* Posts by dan1980

2933 publicly visible posts • joined 5 Aug 2013

Yahoo! staff! slapped! for! 'snubbing! own! webmail! and! preferring! Outlook!'

dan1980

Looking at it the other way . . .

"At this point in your life, Outlook may be familiar, which we can often confuse with productive or well designed."

On the flip side:

"At this point in our development cycle, Y!Mail is new and shiny, which we often confuse with productive or well designed (and, importantly, an improvement over existing solutions)."

The thing is that whenever a product is redesigned or replaced, the teams developing it and marketing it take the unjustifiably arrogant and offensively condescending position that anyone who doesn't love their new software is unreasonably adverse to change or living in the past.

In this instance, Yahoo! continue to hold this view despite the fact that not only have their public users rejected their new mail, so have their internal staff. So very telling that they resort to taking shots at the software being favoured over their own solution, as well as MS itself and imply that it's staying power has everything to do with users being stubborn or lazy and nothing to do with fit and functionality.

That said, I do applaud Mr. Roumillat's memo - very well written and largely geared towards convincing users why they should adopt Y!Mail rather than why they should abandon Outlook (previous comments aside). Still, I would have loved to see him write: "If you are resisting change, please let us know why - If there are any tasks you feel are easier in Outlook than Y!mail, or important functionality missing, we'd like to know".

Finally, while I don't know how they got their numbers, if it was a user survey or a usage chart then it's possible that many of that 75% did give it a shot and decided to go back.

US Judge strikes out COMPUTER/HUMAN LOVE patent

dan1980

Re: @ Don Jefe

To be clear, I'm not suggesting you actually agree with the current system.

If I remember correctly you hold one or more industrial/engineering process patents and so are far better versed in the system than many others here* and your input is therefore of somewhat greater value (and interest) than my own!

For my part, I believe that patents are important and that they do provide valuable incentive for people to invent. I also believe they provide a very strong disincentive as well, as anyone trying to bring a new idea to market will likely find they infringe upon multiple process and/or technology patents, meaning they will be subject to legal manoeuvrings, either in setting up licensing agreements, at the civil end, to cease-and-desist demands, through to aggressive legal action.

It's my assessment, as an external observer, that the patent system, in its current state, provides benefits to larger companies to invest in research while adding barriers to smaller groups or individuals developing new products and technologies. Without the protections of a broad patent portfolio, such smaller entities are at risk of being litigated into oblivion by those larger companies who wish to either exploit 'easy' targets or destroy competitors.

Of course, patents and the legal processes for suing against infringement can and do protect individuals and start-ups from having their inventions stolen by competitors and provide compensation and reward for their work. It's just that the way things have become, there are innumerable patents out there that should not be worth the proverbial paper they're printed on but yet are used to extract millions in settlements and damages, and in doing so, act as a disincentive to innovation; the opposite aim of the patent system.

* - With the exception of @jake, who likely continues to make a handsome living from software patents licensed to Google and firmware patents licensed to Intel and ARM.

dan1980

@ Don Jefe

TL;DR - you are correct, but that doesn't mean it's not a chronically broken system.

True, but such legal defences cost money. A lot of money. Even if a defendant wins a legal proceeding, that is rarely the end as there are often appeals, further sapping time and money. That is why only about 5% of such cases ever get to trial.

A patent does indeed allow "you to legally pursue someone infringing on your patent", as you say. The unfortunate part is that, by-and-large, that is all that is required to start pursing someone.

Simply owning a patent allows you to send threatening letters demanding settlement or cessation, which is the way most patent actions seem to proceed. A patent may not be truly valid until ruled on by a court but the problem is that such a ruling does not have to occur before sending demands to all and sundry.

In essence, the job - and expense (greatly inflated) - of rigorously examining a patent claim is left to the defendant, rather than the body tasked with assessing the application in the first place (the USPTO) or the party asserting that their invention is both unique and eligible for protection by a patent (the patent applicant).

For someone being targeted by a patent claim, the first step is to engage specialists to review the patent and assess its validity. Then they must do an infringement assessment, analysing the allegedly infringing device/software/concept/shape/colour/facial-expression to see if it does actually infringe upon the patent.

Depending on the patent and product, that process could well cost over $10K* - not an insignificant sum for a small business or start-up. If you don't intend to capitulate straight-away, that process is necessary as without it you could be found to be 'wilfully infringing', vastly inflating any potential settlement.

