Re: SDN is not Openflow
Cisco's proprietary abortion made out of lock-in and shame doesn't count. I'd just like to make that clear.
6203 posts • joined 31 May 2010
Cisco's proprietary abortion made out of lock-in and shame doesn't count. I'd just like to make that clear.
Some of it is that we (humans) don't want to understand.
And that actually is a choice. And it's a choice that I don't have a lot of patience or compassion for. Ignorance is the precursor to prejudice, and prejudice presages douchebaggery.
Thanks for making my point for me, mate. You don't actually know what you are talking about. Despite this but you are so completely and absolutely convinced you do.
There were people who were absolutely positive that black people were inferior, too. And they'd argue that point up and down, considering anyone who said a single thing different to be clinically insane.
As for "just shifting my behaviour", oh, yeah mate, I'll get right the fuck on that. Thanks for telling me something I haven't heard 100,000 times before. You've really managed to open my eyes. I'll have absolutely no problems losing weight no, there's no barriers in my way. It's nothing but a choice!
Maybe one of these days you'll actually learn about the lovely genetic anomaly I have. It's spectacularly rare. Not that it would matter to you. Because it's a choice.
Maybe one day you'll learn about the ins and outs of clinical depression, which by the way, if a hell of a lot more all-encompassing than a case of "the blues". Not that it would matter to you, because clearly that's a choice too.
Choices, choices. Just will yourself to be normal!
You are a walking stereotype. You are the ignorance I abhor and in your absolute certainty the prejudice that destroys both compassion and dignity.
That is a choice. There are many things you could be, and I am appalled at what you've chosen for yourself and those others around you.
One is subtle reverse discrimination one is overt. There are way better ways to go about this. If there is a finders fee for brains, it should not matter what those brains are wrapped in. If you want to encourage women in tech, you should work on feeding the pipeline (on one end) and addressing cultral issues in a sustainable fashion on the other.
A "boobs bounty" is just not cool.
Sorry, but male - especially white male - privileged does exist. It's the part where we can go to a job interview and not thing "am I going to not get this job because of my gender or skin colour?" It's the part where we go through customs and don't have to thing to ourselves "am I going to get locked up for bullshit reasons?" It's the part where we don't get drugs planted on us during a stop and frisk, or tased to death for looking at a cop wrong when pulled over for speeding.
White privileged isn't a club card. It's not the stonecutters with a secret door to a room filled with wonders where the Illuminati plan the future. It's the ability to live our lives without having to think a hundred times a day if about our safety (physical or sexual). It's the ability to go days, weeks or months without thinking about whether we're being discriminated against.
Our privilege is that we don't have to put up with being dismissed out of hand because we can't possibly know what we're talking about, based on nothing more than gender or colour. That's white male privilege, and unless you're completely paranoid, you live it every day.
I agree with you 100% that class plays a far bigger role in today's society than race or gender. If this were a longer conversation I'd throw many other factors in there too. That's sort of what I've been getting at in these comments: this isn't a conversation that can only be had by discussing one dimension at a time.
Those of us who have it good need to learn how good we have it. And we all need to work on treating everyone equally, and with respect and dignity. Regardless of the group to which the person belongs.
That's the multi-dimensional thing. We're all part of a lot of different groups. So maybe we should stop begin dicks to identifiable groups so that, in the fullness of time, people will stop begin dicks to us.
Obey Wheaton's law: don't be a dick.
Really, there shouldn't need to be more to it than that.
Fat people aren't the only acceptable group to hate; they're the easiest, and the least likely to be able to achieve any sort of equality any time soon.
The interesting part is that while you have successfully listed a series of identifiable groups who have been traditionally on the receiving end of prejudices most (if not all) actually have both a number of laws and fairly strong movements that are working on equality for them. I think it's worth disassociating those who have traditionally been subjects of discrimination but are winning the fight from those who have traditionally been subjects of discrimination and don't stand a prayer in the near or medium term.
We all have problems, mate. In this case, some groups have won the right to have theirs considered important, that's all. Some of us haven't. Some of us may never. And some of us are vilified, marginalized and pilloried for things other people did.
The issue isn't nearly so black and white as you're painting it, nor is affirmative action objectively "moral". It might be moral, given the context of your other beliefs (and if you are unaware, or simply don't care about other issues affecting other groups). It might not be moral,, given the context of your other beliefs (especially those who strong believers in meritocracy).
