That wasn't the point. Is the network really "slower by orders of magnitude" than disk? Why is using the network such a silly idea, considering network speeds are more than keeping up. Was the reference just referring to protocols. I was hoping for some accuracy: something to back up the statement.
30ms latency is basically the best-case scenario you can expect for consumer internet (with a nearby datacenter and all that.) 10ms latency is about the worst-case latency for a rotational disk. And almost no consumer internet outside of Japan or South Korea is going to get more than 2 MB/s of real bandwidth, compared to 100 MB/s of real bandwidth from rotational hard drives.
Throw wireless or uploading into the mix (who's going to use a Chromebook over ethernet?) and it's even worse.
You can feel good about gaining important knowledge. (Advanced exercise: extrapolate from the implications of not having known one piece of fundamental knowledge, then take action.)
Not sure that the message really has sunk in. The way to a good reputation is to be good and exceed people's expectations. Not complain that the world isn't a good judge.
I'd go further than this, if this is confusing architecture with development. This is not to say that a senior developer or systems engineer could take on an architecture role: but this wouldn't be the check-list in my view.
An architect is more likely, like his building counterpart, to see the system from the top down. That is given a clean sheet of paper: How can we achieve the availablility and fault-tolerance we need? what is the threading model? how does the system connect to the outside world? etc...
Whoever takes the role of doing this makes sure that the direction of the implementation doesn't loose sight of these goals. He may even create non-functional requirements.
In our neighbourhood we've been calling working with particularly difficult legacy code software archaeology: where it's not not clear what some piece of software was supposed to do.
http://media.pragprog.com/articles/mar_02_archeology.pdf
If copyright were just to protect the investment of a company in development of an artist or product I'd broadly agree with this argument.
Where copyright seems objectionable to me, is where the initial cost of development was non-existent or large profits have been made for years. For example:
For some copyright to last 95 years seems more like profiteering than protection of the creative industries considering creation is often based on the work of others.
I don't condone piracy, but I think piracy would be far less socially acceptable if:
- the creator can be seen to benefit from their work
- copyright better resembled its original intent of protecting investment in the creation of something new and not staking ownership over the work of others.
That's an opinion. Stating opinion as fact is a worthless contribution, in fact a detriment, to healthy discussion.
I wouldn't argue that there's moral high ground here, I'd simply put it this way:
Anyone who thinks there is a better way to keep people from pirating music than to make the legal means of acquisition simple, affordable, and to not play games with release dates, is a fucking idiot.
I remember people being pretty sceptical of android when it first came out, and it took time for the issues to be ironed out. If google are going to use the same gameplan, then the prices will eventually go down and the usability up. It seems to me to be a question of Google's commitment.
I find this unsurprising, companies don't resort to court before having a conversation. Even if the conversation is I think you should pay us licensing. The court actions are born out of disagreement.
An illustration of why some of the software industry wants to be more like the music industry and why the music industry doesn't want to be like the software industry.
Imagine if you were still making money off a program you wrote in 1960. Almost inconceivable in any mass market.
Let alone that most people that made popular music 50 years ago are dead nowadays.
It's not the original artist who gets the money but some persons that didn't even work for it!!
Can you make a convincing argument that copyright ought to be transferable in the first place? I'm not certain it shouldn't, but this thread has made me realize I've never heard a good reason for it.
Liquidity for creators, without which some wouldn't have the time and money needed to create and publicise their creation. Its analogous to being allowed to sell [in part or whole] the ownership of your startup before accruing any profit.
Still, those who provide liquidity for creators should not be able to profit from a work any longer than the original creator would have, given the same resources. In other words, copyright should expire after the same fixed amount of time, whether it's owned by a person, an estate, or a corporation.
How does restricting transfer of copyright affect this? Is it that hard to get around? An artist wouldn't be able to completely sell the 'rights' to his work but he could certainly work out an arrangement whereby some record label or studio or publisher, etc., agrees to distribute his work for him in exchange for a portion of the proceeds. The only difference is that after the deed is done, the artist still owns the work and can work out a similar arrangement with someone else, should he choose.
This isn't uncommon even now, actually, but especially with yet-unknown artists publishers will often push pretty hard against it, and usually get what they want. I think removing it as a possibility would be good for artists in most cases.
http://serverfault.com/questions/238417/are-networks-now-fas...
Doesn't google's search engine demonstrate this?