Re: The Bleeding Edge...
6043 posts • joined 31 May 2010
Just, you know, ignore the part where I work from home, so the work lab is...yes, dear...
Maxta runs their own file system on top of individual "drives" that are running ZFS.
I have a mid range package in Canada (which has terrible internet connectivity for normals) and have 2Mbit up. Also: unless you're a hobbiesty photographer you're note taking 10-100GB a day of new data. Large transfers like that will be rare unless you're into the "should be considered an SMB" space of data turnover.
Smoking affects more than the smoker. Second-hand smoke is a very real problem. A car that doesn't phone home after an accident doesn't cause the death of others. It just doesn't help save the idiots without it.
To me, liberty is more important than safety. Clearly to you safety is more important than liberty. Why should you get to impose your beliefs on me? By what moral or ethical right?
Except for the part where there is lots of evidence of the US committing economic espionage and passing that information back to their own corporations. The Brazilian aerospace industry would be one example. There are many others.
That you, personally, believe the NSA doesn't commit industrial espionage isn't really relevant. They do it. Your belief is unnecessary.
To compound your error, the Chinese government is not "everything" in China. There is a strict separation between individual and state ownership in most cases, though the state does retain the right to hold shares in individual enterprises there just as it does in my home country of Canada. (For example, my local municipality owns a majority stake in a fairly large power generation and transmission company.)
And no, we're not ignoring that other governments hoover up information. Not at all. We're simply making risk assessments about which governments are most likely to directly (and negatively) affect us with that hoovering.
China, for example, can hoover all it wants and it doesn't negatively affect 99.9% of us. We just don't have to do business there, visit there or otherwise interact with China in any way. Most of us, however, do have to interact with the USA, visit there and otherwise interact with it in many, many ways. Especially those of us who own businesses.
As for my local country hoovering up data, well...they're doing it within the same legal jurisdiction as I reside. If they try to use what they find against me, I can sue them. If they try to sue or detain me, I have the right to defend myself. If they try to take my information and sell it to a competitor I'll take 'em to the cleaners.
As a Canadian, I don't have those rights in America. I'm a dirty foreigner. No rights...but still dependent on trade with the country run by lunatics in question.
So contrary to your assertion, this has all been thought through. We just came to a conclusion that wasn't blinded by patriotism. Which, you know, makes sense...seeing as how the US of A isn't our country.
I would suspect India should be on that list too. Most certainly Russia, if only because Putin's people actually support him being an utter crazypants. And that's pretty terrifying.
"You do know that there are parts of America that have no running water, or electricity or internet?"
Sure I do. And some of them are great places to be. Some of them ain't. But in virtually every circumstance, the people occupy those places by choice in the US. Not every circumstance, but most.
The fact that the US has poor people - or a handful of innocent actually good people - doesn't change the fact that the overwhelming majority of America is either outright bad people or apathetic to a dangerous degree. And I absolutely classify the apathetic as equally complicit with the actively bad people who are out there trying hard to keep the masses poor and powerless.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
If it makes you feel any better, I hold Australia in equal - if not worse - contempt. They keep electing Xenophobic asshats to power over and over and over. The UK isn't much higher in my esteem, what with their own brand of Xenophobic asshats being increasingly popular.
At least in Canada we have a piss poor excuse: over successive years we have been Jerrymandered so hard that the conservatives can get a majority in this country with less than 30% of the popular vote, but if either our centrist or our leftist party wants to win a majority they need 50% of the vote (taking into account the ridings that will never, ever change their colours.)
It's a shitty excuse - and we collectively deserve to have our asses kicked - but it's also an issue that Canadians are aware of and actively fighting. Electoral reform is a huge issue here. As are things like the TPP, spying and a whole host of other things that are anti-populace, but wholly embraced as "necessary" by the majority of American voters.
