Re: @Mark...well , there you have it....
Alien religions won't likely say "humans are special", though. And I doubt they'll say "control women's vaginas" or "adhere to the authority of the leader of this human cult".
So they're blasphemers.
5665 posts • joined 31 May 2010
Alien religions won't likely say "humans are special", though. And I doubt they'll say "control women's vaginas" or "adhere to the authority of the leader of this human cult".
So they're blasphemers.
"If we found it, what would it prove?"
It's not about what it would prove so much as what it would disprove. If there is life that is not on Earth, then Earth isn't special, and the case for god or gods becomes much, much more difficult. If life exists (or existed) "out there", then it is a victory for rationalism and critical thinking and an important defeat for faith and Terracentrism.
If your evidence for god is nothing more than an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance then the small you can make that pocket of ignorance the fewer people will cling irrationally to faith. If nothing else is achieved from the Mars explorations except that, we will have nonetheless accomplished something mighty.
If the CLI can be protected by law, then APIs can too. They're basically the same thing. Except we've been down that road already, and Cisco fucking knows it. Which means they are doing this for another reason. That reason is most likely "to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about Arista". Now their sales team can go in and say "do you want to buy from a tiny company like Arista with a huge lawsuit looming over them?"
All of this has happened before, and we shouldn't let it happen again.
Arist's OS may use a similar CLI, but that's nothing more than "copying the API." Under the hood it behaves completely differently.
Maybe Cisco could "innovate" a way to actually having customers want to buy Cisco. Or is that beyond their "innovation engine?" Arista's customers are fiercely loyal for a reason: they make damned good tech, and they don't charge a village worth's of virgins and a rare volcano for it.
Cisco network exists only because of lock-in. Period. Everyone else is running to Huawei or Arista. Both for good reasons.
But hey, litigation is easier than innovation, right? Cisco: that's not an "innovation" engine you're running. It's an "acquisition and integration engine", backed by a litigation engine. What's next, rounded corners on packets? Design patent lawsuits?
I expected more from a company like Cisco. The ability to compete on merit, for one.
Every switch vendor on the planet makes that a marketing item. Supermicro, Dell, etc.
See Oracle v Google for that whole "you can't use our APIs" thing. How'd that work out for Oracle, hmm?
Iran is a friend of NK. Iran was having a dispute with SA. This all seems to tie to NK to me...
Pluto is one step above "comet". It is not a planet. Ceres is a better candidate for "planet" than Pluto. It's a rubble pile just barely large enough to have achieved hydrostatic equilibrium. Barely. Drag that thing into a Mars-like orbit and it would melt.
Space popscicle != planet.
"So while it is a great idea that there be an internet community effort to fix issues around privacy, online security, spam, child protection and so on, everything that has been said and done is more about trying to become the main venue for controlling conversation about the internet itself."
This sort of answers my question. It does raise in me a few other questions, some out of pure fear.
1) How do you "fix" issues around privacy and security through the creation of an unelected quango with what amounts to negative oversight? All I picture is Baron Harkonen telling Dr. Yueh that he has "released" his wife...released her from her mortal coil, that is.
A power-mad dictatorship whose existence relies on the tacit approval - or at least tolerance - of the world's nation states does not remotely seem like an organisation which can be made to bring those selfsame entities to heel, and unless the governments of the world are full participants in agreeing that privacy and security of anyone other than themselves is an issue then the whole thing is a farce.
Internet privacy and security must begin with an international digital armstice, not the declaration of a global quango.
2) How, exactly, do you solve "spam and child protection" issues in a non-technical manner? I suppose one avenue might be government cooperation and/or treaties which harmonize relevant laws. Unfortunately, I don't see how that can occur without also running up full against the issues of privacy and security discussed above.
Ultimately, all of these issues come back to one - and only one - thing: what are the fundemental rights of human beings? What are the rules by which we will govern our interactions with <i.all</i> humans, regardless of race/gender/sexuality/etc and most especially, how we will treat members of other nations.
The west created the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and most of the world saw that it was good. It became the basis of a great many legal systems, including the new constitution of Canada in 1982, and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Unfortunately, it is not universally accepted. Islamic nations took particular issue with the UDHR, stating that it violated Sharia. They instead signed the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam which, to be blunt, if fucking terrifying.
Similarly, Asian nations took offense to the UDHR. They believe in a Cardassian-like subsumation of the individual's will to that of the state. The Bangkok Declaration was signed and it reads like a sham document that says a human's purpose is nothing more than to do whatever his society tells him to. A drone who is to be bereft of individuality and who must like that state of affairs, or die.
