There's been a rising chorus lately about how Google should dump YouTube. Such as this article at TG Daily. What people are missing here is the big picture, like Google's relationship to the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in the world. The largest expenditure for any ISP is their bandwidth charges: getting bits from the outside world. The more bits they get from the outside world, the more they have to pay. This may be per-gigabyte or peak-metered usage from their upstream bandwidth provider. What type of content consumes the most bandwidth, thus costing ISPs the most money? Video. Nothing else even comes close. One of the things Google is doing with YouTube is running up the monthly bandwidth bills of ISPs. Now Google can come along with their new datacenter in a shipping container that's been rumored for years. Google can put these adjacent to an ISPs server room and cache all of YouTube videos there. Thus the bits for YouTube videos will flow from the ISPs server room to the customer. No outside bandwidth will be needed, thus saving the ISP major dollars. What's in it for Google? Essentially taking over the ISPs network operations, which Google can do better and cheaper than the ISP due to pure scale. The ISP will outsource more and more operations to Google and their magic datacenter in a box. At that point Google makes a major profit. Google won't own any ISP proper, thus won't run afoul of the Federal Trade Commission. All they'll be is an outsourcer, running video and content caching, email, web hosting, etc. for the ISP.
In short: Google is using YouTube to drive up the ISPs monthly bandwidth bill so then Google can ride in as the White Knight and save the ISPs a lot of money. All an ISP has to do is give Google a little money for services instead of giving the ISP's bandwidth provider a lot of money for bandwidth.
Great post at Gizmodo. Robots that truly look like they're science fiction!!
I started an occasional blog about open source in the Atlanta area over at TechLinks. I'll be drawing on the going-on I keep up with at ossatlanta.org. We'll see if the corporate types catch on to Open Source.
We've just redesigned our corporate website: 3by400.com. Drift over and take a look, especially at the design portfolio. We have some very nice sites there.
If I could draw, I'd draw a man being squished by a large foot, shaped like a tree-root. I'd call it "Leiningen versus the ents". Most of you won't get that, but it's OK. You can read the original story here.
I fail to understand why everyone gives the Dalai Lama a free pass. Nobody asks him any hardball questions. Everyone seems to think he's some sort of legitimate leader on the world stage. Face it, he's the deposed despot of an incredibly backward third-world country. If he's supposed to be such a great leader, how come Tibet has been in the world's backwater for centuries?
Another hard statement: he's been responsible for the poverty and ignorance of his people for centuries. "Wait!" I hear you say. "He's only about 70, how can he be personally responsible for centuries of poverty?" Because he claims to be the 14th reincarnation of the one, true, Dalai Lama. This makes him personally responsible for centuries of repression and poverty in Tibet. But wait, if he's not responsible that means that the whole reincarnation thing was just a lie propagated by the ruling priest class to keep the multitudes under control and subservient. So it looks to me like either a) this most 'enlightened' of the world's leaders has been personally responsible for centuries of Tibetian poverty or b) he's not the same Dalai Lama that was born in the late 1300s and his whole religion is nothing more than the front to a power-play by the ruling cast. Personally I go with b) because you get to throw out the whole reincarnation thing as well.
When the National Geographic did a piece on Tibet a few years back, they concluded that the average Tibetan doesn't have any great love for their new Chinese rulers, but they sure don't want the return of the Dalai Lamas, because "At least the Chinese build roads". Well put.
A few years back the currnet Dalai Lama was quoted as saying "The Dalai Lama office was an institution created to benefit others. It is possible that it will soon have outlived its usefulness". I'll let you judge how much others benefited by comparing his palace at Lhasa with the average Tibetan house. Perhaps it was just the ruling priest class that the 'benefit others' applied to, rather than all Tibetans. My guess is that the correct translation of the above quote should have been "It's been a great scam, but the marks are starting to get wise, so let's get out of Dodge while the gettin's good."
We've been making party mix for a number of years. Here's my tricks on how to get great Party Mix:
- Use real butter, not margerine
- Oven-bake, don't microwave
- Go easy on the Wheat Chex, make up for it with extra Rice and Corn
- Use less mixed nuts, make up the difference in pecans
Mike Warfield gave a great talk at the October AUUG meeting about system administration with ssh. He suggested a "Little Black Box" to run all your SysAdmin ssh connections through. In light of that, I put up a howto site for Secure Shell Little Black Box. I'll be adding some more info to it hopefully soon. I'll be speaking on the subject at the February meeting of the Atlanta Unix Users' Group. See you there.
I love black comedies: works that derive their humor from death. One of the best of recent offerings is Pushing Dasies, which has unfortunately been cancelled. Christmas black comedies are fairly rare, but from childhood I've loved We're No Angels starring Bogart, Ustinov, Rathbone, etc. I recently found a marvelous Belgian short on YouTube called the Bloody Olive. Have fun, and Merry Christmas to all!!
Well, the Yahoo! Microsoft deal is back in the news. I'm sure it makes some sense to the MBAs but in the technology arena, it makes none. Why?
In the technology arena there is an old saying that "You have to eat your own dog food." What does this mean? It means that you have to use your own technology products. If you're IBM, your business needs to run on IBM hardware and software. If you're Dell, there had better be al Dell on every desktop and every slot in the server room. If you're SAP, your business had better run off of SAP software. Why? It goes to the heart of credibility. If you don't use your own products, why should your customers want to? It's real tough to sell a product that you don't use, because it's clear that you don't really believe in it.
Back to Yahoo! and Microsoft. Microsoft makes the Windows operating system and .Net programming language. Yahoo is built on BSD operating system and PHP programming language. If Microsoft does buy Yahoo, they have two choices: continue to run mission-critical infrastructure on non-Microsoft software and lose credibility in the industry, or convert the Yahoo infrastructure to Windows. To 'eat their own dog food' they'll have to convert Yahoo to a Windows stack. This will take a monumental amount of effort/dollars/months. It will be a couple of years before the infrastructure settles down again. By that time the Yahoo/Microsoft online presence will be irrevelant.
Many talk of the red/blue polarization of America. I believe what's actually going on is that it's not so much that the population is polarized, but that the voting system we use forces polarization. There are much better voting systems out there. Currently the best system I've seen is called range voting. In range voting, each person ranks each candidate on a 1 to 10 point scale. The candidate with the most points wins. This seems to give the candidate with the least regret.
William sent me this article. The current financial crisis really is closer to the panic of 1873 than the stock market crash of 1929.