We also have an active enough political system that there are always three possible parties (right, center and left) with a plausible possibility of winning, and a few up-and-comers that are gaining strength. We don't just have "sort of centrist and right wing" as options (like the US) with the "right wing" party currently undergoing a civil war because half of the thing is off in fucking crazy cuckoo land and wants to drag the whole goddamned world damn with them.
So you go right ahead and call me anti-American. I am. But I am not "anti-American" as some form of reactionary diatribe where I "want what America has". No...I fear everything you have. I find you a danger to my nation's way of life. I find your culture to be an infection that is harder to combat every year and your xenophobia and paranoia to be dangerous to the stability of the world as a whole.
I am not merely irked with your country for teaching and preaching American exceptionalism. I'm irked because you lot actually believe that lunacy and because of it you are collectively unable to see the damage you do to yourselves and to the rest of the world.
Worse: other western nations are (for now) completely dependent on commerce with the US. That's slowly, but surely changing as BRICS countries rise to power, but it will be decades before any of us can really tell America to take it's one-sided "treaties" and go fuck themselves. Unfortunately, the damage you'll do to our countries in your desperate attempts to export your laws while you gaze about with your dull cow eyes blubbering over your waning international influence could still prove to be catastrophic.
We can only hope.
"The American gov't are the bad guys, not the Americans,"
I don't see the American people banding together to do anything about their government. Or the excesses of their corporations. I see aught but apathy. For a significant chunk of your nation, I see strong support for the power-mad types causing the trouble.
Maybe some Americans are good guys, but not remotely enough enough to make a difference...or to be worth viewing the populace as a whole in a positive light.
"Didn't you learn anything about the world history during the 20th Century when you were in school?"
Sure I did: Americans are not the good guys. It's a pretty important lesson that you seem utterly incapable of learning.
"The US, while they may want to find something to blackmail you with, won't be destroying your business by stealing your technology."
Prove it. According to my sources, the United States absolutely and without question does steal technologies and information from foreign companies for the benefit of their domestic corporations, a process known as industrial espionage. They do this. They do it a lot. And this is why anyone who uses American cloud computing is a goddamned idiot.
Also, it does not matter whether or not you are doing things that are illegal, the US will twist and warp anything and everything they find to suit their needs. You don't have to be doing things illegal.
A) The US believes its laws apply everywhere.
B) In the US, everyone is guilty of something; the laws are designed that way. Nobody can know what all the laws are and everyone breaks a least one law per day.
C) The US doesn't believe non-US citizens have any rights whatsoever. So you don't have the same rights to due process as Americans, and you don't have rights to privacy, not having your technology stolen or what-have-you. The only rights you'll ever get are the minimum rights required for them to make a show of whatever it is they want to make a show of.
You are never going to get a fair hearing in the US. You are never going to get a fair trail. You are going to have your shit stolen and you will be presumed guilty unless proven innocent, especially if you're a "dirty foreigner".
The United States of America are not the good guys. Not even fucking close. They are a necessary evil that must be tolerated because they happen to be the nexus of western commerce, but only a fool would ever - ever - trust them.
I'm not saying China's any better. They're not, really...but most of us don't have any reason to have anything to do with China. So they can sit there and cultivate their own private insanity all they want, it doesn't affect anyone on our side of the world except those who have heaps and heaps of money already and are trying very hard to make even more.
The US being dipshits affects every single citizen of a western nation and every single SMB. So, from a risk management standpoint, it is the Americans that need managing, as they are the most pressing risk.
"But they potentially get your finances, the identifies of your customers and potential customers, your plans for your next kit...."
Go right ahead. What does seeing my finances get the Chinese? They don't regulate me. Canada does, and by imperialist extension (and the fact that they are irrational and fucking crazy about who they let into their country for business purposes) the US does as well. It's them I have to be worried about looking at my finances.
As for my client list, well...hey, regardless of the industry I'm playing in, there are only so many players. Both as vendors and as customers. It won't be hard to guess my customer list or go after them/potential future customers.
