I'm not sure at what level your reading comprehension skills are at, but 2 out of 3 of those sentences don't even address the scenario I'm asking about.
The first of the three, on the other hand, does speak to your question, and answers it, covering the general case (data transfer into or out of a region). The other two provide additional clarification for special cases (the intra-region no-charge case, and the region-to-region charged-on-both-ends case.) Together, they fully describe the whole scope of the data transfer charges.
I also linked to the FAQ to demonstrate the examples used retrieval pricing, rather than the transfer out pricing.
That's because the examples are examples of retrieval. Retrieval and transfer out are two separate things (which in some cases you might do together, but since one of the major use cases of Glacier is to use alongside EC2, not all retrievals will be accompanied by a transfer out.)
So obviously there is ambiguity between the texts.
No, there's no ambiguity between the texts. The FAQ examples use retrieval pricing in answer a questions about the cost of retrievals, it also discusses the retrieval process in an earlier section and notes that after a retrieval request the data will be available to download or to access with EC2. The FAQ questions regarding charges also point to the pricing guide for more information on pricing. The pricing guide has both the price of retrievals and the price of transfers in and out, and clearly defines what transfers in and out are and when those transfers are charged.
So, between the documents, they define retrievals, they define transfers, and the provide pricing examples for retrievals. Where is the ambiguity?
It may all seem natural and obvious to you what differentiates those terms for someone who has been using AWS for awhile
I've never used AWS. The only thing I've done for a while which allows me to understand what the document is saying is "reading English".
If his first paragraph is correct, then the Network Neutrality rules for wireless broadband are so weak that they don't actually enforce any kind of neutrality.
The rules in the Open Internet Report & Order regarding mobile broadband providers (which isn't the same things as wireless, since while all mobile broadband is, perforce, wireless, not all wireless broadband is mobile) are not really intended to enforce much neutrality. They are more about consumer information so that consumers know what they are getting and can make decisions accordingly, though there is a prohibition on blocking certain services that compete with the vendor's own services.
They are much weaker than the rules for fixed broadband providers, based on the premise that mobile broadband is a less mature, more rapidly evolving market and needs more time for free experimentation before it is clear what, beyond the most basic, regulatory requirements would be appropriate.
Then read it again, because its quite explicit and you still aren't getting it.
and realize those sentences are dealing with inter-region and region-to-region transfers, and doesn't clarify the scenario that involves region-to-local server transfer (i.e. a download) which "transfer out" and "retrieval" both sound like synonyms for download.
Presumably, you mean "intra-region" and "region-to-region" unless you were trying to be redundant. But the text addresses this quite clearly Internet Data Transfer refers to any internet transfer into or out of an AWS region (not just region-to-region), either what you call "region-to-local server" (which is just a transfer out) or the reverse (which is just a transfer in) or region-to-region transfer (which the page notes is treated as a transfer out from the source region and a transfer in to the destination region.) Intra-region transfers are expressly not charged for Internet Data Transfer.
Retrieval is pulling something out of a Glacier Vault, whether it is retrieved to an EC2 instance in the same region (no transfer), a non-AWS resource somewhere ("download", and therefore transfer out of the region the Vault is stored in), or to an EC2 instance in a different region (transfer out and and transfer in.)
If you are pulling something out of a vault and then downloading it to your own (non-AWS) system, you will be doing a Retrieval and some amount of Transfer Out.
In an ideal world, governments behaving sensibly wouldn't make headlines.
In an ideal world, there wouldn't be headlines. Good things wouldn't make headlines, because they'd be routine and expected. Bad things wouldn't make headlines, because they wouldn't happen.
However, we live in the real world, where positive progress -- such as governments behaving sensibly -- does make headlines, and rightly so.
You can find one or two, but it's curious that a Google search for "Amazon S3 client comparison" turns up links from 2009 and 2010.
More curious is the fact that Dropbox, SugarSync, the MS solution, Google's new solution etc seem to be thriving and providing exactly the kind of services that you'd expect third party S3 clients to provide.
