He's clearly way out of his league, but then, has managed to pull it off... so maybe not.
I see him as extremely sleazy - just the type of person who I hate to see become successful.
Facebook is the prime example of a company that needs a real CEO, with actual business experience and ethics. Not one of those MBA types who is actually a complete idiot, though. I guess it would be very hard to find the right person.
It would be typical of the media/American public to act as if this statement was what made them think that they were not respected by the individuals who run corporations, while they didn't seem to get the idea from 150+ years of being abused by corporate aristocrats.
I'm quite sure that I could accomplish that. Bulk brown rice, lentils and beans are extremely economical. Combined with some greens and fruit/vegetables from my own garden plus the bounty of nature (you can walk outside and pick raspberries here, for instance).. well, that's how I eat anyway. I'd just have to give up the bags of chips and jars of salsa.
Or, more importantly, the willingness to admit that fact, or to admit the truth. Initially they decried all the people who suggested the flow was much larger than their estimates. Then, more and more sources come out suggesting it. And just recently, they have admitted it might be true.
This seems to be modus operandi for companies these days. Deny everything, then weeks later come up with your own sources suggesting exactly the same thing, when the issue has died down.
Nothing that has happened in the last 40 years has given me any reason to believe that anybody, or even everybody in aggregate, has a complete understanding of much of anything that is going on.
Their traffic allotment is fairly generous compared to comparable services. Sure, if you compare it to something like 1and1 with 'unlimited' for $12, maybe not, but you don't get the same control and reliability for something like that. If you compare it to how much it would cost to serve the same requests on Amazon S3, it's much cheaper.
Yeah, I'm glad they have the linode.typepad.com status blog - when Dallas is down, I can't connect to members.linode.com or status.linode.com to see what is going on! I know DOS attacks aren't their fault, but we've had a few more interruptions recently compared to usual.
Yes, that's one of the disturbing things about the oil industry. The oil companies have done their best to make sure usage of oil is as inefficient as possible, since that is in their medium-term economic interest... They go to tremendous lengths and expend (and destroy) significant resources to extract oil, and then they are actually hoping we'll waste a major portion of it.
It always confuses me when the energy company promotes energy efficiency. It seems like economic incentives exist for both promoting efficiency, reducing it, and greenwashing (doing one while promoting the other). It would be really interesting for someone to do an economic analysis and figure out what the bottom line is for the oil companies with regards to energy efficiency.
Ha. How would consultants make their money if this was easier to figure out?
It's natural for any smart person to ask "Why would someone who sells energy want to drive energy efficiency?."
The short version is utility spending on energy efficiency is largely driven by 2 key factors - one is regulation and the other is capital deferral.
On the regulation side, it's 31 flavors... E.g. you have decoupling, renewable portfolio standards which have efficiency components, efficiency portfolio standards, mandates to target all cost effective savings (e.g. WA), etc... Some flavor of this applies to about 35 of the 50 states.
On the capital deferral side, it's more about a utility getting more rate payers on the same capital assets. Turns out it's not easy to permit a new coal based power plant. So more users on existing plant may mean less revenue but more profit depending on the circumstances. In some markets (e.g. FL) the utility commission lets the utility charge consumers for conservation programs. So in these case, the utility has effectively marginal CGS/OPEX on a program which drives up profitability.
I've had sites on linode and slicehost, and have found Slicehost to have less downtime, packet loss, network problems (unreachable), and so on. I'm satisfied with both, overall.
That is very curious I've had a linode in dallas for a long time (2 or more years) and the only downtime that I have experienced on my server is from those few (I think it has been less than 10 times and they weren't more than a few hours) times everyones dallas linode went down.
I have one in Dallas, too. Nothing curious about it, take a look at http://linode.typepad.com/
Perhaps my requirements or expectations are higher than your own. The downtime hasn't been excessive, but sometimes, it is down for an hour before I see anything on their status update blog, and meanwhile, I'll have received a few notes from site users and advertisers.
There are three incidents listed in the past two weeks of packet loss, routing issues, and so on for 1-3 hours. There were other issues in May, I don't know where those are listed now.
Yes, it's only going down for a couple of hours at a time. Considering I'm using the server for images for a medium traffic website - an hour or two is VERY noticeable to my customers, and as noted, it adds up to more than the downtime on my Slicehost account (St. Louis).
I see him as extremely sleazy - just the type of person who I hate to see become successful.
Facebook is the prime example of a company that needs a real CEO, with actual business experience and ethics. Not one of those MBA types who is actually a complete idiot, though. I guess it would be very hard to find the right person.