Again: if China wants my customer list and/or my finances I don't care. I only care when someone can - and will - use it against me. The Americans can, and they absolutely will.
I am way - way - less concerned about some Chinese company knocking on the door of my customers saying "would you like a knockoff product/service" than I am some yank busybody at the borders denying me entry because one of my customers' customers' customers talked to the second cousin of the mother of a terrorist's nephew using encrypted e-mail. (Gasp!)
I also think that I am going to provide better quality of service and support to my customers than the Chinese, and on that basis alone they're likely to pick me. I'm less sure about competing against the sort of American company that's big enough to benefit from US state economic espionage. They could put me out of business with a thought.
So, again: China? Not a really big concern. The US: big concern.
"But what about the Chinese seeing what your company is doing then coming in and under cutting you (or under mining you...)?"
They don't need to see my data to do that. They can do that just buy buying the product or service and reverse engineering. They have functionally unlimited manpower. Highly trained, highly capable manpower. if the Chinese want to undercut me, there's not a damned thing I can do to stop them.
The US, on the other hand, they have to play in the same economic ball park. If the US undertakes economic espionage that is a more direct threat, and one where mitigation would have some very real world benefits.
You can't compete against the Chinese. Don't bother trying. But protecting yourself from the Americans means you still have a chance at pushing a product. Until it's successful. Then the Chinese will clone it.
Also: for many of us the Chinese sniffing our data doesn't matter. We don't do business there and never will. But we do have to do business with the US, and they both have zero issue with using whatever questionable "evidence" they find to hassle you at the border and they conduct economic espionage.
China isn't a threat to everyone. Only to the biggest players. The US is a threat to way more companies in the western world than China will ever be.
I agree. Flashray is not a bad product (in theory). Unfortunately, Netapp are incapable of comprehending that so have been starving it to death.
"SSDs great devices, I use them all the time, but we're still testing their endurance. A few more years will tell."
In a few more years we will no longer be able to advance SSDs and will be forced to use new technologies. So your solution to the emergence of technologies is to wait a decade or more after everyone else starts using them in mainstream applications, then, when the technology has reached it's absolute limit of advancement do you adopt it. Do you work for NASA designing probes or something? Do you still store you primary production data on mercury delay lines?
Question: is ADSL an okay technology yet, or are you still just coming to terms with k56 Flex?
No, but it is a question of return on investment. There's no pressing need to be on IPv6 right now, but there are eleventy squillion other fires, all of which provide more immediate reward for solutions.
Welcome to business.
I run a small cloud provider and I absolutely host a bunch of these sorts of tools. China, the UK, the US and whichever other regime wants to squelch political dissent can go twist.
So CloudFlare is manufacturing things in China now?
What he's saying - and I agree - is that I would pay extra money to use a provider that had the balls to not do business with regimes that enforced laws which were unconscionable. And what's wrong with that? Surely ethical cloud services is a market niche waiting to be filled.
"Be reasonable with your analogies, can you honestly tell the difference between fresh German bread and stale German bread?"
The gold connectors make all the difference!
Oh, and side note, having an ego and sense of self importance such that you feel the need to put the title "Dr" in your forum name really - really - destroys your credibility as regards lecturing others about "vanity". Just for the record. Because you don't seem to know that.
"No doubt, but there are chowderheads of all religions on the internet. Your vanity - as the most righteous and caring person in the room - blinds you to some of your own defects."
I honestly don't see where you get "most righteous and caring person in the room" from someone who fairly publicly takes pleasure in your anger and intellectual disquiet. I am, however, interested that my having a moral code which places the needs of the many above the needs of the powerful few so deeply upsets you.
Somehow, you see that as vanity. I'm not saying I'm not a vain person - I think we all are, to some extent - but there is something really broken inside of you if "caring for others" makes you "vain". Really, really broken.