Dropbox and SugarSync both are applications using Amazon S3 for infrastructure (SugarSync says they use "two carrier-grade data centers, including Amazon's S3 facility.") So you've largely answered your own question about where the end-user tools for S3 are.
I'm not saying these clients don't exist, but I don't seem to find them very easily compared to other cloud storage options
Actually, as you've just demonstrated, they are quite easy to find and widely used, but the popular ones have made the use of S3 largely invisible to the end user that isn't reading the service provider's infrastructure descriptions.
Not having ever used AWS, I'm wondering what is the difference between a "Transfer Out" and a "Retrieval"?
You could read the page you linked to for the answer. That page defines data transfer:
Data transfer "in" and "out" refers to transfer into and out of an AWS Region. There is no Data Transfer charge for data transferred between Amazon EC2 and Amazon Glacier within the same Region. Data transferred between Amazon EC2 and Amazon Glacier across all other Regions will be charged at Internet Data Transfer rates on both sides of the transfer.
Retrieval, OTOH, is initiating a "retrieval job" which makes information stored in a vault available to download for a 24-hour window once the job completes.
If doing good software was easy, there wouldn't be so much bad software around.
Offering useful online shopping experiences is much harder. The frontend is software, but the back end is all logistics - warehouses, shipping, tracking, etc.
Different -- and much more extensively studied, for a much longer time -- discipline than software, sure. Harder? What's the support for this conclusion?
Given my recent experience with buying a Nexus 7 direct from Google (hint: I should've got it from Best Buy - I would have had it earlier and not had to fight to get shipping refunded), fixing this area is tons more work.
That's hardly a reasonable basis for the conclusion.
Google can move electrons with the best of 'em, but moving atoms takes a lot of work, and it's something Google has traditionally faltered at. Heck, during the 10 cent Android app promo, they couldn't even get their payment system working properly - the first day transactions were all revoked (Google eventually just gave everyone the apps for free).
One might note that this example of Google having problems "moving atoms" rather than "moving electrons" is about "moving electrons" rather than "moving atoms", and so isn't germane to the point it is attempting to illustrate.
Logistics is also some of the most expensive area to invest in - getting a proper warehouse workflow, proper order tracking systems that deal with real-life goods, customer service, tracking and preordering enough stock, etc. It's labor intensive and requires a ton of experience to actually do.
Logistics has a longer natural cycle time for improvements than software -- but that doesn't necessarily means its harder to catch up in logistics than it is in software. It does make things more planning heavy, and it might make it harder to close a gap against a stationary target -- but to the extent it does, it also makes it harder for a competitor to make the target you are chasing a fast-moving target.
Really, fucktard? Let's ask all the Linux shitheads how they like Gnome 3 being Linux, 'cause it's in Linux right?
The analogy fails because, while Windows Defender is in Windows 8, Gnome 3 is not in Linux. It may be part of some Linux-based operating systems, but that's a different thing. (Windows 8 is a family of operating system products from Microsoft, Linux is a kernel. And because Linux is an open-source kernel, the variety of operating systems based on it are much bigger than the variety of Windows 8 operating systems.)
Reminds me of a conversation I had with someone that insisted that google was a software/tech company. But when the vast majority of your income is from advertising...then you're an advertising company.
Google doesn't make ads. It displays them. It might be argued to be an advertising delivery company...in the same way that newspapers, commercial TV stations, etc. could be. And while there's a sense that that's true, there's a sense in which it is misleading too. While it is important to understand the role of advertising in the revenue model, its also important to understand that those companies make something which is delivered to consumers and that their ability to get people to place ad is dependent on their ability to keep people interested in the consumer-targetted good or service. So what that thing is that they make and deliver -- even though its not the direct source of their revenue -- is important to understanding the kind of company that it is.
If the balance right now is Google's superior search vs. Amazon's superior convenience/prime shipping, I think that still gives the advantage to Amazon.
Amazon can improve their search mechanism over time, but it's much harder for Google to match Amazon's advantages.
I don't see any reason to believe that Amazon's advantages are any harder for Google duplicate than the other way around.