It's clear that the old ways aren't the path forward. There does absolutely exist subconscious prejudices that many individuals engage in during the hiring process, even if they attempt to guard against it. That said, the constant march to homogenize corporate culture to be as politically correct as possible and pretend everyone is exactly the same does push out individuals in other groups who can't function in that sort of environment.
People are complicated. To advance some we need to restrict others. Telling everyone how we much behave and what we must believe pushes those who aren't normative to the fringes...even if they are decent, well meaning folk who don't want to discriminate against anyone.
But that is a difficult narrative, isn't it? It doesn't fit a simplistic blame model and it doesn't make for easy villains.
I hope future generations of newly marginalized groups succeed in wining their own rights to be heard in future generations. For now, sadly, it seems we simply have to accept that finding a way to tackle pervasive subconscious prejudice against women and visible minorities will have causalities.
How unintended you view those casualties to be depends on how cynical you are.
Do you really, really think that a company will choose someone with lower qualifications for a job?
Are they that stupid?
It's not stupid. It's cost/benefit. Optics matter. You don't need everyone to be a rock star. If they're competent "enough" then there can absolutely be greater value to the company in picking an individual with great optics over one that will deliver that extra few % of oomph.
Thank you, Esme. I hope you one day understand just how much a single positive comment can mean to someone. Especially someone with self-esteem issues who feels they're fighting an uphill battle (in this case, for equality and men's issues.)
I can't explain how much it means. I lack that skill. But she can.
Men have a position of power. Like it or not, we were born into it. the social justice warrior whackjobs don't get a hell of a lot right, but there is such a thing as privilege, and most of us refuse to acknowledge it.
I hate feminists are they have come to be portrayed by the loud (and typically extreme) portions of the movement. They are anti-men. They don't want equality, or merely to "tear down the patriarchy", they want to subjugate men. To sideline them.
Extremist feminists want to control men by striping them of what makes them men by using guilt and shame as weapons to convince every man alive to actively suppress his instincts. They won't tell you how that is supposed to be accomplished. But they demand we all do it.
Men's rights activists are the opposite side of the coin. The loudest - and best funded - groups are blatantly misogynist. They want to return to traditional gender roles. They want ot preserve not simply masculinity (which I describe as a recognition of and even celebration of our gender-based instincts) but the culture of machismo that has been so damaging to both genders.
You ask what I base this on. I base this on a long, miserable, depression-filled search fro some form of identity and community belonging. I felt - and I feel - that mainstream feminism is massively damaging to the notion of equality. I felt - and I feel - that mainstream feminism is want me, as a man, to be ashamed of being a man. I felt - and I feel - that mainstream feminism wants me to feel guilty for what other people did - and do - as though my gender makes me associated with (and guilty of) their crimes.
More importantly, I felt - and I feel - that there are very real issues with today's culture, laws and social norms that are highly discriminatory towards men.
So this drove me towards men's rights groups. ON the face of it, they seem like great people. They talk about the things that bother me. The social and legal ills that I fear. When there are jut men in the room (or non-threatening, submissive women) they mouth platitudes about equality and seem like great guys.
But in every single case they are, as a group, absolutely awful to actual women. They are dismissive, condescending, demanding, domineering and hostile to any women that questions or challenges them in any way.
The men's rights groups have a very thin veneer of civility that takes next to nothing to scratch through. Once triggered, they come out swinging and what they say is appalling.
Over and over and over again they dismiss the very real concerns of women's groups. They don't try to find a workable compromise or a middle ground, they demand a return to previous norms: the ones that ensured men were dominant and kept them there.
Virtually every men's rights group I've investigated - and I've looked into most of them in North America - essentially refuse to admit that society was fucked up when men were in charge of things. They refuse to admit that changes are, in fact, required if we are to achieve and then maintain a culture of gender equality.
I don't buy that I should be guilty of the sins of someone else's grandfather. But by the same token I would be a fool not to admit that the society of those times was less than ideal.
This lead me to The Good Men Project.
These guys are far down the road of "men need to compromise who and what they are". I agree with that. But I'm not sure I agree that they're too far. They aren't merely doormats or patsies for the ultrafeminist loudmouths. The Good Men Project is trying to find a workable balance between the sexes that is actually sustainable in the long run.
This will require that men change how they think about our position in society. It will require that we learn, and then teach methods and techniques of controlling our instincts in public.