It's worth noting that, as there is no legal framework around making such demands, the patent holder doesn't need to specify what action of the product infringes or which claim in the patent is being infringed. That only needs to happen once litigation has been started and the alleged infringer is already knee-deep in legal bills.

So a patent holder can, at minimal cost, and with no legal requirements, send your company a letter demanding licensing payment for some alleged infringement. To even assess the validity of the threat, you have to fork-over ~$10K.

I accept that the current state is that court is where patents are truly validated, but that arrangement is broken as it allows, and has lead to, a great proliferation of entities extorting money from anyone and everyone. The small companies just can't afford to take it to the courts and the larger companies that could afford to test the validity of a claim in court overwhelmingly appear to choose not to because someone has calculated that it is not financially worth it and that settling is cheap. 95% of claims end without the patent ever being tested in court.

So, while patents must be tested in court to properly determine their validity, that, in practice seldom happens and the result is that patents are largely assumed to be valid and treated as if they are.

dan1980

Re: For every sane judge . . .

The core problem (such as I understand it, which is imperfectly) is the prevalence of the opinion, as penned by Rader J, which I quoted, above, essentially stating that a general-purpose computer becomes a new, specialised, machine when paired with software.

This opinion then works with the "Machine-or-transformation" test of patent eligibility, and would lead one to believe that such a computer would qualify as a "particular machine or apparatus".

Thus, a business process can effectively be made eligible for protection by patent by writing software to carry this out.

And this is pretty much what Rader says in his opinion:

"All that is required is that the claims tie an otherwise abstract idea to a specific way of doing something with a computer, or a specific computer for doing something."

The problem, as I see it, is that it should be the "specific computer for doing something" that should be eligible for the patent - if anything is - and not the abstract idea. Such an idea does not magically become less abstract because it is implemented any more than gravity becomes becomes patentable because someone builds a see-saw..

And it's here that these things should be self-defeating. If a computer coupled with software does not become a "particular machine" for the purpose of the "machine-or-transformation" test, then the patent application/defence is greatly weakened. If, on the other hand, a computer + software does "create(s) a new machine", as Rader asserts, strengthening the claim for eligibility, then surely reason would hold that any change to the software would create an entirely new machine.

I.e., a different software package, even though designed to do the same thing, would create an entirely "new machine" and thus avoid infringing the patent.

As you can see if you read through the opinions, this issue is a long way from resolved but it seems judges are at least looking closely at this grey-area now, which is, tentatively, a good thing.

dan1980

For every sane judge . . .

"Such a principle would lead to the absurd result of allowing the patenting the computerized use of even the most basic abstract ideas,” Judge Cote added."

I agree, absurd. But no more absurd than the idea of patenting the 'shopping cart'. Sure that was overturned but not before millions in settlements and, at any rate, Amazon still have their 'one-click' patent, which is little better. Most telling is the case of CLS Bank suing to invalidate Alice Corp's patents relating to settlement risk. Essentially, It was, just like this:

Existing concept + computers = magical, new, patentable concept. (Apparently)

The court invalidated the patent but the interesting part is in the conflicting opinions given by the justices. This from 4 judges:

". . .a computer programmed to perform a specific function is a new machine with individualized circuitry created and used by the operation of the software."

And:

". . . a general purpose computer in effect becomes a special purpose computer once it is programmed to perform particular functions pursuant to instructions from program software," on the theory that software "effectively rewires a computer."

Hmmmm . . .

I suppose the question is, if the very notion of such a patent as this is absurd then why are they being granted in the first place? The 'man on the street' could tell you it's not an overly strong case and judges seem to agree so why is there a disconnect with those issuing these patents?

New NSA leak reveals invasion of the management consultants

dan1980

Re: How very Dilbertesque!

Actually, I'm not so sure. I wouldn't rule it out of course - but I suspect that it's designed to be vey effective communication.

Communication, to be effective, has to be tailored to the audience and the purpose. In this case, the audience seems to be policy makers and the purpose is to make themselves seem at the same time effective and also in need of more funding. It is rhetoric for the purpose of self- promotion. Big words and dense sentences justify big spends, making the simple look complex and the complex simple.

The reason such language is used is that it works for a given audience.

NSW privacy exemption shares personal data with private sector

dan1980

Re: Sigh.

But then you also have an argument going on about healthcare - another 'spend money now to save more money later' affair.

