45 posts • joined Monday 24th May 2010 21:55 GMT
Heads I win, tails, you lose
What cheeses me off is the "Every CEO's a Winner" approach to compensation. In a really good year, the execs get great bonuses for producing profits (even if the company merely kept pace with the industry.) In a bad year the execs get bonuses for leading the company through such difficult times of trouble and toil.
They literally cannot make a decision that leads to a pay cut.
Give NewsBlur a spin...
Well, any disgruntled Google Reader refugees that now really aren't Feedly fans any more should give NewsBlur a try. It's a one-man shop (although it has been around for years, so it's not a new, green, dev either), and it's not bug-free, but uptime appears to be good, performance is fine, and it has some interesting features (along w/ Android and iOS apps), and the paid version is cheap.
It's not perfect, but when I was looking for new RSS readers, without NewsBlur I probably would have gone to tt-rss.
(Although I'll admit I never liked Feedly to begin with; I can appreciate what they were trying to accomplish with it, but just like the Metro GUI in Windows 8, it just ain't my thing. I really liked Google Reader and NewsBlur came the closest to replicating it while having performance that wasn't awful, and the multi-year track record was encouraging.)
Errr... the US Govt. does not own or maintain the DNS root servers. That function is performed by ICANN (Aa private organization) under a US Dept. of Commerce contract. And that contract is a zero-dollar contract (you can read it on the ICANN website if you like), so any lack of bill paying would cause precisely nothing to occur.
Like it or not, the US DID invent the guts of the internet.
Yes, Tim Berners-Lee did develop HTTP and HTML. A top-layer protocol and language set that has indeed proved to be very useful and popular. But actually putting it into the graphical form we all know and love today (vs. just a Gopher alternative) was done by a US University, which developed Mosaic under a govt. contract.
In addition, almost everything that runs under the covers was either developed under a US Govt. contract, or developed by a US company as the base for what became a widespread standard. (As a side-note: the basic TCP/IP protocol stack and related routing protocols were not patented.)
P.S. The "International" protocols, the OSI stack, failed to ever gain traction in the marketplace, and only remain as silly questions referring the OSI model (but not any of the protocols) on networking certification tests.
P.S.S. Looking through the comments thread so far, the poor-spelling, chest-thumping, hyper-patriotic rednecks you predicted have failed to appear.
Give up what?
I'm a little confused here. The only unbreakable control the US Govt. exerts over the internet as a whole is the name server contract the Dept. of Commerce has with ICANN. (Curiously one of the signers of the letter.)
The rest of internet "control" is held by various committees, which are open to just about everybody, and can utterly by ignored if sufficient people decline to adopt a standard. (Certainly the US govt. cannot force anybody outside of the feds themselves and their contractors to adhere to any standard.)
Why would he give up subscriber details? Because he'll receive a legal subpoena demanding them. I imagine a criminal contempt order might convince him.
And I'm not sure he can Section-230 his way out either... if you actively solicit material that is almost certainly illegal, I don't think 230 provides an impenetrable shield.
The subject of the photo, unless they have signed a model release, also has rights.
I think Brocade is one of those companies that should have realized they had a legacy business not going anywhere and decided to simply cheaply milk that cow (and pay dividends) as long as they could and then quietly dissolve. There's nothing wrong with that, but instead they've chosen to piss away their money with ill-advised acquisitions and product lines. (Hint: Just because you have some money and/or open credit, doesn't mean you have to spend it.)
They were/are unacquirable since teaming up with any one of their major OEMs would simply cause the other OEMs to flee, greatly devaluing the business. And I'm not sure what they hoped to accomplish by buying a tiny 2nd-tier player like Foundry, at least not without a coherent plan to merge the product lines together. Years after the acquisition we are only now seeing Foundry gear with FCoE bits in it, and Brocade's "native" FCoE stuff is awkward, at best; the Nexus stuff is about 100x more seamless. Getting into the HBA business was a fool's errand; I don't know why Brocade thought they could gain any marketshare whatsoever without any compelling advantage vs. the two players who've had over a decade to work all the kinks out. (Brocade had some interesting performance-oriented features in their HBAs useful only to a market so niche they'd never pay back their development costs.)