So here we have three major differences in belief to start with. The UDHR itself getting the majority of the world behind it, and - to my mind at least - seem to provide the most rational balance between "the needs of the many" and "the needs of the few, or the one".
Unfortunately, instead of helping to spread it's ideals, some of the UDHR's staunchest supporters are looking for a way out.
The United States, for example, clearly views itself above the spirit and letter of any human rights documents. Furthermore, non-American citizens are not deserving of human rights (such as the right to be considered guilty unless proven innocent, the right to life, etc) unless those rights can be used as a political tool to leverage a recalcitrant nation into doing what the US wants.
Consider, for example, that the United States is a signatory to the International Criminal Court, but they have not ratified it. In other words, they believe they have the right to send people to the ICC whenever it is convenient for the US, but they absolutely refuse to allow any American citizen to be held accountable for their actions by the ICC. Meaning, amongst other things, that the US believes their citizens should never be prosecutable for war crimes.
In addition, powerful groups within the UK have made leaving the European Union a priority, stating openly their desire to be free of human rights legislation. This is largely driven by a desire to be free of any "right to privacy" or a need to treat non-British citizens with any amount of basic rights.
How - how I ask you - can a digital dictatorship set up by people the world's power brokers only barely tolerate even begin to sort out the issues above? And if they don't sort out the issues above, how can we ever come to agreements on privacy and security, let alone spam and child protection?
I fear the answer. If we cannot meet at a position of maximum rights for the individual, and these people are determined to continue until they "succeed" at something, the result is likely to be a position of minimal rights for the individual, and a diminution of the status of the citizen across the the world.
I would dearly love to be wrong about this, but it all seems so deeply rooted, and so many of these topics are live wires. It may sound melodramatic, but my analysis of this situation says that a continued attempt by ICANN to become a political force around internet governance may ultimately lead to an international agreement to repeal large chunks of human rights which would damn - and potentially doom - us all.
Your thoughts would be welcome, sir.
Keiran, a question: just what is the POINT of the NetMundial thing? Can we get a recap, please? What is ICANN hoping to achieve with it? Over what areas of internet governance will it exert authority? How does it claim that authority?
Basically: why does it exist, and how do they expect to be able to do their jobs if the rest of the internet says "fuck off?"
Humans are not rational actors. And plan that relies on them to be - and keep on being - rational actors will fail. Intelligent, powerful people know this. They rely on it. It is how they obtain and retain power.
Thus I can only conclude that by advancing a plan wherein the core checks and balances boil down to a reliance humans to be rational actors there is malicious intent.
Canada doesn't have Europe telling us what we can't and can't do either. In fact, we usually have America trying to do that.
We still chose the metric system, like rational people.
"Errm... Yes, the Prods _do_ own a whole country. Several, actually. With names like 'England', 'Norway', 'Sweden', 'the Netherlands', a whole bunch of others... "
With the exception of England and Australia - which are pretty goddamned fucked up - those other nations are strongly secular. Protestants may be the majority belief, but they are nowhere near being able to simply dictate policy. They are not "owned" by any religion, just as the US is not.
"What, you thought that Muslims and fundie Xians had a monopoly on religious fervour? Read up on the life of, oh, Francis Drake."
No. What I said was that currently, today, fundamentalist Muslims and fundamentalist Protestants are the biggest threat. Various groups in the past have done their share of horrors. That's not the point. I'm not singling out a religion and saying "death to this religion".
To be perfectly frank, I'm against all religion; the flavour in question doesn't matter.
No, what I am saying here by pointing the finger squarely at radical Protestants is "know your enemy". And make no mistake, they are the fucking enemy. Just as much as radical Muslims are. We need to understand them if we are to beat them...and we must counter the threat they pose before it's too late.
By this I mean socially ostracizing the radical and fundamentalist beliefs and actions. Shunning literalist interpretations of any sacred text. Teaching critical thinking to everyone, and doing so at every possible opportunity.
Take the oxygen away form these people. Identify vulnerable groups and get to them with education and the tools required to resist charlatans and preachers of all kinds. Help people be at peace with themselves without requiring a violent fundamentalist telling them what to do.
Better yet, making teaching religion to children under the age of 18 illegal, and enforce that law.
If we want to fight the real source of violence in our society we need to put resources into it. That means fundamentalist religion as much as it does gangs. It means fighting poverty and providing education. It means removing the reason for people to want to fight and running down those who champion fighting anyways.
