161–170 of 202 posts
The e-ink display showing a shipping label is brilliant.
Really? Why? I mean, Kindles are pretty cheap, but sticky shipping labels are a few bucks for rolls of 500, and very hard to damage in transit.
If you had sticky shipping labels, you'd need some intelligence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the end user probably trusts the machine 99%, so what if you load it with something malicious, send it back to Amazon and wait for it to be sent to another customer and thus hack their network? That is if Amazon does not completely wipe their drives (Hide it somehow?).
This is 100% the scenario I was just imagining. Obviously this device has been designed to be a multi-time use device. Amazon definitely do NOT have physical control over this box. They would need to do a complete low level reflash of every single bit of firmware on there, every time it came back. That's not actually that inconceivable in a enterprise grade server, and I hope to see some interesting details about tha…
Assume Amazon only loads it up with encrypted data over network untrusted, and the customer only takes off the encrypted data over untrusted network.
I am sure most companies which are the target of this will welcome plugging in an outside device into their internal networks with open arms.
But in any case, you can just connect it to a sacrificial server on its own network that has nothing else on it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really don't think there's a word that doesn't mean /something/ dirty in some part of the world.
Yeah, but this is a bit like calling it Amazon Cumswapper. There's no other valid technical use of the word.
Now there is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really don't think there's a word that doesn't mean /something/ dirty in some part of the world.
They could've called it what most people think it is: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sneakernet No commonly understood dirty version of that, and I suspect most people would've thought it a very cool name as well as appropriate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, in many jobs, we do. That’s why several countries have defined a minimum wage, and why so many people in society work minimum-wage jobs.
In America. There are countries without minimum wage that do just fine. (Singapore, and eg pre-2014 Germany.)
It’s done literally nothing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
$1700 is amazingly cheap when you consider that it costs $4300 [0] to transfer that same 50TB out of EC2. [0] https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/pricing/ $4300 = 10000 * $0.09 + 40000 * $0.085
... which is also wildly overpriced. According to multiple sources, Internet transit in the US now costs less than 1$ for a 1 Mbps line for large deals, which translates to 1$ for 324GB, which translates to 0.003$ / GB. Amazon charges 15-30 times that. (it appears that traffic can be much more expensive in places other than the US and presumably Europe)
About 40-50% of that cost was circuits and transit. The vast majority was tied up in labor and equipment costs. If I making money on the whole stack with the market control that AWS has, I would want at least 60% margins on the business -- it's not like locked in customers have easy options.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AWS is the employee that sits there and learns the industry and every inch of the system you have for 5 years, and then one day you wake up and they're not at work. You read the news that morning and they just got 50 million to do their version of your company, and way better than yours. Or they start getting older, don't keep the skills sharp enough, and die off. Now you've got to painfully convince them to help you…
Hasn't really impacted Netflix and pretty much every other customer using AWS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't forget, there's the ongoing storage cost at S3, which also adds up really quickly.
3 cents/GB is cheap . Go 1 cent a GB S3's infrequent access class (since you won't be incurring the charge for retrieval through S3, you'll be pulling back out through Snowball), and its even cheaper. $10/TB/month? Where else can I store data reliably that cheap? (Yes, Backblaze is half that price. I hope they become a worthy adversary to AWS S3 to drive prices further down).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
$1700 is amazingly cheap when you consider that it costs $4300 [0] to transfer that same 50TB out of EC2. [0] https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/pricing/ $4300 = 10000 * $0.09 + 40000 * $0.085
... which is also wildly overpriced. According to multiple sources, Internet transit in the US now costs less than 1$ for a 1 Mbps line for large deals, which translates to 1$ for 324GB, which translates to 0.003$ / GB. Amazon charges 15-30 times that. (it appears that traffic can be much more expensive in places other than the US and presumably Europe)
I think you're going to be absolutely furious when you find out what the component costs of a bottle of any random drink is.