But I do agree with you that if they are that afraid of them, they should approach Amazon and team up. For starters, maybe Google could provide the search functionality within Amazon.com?
Given that Amazon climbed to power over brick and mortar incumbents in retail in party by the same kind of "teaming up" where Amazon ran the online operations for companies that were its brick-and-mortar competitors (Borders is a prime example), I doubt they'd fall for Google offering them what would be essentially the same deal.
Article I, Section 4 says "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..."
Which doesn't give the House of Reps the ability to dictate when the Senate is in recess (and recess apointments under Article II are allowed when the Senate, not "the Congress", is in recess.)
"Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days...."
This restriction makes it explicit that a House may adjourn for less than three days without permission from the other House.
The current majority of the House of Representatives theory that by exercising its power to prevent the Senate from adjourning for more than 3 days it prevents the Senate from being in recess is pretty hard to justify.
Please explain to the class how those clauses give the President the power to determine whether the Senate is in recess.
The President hasn't asserted any special power to do that. Obviously, anyone granted a conditional power has to make a determination that the condition exists when exercising the power. The argument that the determination he has made in this respect is incorrect is, IMO, pretty far from convincing. (It clearly deviates from past practice, but the fact that past Presidents have refrained from exercising the power in certain circumstances doesn't mean that those circumstances were not recesses that allowed the use of the power.)
Unless a bankruptcy ruling released them from those lifetime commitments there is no way out, when you purchase a company you don't just purchase its assets you get everything including any commitments they made and any liabilities they have.
Sure, but the commitment that they had was, by its express terms, not for the users lifetime, but for the original company's lifetime.
So the question isn't jsut whether the obligation was acquired, but what the scope of the obligation was to start with.
so if there is a natural disaster i'm not supposed to worry about finding food, medical help and anything else to survive but immediately start surfing the internet?
Establishing communications helps groups of people coordinate tasks -- including tasks like identifying and distributing available survival necessities.
Computer networks aren't just for surfing the web.
einstein also completely made up relativity. since they both used the scientific method, it turns out this theory they both proposed is both provable and a very good model for how the world and universe works
Well, "provable", not so much. Falsifiable in that it makes objectively testable predictions, yes, and a very good model in that it has withstood testing, also yes.
Right! So developers shouldn't build client apps that mimic or reproduce the mainstream Twitter experience - and instead they should differentiate by building apps that adhere strictly to the UI requirements. These requirements provide explicit detail as to how to create a client that mimics and reproduces the mainstream Twitter experience.
There may be something you are missing here. The "don't mimic or reproduce the Twitter client experience" applies to all apps. The UI requirements that seem to mimic and reproduce the Twitter client experience only apply to apps that display tweets. There would seem to be plenty of possibilities for Twitter API-based apps that don't "display tweets to users", but instead perform analytical functions, etc.
If Twitter notices a lot of scraping going on? Tweak the page slightly. Then 573 scraper developers have to update their code.
Why do all the applications doing the scraping need to have their own scraping library? You just need one open-source Twitter scraping library that provides an abstraction layer (preferably, one that provides a nice, pleasant API that remains stable as the implementation gets updated to adapt to changes on the source website.)
Part of understanding opposing views is understanding the flaws in those views.
Yes, that's part of critically analyzing opposing views. Its not the part the kind of exercise in question addresses directly. So what?
Its important to have intellectual (including writing) exercises -- just as is the case with physical exercises -- which isolate and develope narrow, specific skills, as well as ones which exercise a full set of skills which must be used together.
To use a dance analogy (because, you know, car analogies get boring after a while), doing rib isolations is very much not the same thing as dancing rumba. But it would be wrong to say that "people who are teaching rumba wouldn't have students do rib isolations, because dancing rumba requires moving your feet, which you aren't doing when you are just doing rib isolations."
I have the new Retina MBP... and it's a fantastic machine. But WHY would you buy it just to install Linux on it anyway? It's a very expensive computer for that
Its an expensive computer to run OSX on, too, because its just flat out an expensive computer.
You pay the steep price of the Retina MBP because you want a laptop with a super-high-resolution display, which is the Retina MBPs core outstanding feature.