It also means that we need to acknowledge that our instincts are different from those of women. It means that we need to create socially acceptable outlets and that we need to build a society that doesn't attempt to suppress masculinity in favour of some fales (and ultimately extremely dangerous) docility.
Men are hunters. We are predators. We have a natural instinct to establish hierarchies and defend our place in them. We feed on adrenaline and competition, but we also care deeply for others and are capable of the most tender acts of compassion, joy and love.
All sides of both genders need to be accepted. They need to be celebrated. They need to be understood, controlled and given release.
This is what The Good Men Project seeks to do. They aren't perfect. They aren't even - in my opinion - currently on the right track. But they are the only publicly visible group of men trying. More importantly, they're the only ones trying to achieve this "new masculinity" in conjunction with women, rather than trying to simply dictate to them what the social norms of our gender are and how we will behave.
Men's rights activists are far - far - too wrapped up in "us or them". Women's groups - at least the loud and well funded ones - absolutely are guilty of the same sin.
"Us or them" is a false, idiotic and dangerous dichotomy. We are different, but equal. The same, but with uniqueness. We are two sides of a coin and we have to share this world together.
Maybe we should focus our energy on trying to do just that, instead of trying to draw arbitrary distinctions that serve only to aggravate and inflame.
Being a man can still mean loving fighter jets and loud cars and things that go boom. It can still be about the adrenaline kick and competitiveness and a little recreational chest thumping. It doesn't need to be about "us or them". It doesn't need to be about exclusion. And it doesn't need to be about hate.
No, I mean fat. Fat people are the currently accepted group to hate on. Normatives believe that fat people can just wake up one day and choose to be skinny. That anyone has the willpower, that everyone's metabolism is the same, and that fatties are all just weak.
This leads to acceptable discrimination in the workplace. Hell, it leads to acceptable discrimination everywhere. That - in my opinion - is not okay.
Look, I'm fat. I'm massively fat. I'm so massively, overwhelmingly fat that I have my own event horizon and photons that stray too near don't escape. So I think I'm a little bit qualified to talk about this.
It's perfectly acceptable - in my books - to say to a person "you're so fat we need to charge you for two seats" on an airline. When you get to be my size you take up two seats. Fucking period. In fact, if you're of that size - and believe me, the crushing self esteem issues and overwhelming depression mean that we fucking know when we're that size, thanks - means that, as a fatty, you should have bought two seats to start with and saved everyone the grief. Like it or not a goodly portion of the "being enormous" is your fault as a fat person and you need to deal with the extra monetary expense of being that large.
That said It's not okay to build your airplanes such that the armrest between those two seats doesn't move out of the way. Fat people exist. They're a significant portion of the population, and if you design your chairs, airplane seats and so forth such that they are unusable by fat people you're a goddamned asshole. If you want to be an asshole in that coffee shop you own, that's your right. But mass transportation is a whole separate issue and the damned well should be regulations to ensure that all people, regardless of size, disability, etc. can use it.
A fat person my size isn't going to be physically able to do the job of a high-speed door-to-door mail carrier that has to cover dozens of square kilometers of houses every day. That's ridiculous and fatties shouldn't apply for those jobs. Physical fitness is a requirement of that position. It's a rational requirement of that position, and it's completely and utterly ridiculous to expect an employer to buy you a scooter or some other such nonsense.
That said, there's nothing that prevents a person of any given size from being back office staff. Or a computer programmer. Or any of these other jobs that don't involve a fair amount of physical labour. So discriminating against them in hiring because you don't like how they might make the company look is complete bullshit and - in my opinion - absolutely grounds for a lawsuit.
I could go on and on, but you get the idea. Fat people do have to take some responsibility for being fat. That said, for most of us it isn't a choice. It's a disease that we struggle with, and it is a complicated and intricately linked mishmash of physical, psychological and neurochemical issues that allow us to get fat in the first place and then keep us fat, no matter what we try.
Some parts of society should be open to all people. No one should be excluded from cultural events, mass transportation or finding employment because of how they look, their origins gender, sexual orientation or so forth. But humans aren't good at thinking like that.
Humans are tribal. We want to identify with a group. A clique. A collection of no more than about 100-125 people. We need the ability to exclude others. We want the ability to use guilt and especially shame to establish our dominance over others. We need to prove that we are superior, they are inferior and we should be in charge/get the best mates/command the highest jobs/receive the accolades/consume the respect.