No bail for 'Silk Road boss' as SIX MURDER-FOR-HIRE CHARGES filed

dan1980

Re: Nothing could thrill me more

A gigantic bag of crack cocaine and several professional ladies of negotiable affections would do it for me.

Sorry. It's late and I really want to go home.

Kiss goodbye to quiet skies: Now FCC ready to OK in-flight cellphone use

dan1980
Angel

Please.

No. Please no. Please. Please no. I'm sorry God*, I've been lax; I've discounted you, I've laughed at your followers and lived my life as a skeptic. But this? I've not been the best person I could be and I should have given you praise for all my blessings but why this? You could have shown me a sign - a burning bush, a talking puppy, a fibonacci spiral in my porridge - I would have taken notice; I would have knelt at my bedside and read past Leviticus. But not this. Have I really been that bad? Is there really no hope for your creation?

Why God, why?

Icon because I promise I'll be good from now on - just spare me this.

* - It might sound self-serving but I'll take any deity that can deliver us from this one. I'm not asking much - I don't need a heaven and I don't need an eternity, I just need to scrape whatever moments of peace I can in this coarse, earthly sphere.

Xbox One site belly-up in global Microsoft cloud catastrophe

dan1980

More cloud!!! Quick, everyone - jump on before you're left behind!

I've been rather sweary lately so I'll refrain for the moment but all the same, it's a getting to be a joke. Not because things go down - that happens - but because companies like MS are fairly FORCING people onto their cloud platforms. Please. Stop.

XBOX ONE ROUNDUP-of-the-ROUNDUPS: Everything YOU need to know

dan1980
Megaphone

Re: 1.3 Gb day one patch!?!

1.3GB?

Fuck off, Microsoft. FUCK RIGHT OFF.

I wish they'd get out into the real world and realise that 1.3GB is actually quite large. My location limits me to ADSL1 - care to guess how long that will take?

Migrating from Windows XP – Time to move on...

dan1980

Re: @A.C. -- Finally

From my cold, dead hands.

Intel on the alert: Thick, acrid smog in China, India is EATING servers

dan1980
Flame

Won't someone think of the children . . . (no, really)

What shits me, and shits me a lot, is that people keep arguing back-and-forth about climate change - if it's real, if it's anthropogenic, if targets are right, if 'green tape' is strangling the almighty economy (peace be upon it) - and all the while pollution is causing real, measurable, ecological, sociological and, yes, economic, damage. Not to mention the very, very real health issues.

Let's have a 12 month cease-fire on anthropogenic global warming and focus on dealing with the immediate, practical and indisputable issue of the anthropogenic poisoning of our air, our waters, our environment and ourselves.

Seeing the way this world is going, well, sometimes I'm quite relieved that I won't have children.

Qatar whips covers off giant footballing vagina

dan1980

Maybe, but the air-conditioning requirement would be for the comfort of (international) spectators too and unless I'm seeing things, it looks like the areas behind the seating is open too. Also, how would you cool the center of the pitch without compressors so strong as to generate interesting air conditions and, by extension, unduly affect the flight of the ball?

Whatever, there's cricket on today.

dan1980

Laughs aside, I'd be interested to know how they are going to manage that rather impressive feat of cooling. My understanding was that the stadiums would be air conditioned. The very open nature to the design implies that is not the case so I wonder how they'll drop the incoming air temperature 24 degrees.

You THINK you're watching your LG smart TV - but IT's WATCHING YOU, baby

dan1980
Thumb Up

Re: The only news here

@AC 7:23 - "The real surprise is how many people *haven't* stabbed me today!"

Perfectly said.

dan1980
Thumb Up

Re: Smart TV is urFriend and not AIFiendish Tool for Programs and Pogroms . . .

I have almost no idea what you just said, good sir, but I compliment you on your near-pathological use of alliteration all the same.

dan1980

Re: Clenches jaw, takes deep breath . . .

Perhaps, but the point I was trying to make, following from the AC's comment was that Steam has made it 'okay' to make Internet connectivity a requirement for playing video games on PC - regardless of if the game itself actually is an 'online' game.

That's the core problem - once you have to be online to play a game, you have essentially given up your rights because the T&Cs can always be updated on the (e.g. Steam, Origin, etc...) client.

That's all tangential to the story but was the point of what the AC and I were 'discussing'. (For want of a better word.)

dan1980

Re: Clenches jaw, takes deep breath . . .