Drive the crazy out into the open, then get them into hospital and get them help. Don't let them be caught up by madmen with a book and twisted into weapons.
And that means looking where we don't want to look. At the religions of the "good guys". At the violence we do to ourselves, not just what people of different skin colour, or dress, or whatever adhere to.
Know your enemy. Even if the enemy is you.
"Consider it this way: if you have $100 to spend will you spend all $100 on a general anti-religion (or anti-dogma) stance, or will you spend $10 on Christianity, $10 on Judaism, $20 on Islam, and $70 on religion (or dogma) generally?"
None of the above. I'd put all $100 into anti-extremism. Encouraging a culture where we question authority, teach critical thinking and make extremism socially unacceptable. Whether that extremism be in the form of Randian economic asshattery, unbridled Nationalism or caustic religious fuckwittery.
Treat the disease, not the symptom. Radical protestants and radical Muslims are merely catchpoints for crazies. What we need to do is give these people no acceptable place to hide. If they're that far gone they need to be in hospital. It shouldn't be acceptable for them to claim "religion" and have a get-out-of-Arkham-free card.
Your problem is that you feel targeting specific religions is acceptable. It's really not. It will just create resentment and martyrs and more problems down the road. If you must target religions, you target them all equally. By the same token, however, know your enemy. Learn about them, and know how to tailor your propaganda and education so that you can slowly make their messages clearly anti-social and massively reduce the influx of people willing to champion their cause.
It's psychological warfare, mate. Do go making new enemies whilst fighting the ones you already have.
Sure, but by the same token the problem isn't "Muslims", it's a small subset of "batshit crazy whacko Muslims."
The issue here is that in both cases - Muslims and Protestants - there exist at the present time a bunch of really hard-core extremist beliefs being espoused by charismatic leaders and forming their own organized micro religions. At the present time they are the biggest threat.
I am perfectly aware that the majority of Protestants are completely loony tunes (disregarding the who "they believe in a sky fairy" part for the moment; that's actually somewhat normal, sadly.) I am equally aware that the majority of Muslims are not blood thirsty whack jobs.
For now, however, the extremist elements of both collections of micro-religions are attracting a disproportionate amount of crazies and causing disproportionate amounts of harm.
I'm afraid I don't see how. I correctly and rationally took issue with the implicit assumption that we would all know local abbreviations for things like "state names" or - as was the context in question - "political shortcuts relevant only to Americans".
I have no idea why that was any bearing on the inability of some Brit to grok proper english. "The company caved to demands" is something that - at at quick check in my fairly well populated international chat rooms - folks from .in, .us, .ca, .nz, .au and .za all got without question. Bonus element, they also got that "caved in" means "the damned thing falls on you."
Which leads me to the inescapable conclusion that the inability to understand the reference is some isolated quirk of Britishness. It's not a "local colloquialism". It's recognized usage by the bulk of the international community that speaks this language.
That we should basically ignore the haplessness of the minority in this case in no way contradicts my previous dislike of using regional-only abbreviations with the expectation that the rest of the world will understand them.
Maybe you should check your meds mate. Nationalism is a disease. Are you entirely certain yours is under adequate control?
"Bottom-line, Canadians speak very strange "variants" of languages, if you ask me."
Must disagree completely. It's you lot that can't speak our languages properly. We're the correct, normal ones. You're the creepy ones what gets the words wrong and have the bizarre spellings.
No doot aboot it, eh?
Aye, but we don't have the resources to fight all battles at the same time. Sort out the most dangerous of the lot first. Then move on.
I have easily read it at least 100 times, cover to cover in the course of my 14 years of religious schooling. I signed the petition with alacrity.
Perhaps, sir, your presumptions are in error. I submit that those who dislike the bible do so because of their familiarity with it. Otherwise, why care?
Yaaarrrrr, I be joining ye scurvy dogs! Ramen!
@Denarius: Religion is a lie, regardless of what deity you choose to worship. Materialist religions absolutely can be crazy arsebags too. Look at the Randians, or the Sceintologists. They've both done some horrible things in the name of their beliefs.
Compassion and decency towards your fellow man is not the province of religion, and certainly not the province of only one particular religion. It's just what the majority of people do by default.
Unfortunately, the world is run by the "squeaky wheel", and they are almost universally extremist asshats out to do as much harm as humanly possible, all to frequently in the name of fuzzy sky fairy. Whether that sky fairy be the god of Abraham, the invisible hand of the market or anything else, it's nothing but harming others to fill some void in yourself that your desperately clung to beliefs have been unable to fulfill.
