Re: When will the next name change be?
$500,000? If they spent so little I would be truly shocked.
2643 publicly visible posts • joined 19 Oct 2008
Bob, how could any enterprise cloud vendor predict such an unlikely confluence of events as leap day occurring on February 29th? You might as well expect them to anticipate their SSL certificates expiring. This is way out there type unpredictable stuff. Acts of God and whatnot.
By taking the free boxes the ISP also saves millions against their own internal network costs, and makes their customers perception of the quality of their service go up. Against this power and cooling are nothing. Why Netflix and not some other? Netflix is 1/3rd of peak network traffic. Where else are you going to get these returns
"As we all know, there is no free lunch, and there’s also no cost-free delivery of streaming movies. Someone has to pay that cost," Cicconi said. "Mr Hastings’ arrogant proposition is that everyone else should pay but Netflix.
The remarkable thing here is that Comcast and AT&T are generating the requirement for this traffic. When you and your 500 neighbors all gorge on the new season of "House of Cards" in HD, it only needs to be sent to each network the first time, and cached for everyone else. It doesn't change from your house to your neighbor's house. You could all be watching the same copy, rather than downloading it from Netflix separately. Netflix has these cache boxes, and provides them to the ISPs for free. But AT&T and Comcast refuse to take them, instead insisting that Netflix stream each copy separately from Amazon's datacenters - multiplying by thousands the bandwidth unnecessarily. This is as bad - worse - than streaming video, pictures, audio over the Internet in uncompressed formats, consuming bandwidth unnecessarily. It is the ISP creating this need by insisting on doing this the worst possible technical way.
So no, nobody needs to pay that cost. It is an unnecessary cost. AT&T and Comcast insist on creating this need for bandwidth to their network that does not have to exist. They do this to drive up the cost of Netflix, drive down the quality because Netflix competes with their cable TV. It is pure unrepentant greed.
They're going to employ a former federal judge and some outside counsel to officially rubber stamp their future Hotmail account snooping. That is so reassuring. For a moment there I was afraid they might just not do it any more. This is SO much better. Does the Mailbox plundering team have an official name yet? May I suggest "Global Mail Account Investigation Legal Team", or "GMAIL Team" for short?
Let the whole world know you are snooping their Hotmail just to jail the one employee who got the info out before the other twenty. Spend six months paying astroturfers to pretend you were the wronged party and acted within the TOS, as if that makes it all better now. I can't wait to hear Frank Shaw's spin on this.
Hopefully this will bring down the price on mainstream CPUs. No way am I in the market for a $1000 chip.
The customer for these is going to have a GPU. Are they still bonding their high end graphics to the highest end CPUs that won't be using it at all and holding their midrange chips that would actually use it to the lower spec graphics? That was always counterintuitive to me.
I'm going to go ahead and speculate now that we are never going to directly observe a gravity wave. It is just too weak.
The scales - both large and small - are mind boggling. The discussion is at the level of planck lengths and planck time. We're talking about a time when the granularity of dimensionality itself leaves fingerprints.
You know the observable universe is big and heavy - hundreds of billions of galaxies a hundred billion lightyears across. Imagine you had two of them right next to each other. They would affect each other by gravity, right - at least at the edges? Now shrink the pair so small that trillions of the pair lined up would not span the width of a single proton and they're still right next to each other so the gravity is so much more intense by proximity. One of these is our observable universe, and one of these is a mass that has now fallen outside our "light cone". Now move the second one 16 degrees across what will someday be our sky in 1x10^-44th of a second. That is the scale of gravity wave we're talking about. Entire observable universes worth of energy density swinging whole degrees across the sky because at a scale that small, that is the indivisible increment of a meaningful distance.
It is horrifyingly beautiful.
Well, 20 or so at least. Our visible universe is one of many such of course, or it would be different around the edges than in the middle. How many is an interesting question to ponder over a pint.
Say you go instantly to a galaxy on our horizon, then as far again, in an instant. This is a whole other visible universe on the edge of ours. It has the same cosmic background radiation, the same physical laws, the same structure from gross to fine.
Is it part of the same overarching Universe? Between the two there is no edge, no way to Balkanize them such that here one ends and another begins. To call them different universes makes as much sense as discriminating between the visible universe centered on London and the one centered on Beijing.
In the end it's all a matter of perspective. We are each the center of our own visible universe, sharing by proximity some part with each other in aggregate a greater whole.
How about no? A new WinRT tablet maybe?
I'm thinking a Metro skin for iPad that keys into all of Microsoft's cloud suite. Office364 and Bing, IE and Outlook.com signin, XBox Live, DirectX and cloud hosted desktop all integrated into one glorious app that iFans have been craving [sic]. Naturally paid for to be preinstalled in glorious partnership with Apple.
The synergies. They are blinding.
His name is Hank. He lives in Torrance, California. He's a semi-retired VCR repairman. He's making them as fast as he can at 15 hours a week, but the repetitive motion is aggravating his arthritis and he's just not willing to give it more than that and ruin his health. He is thinking about giving it up actually, he shared over a pint.
@AC - I was not being critical of the man there, nor the rate of his giving. I wrote above there that he is both generous and humble. I have praised him here before for his work. It is not being critical of the man to say he could divest from one of his many investments without causing serious turmoil - it is only an assessment of the market situation being responded to. I didn't say he should sell it all and gift the proceeds. It is not for me to say he should give or not at all, let alone how fast. It's his money.
I am still not fond of his Beast. But that is a different thing.
>I reckon its easy to be philanthropic when it doesn't hit your lifestyle or bottom line in any meaningful way.
Bill Gates himself said the same thing in his Reddit AMA. That his efforts are not as significant as those of others who have to sacrifice to give. Imagine that: generous and humble too.
Here's hoping they got a serious commitment to Linux GPU open APIs from Imagination Technologies. That will be critical to their success with these chips, and IT has been reluctant on that score in the past. "It's not our fault the GPU vendor won't provide that info" is not going to work. Ever. You chose the GPU. They didn't sneak into your engineering lab and insert it without your knowledge. It is your fault if the thing has no decent software support.