@AC 11:06

That's my fear, mate.

It's all a bit foil-hat but it keeps happening. I feel the same about Steam - lots of people love Steam for the convenience and (sometimes) cheaper prices but every single purchase from Steam reinforces the video game industry's belief that online DRM is acceptable.

It's got to the point where it's even threatening to spill over into consoles, as evidenced by MS's desire to have online activation on the XBox One.

The anti-foil-hat brigade spout the usual: "just don't use it then" but, as you have identified, if one company does it and gets away with it then others will too. Sooner or later, there really is no alternative.

And you have it wrong - it's not 'advertising', it's a method to allow businesses to 'reach' and 'communicate' with their customers. Advertising; that's so last decade . . . : )

dan1980

Re: Clenches jaw, takes deep breath . . .

True enough. I'm a pretty loyal chap and am generally tolerant of problems but treat me like a chump once and you may never get my business again.

I suppose that's the same with lots of techies: we've got money to spend, we like new toys and we play favourites, so we can be a pretty good market for such companies. Screw us over, however . . .

dan1980

Re: Linked to the TV Guarantee card

Right with you but do people really fill out warranty cards?

dan1980
Flame

Clenches jaw, takes deep breath . . .

Oh, fuck right off.

I just bought a second LG TV because I was so impressed with the interface of the first one. I liked the remote and the way it worked but this is just not. fucking. on.

That said, I don't actually use the 'Smart TV' features and really have no desire to. Mine certainly isn't connected up to my network and won't ever be. Still, it shows that LG are viewing the people handing over their hard-earned not as loyal or valued customers but as cattle to exploit.

If anyone from LG is reading these comments*, be very clear on this: this is not welcome. It is not okay. I will not buy another LG product unless you promise to stop this.

I am a 'techie'. I am the one that friends and family come to for recommendations about anything that runs on electricity. I will advocate against buying any LG product. More immediately, I am buying my mother a new TV to replace her aging CRT. I was absolutely going to buy an LG thanks to my satisfaction with my own units. This will no longer be the case. Again, it doesn't matter that she will never connect it to the Internet, nor play video from a USB HDD.

* - If not then, well, I feel better getting that out anyway, but I know that large companies like LG do indeed employ people whose job it is to research customer sentiment, gleaned via forums and blogs and 'social media'. So, if there's one browsing this thread, put a '1' down in the "previously loyal customers lost due to greedy, intrusive, dickbag move" column. Love, Dan.

No more Service Packs for Microsoft Office? HA! Think again, Ballmer!

dan1980
WTF?

I tire of all this (woe is middle-class, first-world me, apparently)

Is it just me that sees it as a bit of semantics to say that a company is moving away from monolithic updates but instead makes you completely re-install the operating system with a 3.5GB download?

No more 300MB installers to download - just multi-GB updates direct from the Windows Store. (That you must re-download for each device . . . )

How, exactly, is that better?

And UI changes? The best thing about updates and service packs is that they fix and patch the functionality and security of the system without affecting the UI. One of my biggest complaints (among the others) of MS is their insistence of tying function to presentation.

Essentially, they are saying: "if you want a secure, compatible, Windows OS then you must accept whatever our marketing team of the day decides passes for a usable interface".

I really and truly am thinking of moving to Linux for home use. I've got my consoles for games so there's really nothing stopping me except inertia. I ran a few different flavours for a bit a while back so I think I might change over for 'good'. (Take that either way.)

Winamp is still a thing? NOPE: It'll be silenced forever in December

dan1980

Re: Well at least the llama will be happy

I used it yesterday, in fact - v5.6.

I use 3 media players:

* Media Monkey v3 (v2 skin) - for my ripped CD collection (previously MM Jukebox, till Yahoo destroyed it)

* Winamp v5.6 ('classic' skin)for one-off audio files - voicemail messages, downloaded samples, etc...

* VLC for video

I love the exceptionally small, but function-dense, interface of the WA classic skin - perfect for what I use it for!

Salesforce boss Benioff foretells grim, unrelenting hyper-capitalist future

dan1980
Thumb Up

Re: It's not in my world

arrPost = split(strPost)

For Each strWord in arrPost

strReply = strReply & "Amen! "

Next

Wscript.Echo strReply

(Don't hate on the mighty VBScript . . . )

dan1980
Unhappy

I will steal some of these phrases and shamelessly pass them off as my own.