The density, I can conceive of. But I ain't buying those IOPS numbers. That kind of IOPS takes a heck of a lot more than a little space (that you aren't using for flash chips) carved out of a single rack unit.
No; that's not the point of the device; it's actually more useful (once there are more apps.) The primary purpose is not to put your Chrome content on the screen; the main use is for your web browser (or phone) to send a signal to the dongle instructing it to retrieve the requested content directly. This requires a lot less stress on your home bandwidth, as it doesn't have to be streamed to your laptop/tablet, then re-streamed to this box.
I'm nominally Catholic (but disagree with a lot of their teachings), but this seems pretty silly. If there is a God, I really don't think he's going to pay attention to the Pope's decrees that this or that person is absolved of some time in The Bad Place in return for posting a Really Heartfelt short message. I kinda suspect he's going to make up his own mind on the subject...
IBM's involvement is interesting...
IBM's involvement is interesting. Apple, Mozilla, and Yahoo are obvious players, but IBM doesn't really participate in the content side of the web much, other than having a decent-sized ad budget. An infrastructure player is odd in a web standards committee dedicated to privacy controls.
If anything, you'd think they'd be opposed to DNT, since the more data is collected, the more stuff there is for IBM equipment and software to analyze.
Methinks he's leaving out right-of-way costs, tunnels, and bridges. There's simply no way those can be built that cheaply along the CA coast.
The technology is the least of the problems with this; it's good 'ol fashioned Civil Engineering that would make such a project really expensive.
Re: . . . Chromium . . .
Well, in a tepid defense of this crud, trace minerals like Chromium are likely present in the "natural-ish" ingredients of the mix, like the whey, maltodextrin, or oat powder.
Just because it's not in the list doesn't mean it's not present... I mean, I don't take a multi-vitamin, and nothing I've ever eaten lists Chromium in the ingredient list, yet I'm still alive.
Really, I'd be most worried about the lack of iodine; there's a reason it's added to salt... I don't think any of the listed ingredients have it in adequate amounts.
How does one "add" Chloride... and Sodium? Really?
I expect the ingredient list was meant to say Sodium Chloride and Potassium Chloride. Chloride alone is an ion and isn't something you can just put in a baggie. And it's rather unlikely he added metallic sodium or potassium to the mix, given their bothersome tendency to react when exposed to air. (And more so if you get the stuff wet.)
Certainly both Sodium Chloride and Potassium Chloride are rather common and well-understood food additives. (As a side-note, I hope there's some other source of Potassium in there, because it's going to be right nasty stuff if the only Potassium source is Potassium Chloride.)
Re: observing Mr Nugent from the USA
The reference to incarceration refers to his statement that if Obama was re-elected, he'd either be "Dead or in Jail", not an expression of opinion that he should be. Apparently it was not as important to him as he was boasting.
It just puts him in the same category as the people who state "I'm moving to [insert country here] if [the other guy] wins election", yet they stubbornly remain US residents and citizens.
Missing from Vista? Microsoft has been talking about the damn thing since about 1993. It beats Duke Nukem Forever by a long-shot for Vaporware King.
Forgive my ignorance (and it is admittedly vast), but in what applications are an additional 3usec of latency going to be an issue? Budget HPC clusters perhaps? And if it is an issue, I would imagine that there are more cost-efficient ways of reducing latency (i.e. the purchase of more computing node horsepower) vs. the SFP+ upgrade costs.
Re: 2 Class C's = "large range"?
Yes I know about CIDR. But saying "Class C" is a lot shorter than "network with a 24-bit netmask)"
2 Class C's = "large range"?
I'm a little confused: how is a single pair of Class C's a "large range" of public internet addresses? And Barracuda doesn't control them both? Really? I find that hard to believe. I know public IP's are harder to come by than they used to be, but you'd think Barracuda could manage it.
I'm not saying this is a case of major fail (any RAS architect worth his title knows how to set up remote tech support access without such stupidly large backdoors), but I don't think it is as bad as advertised.