This world will not improve until we make radical religion - all of it - socially unacceptable. Critical thinking and evidence-based science are the only rational means to govern ourselves and our societies.
Dogmatic adherence to any belief results in nothing more than violent immorality in the name of an individual's faith. There is nothing more dishonorable than killing in the name of "god" or "the invisible hand of the market" or Buddha, or...
If you want to kill a man, be honest about why. Be honest with him, with yourself, with others.
"I am killing you because I want your stuff" or "I am killing you because what you say angers me" or "I am killing you because I am angry all the time and I am hoping this will make the voices stop for a while" at least have a shred of honour. "God says so" is bullshit. Bullshit of the highest order.
And that applies just as much to "god hates homosexuals" or "god says shun rape victims" or "god says get a job, ya bum".
Take some fucking responsibility for your own beliefs and your own actions. If you're going to be an asshole, don't hide behind a sky fairy that doesn't exist. if your actions make you so ashamed you need metaphysical permission then don't perform those actions. Learn to walk the fuck away and let others live their lives.
God is never a reason. God is nothing more than an excuse. Now, then, and forevermore.
You're an idiot.
The issue isn't "which version of bullshit hocus pocus is believed", it's extremists and evangelists of any religion.
In the case of certain sects of the Muslim population, there is a sad truth that many of the religious leaders are encouraging radicalization and violence. Just like with extremist Protestant groups. Both of these need to be targeted for deletion. That fact that you kill in Jesus' name rather than Muhammad's doesn't make you any more righteous. You both need to be stopped.
We're fortunate that today very, very few Catholics are radicalizing people and pushing them to violence. Historically, they've been among the worse of the worst. If Catholics can move more towards a moderate, accepting religion then that's good for a huge chunk of the planet.
Unfortunately, Protestants and Muslims are both a massive problem. Too easily are whackos attracted to these religions, because they are fundamentalist and literalist in their interpretation of the scrawlings of the relevant madmen.
In the case of the protestants, we're quite lucky that most of them live in the middle of the goddamned desert and simply ferment a hatred of their federal government and shoot people who come on their land. It could be a lot worse. Sometimes - all too often, in fact, - it is worse.
The protestants don't own a whole country. They are tempered by their fellow citizens. But more than enough times they have pushed for unholy havoc to be wrought on their religious rivals.
Sadly, the Muslim radicals have more power at the moment. That makes them a more immediate threat...but it is only the immediacy of the treat that is different. Given enough time, the fringe Protestants will be riding on tanks killing the non-believers too.
Any religion that views killing those who are different as not only okay, but justified needs to be brought to an end. Fortunately, it's typically the radical elements of a religion that believe that...not the mainstream.
Unfortunately, making a dent in the fact that people believe in s ridiculous sky fairy at all is taking forever. We need to push back against all religion. The fewer people who believe in sky fairies of any kind, the fewer will become radicalized on the name of one of them.
Instead, let's teach compassion, acceptance and critical thinking. If you want to believe in a religion, that's fine...up to a point. You can believe lies if you wish, but the instant you advocate - or attempt - the restriction of the rights of others in the name of your religion, the rights to advocate and practice your religion need to end.
Regardless of whether the sky fairy you worship is Jesus, Mohammad, Yaweh, or Barney the motherfucking dinosaur.
In Canada, "caved in" means "the damned thing collapsed on top of you. Conversely, in Canada "caved" is a colloquialism for "acceded to the demands of the plaintants."
@Nate: honestly, chances are it's a vsync issue. I hate the same problem with "twitch" games for a while, until I forced vsync at the video card. Headaches went away.
Then I discovered I liked simpler games anyways (CoH, Gratuitous Space Battles, FTL, Space Pirates and Zombies, etc.) Something about 2D games makes it easier to disconnect after 15 minutes and go do something productive. Not because of headaches, but because they're more...episodic?
Well, except Civ. One...more...turn...
"Events for which the Church of Rome were the moral and intellectual foundation"
Except that - in modern times at least - it's not the Catholics that are the problem. It's extremist protestants. And I can think of (of the top of my head) at least 300 people whoa re now dead because of extremist protestants wigging the fuck out about their religion (or the perceived lack of it/inadequacy of it in others). And that's just my memory, without Google, and confined to North America.