I particularly liked the ". . . orgy of naked, thrusting commerce . . ." and the ". . . lobotomized cheering of Salesforce's acolytes . . ."

In Benioff's world, we, (and our data) are all the proverbial grist, the aim being to throw as much of us into the Salesforce mill as possible.

Where's the 'life is depressing' icon?

Samsung v Apple: Titans await jury verdict on damages of MILLIONS

dan1980
Megaphone

Madness.

I believe distinctive shapes and form-factors should be protected. If someone develops a triangular phone, for example, and that is a big part of their identity then fine.

But really, it's up to the company to design that distinctive shape. Apple could have designed their phone in the shape of an apple (or a cuttlefish - whatever) and that would be a distinctive shape and suitable for protection as part of their brand identity. Instead, they made a phone shaped like a rounded-rectangle. They did this not because it is a distinctive shape (because it isn't) but because it's a sensible shape to make a mobile phone; a size and shape that fits into most pockets and no hard edges to catch.

To talk about obviousness, you talk about someone with reasonable learning and ability in the relevant field. That field, in this instance, is industrial design. The idea that a rounded rectangle can be protected implies that the rounded rectangle is a non-obvious shape for a mobile phone; that industrial designers, when faced with the task of designing a phone, would not have thought to use such a shape prior to Apple showing doing so.

You might say that it's the combination of the rounded-rectangle coupled with the dimensions, being somewhat flat and wide, however phones before the iPhone had been moving in that direction, getting slimmer and increasing their screen size.

Yes, the original iPhone was distinctive, but hardly a revolutionary design. It is easy to argue that the design is largely an obvious one given a full touch-screen interface. Indeed, you need only look at the iPaq or O2 XDA devices to see this - rounded rectangles with a round button at the bottom of the screen. Those smart phones was designed like that not because it was a revolutionary branding decision, but because that's the shape and layout that makes the most sense for a touch-screen smartphone/PDA.

I find it truly amazing that any competent person could, after viewing the prior art (in the form of previous phones and PDAs) conclude that a rounded-rectangle is somehow due protection as being part of a brand identity.

Pinch-to-zoom is arguably less obvious but I am pretty sure there is prior art for that too.

Sonos and I: How home media playback just gets SO FRUSTRATING

dan1980

Re: Remote apps

With you there - when the phone's ringing or your partner is yelling at you to turn it down, a standard, 'always-on' infrared remote is the way to go.

I've also yet to find an 'app' with the required features that is even close to usable without having to look at the blasted thing. The raised, tactile nature of a conventional remote means that, after a short while, most people can operate the thing without really looking, save for when you first pick it up and position your hand. Even then, most well-designed remotes are contoured so your hand generally slips into the same position each time.

And, while remotes can (and do) end up down the back of the couch, I don't think I've had to search the house for one, finding it in the bathroom or under the bedspread or in my partner's bag. That's because it's not overly useful in any of those places. A tablet/smart-phone, however, is far more likely to go walking. So, either buy a dedicated device for the system or be prepared to argue about whether changing tracks is more important than an Angry Birds high score. Even then, if you have it controlling multiple devices in multiple rooms, you may have to choose between the ability to pause your movie in the lounge or you partner's ability to change the radio station in the bedroom. A device in each room is a very nice solution but far from cheap!

Sure you might say that most people have a smart phone these days but, even imagining that that is the case, you end up with an angry wife, unable to call you because you left your phone in the study again after using it to cue up the ultimate Smiths playlist.

Of course, a 'smart' device can do much more and generally with a much richer (or even customisable) interface and a WLAN-capable device has the advantage of being useful from locations without line-of-sight; something quite handy with multi-room systems like the Sonos.

Oz gov sysadmins ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL

dan1980

I approve of this being brought up and serious questions raised. On the other hand, as we have seen so many times, if you get your facts even slightly wrong, those on the defence will use that to try and invalidate your entire argument.

So Sen. Ludlam, thanks for actually speaking about this and not letting people just ignore it, but please make sure you are 100% clear on what you are saying first.

Spying will continue to happen but we can never get complacent about it. Such measures should be seen by states as very serious and requiring careful consideration before being undertaken. I have no doubt that in some instances, bugging an embassy could avert an otherwise bloody conflict but bugging embassies and hotel phone lines as a matter of course is simply not on and we must make sure that those people who authorise it are held to account.