You can't hate on people of colour. You can't hate on women. You can't hate on gays or transgender or pretty much any other identifiable group. One by one they've become protected by law. One by one they've earned the right to equality, respect and dignity.
But not fat people.
Fat people are a socially acceptable target. The narrative that it is 100% their fault is an easy one. We can claim they choose that way of life. If only they'd accept good, clean, protestant ideals like suffering for their entire lives they could be just like the rest. If only they were of purer genetic stock. If only they worked harder to make more money and afford better food.
Most people in North America don't even acknowledge that mental health issues are real. So I can't quite say that we discriminate against people with those issues. We simply pretend they don't exist. They they're faking it, doing it for attention, or that they could simply will themselves healthy if they really wanted to.
Because of this, it's impossible to explain things like decision fatigue to the average North American. It's impossible to explain things like Lectin allergy, neurotransmitter imbalance, dopamine deficiency or weight issues as they pertain to ADHD, depression, anxiety or dozens of other disorders.
We can't have those conversations because we - as a culture - believe that all of that is "just bullshit". We believe mental, physical and socioeconomic issues play no role whatsoever in obesity. It's nothing but personal choice and weakness.
Because of this, no matter how much you, personally, dislike the fact that some fat people try (in vain) to achieve some semblance of equality you simply don't have to worry that it will happen in your lifetime. It won't. A few noisy people who make the news that the nation can make fun of them aren't actually changing a goddamned thing.
In order to address obesity in a rational way we have to go through generations of education, primairily on the realities of mental and psychical health issues. Stigmas around mental health need to drop away. A better understanding of neural and neuroendocrine systems needs to be fundamental to the culture as a whole.
We aren't there. We won't be there a hundred years, if ever.
Fat people are the soft, squishy, easy target for hatred and discrimination. They are legal to discriminate against in almost every way. And they will be for a very long time.
So don't worry. Your position atop the social pyramid is safe. You're superior. We're inferior. And it'll be that way for as long as you live.
Look, I'm an egalitarian. I'm both anti-feminist and anti-masculist. I believe both genders are different, but equal. I can even get into some pretty protracted debates about the actual biological differences that arise from hormonal deltas between the genders and how this appears to drive (and amplify) the natural instincts of both genders. Those instincts do, indeed appear be different. (For example, males seem to respond to and requie hierarchy far more than females.)
I believe that masculinity is worth preserving because it is who males are. Our instincts, our biology, our psychological requirements to live a satisfactory life, etc. You cannot simply will that all away because masculinity makes some people uncomfortable. Both genders have to come to terms with the fact that there are differences, and that these should be cherished and celebrated while maintaining equality between the genders.
That said, there are damned few men's rights organizations that aren't batshit crazy misogynists. Most are outright abusive towards women's groups.
I'm not saying that there aren't some extremist feminist groups out there that purposefully set about to push everyone's buttons. There absolutely are. But most men's rights organizations go after even the egalitarian feminists or egalitarian masculists.
The men's rights movement has been compromised. It is corrupt from within. It is populated by conservative angry white males who want nothing more than to preserve their positions of traditional power and to spread hate. Those guys need to be kicked in the testicles over and over and over again. They're worse than the extremist feminists because they are using a position of power to keep people oppressed rather than fighting to free their people. They're douches and I have zero respect for them.
But there are egalitarian men who are working towards positive gender relations whilst still attempting to address the very real men's rights issues that exist. Issues such as maternal preference in custody battles and cultural norms which view men as disposable (especially in military situations).
The Good Men Project is not perfect. I agree that they work a little bit too hard to downplay masculinity. But they are the best option available for men seeking to address cultural gender grievances whilst working towards equality.
I wish there were better options. There aren't. Every time someone tried to have a rational discussion about this topic extremists from both sides jump in and the hold thing goes to shit.
So The Good Men Project deserves our support. They've walked a careful line of keeping the support of the majority of the feminist movements while advancing the cause of men's rights. They have had to make some compromises to do it, but they are the best chance we have of actually seeing the very real issues of men's rights actually get addressed.
If what you want is traditional gender roles where women are subservient to dominant males, too bad. That isn't returning. Hopefully ever.
With luck, however, we can retain elements of masculinity that interoperate with our instincts and hormones in a workable fashion while achieving both an egalitarian society and addressing extant prejudices against both men and women. Isn't that the goal we as men should all be working towards?
What quotas? Quotas would be illegal.