That's not even touching organized religious warfare, driving people to suicide (thanks, Westboro Baptist Church!), or getting into far more controversial topics like "babies who died from neglect because they were born to mothers who shouldn't have been having kids, but didn't use contraception because God." Or how about "babies who died en masse due to starvation/AIDS because an entire fucking continent has been hoodwinked into no contraception because God."
You know, I'm going to go waaaaaaaaaay out on a limb here and say "deaths/rapes due to GTA influence" are way the hell lower than atrocities committed in the name of God. And that's just the Christian god. Let's not open the can of worms that is "the Abrahamic sky fairy is really the same sky fairy for a number of religions"...
You can change human nature if you just boss them around hard enough? News to me.
...but violence against men is okay, eh? I guess that makes sense. Men are "disposable", after all. And not deserving of actual equality with the same rights as women.
Violence against women is obviously special and different. I see it all now...
Credit where it's due, however. The CRTC did ultimately block the Telus/Bell merger. We aren't as far gone as those to the south. Yet.
Can't disagree. Vendor bugs happen in all hardware and software. But there's something quite a bit useful to the ability to "push button, receive known good configuration". I don't see why that can't be built into, for example, some form of IPMI enterprise management software for Supermicro...it just hasn't to date.
Oh, been up and down that one. No effect. Same with "are you using vmxnet3 virtual NICs" and every other standard item. It's not the offloading. It's not chimney. It's not anything obvious. It's the damned drivers.
If ever anyone wanted to know what elements of "vendor fingerpointing instead of actually working to solve the problem" drive me mad, Intel/VMware over this issue makes Trevor something something...
Amen. O've lost enoufh customers to them. OCZ's name is worse than mud. Mud I can at least use as a building material.
Then you don't get out enough.
VMware: look up "PEX and Nutanix". Or really, any sales strategy involving a VMware partner that has a successful product.
Google: Oh, let me count the ways in which they have actively tried to sabotage the competition. But let's start with a discussion about Android restrictions, shall we?
Be honest with yourself here, mate: do you see "Dave's Apache Highmem Config, Optimised for 50,000 user Wordpress installs including OOB integration with Cloudflare and automated Dropbox Backups" ever coming to the Microsoft Store? Really?
Because that's exactly the sort of package that makes Docker attractive. And it's exactly the sort of package I have a hard time believing will show up in Microsoft's App Store.
Sysadmins can't do anything about it. Every major new tech that comes out with a significant ease of use change means fewer sysadmins are required than were before. That's why ease of use matters; it gets rid of the need for priests to tend the temple and allows a single contracted janitorial team to handle hundreds of companies as they do their rounds every night.
If you're looking for "how can docker make me, as an Ops guy, better off" the chances are that it won't. Oh, if you master it, you could probably become a "containerization consultant" and be one of the janitors tending multiple businesses, but since it is the equivalent of moving from "having to carefully manage each install of each app separately" to "click install in the app store", it removes a lot of why you might need to be there.
And that, right there, is why it is valuable to business. Unfortunately, in this instance, "good for the business" is "bad for the ops guys".
"In the playground there's a possibility that at least some of the others who see bullying may point out that it's not a particularly nice thing to do."
What the hell playgrounds were you a part of as a kid? I sumbit that what you suggest is fantastically rare.
Quite the converse, in fact: while kids will never stick up for another that is being bullied, the Internet is full of White Knights who will appear out of a portal and fire back at cyber-bullies with both barrels.
@Khaptain your mother smelt of elderberries.
God doesn't exist. Rights granted by a non-extant entity are irrelevant. Thus the "god-given" right to view a website, or to track someone are non-extant. The rights are as they have been defined in various documents, starting with the UDHR and ending with local bylaws.
"Maybe the risk of a network outage is as costly as you claim to that company,"
They're damned high for almost any company.
"but the risks of on-premise data storage and computing are also considerable."
No, they're not. Are you sure you understand how storage works? Because we're really quite good at it by now.
"Not long from now that same insurer will demand draconic and auditable standardized measures to be taken on your 'own' systems to even consider giving you coverage."
Already do. No problem. Well, actually, that're not draconic at all. They're fairly well thought out standardized tests that can be easily seen off by getting a member of CIPS to sign off on it. Just like having a professional accountant sign off on your books is required, so to can getting a legally recognized professional IT practitioner to sign off on your IT designs be required.
What's wrong with that? I'd need the same thing if I were using the almighty American Public Cloud...except that it would be 10x as expensive and far less likely to pass muster, due to the nature of single points of failure in the American Public Cloud Computing model that are completely beyond my control.
"That will make the comparison more balanced I expect, even without the already high costs of local solutions."