Good cause first, then surveillance; not surveillance first and then analyse the output to find a cause.

Right, that's IT: We'll encrypt INTERNAL traffic to thwart NSA - Yahoo

dan1980
Unhappy

Keep fighting to preserve that trust Marissa . . .

"I want to reiterate what we have said in the past: Yahoo has never given access to our data centers to the NSA or to any other government agency. Ever."

The first response is, of course, that that is not really what people are asking. What does "access to our data centers" mean anyway? What people want to know is if you have given the government access to our data - in whatever fashion.

The second response is best delivered as a question: if the NSA (or "other government agency") came to you with an NSL demanding "access to <your> data centers", and preventing you from speaking about it, what would you say if asked the direct question of if you have given the government access to your data centers? Would you tell people the truth or would you lie to them?

I really do feel for these companies as they are in a horrible position but the simple fact remains that so long as they can (legally) be compelled to lie to their customers and the public, nothing they say regarding these matters can be trusted.

With that in mind, statements like: "There is nothing more important to us than protecting our users’ privacy" are really a slap in the face as there quite clearly is something more important than protecting their users' privacy, and that is the continuation and profitability of their business.

I don't blame them for that stance, but I do very much resent them pretending that that is not the case.

I forgive them the lies they are forced to tell to remain inside the law; I do not forgive them the lies they choose to tell in an attempt to make themselves look good.

Amazon unleashes Australian Kindle Store

dan1980
Meh

Re: another new company ripoff

We may not like being ripped-off but it seems we like missing out on content and convenience even less. Hence piracy.

I have always been a bit on the fence about piracy (mostly because rhetoric is plentiful while accurate information remains scarce). On one hand, I figure that the correct way to protest unreasonably high prices is to simply not buy something. On the other hand, from a pragmatic view, piracy sends a message that people do want your content but at a lower price.

Is it the best way to say that? I don't know. I suppose the question is: how do we best show content producers/distributors that there is a strong market for their products, but that we expect to be charged comparable prices with the US?

(FWIW, my policy when I disagree is to not buy that item, rather than pirate it. I miss out on a lot by being stubborn but I have vast reserves of apathy to help me cope.)

FLIGHTMARE! Inflight cell calling debuts, dealing heavy blow to quality of life

dan1980

Re: Meh?

@Z80

Nice one; I always suspected as much. I get the feeling that, as we possess brains that are evolved to use language, we automatically process a lot of it semi-consciously.

I think what happens is that when overhearing conversations in your own tongue, your brain simply processes it in the background. When you hear half a conversation, it seems that your brain increases the effort to try and understand what’s going on and, in doing so, brings it more into your conscious processing.

With the sincere hope that this is not taken as racist, I believe the same type of thing happens when overhearing people speak a different language – it clearly sounds like speech so your brain tries to process it and, if you don’t know the language well enough, it fails and you perceive it more strongly and thus find it more distracting.

That’s what I’ve always thought at least.

Storage upstart Coho Data decloaks from stealth, slurps $25m

dan1980

Re: Exactly my thoughts

@Steve Davies 3 - "Is their aim to slurp some funding and then get bought out by the likes of IBM, CISCO.(?)

Yes.

Mind waiting for compute jobs? Boy, does the cloud have a price for you!

dan1980

Re: Just unpredictable

Of course, you could make the system non-deterministic through a random number generator, though you would have to seed that with a non-deterministic input, meaning you'd probably want to base it off some user input*, which might not always be available given the constant, automated nature of many of the background jobs.

In short, you'd have to actually work to make it non-deterministic.

* - And there you get into philosophical territory, questioning if human action is truly nondeterministic; do we really have free will?

dan1980

Just unpredictable

Repeat after Dan: "Omega is not nondeterministic" . . .

Let's break this habit/tradition of calling programs with unpredictable output "nondeterministic". Any given decision this scheduling system makes will be deterministic and so the entire system is deterministic. It makes so many deterministic decisions, however, that the end result, while still deterministic, will be unpredictable for all practical purposes.

Helium-filled disks lift off: You can't keep these 6TB beasts down

dan1980
Happy

Re: leaks....

@Michael Habel - "This is why SSD fails so hard... The prices are just too damned HIGH!

SSDs are not, objectively, more expensive. In Australia, I can get a 256MB SSD for $250. For the same price I can get a 2TB SATA drive.