You put Linux on it for any or all of the same reasons you'd want Linux on any computer.
In almost all cases I'd suspect that people want to use both OSX and Linux
Why? Particularly, why would the (hypothetical) fact that I want a super-high-resolution display on my Linux-based laptop mean that I also want to run OSX? And...
and in that case, I'd highly suggest running Linux in a virtual machine anyway (Parallels/VMWare).
...even moreso why would the fact that I want a a super-high-resolution display on my Linux-based laptop mean that I want to burden my Linux system by running it in a VM on top of OSX?
Meanwhile Microsoft is the only company that has gone ahead and said "no, both platforms should run the same OS".
Not entirely true. Google has said the same thing quite explicitly, they've just also said that that OS isn't here yet. That's quite the point behind their whole overt plan to eventually convergence ChromeOS and Android.
If a lawyer were to bring up evidence that had not been admitted that lawyer would be held in contempt.
More likely, opposing counsel would object, the comment would be stricken from the record and the jury instructed to disregard it (both immediately, and possibly with a reminder in jury instructions.) If it was grossly prejudicial, opposing counsel might move for and be granted a mistrial (they might move for it anyway, because, hey, it doesn't hurt to shoot for the moon.)
Contempt would probably only be a result of breaching a previous specific order.
If the position is wrong, it is impossible to argue for it effectively.
Whether something is "ethical" or not is a subjective question, and it is therefore impossible for either the affirmative or the negative position to be objectively wrong. So, while your point has some relation to a valid concern regarding fact questions -- though even then it is not strictly accurate, since it is quite possible for a fact question to be reasonably arguable from either side, since just because something is a question of fact doesn't mean that the information necessary to resolve the question unequivocally is available -- it is irrelevant to the example at hand.
Someone who is actually teaching critical thinking would want all the flaws in all the arguments to be exposed.
You might notice that, in the post you are responding to, I said that those kind of "argue this side of argument X" papers are useful because they serve as an exercise in understanding opposing views and their bases, which is part of the foundational on which the ability to critically evaluate positions is built.
I did not claim that it was the same skill as critically evaluating positions. But if you can't shed your own biases enough to do the foundational exercise, you'll also never be any good at critical analysis.
Slashdot Mirror
12,869,257 people is "far fewer" than 320,600 people? Are you sure?
The first of the three, on the other hand, does speak to your question, and answers it, covering the general case (data transfer into or out of a region). The other two provide additional clarification for special cases (the intra-region no-charge case, and the region-to-region charged-on-both-ends case.) Together, they fully describe the whole scope of the data transfer charges.
That's because the examples are examples of retrieval. Retrieval and transfer out are two separate things (which in some cases you might do together, but since one of the major use cases of Glacier is to use alongside EC2, not all retrievals will be accompanied by a transfer out.)
No, there's no ambiguity between the texts. The FAQ examples use retrieval pricing in answer a questions about the cost of retrievals, it also discusses the retrieval process in an earlier section and notes that after a retrieval request the data will be available to download or to access with EC2. The FAQ questions regarding charges also point to the pricing guide for more information on pricing. The pricing guide has both the price of retrievals and the price of transfers in and out, and clearly defines what transfers in and out are and when those transfers are charged.
So, between the documents, they define retrievals, they define transfers, and the provide pricing examples for retrievals. Where is the ambiguity?
I've never used AWS. The only thing I've done for a while which allows me to understand what the document is saying is "reading English".
The rules in the Open Internet Report & Order regarding mobile broadband providers (which isn't the same things as wireless, since while all mobile broadband is, perforce, wireless, not all wireless broadband is mobile) are not really intended to enforce much neutrality. They are more about consumer information so that consumers know what they are getting and can make decisions accordingly, though there is a prohibition on blocking certain services that compete with the vendor's own services.
They are much weaker than the rules for fixed broadband providers, based on the premise that mobile broadband is a less mature, more rapidly evolving market and needs more time for free experimentation before it is clear what, beyond the most basic, regulatory requirements would be appropriate.
Then read it again, because its quite explicit and you still aren't getting it.
