Perhaps Snowden is just pressing a point in presenting the argument that way to make it, feel, really personal because it is.
We're now 3+ nested layers deep into an early and highly up-modded conversation about the dick joke. This conversation about the dick joke was the first thing I saw upon scrolling down. The dick joke is dominating the conversation.
Which is exactly why he shouldn't have used the dick joke.
Rich said that the FTC, as the U.S. Government's leading privacy enforcement agency, should be given rule making and enforcement authority for the civil provisions of the LPPA.
Considering how existing US privacy enforcement is an absolute joke, I think I'd rather try something new instead of "more of the same." Maybe the FTC could better spend their time, I don't know, jailing the traders that broke the economy?
AT&T is the company that tried to bill me for $thousands of dollars for a few hours of international calls while on their "no worries" international calling plan, that should have cost about $25.
MetroPCS has a $5/month flat rate international call plan.
AT&T is the company that tried to get my son to pay $600 for a contract on a phone he never purchased. (He started to buy, then I declined to co-sign because of the $thousands of dollars AT&T had just tried to get me to pay)
AT&T is pretty much the definition of evil in my book.
Scale is everything.
Mostly agreed - but it *is* possible to overcome that. Take a good look at MetroPCS which started as a "budget" regional carrier in the Sacramento/Bay Area. Recently merged with T-Mobile in a multi-billion dollar deal.
The only thing really necessary to succeed is to have revenue higher than expenses. The difference between the two determines your growth rate and/or your ability to finance growth.
Another case in point: OpenSSL, which had, until recently, only enough resources for 1 or 2 developers.
Computers are complicated. (most) Users are not. With computing, you basically have a trio of secure, easy, affordable - pick any two.
OpenPGP was right in all ways except one: you can't even explain what it does to your grandma, let alone get her to use it. Because of that, you can't get anybody to pay for it. So you really only have the choice of easy/affordable.
This is a good system if only because it gives you a bit of the secure leg without compromising the other two legs. It sucks, and propeller heads like you and me will snarl at the compromises involved.
Oh well!
Take a look around here. IT folks tend to view themselves as self-sufficient, rugged individualists who pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps. Unions are for the weak and stifle innovation, and every tech bro knows they're just one angel investor away from Going Galt.
This was clearly a tongue in cheek remark. He put a bit of mild ribbing in to get a laugh out of the audience. Calling it "berating" is a complete mischaracterisation. See for yourself, it's 45 minutes into the keynote video.
Fair enough. You are still orders of magnitude worse off than a decent SSD, which is the relevant point.
There's no particularly good reason to believe that its bug count per line is any higher than any subsequent, later version of Windows. One million is pretty small, Did you mean 40 Million?
It's tough, going to work and doing boring stuff but the $250,000 pay scale overcomes an awful lot of developer resistance...
Yes Yes yes! SSDs are a God-send for performance issues!
Database servers? Check!
Caches? Check!
Session Managers? Check!
Load Balancers? Check!
As stated by Reddit: Think of SSDs as cheap RAM, not expensive disk.
IOPs are anything but meaningless. For any kind of performance computing, they are one of the most commonly unrecognized bottleneck.
IOPS is simple: how many random seeks can your storage device perform? If you can scootch your heads to the starting sector once per second, you have 1 IOP. Divide the rotational speed of your drive by 60. EG: 7200/60 = 120. That's the literal maximum number of seeks you can get out of your hard disk heads assuming that there is no seek time.
The "k of operations" is irrelevant when discussing IOPS.
How an idea so simple could be so commonly misunderstood is beyond me. It's true that IOPS won't matter if you are streaming a single, large media file. It's equally true that you can't serve more than about 120 random seeks in a second on a 7200 RPM drive. This is disguised a bit because your OS will try to minimize the seeks and aggregate seeks that are similar and/or close together.
SSDs are now only about 5x the cost of HDDs in many cases. In past years, it's typical to have, multi-disk arrays solely to improve performance. In these cases, a single SSD can be not only dramatically faster, but significantly cheaper to boot.
Perhaps it's an ad, but it's one that interests me. I come here to find out the latest developments in tech, and the continuing advances of SSDs is something I find interesting.
HDDs have become so huge that the biggest problem isn't storage capacity, or even bandwidth: it's IOPS. It's pretty lame that I can store literally many millions of documents in a hard disk cluster that can only delivery a few hundred IOPS per second. Do the math. It takes forever to get your data out, especially if they are small documents!
SSDs don't have this problem. 50,000 IOPS is "no big deal" for an SSD, meaning that even if you have 40 million tiny 10k documents, you can still saturate your 6 Gbit SATA interface with sweet, sweet data.
We switched our DB servers to SSDs and saw over 90% reduction in average query latency. Next up is our file stores, which use ZFS. Our next step is an SSD cache for ZFS, and then as prices continue to tumble, we'll switch to all SSDs everywhere.
Old mail has arrived.