The SSD is not more expensive than the SATA drive; both are $250 (AUD). What you are referring to is $/MB and, in that regard, SSDs ($1/MB) are indeed a poor choice compared to standard SATA ($0.10/MB).

However, capacity, while always in demand, is not always the most important metric. Running a database, you may instead require a certain speed, commonly (though not always 100% helpfully) measured in IOPS. If that is the case then $/IOPS becomes more relevant and SSD ($0.04/IOPS) starts looking like a steal compared to SATA ($3/IOPS). Even more so when you consider the power and extra SAN shelves you will need to deliver that throughput from SATA drives!

Of course this difference is one reason why SSDs and conventional, spinning-platter drives are often deployed together. Few larger organisations use purely one or the other and it's even pretty common in home PCs and laptops to use an SSD boot/system disk backed by a SATA drive for bulk storage.

Note that I have used some fairly generic numbers for all this as they're good enough to illustrate the point.

Horrific FLESH-EATING PLATYPUS once terrorised Australia

dan1980

Re: Size estimate based on single tooth

Honestly? Depends on the circumstances.

If, say, extinct platypuses had exceptionally unique teeth and there is a fossil history to compare sizes then it's valid enough to start developing informed and useful approximations. As it happens, the platypus family did have unique teeth, quite different from anything else that is current known.

Reading the articles on palaeontology, I’m left to wonder if some of you were bullied by a palaeontologist in earlier life as there seems to be nothing but disrespect for them here.

The very nature of fossilisation means that these scientists are working with sometimes very scant information. I appreciate that that means they just can’t be as precise as everyone might like but it doesn’t mean that what they are doing is somehow science of a lesser value or calibre.

What is happening here is that a dedicated, hard-working scientist has (likely alongside an equally-dedicated and hard working team) analysed the available fossil evidence and, marrying that with all that is currently known about that family of animals, produced a plausible hypothesis that – in proper scientific fashion – is supported by all the available evidence, has valuable predictive power and is falsifiable.

That hypothesis is that there was at least one significant evolutionary branch that maintained both teeth and a larger size, while the ‘main’ both lost its teeth and shrank.

There have been numerous careless, unwarranted, over-ambitious and outright fraudulent claims through the history of palaeontology, but that is hardly unique to that field and should not mean that all palaeontologists should be distrusted by default.

@JulianB – I’m not specifically referring to you with my diatribe above as your comment, at face value, simply asked how valid it was. Again, the answer is that it depends but in this case, it’s would seem fairly valid.

IT'S ALIVE! IT'S ALIVE! Google's secretive Omega tech just like LIVING thing

dan1980

Re: Is the weather alive?

Yo.

That was me comparing it (loosely) to the weather. What I was saying was that weather is predictable, but only approximately and only for the relatively immediate future.

It might be semantics but I make a distinction between prediction based on contemporaneous data (e.g. a observed low pressure system) and prediction based on historical data (e.g. average temperate for May is 20C).

When I brought up the weather, I was referring to the former, which is based on cause and effect, rather than previously-observed averages.

dan1980

Re: is this 1970 ???

Or, to summarise the summary:

Efficient, cheap, predictable - pick any two.

Google picked efficient and cheap.

dan1980

Re: is this 1970 ???

Essentially, the take-aways are that:

1. Google's 'Omega' system is non-linear and dynamical.

2. At Google-scale, the behaviour of non-linear systems can no longer be reliably predicted by a linear approximation.

3. Despite the unpredictability of such a system, the automatic management of jobs is still advantageous as it allows a much better utilisation of the available resources.

Or, more condensed: at large scales, unpredictable automation is still more efficient than more predictable, but more manual, processes.

What confuses me about the article, however, is that several times it states that the unpredictable nature of the system is "a good thing" but no word of how the "emergent behaviours" of the Omega system are providing useful features or functions that would not be possible with a more predictable system. So far as I can tell from the article, the only reason offered as to why the unpredictability is beneficial is that having a sub-optimal system makes apps better able to cope with that sub-optimal system.

This appears to be the position of the author rather than Google as their quotes strongly imply that a more predictable system would be technically better but at such scale it would also be prohibitively expensive and thus raise the cost for end users. In other words, if the Omega scheduler could be more predictable for the same cost then they would prefer it that way as the 'emergent behaviours' are an undesirable side-effect of rationalising costs.

dan1980
Meh

Meh.

