived in Long Beach for 15 years and consulted with clients everywhere from northern Orange county, out to Sun Valley at one extreme, the San Fernando Valley, Ventura. Downtown Los Angeles, Vernon. There are very few cities in southern California that I have not been to, multiple times. Hollywood, the ultimate cluster fuck.
I lived in Long Beach exactly because I had to know how to get around. From that city alone you have the 405, 605, 22, 710 and 91 freeways. You can skirt across the port and hit the 110. The 710 is by far one of the best north south freeways in the region. East west sucks no matter what, up until you hit the 210 but that's just because the 210 goes where nobody wants to go. The 10? Blows. 60? Blows. Your precious 105? Hahahaha, blows. Where are you going to take that freeway? Nickerson Gardens? Downey?
That entire metropolitan area is a shit show. There is no "knowing how to get around it" that alleviates the fact that its a parking lot for most of the day and night. Unless you are on the road before 5am, lots of luck driving for more than 20 minutes without dealing with some sort of slowing.
My best commute was from Costa Mesa to Irvine, and that still took about 25 minutes to go less than 10 miles most times of the day.
I agree. I live in the Pacific Northwest and previously lived in Irvine, California. I brought my job with me when I moved to my town of ~18,000 people. It is great to be making a California salary with a "small" town cost of living.
I am close enough (20-30 minute drive) to the nearest big city that I can go do all of that nonsense when I feel the urge to. The rest of the time, I have a nice house, a good sized yard and mellow neighbors.
You must not have to leave your fantastic location very often. Trying to get anywhere ELSE in the region from Manhattan Beach is a serious bitch. Almost as bad as Santa Monica.
There was an interesting article in Vanity Fair recently that echoes what you are saying. In the context of the article, the author made the point that all of the studios are asking television show writers to include a "mystery". They are hoping that the mystery will hook the viewers and keep them engaged for the whole season.
As many others have said, your experience is not the norm. I have been doing IT since 1996. I have worked with one female sysadmin and two female DBAs. Other than that, most of the women in "IT" have all been in PM and other non-technical roles.
My current company employees ~5000 people. Our CEO and General Counsel are women, in addition to countless Managing Directors. We have equality programs up the wazoo, including for LGBT and every race except us "white" people. We are not a tech company per se, but are fairly representative of "Corporate America" in many ways.
Slashdot Mirror
Except your analogy sucks because nobody has created alternative music content. Or the content that has been created, people do not want.
For whatever reason, people want that Top 40 crap. They want the MTV crap. I am not part of that demographic, but the demographic is huge. There is a cost to access that content.
Here in America, you either pay the cost, or you do without it. Or you break the law and steal it. Downloading music, streaming it without paying the artist, whatever are theft. I say this as someone who was swapping warez at 2400 baud and still has access to all of the free content that I want.
The whole, "If they weren't going to buy it in the first place, it's not a lost sale." argument does not work here. People obviously want the content. They are going to YouTube.com and consuming the content. Google is making money from the content via ads. But for some reason, people like you seem to think that Google not paying for content that they are making money on, is okay.
Let me put this in terms you might understand. Let's pretend that you work a 40 hour week. At the end of the week, you get a paycheck for 10% of what you were expecting. You whine to your boss about it. His response is that, "The work that you do could have been done by anyone. If you don't like my wages, go kick rocks." That is basically what is going on here. Your Boss is profiting from your labor in the same way that Google is profiting from the content created by the artists. Just like it wouldn't be okay for your boss to decide after the fact that he does not want to pay you what he owes you, it is not okay for Google to decide that they do not want to pay RIAA, ASCAP, whoever represents the artist in question, the fee for the content.
Let's use a grocery store then. If you can walk into a grocery store and take all of the food you want, does that make the food worthless? Does that make the price that the store is asking for it wrong?
They are not trying to put music back in the box. They are telling Google that Google needs to pay for the content.
As much as I dislike RIAA, they are right in this case. If a song plays on the radio, the artist gets paid. If a song is used in a movie, commercial or otherwise broadcast, the artist gets paid. But if a song is played on Google / YouTube, the artist DOESN'T get paid.
My understanding is that Google is trying to make the argument that, "Even though we are playing the song for the user, by virtue of viewing the video / hearing the song on YouTube, the user is more likely to buy the song. Therefore, we do not owe the artist any money."
If my understanding is correct, their argument is stupid. They are playing the song and they are generating ad revenue for all of the ads that are shown on youtube.com.
If "Cost of Song > Ad Revenue" then Google has a lame business model in this case and they need to scrap it. Or charge more for ads. Or negotiate lower rates for the songs until "Cost of Song Ad Revenue"
This is not about the artists / RIAA trying to put music back in the box. They are all for letting Google / YouTube broadcast the music. They would be stupid to fight THAT. What they are fighting is the idea that Google can broadcast the music for free, or at a rate that Google dictates. While the RIAA may suck, this is still America and producers get to set their prices. If the RIAA says the latest Top 40 track is worth X, it is worth X. Google can try to negotiate that rate, but they cannot out and out deny to pay.