Fine. Targets then. Same shit, just technically one is non-binding policy and the other is. Doesn't matter. When the word comes down that "the workforce should look like X" this is no different in practice than dictating that the workforce must look like X".
White males did get organized. Unfortunately, those who did so were awful people and the current "men's rights" movement is filled with unrepentant assholes. More's the pity, because there are very real issues regarding men's rights that need to be addressed.
So far, the best source of "not batshit crazy assclown-infested fuck brigade" organized men's rights folks I've been able to find is the Good Men Project.
We should have. We didn't. Now we're in a pickle as the furor over "incorrect" diversity reaches a fever pitch.
Not if they're fat, white and male.
If large companies like Intel drive for politically correct staffing levels (see: not representative of either the actual training pipeline nor the population at large) where are smaller companies supposed to find individuals to meet their quotas? What are the actual targets? Are they set based on simple perpetual ratcheting or population at large ratios? What are these large companies doing to solve the pipeline disparity issues?
So many questions.
If we are going to live in a generally-monogamous society - as most, but not all, seem to claim to want - then sleeping with someone who is not your currently-designated partner is going to end up being cause for blackmail. That's the point about blackmail - it covers any topic you'd rather not come to light.
Except that the only reason for him not to want it to come to light is that his political opponents would use it against him in bullshit politics involving religious whackjobs and their backwards-ass beliefs. Dollars to doughnuts Hillary knew, didn't care, or had made her peace with it. The lady is exceptionally bright and knew what she was getting into when she married someone that ambitious.
For that matter, I'm pretty sure Hillary has played the field herself. She's had more than ample opportunity, and good on her if she did for living life.
So if the President sleeps with someone other than his wife, his family has a right to know? That will likely lead to difficulty in that family, so said President will probably not want them to know. And straightaway, you have a blackmail situation.
Yes, I think his family have a right to know. You know, a lot of marriages are open these days. And a lot of marriages are marriages of convenience. Especially those amongst people in positions of power. I think it's really narrow minded to think that spouses of those involved would be so "crushed" by the "betrayal" of sowing one's oats that the whole thing constitutes blackmail.
Adultery has been going on since the beforetime. And it's time we realised that monogamy just isn't what we're coded for. Some people want it. Fine. Bully for them. But those who live a life that's a bit wider in scope should be able to do so without it becoming political ammunition or cultural blackmail.
If the spouse (or the kids) have a problem with you sleeping around that's between you and them. it's no business of the public at large.
As the leader of a nation, anything that might open a leader up to blackmail puts the whole nation in the firing line; as such, the nation does have some business knowing what that leader is up to.
That we have a culture where "who you sleep with" is somehow black mail is the fucking problem. Not who someone sleeps with. There is no reason for whom you choose to sleep with to be black mail.
The only people who have any right to know who the president sleeps with are his family, the family of his partners and the secret service (as it is their job to protect all parties). Period.
The point about being President is you are supposed to see threats coming BEFORE something nasty happens.
Uhhhh....what? Presidents aren't psychic. They're human. And fallible. And they screw up just as often as any other fallible human being. Their advisers are fallible human beings relying on other fallible human beings for their intelligence and assessments and so on down the chain.
Presidents don't have to see around corners. They have to be able to accept the responsibility that when they fuck up people die. Sometimes a lot of people. They need to be able to live with that, to do the best they can to prevent it and to make amends when they inevitably do fail.
There's many reasons Monica Lewinsky was vilified, for many different angles.
I can't see a single reason why anyone sane would want to vilify her.
Ultimately, she (and Clinton) commited the ultimate sin in breaking the 13th Commandment.
A) That is nobody's business except Mr. and Ms. Clinton and (Mr?) and Ms. Lewinsky.
B) All religions are lies told in order to control the masses.
C) The Abrahamic religions are collectively particularly vile and stupid
D) The application of rules by Abrahamic adherents is inconsistent and utterly irrational
E) See: A!
It isn't the nation's business whom their leaders sleep with any more than it is the nation's business whom its citizens sleep with. And if, for some irrational and insane reason you believe you deserve to have control over the sex and sexuality of your leaders (and you don't!) then the blame and fault clearly lies on the individual in the position of power, not the young lady swept up in a seemingly fairy tale romance.
If you got a man by the balls.. And she, by all accounts, had the President of the United States by his nibbly bits. Incidentally making her, at least for a short while, putatively the most powerful woman on earth.