Presumably, you mean "intra-region" and "region-to-region" unless you were trying to be redundant. But the text addresses this quite clearly Internet Data Transfer refers to any internet transfer into or out of an AWS region (not just region-to-region), either what you call "region-to-local server" (which is just a transfer out) or the reverse (which is just a transfer in) or region-to-region transfer (which the page notes is treated as a transfer out from the source region and a transfer in to the destination region.) Intra-region transfers are expressly not charged for Internet Data Transfer.
Retrieval is pulling something out of a Glacier Vault, whether it is retrieved to an EC2 instance in the same region (no transfer), a non-AWS resource somewhere ("download", and therefore transfer out of the region the Vault is stored in), or to an EC2 instance in a different region (transfer out and and transfer in.)
If you are pulling something out of a vault and then downloading it to your own (non-AWS) system, you will be doing a Retrieval and some amount of Transfer Out.
In an ideal world, there wouldn't be headlines. Good things wouldn't make headlines, because they'd be routine and expected. Bad things wouldn't make headlines, because they wouldn't happen.
However, we live in the real world, where positive progress -- such as governments behaving sensibly -- does make headlines, and rightly so.
Dropbox and SugarSync both are applications using Amazon S3 for infrastructure (SugarSync says they use "two carrier-grade data centers, including Amazon's S3 facility.") So you've largely answered your own question about where the end-user tools for S3 are.
Actually, as you've just demonstrated, they are quite easy to find and widely used, but the popular ones have made the use of S3 largely invisible to the end user that isn't reading the service provider's infrastructure descriptions.
You could read the page you linked to for the answer. That page defines data transfer:
Retrieval, OTOH, is initiating a "retrieval job" which makes information stored in a vault available to download for a 24-hour window once the job completes.
Corporations on the one hand and bankruptcy on the other are specifically designed as tools to limit and eliminate, respectively, liabilities.
Its not a "loophole", its the whole designed purpose of the institutions.
If doing good software was easy, there wouldn't be so much bad software around.
Different -- and much more extensively studied, for a much longer time -- discipline than software, sure. Harder? What's the support for this conclusion?
That's hardly a reasonable basis for the conclusion.
One might note that this example of Google having problems "moving atoms" rather than "moving electrons" is about "moving electrons" rather than "moving atoms", and so isn't germane to the point it is attempting to illustrate.
Logistics has a longer natural cycle time for improvements than software -- but that doesn't necessarily means its harder to catch up in logistics than it is in software. It does make things more planning heavy, and it might make it harder to close a gap against a stationary target -- but to the extent it does, it also makes it harder for a competitor to make the target you are chasing a fast-moving target.
The analogy fails because, while Windows Defender is in Windows 8, Gnome 3 is not in Linux. It may be part of some Linux-based operating systems, but that's a different thing. (Windows 8 is a family of operating system products from Microsoft, Linux is a kernel. And because Linux is an open-source kernel, the variety of operating systems based on it are much bigger than the variety of Windows 8 operating systems.)
If you mean e-books -- which, according to Amazon, is most of what they are selling when it comes to books -- yes, Google is selling those.
Google doesn't make ads. It displays them. It might be argued to be an advertising delivery company...in the same way that newspapers, commercial TV stations, etc. could be. And while there's a sense that that's true, there's a sense in which it is misleading too. While it is important to understand the role of advertising in the revenue model, its also important to understand that those companies make something which is delivered to consumers and that their ability to get people to place ad is dependent on their ability to keep people interested in the consumer-targetted good or service. So what that thing is that they make and deliver -- even though its not the direct source of their revenue -- is important to understanding the kind of company that it is.
I don't see any reason to believe that Amazon's advantages are any harder for Google duplicate than the other way around.
Given that Amazon climbed to power over brick and mortar incumbents in retail in party by the same kind of "teaming up" where Amazon ran the online operations for companies that were its brick-and-mortar competitors (Borders is a prime example), I doubt they'd fall for Google offering them what would be essentially the same deal.
Which doesn't give the House of Reps the ability to dictate when the Senate is in recess (and recess apointments under Article II are allowed when the Senate, not "the Congress", is in recess.)