"I have replied to your other comment and do not need to repeat it."
No, actually, you didn't. You made a claim that the FCC doesn't have the legal authority to place data services under title II, but backed it up with fuck all. You're wrong. They do have that authority. The Supreme Court, when bounding the previous Net Neutrality attempt said as much. The sort version was "you don't have the legal authority to create a Net Neutrality compromise. If you want to impose this you need to classify under Title II". Which is exactly what they did. They also have the legal authority to forbear parts of Title II, which they did.
The FCC did not reach for powers it didn't have here. It didn't invent new powers. It used the tools it had (finally!) The fact that you don't like what they did, or that you believe they should have that authority doesn't matter. You are caught in the is/ought problem and can't shake yourself loose.
"At issue is legislative intent and the legal authority of the agency."
No. There is no issue with the legal authority of the agency. It is perfectly within its rights to do what it did. In fact, placing data services under Title II is one of the only powers it actually has.
"Just as I predicted, when challenged, you resort to self-righteous moralising."
You mean the part, several comments ago where I explained in plain English that you're wrong? No, actually, I'm pretty sure that I discussed things like Title II authority, the limits of authority, and why the federal government does in fact have the right to regulate here.
That I threw in some shots at you being an idiot and got your feelers all twisted up doesn't really distract form that. It just makes it a hell of a lot more interesting. Especially since you keep coming back to bellow your righteous indignation.
Oh, woe! Your ego! How low a blow, how callous this show! If only, (if only!) these heathens would listen to you, they'd know!
Maybe when you're all growed up you can learn about playing nice with others. After that we can work on your Randian belief that selfishness is virtue. Before you die we might almost make you human!
Until then, I'm just going to mock you. Because, in addition to being outright wrong in your analysis, you're not a very good or nice person. And so I will make my day better at your expense and feel no guilt about that whatsoever.
That makes me far from "the most caring person in the room", but I am really learning to live with - and like - the practice of selective benevolence. That whole part of being a tolerant person where you are supposed to tolerate the intolerant? Not a fan. So Praise Jibbers, let's have a beer!
"My students would receive a Fail mark for attempting such an argument."
Your students have a shit teacher. You have used Argumentum Ad Hominem, Poisoning the Well (special case of Argumentum Ad Hominem), Appeal to Authority and many, many other logical fallacies in your blustering vitriolic idiocy in this thread. It's clear you don't understand what you're talking about, and if you actually presume to attempt to teach anything related to politics or history to others then you should be locked away as a danger to all mankind.
Also: like it or not, moral issues absolutely are at the core of politics and law. From the formation of nations themselves to the rationale used by Supreme Court justices to - without question - the creation of laws by various elected officials. That you get bent feelers when I call you out on the fact that you are morally bankrupt just makes me gleefully happy. The angrier you get, the happier I am.
You have come in and made a bunch of claims and backed them up with absolutely nothing. Not morality, not law...nothing. Just your own religious interpretation about how the Constitution of your nation "should" be read...which your own top legal beaks disagree with.
You have a partisan chip on your shoulder and clear problem with anything that smacks of the greater good. So please, continue in your blithering. I hope that whenever someone Googles your name they find this thread, your inane witterings and the incontrovertible proof of not only your delusions of self importance but your amorality and hatred for your fellow man.
The law isn't on your side. Morality isn't on your side. Nothing is on your side, excepting your own ego. Best feed it then. Its all you have.
(And that, by the by, is how Argumentum Ad Hominem is properly done.)
"Congress makes the laws, and if it wanted an agency to regulate data services, it would have written those powers into the law."
Well, you quote a completely partisan new magazine to support your completely partisan take on the issue which just happens to actually be wrong. The Telecommunications Act was put into place in order to prevent Title II from having to be used to regulate data, amongst many other things...but it did not remove from the FCC the ability to place data services under Title II, should that be required.
