justinsb

62 ms·

541.
by justinsb 14y ago
If you were affected by this, I hope you got a big refund (1+ month).
542.
by justinsb 14y ago
AZs were supposed to be that unit of isolation, then when multiple AZs failed that shifted to be Regions; it seemed like a "blame the victim" mentality to me. Given that AWS are running the same software across regions and have the same peo
543.
by justinsb 14y ago
You need to be in multiple regions to tolerate EC2 outages, not just multiple AZs. Even then, this is only good until AWS's first multi-region failure; this doesn't seem to be an impossible event given EC2's recent track record. Though I
544.
by justinsb 14y ago
Worth noting that the paper is from the same two professors who published "Against Intellectual Monopoly". It's a very small clique of people who produce much of the anti-patent literature. That would certainly leave it open to manipulatio
545.
by justinsb 14y ago
I really appreciate OP's honesty/humility, and (presuming you're right franze) it shows that even things we ourselves consider to be dead-ends, may in fact be useful to different applications. I'd be very happy to see lots more of these int
546.
by justinsb 14y ago
I understand where you're coming from, though I disagree. I hope you continue to explain these caveats to everyone considering MongoDB. I hope you recognize that not everyone is an expert in these limitations, and that you clearly explain
547.
by justinsb 14y ago
> That's true about any database, not just MongoDB; nothing new here. That's exactly the point where we started. A well-designed system fails "safe"; it should obey the principle of least surprise. Specifically: MongoDB should default
548.
by justinsb 14y ago
Kudos to you for doing your research. If you're saying "don't use MongoDB without doing at least N days of research first", then you're very much at odds with (my perception of) the 10gen marketing message. I think you're right though: Mon
549.
by justinsb 14y ago
A good system is forgiving; it encourages exploration; if there's a choice between safety and performance it defaults to safety. If/when profiling shows the safe behaviour to be a bottleneck, then users can Google the issue and discover "O
550.
by justinsb 14y ago
For those complaining that Google should have donated more, that's just ridiculous. Google already does donate more; they support the Eclipse Foundation financially. There are performance issues being reported in the latest Eclipse, and it
551.
by justinsb 14y ago
Things that look like they use copying in C++ often don't use copying in the final output. Values are usually returned by reference, and many C++ compilers can often avoid a copy even when that's not the case (e.g. Return Value Optimizati
552.
by justinsb 14y ago
Right, but the same trade-offs apply to C; C++ is actually superior here: if something shouldn't be copied, you can enforce that in C++, but not in C. The author was arguing that writing in C++/STL meant your code was necessarily less effic
553.
by justinsb 14y ago
In my opinion, this is just wrong: 1) He uses std::list<person*>, but std::list<person> is the equivalent to his C example, and would produce identical results to C, with much less code. It would also be safer e.g. in terms
554.
by justinsb 14y ago
About those three patents that are so similar: the first two stem from the same initial application so should be nearly identical except for the claims; the third is a reissue of the first so should be almost entirely identical. The first
555.
by justinsb 14y ago
There's some clever wordplay/marketing here... "designed to provide 99.99..99%" means that the theoretical model of the system tells you that you lose 1 in X files per year when everything is working as modeled (e.g. "disks fail at expected
556.
by justinsb 14y ago
It is cleaner, although it doesn't feel _that_ different to SQL to my eye. I guess if we're now thinking about replacing SQL then I'd want to get a lot in return. (I do know that I'm sort of moving the goalposts here - thank you for contr
557.
by justinsb 14y ago
I definitely see why (a) is good for time-series data, but I (personally) think that it shouldn't be a first-class part of a relational query language; I think most databases do support the ROW_NUMBER() function now though. I think (c) has
558.
by justinsb 14y ago
Mangling the well-known quotation: SQL is the worst syntax, except all the others that have been tried. What are you comparing it to?
559.
by justinsb 14y ago
I think you do Bresenham a great disservice, by underestimating how far ahead of its time this really was. This was published in 1962, so any patent would have expired in 1982. So any patent would probably have had almost no effect, becau
560.
by justinsb 14y ago
I have one here and haven't actually wired it up yet to speakers, because it uses banana clip connectors (another slightly odd decision). My guess is that the sound quality is good, but not excellent. Better than computer speakers, better
561.
by justinsb 14y ago
Good point, but I think we're talking about throwing away a $25 amplifier when the $50 computer is obsolete. And if the computer is essentially "just" a wireless audio player I'd imagine you can get a solid 5 years out of it without any pr
562.
by justinsb 14y ago
I definitely agree that at the ultra high end ($1000+) people will want to pick and choose components. I was hoping for a Raspberry-Pi level computer paired with a reasonable amplifier and a reasonable DAC; certainly not competing with top-
563.
by justinsb 14y ago
I personally think integrating an amplifier is a good idea, although I don't think the Q is a great implementation. I would think that - at a given price point - a combined box would offer better quality and better feature integration (e.g.
564.
by justinsb 14y ago
Based on my understanding, there's a tightly-locked down outbound firewall: you only get HTTP,HTTPS and SSH ports. So sending mail over SMTP (spamming) can't happen. If someone is doing something evil over e.g. HTTP, presumably GridSpot ca
565.
by justinsb 14y ago
In the bigger picture, there are a whole lot of interesting things that would need to be built to allow for non-batch processing on a cloud like this... a smart web proxy / front-end that could cope when your instances go down being #1 on t
566.
by justinsb 14y ago
This is great - it looks to have some very sensible answers to many of the questions of how a distributed cloud would work. The thing that excites me most about a distributed cloud is that it could turn the notion of elastic computing on it
567.
by justinsb 14y ago
TaxiMagic seems to be operating without any government interference, by integrating with the existing taxi services.
568.
by justinsb 14y ago
Regulation is what starts the ball rolling. I won't dispute that the outcome is often sub-optimal in some ways (like the one you cited) But the point is that the result is a whole apparatus which acts to preserve the status quo: the regul
569.
by justinsb 14y ago
However you feel about it, this is entirely expected. The government has chosen to regulate taxis; there's a whole bureaucracy around that; there are a bunch of providers operating within the system. Uber enters and claims the rules do no
570.
by justinsb 14y ago
Fascinating stuff... the latest architectural overview is particularly interesting ( http://www.slideshare.net/adrianco/netflix-architecture-tuto... ) If I had one criticism, I'd love to see a separate overview of the fundamental (CS?) pro

More ›