This restriction makes it explicit that a House may adjourn for less than three days without permission from the other House.
The current majority of the House of Representatives theory that by exercising its power to prevent the Senate from adjourning for more than 3 days it prevents the Senate from being in recess is pretty hard to justify.
The President hasn't asserted any special power to do that. Obviously, anyone granted a conditional power has to make a determination that the condition exists when exercising the power. The argument that the determination he has made in this respect is incorrect is, IMO, pretty far from convincing. (It clearly deviates from past practice, but the fact that past Presidents have refrained from exercising the power in certain circumstances doesn't mean that those circumstances were not recesses that allowed the use of the power.)
Sure, but the commitment that they had was, by its express terms, not for the users lifetime, but for the original company's lifetime.
So the question isn't jsut whether the obligation was acquired, but what the scope of the obligation was to start with.
Establishing communications helps groups of people coordinate tasks -- including tasks like identifying and distributing available survival necessities.
Computer networks aren't just for surfing the web.
Well, "provable", not so much. Falsifiable in that it makes objectively testable predictions, yes, and a very good model in that it has withstood testing, also yes.
There may be something you are missing here. The "don't mimic or reproduce the Twitter client experience" applies to all apps. The UI requirements that seem to mimic and reproduce the Twitter client experience only apply to apps that display tweets. There would seem to be plenty of possibilities for Twitter API-based apps that don't "display tweets to users", but instead perform analytical functions, etc.
Why do all the applications doing the scraping need to have their own scraping library? You just need one open-source Twitter scraping library that provides an abstraction layer (preferably, one that provides a nice, pleasant API that remains stable as the implementation gets updated to adapt to changes on the source website.)
Yes, that's part of critically analyzing opposing views. Its not the part the kind of exercise in question addresses directly. So what?
Its important to have intellectual (including writing) exercises -- just as is the case with physical exercises -- which isolate and develope narrow, specific skills, as well as ones which exercise a full set of skills which must be used together.
To use a dance analogy (because, you know, car analogies get boring after a while), doing rib isolations is very much not the same thing as dancing rumba. But it would be wrong to say that "people who are teaching rumba wouldn't have students do rib isolations, because dancing rumba requires moving your feet, which you aren't doing when you are just doing rib isolations."
Its an expensive computer to run OSX on, too, because its just flat out an expensive computer.
You pay the steep price of the Retina MBP because you want a laptop with a super-high-resolution display, which is the Retina MBPs core outstanding feature.
You put Linux on it for any or all of the same reasons you'd want Linux on any computer.
Why? Particularly, why would the (hypothetical) fact that I want a super-high-resolution display on my Linux-based laptop mean that I also want to run OSX? And...
Not entirely true. Google has said the same thing quite explicitly, they've just also said that that OS isn't here yet. That's quite the point behind their whole overt plan to eventually convergence ChromeOS and Android.
More likely, opposing counsel would object, the comment would be stricken from the record and the jury instructed to disregard it (both immediately, and possibly with a reminder in jury instructions.) If it was grossly prejudicial, opposing counsel might move for and be granted a mistrial (they might move for it anyway, because, hey, it doesn't hurt to shoot for the moon.)
Contempt would probably only be a result of breaching a previous specific order.
Whether something is "ethical" or not is a subjective question, and it is therefore impossible for either the affirmative or the negative position to be objectively wrong. So, while your point has some relation to a valid concern regarding fact questions -- though even then it is not strictly accurate, since it is quite possible for a fact question to be reasonably arguable from either side, since just because something is a question of fact doesn't mean that the information necessary to resolve the question unequivocally is available -- it is irrelevant to the example at hand.
You might notice that, in the post you are responding to, I said that those kind of "argue this side of argument X" papers are useful because they serve as an exercise in understanding opposing views and their bases, which is part of the foundational on which the ability to critically evaluate positions is built.
I did not claim that it was the same skill as critically evaluating positions. But if you can't shed your own biases enough to do the foundational exercise, you'll also never be any good at critical analysis.