To use a car analogy, music listeners are cars owners and the RIAA is a gasoline company. YouTube is the gas station. Right now, the gas station is directly connected to the oil refinery and they are filling up the cars of anyone who pulls into the gas station. They aren't charging anything for the gas, but they are making money on snacks in the convenience store. RIAA is saying, "If you want to use our gas to get people to come buy your snacks, you have to pay us for the gas." Google is saying, "No we don't. People like getting gas from us for free, and maybe in the future they'll pay you for it at another, non-Google gas station. The amount of money we make selling snacks is irrelevant."
Good luck with that. I had a guy who was similar and we ended up getting rid of him after a couple of years (and plenty of coaching) because I was having to spend too much time managing him.
My "favorite" side project of his was the time that he spent 2 days writing his own random number generator in Python. When I asked him why he did not just use random() he did told me that he, "..felt it was more valuable for him to learn to do it himself."
The guy was his own worst enemy. It was sad, because he was extremely smart. But he always wanted to work on his own projects, and always wanted to do things his own way.
At least your guy seems to be getting things "done". In my situation, the employee's tasks and projects were perpetually 85% complete. There was always "one little thing" left to do, that some how always seemed to take 8 times longer to get done than he thought it would, because he would over think and over complicate everything.
Aren't you the guy who suggested quite seriously that someone pursue an A+ certification?
You need to be working on what your boss wants you to be working on. That is the point of being an employee.
If your boss is not giving you anything to work on, why are you going to work? What are you doing with your days?
If you have down time and want a side project, ask your boss what else you can be working on. If they do not have anything for you to do, then find something and ask them if they think it would be valuable to the company for you to work on it.
>>This seems like the kind of topic that has been popping up here more recently. It is like someone in management decided we, "We need an opinion question to keep the few people left on the site engaged." This one just seems particularly bad.
This is a good post. I have a similar story, only I dropped out of college in the late 90s and got into consulting right before the big dot com crash. I had developed my own basic computer skills as a kid, and was fortunate enough to find an employer who was willing to take a chance and train me. In my case, aptitude plus opportunity equals success. I am never going to be rich at the rate that I am going, but I am making comfortable money at a stable company.
My dad was a programmer in the mid to late 70s. I still remember him telling me that some of the best programmers he worked with were women English majors. The same neural patterns that are required to understand English or a "foreign" language make it easier to pick up computer "languages".
I misspoke. It is not built around military SPENDING specifically. It is built around the military, and the preferred access to resources that our military provides.
We have the largest military in the world, and military bases in more countries than any other nation on earth. We also have the largest and most powerful navy, and with it the implicit control of the seas.
All of that military power assures that foreign countries need to hold US dollars. Specifically the petro dollar underpins our economy. Just look at whatever happens when the leader of another country tries to stop selling oil in dollars.
To understand how the military supports the economy, you have to stop thinking in paper currency and look at resources. Look at how many resources are being dedicated to maintaining a military footprint around the world, and how many resources are not being allocated to maintain basic infrastructure at home.
It has been almost a century since Smedley Butler declared that "war is a racket" and not much has changed since then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Only instead of bananas and sugar in the Caribbean, it is uranium and lithium in Afghanistan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You have started to address the reality of the American economy. By and large, our entire economic system is built around military spending. It is almost impossible to have a real discussion about reducing military spending in any meaningful way because there are so many jobs tied up in it.
This has so many add on effects. When all you have is a military, every challenge looks like a potential conflict.
My television pwnt my 'smart' assistant!!!
I am willing to bet that Burger King executive math equals
Those Upset Enough at Having Their Google Device Pwnt Those Willing to Laugh at Those Who Have Had Their Google Device Pwnt
That's interesting. Do you have anything to backup your assertion that "Vulkan is a top priority [for EVERY game house]." ?
I believe that it does not matter with Linux. I am as certain as I can be based on nothing but observation and a modicum of understanding about operating systems that it has to do with MS DLLs being optimized. It probably has something to do with how they are compiled, and the compiler being designed to leverage optimizations for the Intel architecture. If the optimizations are not there, the code branches to the 'other' execution pipeline for 'generic x86 instruction set' or whatever.
You don't read it from disk. You put it into memory. As was suggested, you should be investigating indexing strategies. If you need both OLTP and OLAP from the same set of data, you are likely going to have to partition out multiple copies. I do not know of any use cases where organizations are doing both, at large scale, from the same database. You should also setup views if possible so that you can hone in on the specific portions of the table that you need, or the relationships that are relevant to the application.
