14 posts • joined 1 Sep 2008
I've been wondering about the etymology of the term 'cloud computing'. I suspect it's a case of a term with negative connotations being embraced, but I'm looking for some evidence.
i.e. I assume it started with fans of on-premises computing saying you want your data to be where you can see it, not 'in the clouds', and then became the term used by the people making the opposite argument.
Firstly this should greatly reduce latency since fewer TCP handshakes are needed. In fact, the DNS requests should end up happening from Google's servers, not from the phone. Latency is a big deal on mobile networks.
Secondly, SPDY always uses TLS. So while all your data is accessible to Google, it's inaccessible to everyone else in the cafe with unencrypted WiFi that you're sitting in (and the cafe owners, even if the WiFi has encryption). Whether that makes things better or worse depends on the cafes you frequent.
So let's get this straight
They expected to sell twice as many as last year, based on a not-completely-earth-shattering update, in more competitive market conditions. But it turns out they're selling about the same number as last year.
I think there's been an accident with the reality-distortion field in the Apple supply-chain department
The fact that anyone thought WiFi was reliable enough to run a signalling system on a good day is terrifying by itself, even without any interference from hotspots. Why not just run wires down the trackbed like sensible people do?
Is there a precise definition of a data centre?
I assumed that a data centre was quite a big setup, not to be confused with a mere server room, but it sounds like standards might be slipping.
> Look, everyone knows what happens if you keep switching units: you'll crash into Mars
That would be classed as a spectacular success for the LOHAN project. Anything that increases the chance of crashing into mars should be done. Keep with mixed units.
£179 at ebuyer
(On pre order of course)
I reckon that's a good deal!
What's a standard
The people lobbying for this (who are probably from Cupertino, not Mountain View) seem to be distinguishing between a 'real standard' such as UMTS, written by a standards body and described in big specifications, and the obvious features that everyone expects a device to have (it's a black rectangle with a touchscreen that does things when you swipe it).
If that's all true...
It would be quite easy to write a proportional bill.
The spooks can only ask you to use the black boxes you already have and are using anyway, not install ones.
If something isn't traffic data from your point of view, it doesn't matter if it's traffic data to someone else.
We could go on to suggest that the spooks can see any relevant data you have, but can't demand any data you don't see a need for.
That is an apalling consultation
Even by the usual standards of our beloved civil service.
It makes no attempt to listen to people who aren't parents or ISPs (e.g. ordinary people who want a reliable cheap internet connection and fear this might break that).
It obviously never mentions either false positives or false negatives, but I wouldn't expect it to.
There's some stuff about self regulation at the back, which makes me think that they're hoping they can'solve the problem through self regulation'. This has the advantage that not all ISPs will sign up, but the disadvantage that the entire scheme will be designed to be cheap rather than effective or reliable, and it'd be harder to blame the government when it fails.
I dispute their use of tenses
Have they actually built a Falcon 9 heavy yet? If not, it's not yet the largest rocket in the world.
Presumably existing games will run at old resolutions and upscale, meaning that the performace test in the review probably didn't test whether there's a problem with doubling the GPU speed and quadrupling the pixel count.
I hope the final Light Peak port isn't that shape
The worst thing about USB is that you can't tell which way up the plugs are. If we go to optical without fixing this, we'll be spending the rest of our lives staring at USB plugs to work out which way up they go. A terrifying thought!
Why can't the market decide?
What's to stop a phone network offering accounts with geographical numbers instead of 077 numbers which do pay to receive calls? Customers can then decide whether or not they want to buy one of them or an ordinary expensive-to-ring mobile number.
The fact that no-one offers this sort iof plan suggests that it's not wanted.
- 20 Freescale staff on vanished Malaysia Airlines flight MH370
- Fee fie Firefox: Mozilla's lawyers probe Dell over browser install charge
- Neil Young touts MP3 player that's no Piece of Crap
- Review Distro diaspora: Four flavours of Ubuntu unpacked
- Sysadmins and devs: Do these job descriptions make any sense?