And, so...what? Why does that matter? The President of the United States of America is so weak that he is instantly felled by the amazing supervagina of a random 22 year old intern? All rational thought dribbled out his penis and this magically also made every one of his advisers completely in capable of simply tying him to a chair or sitting on him if he started going too far off the rails?
Puh-lease. I'm led around by my dick more than just about any man on Earth. I find it incredibly hard to think when there's a pair of sexy jumblies in my face and I don't appear to be overly discriminating about whom I find attractive. I'm still perfectly capable of drenching Captain Winkie in happy fun times and separating that from the need to go forth and make command decisions.
And I have ADHD! That brings with it an impulsiveness penalty and means I reach decision fatigue sooner than the average male. So no, I don't believe the supervagina theory. Not even a little.
So I'm right back to "I think the people who vilify that lady are fucking loonytunes."
I never got why anyone hated on her in the first place. I still don't understand her vilification by the masses. I mean, I get that the hyper-religious crazypants loonytunes sector would hate her irrationally, but they're rarely more than 25-30% of a given population. That entire nations turned on her blew me away.
So I guess it didn't come as much of a surprise that she had thoughtful, considered, intelligent and insightful things to say. She's older, wiser, and went through the crucible. That changes everyone to whom it happens.
What blew me away is how good a public speaker she is. She had a very rare command of the crowd. I found the TED talk absolutely captivating, and I have nothing but immense professional and personal respect for that lady. Top class, that one.
All internet trolls should be executed. Anonymous ones should be executed, revived, then executed again.
Isn't this a fun game?
I wouldn't write them off entirely. They have great technology with multiple fairly easy routes for pivoting. I guarantee you that with minimal (we're talking a few months of code + QA) they could have an excellent new product line that would actually sell quite well.
The question is not one of capability. Pernix has a lot of very, very smart people working for it. The question isn't even one of money; the extant product is good enough to attract another round if they are willing to pivot.
The question of Pernix's continued existence rests entirely on how large and uncompromising the ego of the founders is. FVP is the "baby" of the founders. They are incredibly emotionally invested in it. They risked a great deal to see it brought to market.
Worse, Pernix hired expensive bodies and put their personal and professional reputations on the line defending it's validity...and in some cases they laid into - or allowed staff that work for them to lay into - other companies and even other individuals for daring to challenge the basic assumptions upon which the product was built. Anyone who asked questions, suggested that read only server side caching might be better, HCI might be better, that there could be economic or practical issues with Pernix's implementation...these people were publicly pilloried and ridiculed by some of the most powerful and prominent members of the virtualization community.
Members with some fairly direct ties to Pernix.
A pivot is technically possible. But a pivot is also a very public admission that Pernix were out of bounds in how they treated others and in the cocksure and aggressive attitude they espoused.
Some people can accept this. Either they're sociopaths and simply view the whole affair as "just business", pivot and move on...or they are decent human beings, apologize and move on. Either way, there are some clear paths forward that allow a pivot without there needing to be life-altering stress or compromise of personal dignity.
But for some people, this simply can't happen. The emotional investment into "their baby" is too great. A pivot simply can't be accepted, and they'll ride that thing right into the ground.
As a writer, I sympathize. Editors kill my babies all the time.
I don't know how the people in charge of Pernix will play this. A pivot absolutely is needed. There are obvious and non-obvious directions that could make them a stupid amount of money and grab a lot of market share while allowing them to retain and reuse a lot of good code.
Will they do it? That remains to be seen...
1) Pernix is a stopgap item to solve point issues between refreshes.
2) It's a feature not a product.
3) All the complexity of a hyperconverged offering, but doesn't store your data.
Gee, I wonder what's going on...
It's not like anything else is really using the CPU...
Pay dearly for that, Seagate. Pay dearly.
Once you've got a certain amount of money it's pretty easy to turn it into more money. But few can do it as efficiently as he has.
It's not hard. Hire some maths nerds. Give them funds to play with. Hire some jocks. Have them break the nerds if they don't produce.
Suddenly, you're richer.
Maybe that's why Google bought Boston Dynamics...
Oh, well in the context of the Canadian sterotype, that's fair enough. I was just wondering if you'd known something about this group that I didn't. Or were presuming Canada didn't have some of the more hateful tentacles of anonymous resident.
Cheers and beers!
Okay, I'm curious: why is that not surprising?
I understand entirely. I used it as an obvious and easily checkable example of how the website's code was being left wildly out of date. Let's just say that I'm rather disinterested in publicly discussing more direct potential security flaws that could lead to compromise of the server itself by other groups before the admins have had a chance to patch.
