Overall, it seems to work pretty well. Under "prettyURL", the "Tiny URL" is often longer than the "Meaning URL". Use a shorter hash key. Also, you might want to have some basic content that loads instantly along with the "loading" graphic (e.g. Logo, basic description).
What user base are you going for, and how to you plan to monetize it?
Apple has been smart and conservative in its investments, financial dealings, and product development. They won't put out a netbook just because analysts want them too and they won't cut prices just to increase market share.
The recession was caused by all those doing, pretty much, the exact opposite.
It was caused by people who were more interested in turning a profit then producing a quality product. What do you think toxic assets are? They're just the financial equivalent of a netbook...3-5 years out and they start falling to pieces. The computer manufacturers are just smart enough not to guarantee them for that long!
If they simulate my brain molecule by molecule, and consciousness emerges, which one is really me? If my physical self is then killed, do I in fact still exist inside the simulation? In which case, is it OK to kill off my superfluous physical presence in order to use my organs to help others? What rights does the simulated me have?
Okay, these guys aren't anywhere near simulating an entire brain molecule by molecule. There's a big difference between this and being able to simulate the storage of a memory.
Also, the estimates of the total complexity of the brain may have all been greatly underestimated. We now have strong evidence from evolutionary Proteomics that each synapse has considerable complexity and is itself involved in computation. This makes perfect sense: the synapse must have evolved from the molecular sensing and navigation mechanisms of single celled Eukaryotes, and these are clearly capable of some computation.
I'm just extrapolating. Given exponential increases in computational power, it's a pretty small jump, I think, to imagine full brain simulation from what they're doing.
I don't get this. Wouldn't most of YouTube's traffic be downstream from Google's servers to the hoards of individual internet viewers all over the world? How exactly does peering help?
If Google operates their own backbones, then Google's peering agreement with other tier 1 backbone providers helps. The peering agreement allows packets passed in/out from Google with other providers without extra bandwidth charge.
Until, of course, peering agreements are renegotiated. I think this is where other bandwidth providers will stick it to Google.
They only have leverage for the moment. It's like falling off a cliff. Everyone thinks . . . "so far . . . so good" on the way down. But it's not the period that you are falling that is important, it's how you stop when you reach the bottom.
Doubtful. Google's been around for years now. If the bandwidth providers were going to stick it to Google, they already would have.
Furthermore, Google and the bandwidth provider both stand to gain by cutting out any middlemen (i.e. tier 1 providers), so they both have an incentive to be reasonable.
It makes perfect sense that Google peers with downstream ISPs.
However, I think Mr. Turner's analysis is wrong. It is in the interest of the Tier 1s to continue to gouge Google. YouTube pushes out way more bytes out than it pulls in... even including video uploads, client-made HTTP GETs, and TCP ACKs. This asymmetry pokes holes in the presented argument (assuming that those in a peering agreement measure bandwidth in bytes per second and not packets per second, and that both parties strive for balanced bandwidth usage).
If Google were to route all traffic through a single Tier 1... the latter would be completely screwed. The ISP would constantly have to push all these YouTube bytes out to all the other Tier 1s, and it's all the other networks that get the leverage.
The only leverage for this clever Tier 1 is in exploiting their position as the exclusive route into Google. They may even be tempted to extort the other networks... pay lots of money or your user don't get access to Google. This would barely work. All the remaining Tier 1s would simply stop by the Googleplex to say "hi guys, here's a bunch of half-duplex links. We are going to push bytes to you but not take any from you. Ciao". Google, of course, would agree. This lone Tier 1 is effectively bypassed, and it still has to find a way to get its massive quantity of upstream traffic into everyone's networks.
A Tier 1 might offer Google a special deal if they feel they are underutilizing their uplinks, and therefore want to push the peering situation back into equilibrium. But, they would definitely put a cap on Google's bandwidth usage, so as to guarantee that things don't swing too far the other way.
It definitely makes sense for Google to peer with the downstream guys (the Tier 2s and 3s). This reduces costs for both parties. The ISP doesn't have to pay for upstream transit to route to Google, and Google doesn't have to pay for upstream transit to route into the ISP. It's a win-win situation. And, it also improves user experience by decreasing latency, a big priority for Google.
More like, Microsoft determined that people who chat actively on MSN messenger are linked by 6.6 degrees of separation. It's just not as interesting a story with those pesky details added in, is it?
You're leaving out the pesky detail that an entirely different experiment with an entirely different sample using an entirely different communication method yielded a very similar result. This is damn interesting. Not conclusive by any means, but interesting.
A sample of people from Nebraska and Boston. Hardly any better from a global perspective (indeed, probably worse, since MSN is fairly universal). What about the 80% of people living in the developing world?
Consider that they're linked through people like me. I'm personally currently linked to people born in ten countries off the top of my head, and have previous links (former coworkers and acquaintances) to at least ten more. I am two links away to someone in every middle eastern country, nearly every other Asian country, a few South American countries, and a smattering of Caribbean, African and European countries.
(I am American, but have a few friends who came to the US to study and work.)
You're right, "entirely different sample" is a bit of an exaggeration. Assuming they've stumbled upon a constant for social interaction, it may be for our society rather than our species. There's no telling without further testing. But that the experiment using instant messaging didn't a have a significantly lower average degree-of-separation really does surprise me.
Off-topic, but why did you create a new account to post the exact same thing you deleted under your normal name (river_styx)? Or am I mistaken and these are two different people?
What user base are you going for, and how to you plan to monetize it?