This is Platypus's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Platypus's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
I think your analysis is mostly correct, but your claim that the Bill Gates or Steve Jobs have made their money mostly from stocks is misleading. Most of that stock is in the companies they founded and helped build, so it is at least somewhat grounded in provision of real goods and services. One could argue endlessly about the disproportional reward for them vs. others who helped build those same companies, but they're still a different breed than speculators who had *nothing whatsoever* to do with the success of the companies in which they bought stock.
Toggle Commented Nov 28, 2011 on Investment versus speculation at Obsidian Wings
1 reply
I had to dig for a while to find info on what GigaSpaces does to provide multi-tenant security. To spare other people the effort, here's the most relevant link.
1 reply
The part about SANs is ignorant tripe. The need for storage will be there, and thus the disks will be there, whether they're in a SAN, NAS, or the servers themselves. At least with SAN or NAS storage can be allocated dynamically efficiently, instead of having to give each server its own worst-case amount of private storage. The power to drive those disks will be coming from a large and efficient power supply instead of the servers' own smaller and less efficient ones. There will be less need for other kinds of redundancy if the storage is directly accessible from more than one server. Bashing SAN equipment for power consumption, as though even more power wouldn't be consumed elsewhere without it, is like complaining that a bus or a train doesn't get Prius-like MPG. It just makes the author look like a hack who's locked into one vendor's notoriously storage-ignorant vision of how computing should be, and wouldn't know a real data center if it fell on him.
1 reply
I'm not entirely sure how this plays into the scenario just described, but I think there's an important distinction that wasn't made between a general child-rearing approach and a deviation from one's normal approach. Leaving a 10-year-old to find her way home isn't a big deal if they're used to it, if that's something they've learned to deal with over time. I was like that myself, from when I was seven, and wouldn't have been "lost and frightened" as this girl was. But *she* was, because this was *not* something she had experienced before, and that's a horse of a whole different color. Would the "private family matter" reasoning still apply if the girl had Down's syndrome, or had no sight? One could argue that she had been handicapped by her upbringing just as surely as if one of these conditions had applied, that the possibility of such situations arising out of pure accident is a good reason to bring them up differently, but the fact is that she *was* unprepared and her mother knew it. Being thrown in the water is very different for someone who can swim vs. someone who can not. Perhaps Primoff's real error was in not having prepared her kids for this, but she's still to blame in that interpretation too. You just don't change the rules like that, especially not in anger.
1 reply
Thanks for that, Kathryn. I got a good laugh out of it.
1 reply