FWIW - Where I work, we are dealing with 5TB+ SQL databases running on servers with 1.5TB of RAM. (SQL 2012 R2). Our DBAs are getting decent enough query performance that most of the transactions are completing in under 10 seconds. Even the largest tables have no more than 5 indexes, and they are reorganized nightly. TempDB is 80GB (8 x 10GB) and both data and logs are on EMC XtremIO.
Agreed. On the GPU side, it is slightly more cut and dried. The hardware vendors implement specific effects and then work with the studios who want to leverage those effects. The CPUs are decidedly more complex because at some point the high level object code needs to be broken down into machine code. Without compiler optimizations at the low level, or structural changes at the higher level in terms of functions or what have you, it is difficult to make the most of any CPU architectural enhancements.
Sounds like an interesting project and challenge to solve. How do you define "big relational tables" in this context? Hundreds of gigabytes? Terabytes?
Do they fit into RAM or are you having to pull data from the disk subsystem?
I was going to make a similar comment, so I will add it in here.
Just because AMD can work with game developers to optimize code for the CPU does not necessarily mean that the game developers want to, or can even afford to, optimize their code for two different platforms.
Where do things go from here?
Do we see a fragmentation in the market, where the chip manufacturers try to woo AAA studios to provide "exclusive optimizations" targeted at a specific platform?
Do the developers of the game engines themselves (FrostBite, Unreal, Unity, etc.) have to shoulder the burden of writing a "universal" platform that ultimately optimizes for both CPU architectures? Is such a thing even possible? Would it result in in two different installers, each targeted at a different architecture? Sort of like we still have 32 and 64 bit installers for most applications?
I have been building my own computers since the 1990s, and I have given a couple of AMD chips a chance over the years. My anecdotal experience, sample size of one experience has been that the AMD chips never "feel" as fast. The OS (Windows) is not as responsive. Applications are not as snappy. I am sure that has gotten better and may even be negligible at this point. I hope that is the case. But the impression that I have been left with is that there is an inherent bias towards Intel baked in at this point. Whether it is at the compiler level where the defaults are configured in such a way as to leverage Intel specific instructions, or maybe it's at the application layer where key OS DLLs are similarly optimized for proprietary Intel instruction sets. But there is definitely /something/ going on. The term WinTel was coined for a reason.
I grew up in Orange. I lived in Long Beach for 15 years and consulted with clients everywhere from northern Orange county, out to Sun Valley at one extreme, the San Fernando Valley, Ventura. Downtown Los Angeles, Vernon. There are very few cities in southern California that I have not been to, multiple times. Hollywood, the ultimate cluster fuck.
I lived in Long Beach exactly because I had to know how to get around. From that city alone you have the 405, 605, 22, 710 and 91 freeways. You can skirt across the port and hit the 110. The 710 is by far one of the best north south freeways in the region. East west sucks no matter what, up until you hit the 210 but that's just because the 210 goes where nobody wants to go. The 10? Blows. 60? Blows. Your precious 105? Hahahaha, blows. Where are you going to take that freeway? Nickerson Gardens? Downey?
That entire metropolitan area is a shit show. There is no "knowing how to get around it" that alleviates the fact that its a parking lot for most of the day and night. Unless you are on the road before 5am, lots of luck driving for more than 20 minutes without dealing with some sort of slowing.
My best commute was from Costa Mesa to Irvine, and that still took about 25 minutes to go less than 10 miles most times of the day.
Teh internets watch you.
Given that they have to consciously opt into "insider" builds, I would say 99% of them.
I agree. I live in the Pacific Northwest and previously lived in Irvine, California. I brought my job with me when I moved to my town of ~18,000 people. It is great to be making a California salary with a "small" town cost of living.
I am close enough (20-30 minute drive) to the nearest big city that I can go do all of that nonsense when I feel the urge to. The rest of the time, I have a nice house, a good sized yard and mellow neighbors.
You must not have to leave your fantastic location very often. Trying to get anywhere ELSE in the region from Manhattan Beach is a serious bitch. Almost as bad as Santa Monica.
There was an interesting article in Vanity Fair recently that echoes what you are saying. In the context of the article, the author made the point that all of the studios are asking television show writers to include a "mystery". They are hoping that the mystery will hook the viewers and keep them engaged for the whole season.
As many others have said, your experience is not the norm. I have been doing IT since 1996. I have worked with one female sysadmin and two female DBAs. Other than that, most of the women in "IT" have all been in PM and other non-technical roles.
My current company employees ~5000 people. Our CEO and General Counsel are women, in addition to countless Managing Directors. We have equality programs up the wazoo, including for LGBT and every race except us "white" people. We are not a tech company per se, but are fairly representative of "Corporate America" in many ways.
Well played sir.
Did you really just suggest paying extra for someone with A+ certifications?