In fact, Congress has no means to place data services under Title II as the law only grants that power to the FCC. They could, in theory, draft another set of laws that would again make the need for Title II irrelevant, but unless they tear up a whole bunch of laws and rewrite them they can't remove from the FCC the ability to place data services under Title II. And the Telecommunications Act absolutely did not remove that legal authority from the FCC.
Furthermore, the US Congress has become nothing more than a grandstanding show of doing absolutely fucking nothing of value, and as much of negative value as possible for the better part of 5 years. With very few exceptions, Congress does fuck all, because obstructionist politics resonate with...well, with people like you.
"The Constitution is there to protect the people from people like you, basically."
Actually, no. The Constitution was to form the basis of a system of government which would allow the people to govern themselves. This was in opposition to governance by an aristocracy and a monarch. It offered multiple protections against various forms of government overreach, but does not prevent the federal government of the United States from regulating inter-state commerce.
The internet is in every way possible interstate commerce. It is international commerce in it's truest form. It is also a vehicle for freedom of expression, education, health and life sciences and a whole raft of other aspects of our lives that absolutely fall under the purview of the federal government.
What's more, the basic laws and regulations for regulating the Internet go back to before it's creation. because it is an evolution of existing technologies and real world concerns, rather than a completely new thing.
But you know, there are countries out there that do, in fact, "protect" their citizens from "people like me". You know, people who understand the law, the spirit and intent of the law, the larger economic and political issues as they affect municipal, state, federal and international spheres and who believes that doing what's right by the majority must be the ultimate goal of any system of governance.
I realize you're trying very hard to turn the United States into one of those countries. I hope for the sake of US citizens you fail. The types of folks who build nations only to benefit the indulgent few usually end up building some pretty shitty nations. Maybe you could just do your fellow citizens a favour and move to one of them, eh?
"Every net neutrality discussion at El Reg turns into an excuse for Trevor Potts to explain how he is a good person, on the side of the people, and everyone who disagrees with him is evil."
Lots of people - especially on these forums - beleive that sticking up for "the people" instead of one's self (or only for the rich/elite/the "right" people) is "evil". Now, do I, personally, believe that putting the needs of the many before your own is "good" and that being selfish is "evil"? Yes, yes I do. But I also recognize that there's a minority of folk out there who worship their own personally misinterpretation of Ayn Rand's works and believe selfishness is "good" and selflessness is "evil".
When Net Neutrality - or really, any economic discussion of any kind comes up - the supply side economics chowderheads will appear out of a portal in order to preach their religion. So yes, I absolutely do, and will and take great pleasure in posting stuff that I know full well will annoy them.
I do so because I'm not pure and "good" and wonderful at heart. I do it because just as the twisted Randians feel an uncontrollable compulsion to tell the world that selfishness is the One True Belief, I get a sort of maleficent glee from raising their blood pressure and contributing that little bit to ruining their day.
Also, just for the record, Potts is different from Pott's. Potts would indicate multiple individuals with the past name "Pott". It is the plural form of tacking the "s" on the end of things. Pott's would be possessive and indicate ownership. In this case, a possessive ("Pott's law") would be the proper bit of grammar to demonstrate your point.
In any case, I'm glad that I've made your day a little worse. Cheers!
By saying that I believe that governments are "saints" you have proven only yourself to be the moron, sir. My track record of railing against governments is pretty well established.
I am sorry if sticking up for "the people" instead of "those who already have nearly unchallengeable power over tens or even hundreds of millions of individuals" bothers you. Actually, I'm not sorry. If that bothers you, you're probably a horrible, horrible person, and I'm actually pretty glad that I irritate you.
How come it's "government overreach" when it's regulation that prevents telcos from abusing their monopolies to harm consumers but it's "necessary" when it's regulation that prevents anyone (especially municipalities, community groups or or forth) from competing with said monopolies?
A government should work to prevent the concentration of power and to set up barriers to abuse of power in case it does end up concentrated. This benefits the many.