Actually, it usually means the unreliable and ridiculously expensive public cloud solutions go down in flames. And speaking of flames, I think you'd be surprised at what local tech can take.
Baaaahhh. Baaaaaahhhhh. Baaaaah.
You can fight with diplomacy, logic, rationality and compassion. With the exception of the most extreme of extremists it usually works.
Please, do explain why private actions that harm noone should be prohibited, hmm?
Why should I be subject to your morality? Just who the hell are you to tell me what I can and can't do? Why should I comply? Why shouldn't you be made to comply with my morality instead?
"Just like sexual assault, rape, and other exploitative or sexual crimes against a person, it is both bad form and highly prejudicial to engage in even the tiniest amount of victim-blaming. In cases were there is doubt, the jury should return a Not Guilty verdict, and that would include situations where the only evidence of wrongdoing is hearsay or conflicting accounts lacking in any evidence that will given credibility to one side or the other."
I agree that victim blaming is bad. By the same token, I don't have any faith whatsoever that a jury will return a verdict of Not Guilty if a fellow is not guilty. What's more, merely being accused of such crimes can ruin someone's life. And there absolutely, 100% are vicious, mean-spirited harpies out there who will drag a man down to hell for some imagined slight. I can introduce you to a few, if you'd like. The results of their hell-hatched plans of ruination are mighty tales in and of themselves.
It's funny, you never read in the newspaper about the guy let out of jail after 3 months when new evidence comes to light if the reason he was banged up was supposed spousal abuse. But if a guy is found not guilty, well, he's hounded by the press ad aeternum and presumed to be "guilty, but let off via the old boys' club."
When sex or sexuality is involved, justice is anything but blind.
"Banning abortion? What? People think killing babies is wrong? How backward is that!"
Potential babies aren't babies yet. And it's pretty goddamned backwards to ban abortion. Question for you: do you give a fuck about the "precious little baby" once it has exited the woman's vagina, or do you only care about it while it is part of a woman's body? If you do care about the "precious little baby" after it has exited a woman's vagina, I assume you're in full support then of universal health care, the welfare state, free post-secondary education, employment insurance and other means and measures to ensure a happy and productive life for all members of society?
If you are not, please explain why not, starting with why a potential baby merits more concern than an actual living, breathing human being?
"Teaching an alternative theory of the origins of life on earth? Ah yes, that's just like beheading people who oppose your rule and hiding half the population under tent-clothes while the other half can do as they wish."
I'm glad we're able to come to an agreement about just how completely fucked up beyond all repair suppressing scientific knowledge is, especially when it is done in the name of a false god. One amongst hundreds of other false gods that madmen have dreamt up over the centuries.
Keep up the good work!
"How much more civilised we are, sending our armies off to foreign lands where they can wreak havoc on them undeserving heathens, killing them, so that they don't have to endure the dreadful atrocities their leaders inflict on them."
Well, seems both sides to this argument engage in this particular bit of fuckwittery. Though, I daresay, the Islamics have claimed far fewer western scalps than we've managed to kill of them. Over a million in Iraw, was it? And how many in Afghanistan? Pakistan? Syria?
Hmm...I think I'm going to go with "we're a bunch of peckerheads too".
Until you commented here, I'd never even heard of it, to be perfectly honest. I guess I'll add it to my list of things to investigate in 2015...
Hi, maybe I can help some.
I think the answer to your question is "either/or". For the VCs - and typically most founders - "suceed" in the market means "have a profitable exit". That exit can be IPO, or it can be acquisition. But the point is that you get 5-10x out what you put in (time or money wise, where time is calculated at what you could command working full time for someone else.)
Remember that most founders don't stay with their "baby" past the contractual period after acquisition. They have their money, and they're going to go roll the dice one more time and try to make another startup, get more money.
The thing you have to remember is that the people who start SV startups chafe under the rules and restraints of big business. They want to be free to innovate, make their own choices...and mistakes. The startup life is a lifestyle as much as anything. It's about the freedom as much as the money.
So for VCs, all that matters is the money, but for execs the money is the means to the end of going back and doing it all over again.
Funnily enough, I am working on an article about exactly that.
Agree 100%. Containers are useful to small businesses. But they can't give up the benefits of hypervisors either. They'll be deploying containers inside VMs almost exclusively. Best of both worlds!
Only those who are dedicated at a religious level will be deploying to metal. They need/want every erg of efficiency possible. SMBs aren't in it for the efficiency; they need ease of use way more than efficiency.