You can get HD NetFlix just fine over TWC Net Connections
I have TWC hi-speed, and receive HD content from NetFlix all the time. The limitations are on the new super-duper HD and 3D. The existing HD content is still received at the same resolution its always been at.
And Netflix has never filtered search selections based on which resolution you can receive or which provider you have. (Although it might be different for 3D.)
BitCoins were DOA
Besides legitimate technical questions about their scalability, it is obvious that BitCoins were designed by somebody of complete and utter economic ignorance. Namely, the expansion curve was chosen very badly. It was too steep at the beginning, leading to a large unfair advantage for those that "got in on the ground floor", and it leveled off far too soon, ensuring that massive deflation will be required for BitCoins to be anything other than a niche geek toy.
Hints for would-be currency designers:
- It's NOT a good thing when your "currency" wildly fluctuates in value in relation to something you actually want to buy. That can be a good thing for an investment, but you want currency to remain relatively stable, or, barring that, utterly predictable, with a nod towards mild inflation, if anything. (Why do you want inflation vs. deflation? Because interest rates below zero mean no functioning credit market; an inflationary cushion helps to ward off the far more harmful deflation.)
- If you want a fixed expansion curve, fine. But you need to build in planning for an increase in the size of your "economy." If you don't, you guarantee your economy won't increase to a significant size because of the completely predictable deflation required for it to get it there. As a side note, the near-impossibility of predicting the future size of an economy is why pretty much every single modern economy uses fiat currency.
What market does Microsoft hope to be addressing with this pathetically overpriced crap? Here's to hoping this is just a hoax, because otherwise Ballmer is smoking something much stronger than crack.
Re: the can make their own Internet
"All ICANN provides is a place we can go to find the numerous registered bits and pieces that make the protocols work for real content. This isn't a political activity, unless the Russians want to repeat the mistakes of Lysenkoism. The only consequence of moving ICANN into the UN would be who pays the bills. If you want to "control the internet", you can already block existing protocols and sites and add new ones under your own control. Helping to paying ICANN's bills doesn't change that or stop anyone else from doing it."
If it isn't a political activity, and neither Russia nor China would gain anything from the exercise, then why are they asking?
I could imagine all sorts of fascinating things that would-be despotic censors and regulators could do with control of the protocol number assignment tables...
Re: I don't understand why they even bother
Diplomacy (or warfare) for that matter, is all about convincing the other side that it's to their advantage to do whatever it is you want them to do that you cannot achieve otherwise. That's how international relations works. If you want a country to do something, you need to provide either the proverbial carrot or stick (it doesn't really matter which one (or both) as long as you are credible.)
In this case, I don't see any evidence of a carrot OR a stick. Russia and China are asking the US to give up control to the ITU "just because." There's no threat to wrest control because that would be an empty threat, and there is no promise of something (it doesn't even have to be interent-related! It could be a signature on an IP treaty, some vague promises about human rights, whatever) that would better serve US interests if control were voluntarily given up.
Polite requests with nothing behind them from are nothing more than grandstanding and are doomed to fail.
I don't understand why they even bother
The US has absolutely no reason to give up control over the internet. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Why even make the proposal if you've failed to present a good reason for the current owner of the status quo to just give it up? Who are they trying to score points with? The US doesn't even have an incentive to pretend to listen to these proposals, much less do anything about them.
And frankly, if Russia and China, those two bastions of Internet Freedom, both think a particular regulatory change for internet governance is a good idea, I think it's pretty safe to assume that it isn't.
If Russia and China don't like the way ICANN is running things, they can make their own damn Internet; it seems to be what they would prefer their citizens use anyway.
ICANN has plenty of faults, but I can only imagine what horrors a UN-run body would come up with.
But why should they?
I have yet to see a convincing argument as to why the US should voluntarily give up control of the levers of the internet. I can certainly see why some would want the ITU to have that control instead of the US government, but that's certainly not the same thing. What possible leverage do they have on the US government to do this?
That's right. None at all.
And really, despite occasional foibles, the US government has done a decent job so far, mostly letting the internet take care of itself.