If the government should become about allowing and then protecting concentrations of power, this benefits the few. At which point, the question really becomes why the many should allow it to continue.
AVG Antivirus for Android does a lovely job of this.
No, the issue isn't just "peering between networks and who owns the last mile". Both of which are pretty fucking significant issues, by the way.
It's what you are allowed to do with your monopoly (or half of a duopoly).
Discriminate against VoIP because you own a fixed line or mobile carrier? No!
Discriminate against video because you own a cable or broadcast setup? No!
Offer services where what you offer is immune to data caps but competitors are not? No!
And the list goes on.
I don't think any but the fanatical few have an issue with QoS for classes of content, but only if that QoS is handled fairly and neutrally. I.E. if you want to prioritize VoIP traffic (a good idea), then you prioritize all VoIP traffic, regardless of service provider. Even if they are a competitor to the last mile provider, or the backhaul provider, or any other provider anywhere.
So on and so forth.
There's lots of examples of extant providers acting against net neutrality to the detriment of consumers and the developing ecosystem of the internet as a whole. Yet you're trying to claim "it's all good, no problem, there's no need to regulate anything, status should be quo". Well to hell with you! You're not only wrong, you're clearly willing to put your religious (and ridiculous!) economic beliefs ahead of the good of the many.
The fact that some of us have faster data access than 20 some odd years ago is not particularly relevant. Yes, when competition existed service capability increased. In the intervening 20 years the landscape has changed. That one big jump - from dial up to DSL - is long behind us. Incremental (and grudgingly installed) upgrades have been the bare minimum required to stave off regulation and little more for some time.
Worse, the existing providers are constantly trying to find ways to not only prevent any further investment in infrastructure, but to lock everyone into their services and/or block services of competing providers. That's not okay. Not even a little bit.
Abuses are happening. Providers are even going to court to ensure they can continue doing so. And the status quo offers scope for much worse abuses...which the various providers will take advantage of, as surely as night follows day.
So yes, they need to be regulated. Because they have proven over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again that they cannot be trusted. And if that hurts your religious economic beliefs, too frakking bad.
1) Mobile data costs
2) Mobile data caps
3) Mobile data roaming costs (holy fucking pants!)
4) Inability to get decent uplink speeds for residential/SMB, especially with new the growing demands of new services (like cloud backups, etc.)
5) Lack of competition, especially for residential/SMB
6) Fixed line caps too low/can't get them raise/overage is punitive
7) Fixed line caps don't grow over time to accommodate growth in usage
8) Regulations preventing municipal broadband
9) Regulations preventing community broadband
10) Regulations preventing new entrants from laying cable
11) ISPs/Cable/Mobile providers blocking (or de-prioritizing) traffic to/from companies offering competing services (VoIP, VoD, etc) instead of traffic shaping the whole class (their traffic included).
12) ISPs/Cable/Mobile providers giving cap exemptions for services provided by them, but not for competing services in teh same category
Do you really need me to go on?
The whole goddamned model is broken. Net neutrality is needed because of decades of regulations - and lack of regulations - sprinkled about that aim to create monopolies, allow unchecked abuse of those monopolies and then prevent anyone from ever challenging those monopolies.
And yes, the problem absolutely can be too much regulation and too little at the same time. The right regulations restrict companies from discriminating thus prevent abuse of power. The wrong regulations prevent companies from competing, then encourage power to concentrate.
The right mix of regulations and hands-off treatments strongly discourage power from ever concentrating in one place, and provide checks to prevent abuse of power if it ever does manage to do so.
"Hasn't anyone ever read Atlas Shrugged?"
Sure I have. I've read the holy texts of many other religions too. They're all bullshit, but few are currently so globally dangerous as the religion that sprung up around that bit of madness.
"You can't own or control your own stuff. Which means there is no real functioning market for stuff. The terms of trade are set by others.