I'd live his life in a hot second. Wouldn't you?
No. My people are worth more than my life or my comfort. I'd love to live a life of luxury, but not if the cost what my ability to care for others. And if I did have his wealth, I'd spent it - and my time - giving as much back in as long term and objectively beneficial a means as I could find.
That you would sell your humanity for fake breasts and a yacht doesn't reflect well on you.
Will I vote for him if [Trump] gets the GOP nod?
Definitely not. Well maybe if...
You are everything that is wrong with the human race.
The quality of a story is the content, not the spelling. Do you judge people by how they look too? Egads.
1) Tier 1 data is not "the whole datacenter"
2) Good luck finding enough flash to do even tier 1 in a large enterprise.
3) Most "Tier 1" workloads are fine on 15K SAS, so "Tier 0" is now the new term for "needs flash".
And you still haven't addressed how, exactly, we're supposed to physically manufacture enough flash to meet the tier 1 demands of the world with flash. We simply can't do it today. We cannot do it. And that's even if we turned all our fabs over to 100% flash production and completely ceased manufacturing new DRAM!
Sorry mate, but you're living in a fantasy world. Some companies can get away with flash across the entire Tier 1. Most can't. And only the smallest of the small will ever have a 100% all-flash datacenter.
This isn't going to get solved until after we're well into post-flash technologies.
No, you're being a pedant. And an ass. Nobody likes people who behave like either. There's a corrections feature on the article itself. Worth using if you feel so offended by typos you need to curse out an author.
Execept regular hard drives do seem to wear out after around 4 to 5 years. The failure rate tends to climb, sometimes steeply. So much for being better than flash!
Please put all your vital data on consumer SSDs. Pretty please. Then just wait for it. I want to see how happy you are after the first power event.
A 1TB flash drive is around $360 today
Bullshit. enterprise flash drives are three times that. Don't compare consume (I.E. without an ultracap and with far fewer spare blocks) SSD to 15K drives.
You clearly didn't get the propaganda e-mails proclaiming the death of disk and the rise of the all-flash datacenter. You would have to be a political consultant to read those and come up with a sense that they were trying to anything other than the death of disk everywhere, in all datacenters was both inevitable and would occur soon.
Really, the propaganda e-mails and press releases were that bad.
Don't drink the one that smells like methanol. It's having some negative cognitive effects, mate.
Bulk storage it not goign to be "flash" in our lifetimes. A post-flash technology may displace disk eventually, but we don't have the planetary capacity to replace tier 1 storage today, and probably won't for decades.
So, no. Bulkstorage is magnetic. Forever and ever until a radically new technology that isn't so damned hard to make is found amen.
Back away from the coffee and any other sources of increased systemic adrenergic production. Farther...farther....and shut the door on your way out, thanks!
This world would be a lot further ahead if instead of complaining about the differences
I celebrate my nation's differences from the US of A, thankyouverymuch.
You mean the 'independent' FBI run by crazypants fucktards that want to backdoor or ban encryption?
Yeah, they're benign. Totally kosher. Yup.
Have you tried not being dicks?
What are the exabyte generation going to hang from their ceilings
and do for Halloween costumes?
The skinny ones are 1s the fat ones are 0s.
<Duke Nukem>Eat shit and die</Duke Nukem>
I believe that is the appropriate response to internet trolls. Or, at least it was, back in the 90s. I give your flame 6/10. Not enough ALLCAPS and the spelling could be worse.
Votes, Trev. Votes. If there's more of them than there are of you, they win.
Canada's a big country. Lots of places to find people who prefer to live the way I want to live. And if Canada goes squirrely, there's plenty of other countries. Worst case, I can fight for my right to live as I want.
Tyranny of the majority is a real problem in democracy. Fortunately, in this instance, it seems that the majority of people agree with me. They'd rather not have to brave rush hour and plow through crowded stores if it can be avoided.
Believe it or not - holy shit, batman! - most people aren't a magical combination of masochist and extrovert!
Because not everyone wants to go a physical bricks and mortar store. In fact, many of us loathe the experience and would prefer almost literally any other option. Why should what you enjoy or even tolerate dictate what we all must put up with?
Drones deliver packages to a delivery pole. Pole lowers packages to the ground and houses them there. When recipients get home, delivery pole dispatches packages on the last mile via ground drone. Why is this hard?