flatline3

The judicial system shouldn't be able to force you to say anything you don't believe in, to your own customers, with no means of telling your side of the story.

Self determination is a sacrosanct right, and this punishment crosses the line.

> Or are they just serving up web pages to users? That's RAM and bandwidth heavy, but very CPU light. You still need the machines to scale your load, but you're not going to be using the CPU.

That depends very much on the efficiency of software your architecture. A well-architected web app can scale up RAM and CPU utilization much more closely than something modeled on zero shared state independent processes.

Additionally, even if your scaling model of RAM before CPU is the only possible one, that doesn't make the utilization effecient, and implies that higher efficiency could still be reached by scaling up RAM per machine.

I can't say I understand that. If RAM utilization is so vastly out-scaled as compared to CPU utilization, there's a significant resource use inefficiency at play.

Machines consume a baseline amount of power whether they're used or not; that power usage obviously increases with utilization, but ideally you'd have full utilization across the board.

If memory usage is so much higher than CPU usage, I have to wonder what it is that Mozilla is doing wrong with their architecture. Are they using pre-fork-style servers? Are they just provisioning poorly? What is it?

> CPU use is irrelevant to most internet servers.

Why? The CPU is used when the machine does anything. Ideally you're operating the machines at full capacity, less overhead to handle load spikes.

> Over the week, I operate my car engine at about 1.2% capacity. Maybe they should write about that.

What you're doing is inefficient, and they do write about that. The solution is called car sharing and public transportation.

I don't want my classified ads republished because I've chosen to publish the advertisement in places that target specific types of people.

It's incredibly naive to assume you know best.

We have our job ads republished by job sites with user bases that are far outside what we're interested in, and it results in a massive waste of our time in filtering those candidates.

Even if it is a single monolithic application, it in no way could explain the use of that much RAM.

In chrome, I'm seeing a <video> tag, not a plugin.

Anecdotally, gnome 3 attracted me. I now run a Ubuntu system, but I haven't switched my main desktop to Ubuntu because Mac OS X is still better (for me).

I think it would be wrong to reward the PadMapper author's ethically questionable behavior.

If Craigslist doesn't own the posts, then that means the users own their own posts, and you don't have their permission to re-use their posts.

This just puts you back where you started.

> Customers, coworkers, managers, do this intentionally or not, maliciously or not.

None of these situations are the same as an interview. If you're providing an explanation at the behest of the interviewer, why not also depart on a tangent, also at the behest of the interviewer?

I don't see why the "right" thing would be to reward someone for breaking your ToS and stealing your database as a means of creating a potential competitor to your business.

On top of that, even if PadMapper had not been slimy, I don't see why it's "right" to pay a sum for something you're perfectly capable of building yourself for less time, money, effort, and headache than what an acquisition would cost.

The storage format is proprietary and some kind of obfuscation of the image data is done.

According to the ToS, you don't own a license to the comics, so you can't export them, or even hold onto the comics if comiXology disappears.

I don't have a lot of faith in lionized history.

> So if your brilliant engineer spends their time telling younger or less brilliant engineers how they just threw out all their crappy (but functional) code and re-wrote so that they could tolerate reading it, it doesn't bring others along. If they 'sign up' for all of the work so it will "be done right" and then slow the whole project down because nobody can work on it, they aren't "adding value."

The problem might be hiring the younger or less brilliant engineers, and also placing them in positions where they cause significant damage, as it's driving your brilliant engineers to be toxic.

Do you have a point that you intend to write a supporting argument for, or are you just casting aspersions?

This is the kind of argument that you see from "stage 2" or "stage 3" management teams installed at a startup. These are the people brought on when the investors or CEO decide (mistakenly) that they now need "real" management, and then proceed to hire the worst possible kind.

This kind of management strives to guide the now-profitable and low-risk venture towards a state of permanent mediocrity; the remaining smart, stellar people merely stand in the way.

The new management's desire is to secure their position in the organization by instituting policies that require that information and knowledge flow through them, amassing a greater base of direct and indirect reports, and redefining their internal metrics of "success" in a way that's genuinely divorced from external reality.

The Brilliant Jerk in this situation should be promoted, the new management should never have been hired.

> Once you deploy then things will change less frequently so the real benefit is when you do have to change something, you're not running a big ALTER statement.

Instead, you're writing a bunch of code to deal with data that may be in the old format, or may be in the new format, or may be in the new-new format.

I don't see that as an improvement.

The entire point of the article is that Apple can (and has) put 'transceivers' into cables.

I fail to understand how and why silent failure is considered a reasonable default.

It means that:

A) closed development breaks the OSS community model -- that's not anecdote, just fact.

B) We have a past example of the slippery slope of closed development.

And yet, look at Apple's profits.

"If you don't like them, don't click them" is a terrible solution, because I don't even want to see them.

Is it so wrong that I don't want "free" things if that means I'm the product and not the customer? Is that really such a hard market opportunity to exploit?

I'd rather pay money to not see them. Problem solved.

The point at which Apple's culture significantly shifted away from open source was the point at which they hid all their source code until after the OS was released.

This completely breaks the OSS community and contribution model.

Back in 2002, it was possible to contribute code to the current in-development version of Mac OS X. Now it's not, and iOS-specific OS code isn't provided at all.

Doesn't work. If it did work, Ubuntu wouldn't be reaching like this for revenue opportunities.

What it sums up is some Linux nerds' complete disconnection from reality.

1) Donations aren't a sustainable revenue model, and won't prevent Ubuntu from taking equally user-hostile actions in the future. What they need is a sustainable revenue model where users are the customer.

2) How is this different than the crapware that comes installed with some OEM Windows PCs? How is that a model to be emulated? What happens when a feature like this can't just be installed with apt-get?

3) Water would almost certainly be healthier.

Apple used to be the reliable alternative to the Microsoft hegemony. They're squandering that position, and we desperately need something like Ubuntu -- consumer focused, polished, and as easy to use as Mac OS X (or at least, Ubuntu is a lot closer to that ideal than Linux has previously been).

For Ubuntu to maintain a consumer focus, they need the consumers to be their customers, not their product. Let me buy Ubuntu, or buy Ubuntu hardware.

microUSB hasn't become compatible with new standards, it has been hacked to allow the pinouts to be repurposed for new standards.

The implication of this article is that the Lightening port can be repurposed, without changes to the device's hardware, simply by providing a new cable and software.

No, it hasn't. It requires different hardware in the device itself to output HDMI/DisplayPort to what "should" be standard USB pins.

This sort of hack is easy enough with ObjC and blocks, but is generally avoided due to introducing significant issues with clarity.

It has links, but not live content fetched from the internet.

> That argument would be a lot more convincing if the Dash actually displayed results from a lot of places, not just Amazon. What if I want to search the Web? What if I want to search my social networking services? What if I want to look up directions to a location? What if I want to look up a word in a dictionary? (Remember, Ubuntu is popular in schools in some countries.)

Apple already tried this with Sherlock. It just isn't something people seem to actually want.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_(software)

When Apple killed Sherlock, they replaced it with Spotlight (local search only), and Dashboard (widgets that you can use to find specific network information without going to the web).