Instagram hardly had any kind of commanding position in online photo sharing. A decent number of users, sure. But hardly a monopoly. Users that don't want to use facebook to share their photos will still have oodles of options.
I think I shall form my own protest by pasting over public QR codes with my own stating: "I prepared Explosive Runes today."
He better check his analogy
GE, which was a collection of Edison's businesses, most certainly DID make toasters. Wikipedia says that the GE D-12 Electric Toaster was the "first commercially successful toaster."
Doesn't the Reg post this exact same story every time IBM announces a stock buyback? No matter what the share price is? I expect some of those previous buybacks turned out to be a not bad deal for shareholders.
They hadn't declared BK already? These clowns are the Duke Nukem Forever of the storage industry! All these years later, they STILL haven't shipped the one product that would have been barely considered competitive when they first announced it. (A 300GB drive with only 20MB/sec transfer rate.) As of now, five years after the original release date, it's a bad joke.
Continuing struggles in this direction are just Good Money After Bad.
I suspect his departure was more of the "I'd like to see your 'resignation' on my desk so I don't have to file the paperwork to fire you" variety. Not exactly voluntary.
I wonder how much of the PSG debacle was Apotheker being a moron, and how much was this guy not telling him what a moron he was being.
Yeah, and flash-based MP3 players were doomed too...
I remember Jobs saying that flash-based MP3 players were simply not capable of providing a good user experience. Until, of course, Apple released flash-based MP3 players.
He changed my life far more than Steve Jobs
K&R was, and remains, the only programming book I have just sat down and READ. It remains, decades later, as the shining example of what a programming book should look like.
C was a good, solid, easy-to-learn language for it's time, but I can't say the world would be THAT different without it. But I CAN say that the way hundreds of thousands of programmers understand programming would never have been the same without him and the book he co-authored.
Don't feed the trolls
Honestly, I don't know why the media doesn't just ignore these obnoxious trolls. Instead of providing coverage for these publicity whores, you'd think it'd make sense to reduce their presence at an even to: "The members of 'Westboro Baptist Church' were also present to wave signs; they were generally ignored or derided by others attending." No close-up photos, no interviews, no sputtering rage by the victims of their bigotry, etc.
It wouldn't stop them, but it would certainly piss them off.
You want to punish borrowers?
"Punishing borrowers" is to doom an economy to irrelevancy. Credit is the lifeblood of any modern economy; no credit means very strict limits on economic activity as the cost of capital becomes far too high.
Of course, given the extreme volatility, the built-in deflation is a rather moot point. Even WITHOUT the built-in deflation, you'd have to be completely nucking futs to take out a BTC loan. If you did, you'd run the chance of owing many times more (in USD/EUR/Gold/whatever) equivalent at the end of the loan term. Who'd EVER take out a $1000 USD-equiv. loan if there was a decent chance you'd owe the equivalent of $10,000 or more at the end of the year?
BitCoins are defective by design.
BitCoins are defective by design. Their backers confuse potential (dubious) value as an investment with usefulness as a currency; the two attributes are inversely proportional. It is NOT a sign of success when your currency, in relation to the Dollar, Euro, Pound, oz gold, whatever shoots up like a rocket.
You want investments to appreciate in value, or, at the least, remain stable. Currency, on the other hand, you want to remain relatively constant in value in relation to something you want to exchange for. (Unstable currency inhibits the credit market. Nobody in their right mind wants to take out a loan in a currency that is subject to annual deflation of several hundred percent... it'd make a loan shark look cheap.)
Keeping the value of currency stable is the primary reason virtually every modern economy uses fiat currency. (Some central banks are better at it than others admittedly.) Fiat currency allows the supply of money to increase (or decrease) with the size of an economy. BitCoins, due to the poorly chosen supply curve are extremely deflationary by design, putting the "currency" into a trap where it MUST massively deflate to be anything more than a niche toy, but that very same predictable attribute prevents their wide adoption.
It's kind of funny... whenever you point out deflation to a BitCoin fan, they invariably point out that it can be subdivided into tiny units, and therefore deflation isn't a problem. As if illiquidity due to unit size is the only issue caused by deflation... (and, due to small trading volumes, the liquidity issue isn't really solved.)