It's all quite interesting but also slightly incorrect; the system is not non-deterministic. It is, however, non-linear and dynamical and thus unpredictable in practice.

Such systems can and often are modelled using linear approximations, however those tend to break down. This is essentially what is being seen. The overall behaviour may be predictable in the short term, but the prediction of any given subset of that system will be much harder to predict*.

They have correctly defined the system as chaotic and as such, a relatively small change in the initial conditions** can produce unpredictable and sometimes counter-intuitive results. That does not make that system non-deterministic; to be non-deterministic, the system must, when given identical starting conditions, produce different outputs.

It's worth noting that the rules governing such a system do not necessarily have to be complex to exhibit chaotic behaviour. So long as the process is iterative, with the results feeding back in, even simple rules can produce unpredictable results.

* - The usual example is the weather and it's a good comparison here as you can predict, broadly, the weather for a short period of time but that falls apart both when making predictions for longer periods (the temperature next month) or for smaller areas (the temperature in my back yard). Likewise with the described Google system, you might be able to predict general behaviours over a short period but it would be more difficult to predict the behaviour of any given job.

** - Given the system is already running, 'initial conditions' here refers to the input you are giving to the system (e.g. run job X at priority Y with latency threshold Z) along with the current state of the system, which is all the jobs already running and all the available resources.

Japanese boffins unveil INVINCIBLE robot rock, paper, scissors 'bot

dan1980

We'll survive

Surely in any kind of high-stakes scissors, paper, rock tournament, competing athletes would have to throw their shapes in isolation - perhaps with a barrier to neck height so they can still engage in the psychological aspects of the sport - with judges announcing the results, thus eliminating such cheating.

Either that or robots will always end up getting first go on the swings.

Still, it'll be fine. At least until they develop a robot that can play 'knuckles'.

Cyber-terrorists? Pah! Superhero protesters were a bigger threat to London Olympics

dan1980

Re: "Threats" vs threats

Sorry Don - just realised I (accidentally, I promise!) stole your subject post title!

dan1980

"Threats" vs threats

"The threats of disruption . . . "

I might note that here in (usually) sunny Sydney there is a definite threat of rain. Indeed, the threat of rain is more credible and, as I have to go out later, more pressing than the threat of my IT systems being compromised.

The rain is certain to be an inconvenience and will require both planning and resources to mitigate, but I'm not sure a discussion of my umbrella holding grip (no matter how innovative) or the feedback loop employed to adjust the angle of coverage (no mater how precise) would fit into any of the defined tracks for the RSA 2013 conference.*

* - I concede it might be of some interest to the attendees, however, given that the conference was held in October in Amsterdam, in which case I would include a detailed look into my method for applying waterproofing spray to my shoes. (The trick is to do several light coats, drying between each and then polishing afterwards to remove any spots.)

Milky Way 'POPS PILLS and SNORTS GAS', insist boffins

dan1980

Or, more recently (and more grandly, I submit,) "cockwomble"*

* - Not that I am suggesting Shakespeare birthed that particular portmanteau, which is what I realise the sentence seems to suggest. Nevertheless, I will leave it as I like the ring of "O braggart vile and damned furious cockwomble!"

Locked-up crims write prison software that puts squeeze on grub supplier

dan1980

Re: do they get paid?

@Don Jefe - "While they shouldn't be making money from their inventions, the inventors usually do get extra privileges and that's fair. A good idea is still a good idea and some reward for improving on a really bad scene is a just payment."

Let's also not forget the benefit in reinforcing the positive association of being a useful, contributing member of society and being rewarded, to form a counterpoint to the negative association of being a criminal and being punished.

I am a hopeless lefty and my opinions are perhaps milder than they might be had I, or a loved one, been a victim of a serious crime, but I feel that there must be a least some carrot to balance the stick.

dan1980

Re: "If you have any device with an integrated circuit in it, I likely wrote..."

@Comments are attributed to your handle - "jake?"

Beat me to it!! (By a day, sure, but I'm slow!)

That said, I'm going to go home tonight and eat some instant noodles in my underwear. (I will be in my underwear, the noodles won't be. Probably.) I appreciate that some people have lived fuller, more varied and more productive lives than I have. I just hate them for it : )

The unsung heroes of the networking team: Who appreciates you?

dan1980

What's stressing my network?

It's all those people putting data over it.

There needs to be an uptight, frowny, everything-was-working-perfectly-until-you-came-along icon.