The tech oligarchs take the place of the market, set the terms, control the price, etc.
This has been their greatest achievement: persuading people to act against their own economic interests."
Funny how you rail and froth against tech companies for setting the terms of trade and creating a culture where you can't own things, but when it's the established intellectual property monopolies doing it, well holy fuck, that's just the best thing ever.
And, of course, the existing telco monopolies should be allowed to set the terms of trade by restricting access. That's good and fine. But not those tech companies. Damn them. Damn them to hell.
If you call Datacore hyperconverged we have a different definition of hyperconvergence. Datacore is a storage gateway. You can try to moosh it together into something sort of hyperconverged, but the end result is a frankenwhatsit lacking a lot of the important benefits of hyperconvergence and not really delivering any of the benefits of a storage gateway.
I like Datacore, but this just seems weird to me.
"Your product is clearly just a rebranding with nothing new whatsoever because your color scheme is crap."
Yep. Buying that logic completely.
But does CSMA/CD really matter if it's switched?
I don't see any advertisements on the comments section, so why would page hits matter here?
As for "different vulnerabilities", STUXNET is written by the NSA. You seem to believe we should trust the nice Microsoft PR person and take them at their word that this is an entirely different vulnerability and that the previous one was patched. Yessiree. No collusion by Microsoft with the NSA to push out a feel-good patch that ultimately did nothing. Nope.
You're a shill. The question is, for which party? Clearly you have no problems with selling us to the spooks...but that still could make you a shill to either.
Both Microsoft and the NSA are never, ever to be trusted.
Are you shilling for Microsoft here, or the NSA? Or is there a difference anymore?
You're wrong. The fact that the overwhelming amount of money from the "recovery" went to the richest few (instead of the working class) means that supply side economics will kick in any day now (if we'd just lower taxes on the rich!). The rich will reinvest in the economy. You'll get funding to grow your business and create jobs.
"But, you know, props to your hipsterness and all that, for being able to cut the cord."
Uh...I'm the least hipster human being you'll ever meet and I cut the cord 13 years ago. Methinks either your understanding of how easy life without a cable/satellite sub can be or your definition of "hipster" is completely whacked.
Have one, don't have one...it's not like an ARM license is expensive!
has been officially confirmed by the SimpliVity CEO to be 1500 units. Sorry it took so long.
"Probably factually correct, but why? Earth has four times the surface area but its dynamo has lasted 9 times as long."
When Earth was young, a planet roughly the size of Mars crashed into it. Much of the lighter elements splashed off into orbit and became the moon. All the heavier elements - like Uranium, Thorium and other radioactives - sunk to Earth's core. Earth has not the radioactive power of one planet, but two. combined with it's higher size, the remnant heat from that catastrophic impact and the fact that it was spun up both by Theia and the Late Heavy Bombardment, and, well....
"Which isn't hard to get these days.
Most enterprises would also have dual redundant internet connections, so at least half your bandwidth is probably unused..."
Sure it is. My 5 man company can't seem to afford it. But we generate 150TB of unique data a month? Oh, that's just an externality? Cloud is still cheaper?
Sure it is.
Ignoring externalities again? Good little shill. Ignore the costs of bandwidth. Security. Liability insurance. Legal representation in a foreign jurisdiction. Etc. etc...
Cloud is cheaper my fat, jiggling ASCII. Next you'll try to convince me supply side economics works in the real world. Why, Alabama is doing just Jim frakking Dandy on that plan, ain't it?
Banks (at least in theory) have regulation. For the "simple things" like your personal savings and chequing accounts there are piles and piles of regulations they have to follow. There are long standing international regulations about bank security, privacy, etc. (Not that they are generally good for the individuals, but...)
The public cloud - espeically the American public cloud - is the Wild West. there are no rules, and no certainties, save American Expectionalism driving ever more disheartening examples of extraterritorial jurisdictional overreach.