If people want to trade BitCoins as a hobby, more power to them... they just need to realize that when the fad wears off, somebody going to end up holding the bag, and that's likely to happen sooner rather than later. At least Beanie Babies were cute...
(On technical grounds, I also have doubts about the scalability of the system once the BitCoins are subdivided.)
WebEx a consumer business?
Errr... I don't think of WebEx as a consumer business. It's a business that generates products used primarily by end users (as opposed to the IT dept.), but it's not really a "consumer product."
That said, it was a strange acquisition for them to make. I know Cisco is always looking for new applications that will inhale network bandwidth, but screen sharing and/or low-end video conferencing are not one of them. Nor, for that matter, is IP telephony these days. (Compared with total corporate bandwidth use.)
If I were Cisco, I would sell or spin-off WebEx, Linksys, IP Phone Endpoint, and the end-use parts of Sci Atlanta. (Does Sci Atlanta do head-end equpment? I don't know... that would be a business worth keeping.) High-vol, low margin HW manufacturing is a tough business for an enterprise IT HW provider to be in (just ask IBM about this.) And certainly the end-user support with WebEx and Linksys is no fun. (Although admittedly HP seems to manage... sort of.)
Exactly which "high level networking protocols" run on top of FC?
While FC does have routing, name services, etc. built in, there are no "high-level networking protocols" that run "on top of" FC, creating overhead It's frames are fully switched (with routing available, if you do want to pay the overhead and dollar costs), just like their Ethernet counterparts. Given this fundamental error, I mistrust the rest of the original report the AoE section came from.
And if there are no "high-level" protocols, and lossless Ethernet is not required, exactly what mechanism does it use to deal with packet loss? FC uses the SCSI layer to recover from packet loss, and frankly it sucks at it. AoE flow control? How does that work? (Again, FC sucks at this, so I'm interested to know how AoE solves the problem.)
I eat a big bowl of Finisar traces for breakfast every morning, so I know way more than I would like about FC flow control and error recovery. There are no "easy" answers to those problems...
There is so much fail here
There is so much fail here, I hardly know where to begin:
1) FC does NOT run SCSI over a high-level networking protocol. The parts of FC that actually pass traffic are rather low-level. Other than the simple (and woefully lame) BB-Credits, it's a low-level, fully-switched transport with no more overhead than straight Ethernet.
2) They magically ensure lossless delivery. Great. How does it pull this feat off without adding overhead? Or does it merely assume lossless delivery like Fibre Channel, and then go to crap when the network isn't as lossless as hoped. (Getting Ethernet congestion control working and deployed is what is retarding FCoE deployment.)
3) "It found that it could take LUNs offline while virtual machines are running and not have a server crash. You can't do this with most if not all Fibre Channel and iSCSI SANS." False. Back-end LUN mirroring is not a new feature. IBM's SVC does this I know (vDisk mirroring), and I'm sure it's not a unique feature.
4) "Rock-solid reliability"? They tested this how? Of COURSE a few live part pulls didn't cause it to fail; those are the easiest failover cases to test.
5) Even with existing reasonably-simple SAN arrays you don't need a "storage administrator" to provision storage; minimal training and you are good to go. But once you have a large reasonably complicated environment, it isn't the complexity of the CLI that holds a server admin back.
Unfortunately not a surprise
It's sad that this sort of thing seems to be par for the course for CEOs. He needed an investigation to TELL him that he did something wrong? Gimme a break. You don't resign from the world's largest company for some minor transgression. Sounds like he hired a mistress, paid her with company funds, fired her, she threatened to sue, and it all went downhill from there.
The only thing that would be unbelievable would be if anybody took that mealy-mouthed "apology" seriously.
I have one of those timers
I have one of those timers velcro'd to the dash. Those timers rock! They keep track of four things at once and last for years on one battery. Hands-down, the best kitchen timer I've ever used. You can get them on Amazon or wherever. (Made by CDN and/or Pyrex, depending on whose logo is silkscreened to it.)