4451 posts • joined 31 May 2010
An open question to the anti-net-neutrality crowd:
Please explain why net neutrality is bad for me.
The problem is that no matter how often or ardently it's repeated, I don't believe in the lie of the free market any more than I do bullshit like "trickle down economics." What I want is regulation that guarantees all packets are treated equally and that ownership of infrastructure is separated from ownership of content by a regulatory firewall made out of elventeen squillion angry sociopathic US airforce drones.
Is a Youtube monopoly good? No...but neither is a Comcast one. The image I linked to above describes the very real fears of myself and I daresay millions of others. Nothing said here or linked to does a damned thing to convince me this isn't exactly what's going to happen, or that if it did it would somehow be to our benefit (bullshit.)
The infrastructure of the internet needs perpetual investment. Period. The incentives need to exist to force those who own the infrastructure to continue upgrading forever. There is no downtime allowed. As new technologies are created they are to be implemented, period. That's what I pay my ISP bill for. End of line.
Now, on top of that, I will pay content providers. I pay my dumb pipe to be the best damned dumb pipe it knows how to be, I'll pay my content provider to be the best damned content provider it knows how to be. That content provider will pay it's upstream for carriage, it may pay a CDN for carriage - if it's big enough to warrant it - and it pays the
artists rightsholders their ransom money.
Frankly, I'd argue that in order to keep things competitive content providers should not be allowed to own CDNs. Infrastructure should be kept firewalled from content on both sides of this equation. Not only should infrastructure providers not be allowed to own content, but content providers should not be allowed to own internet infrastructure outside their own datacenters.
CDNs should, in fact, be a separate entity from both last-mile ISPs and content providers. They stand up distribution nodes wherever they can strike deals with local last-mile ISPs and they provide the algorithms that properly determine what content needs to be on those nodes.
Content providers make their deals with the CDNs. CDNs make the deals with the ISPs. Nobody gets vertical and nobody has an incentive to start discriminating against anyone else's traffic or trying to double-dip.
That's it. I pay my ISP for last mile transit for X amount of packets over the course of a month with Y peak theoretical capacity and Z average capacity. They provide it on a best-effort basis and continually reinvest the fees from my internet charges into new infrastructure.
As part of that, my ISP works hand-in hand with various CDN providers to ensure that CDNable content is CDNed and then makes the best peering arrangements possible with other networks to provide the best possible access it can to the wider internet for it's customers.
Content providers pay their carriage to their upstream provider and CDNs, if they use them. Problem solved.
What I don't understand is how altering this arrangement in any way benefits me, the consumer. How does allowing the ISP to double-dip and charge the content provider and me for the same bits help me out? How does giving the ISP incentives to deprioritize traffic from competitors over their own offerings help me out? How does allowing the ISP to continually make convoluted back room deals that deincentiveize them to invest in infrastructure upgrades help me out?
Why would I support any regulation, market strategy, economic philosophy, ISP or content provider that doesn't act in my interests? Why should I?
My interests are best served by having access to the complete global internet free of any restraint at the fastest possible speeds that are possible given the current limitations of technology and financial capability. My interests are best served by ensuring that there is massive competition at all levels and that any market that makes it to a monopoly becomes heavily regulated to prevent abuse.
So please, do explain to me how a tiered internet benefits me? How does it better suit my needs now, and in the future? How does it guarantee that we don't fall even farther behind nations like South Korea or Sweden than we already are?
And one more thing, while we're at it, please do explain to me one other thing. If I must pick from amongst a variety of available demons and devils, why is Google not the best choice for me? There's a lot of "evil" companies out there, and Google absolutely is one of them, but Google also seem to actually periodically do things that actually benefit me. AT&T don't. Comcast sure as hell don't. Telus and Rogers and Bell don't. The major content companies sure as shit don't either.
...but sometimes, every once in a great while, Google does. So if the world is truly so righteously and completely fucked that there's no way it can possibly evolve without some monopoly taking control, explain to me why I shouldn't vote for Google to be that monopoly?
Bonus points and added rah-rah if you can do all the above without resorting to particularly tiresome economic fallacies or libertarian moralizing about "should". I don't care about other people's morals and economic belief systems. Just results.
Re: That's because those devices are based on Linux, not Darwin
*shrug* getting component manufacturers to port drivers to another OS is a bitch. Even if you're Apple.
Re: 100 per cent data availability ?
With a list of caveats that lasts longer than the movie itself. I'm somewhat less than enthused, though willing to give it the old unit the benefit of the doubt. Now about the new unit...
Re: 100 per cent data availability ?
Sure it is. Shoot it. Does it still work? If not, I heartily disagree with the claim. I deploy storage to my SMBs where I can pick any arbitrary storage node and shoot it with the array still working. If the thing can't even survive that test...
Re: Regardless of what X is.
“what if a misogynist parent paid for someone else to receive a primary education in place of his daughter, so that his daughter would receive no primary education, to keep her illiterate and innumerate?”
Then said parent would be violating the daughter's human rights and would - in any civilized country - be tried, sentenced and above all else had the privilege of raising a child revoked.
"Individuals could well trust e.g. a convicted perjuror enough to entrust their votes to him, but would it be generally accepted that a perjuror could act as a proxy for citizens in a secret ballot"
Other individuals and the state should have zero say on whom I choose to trust with my vote. It's my vote. By what right do they interfere?
"A person could implicitly trust someone to act on his behalf for in-country business, but what if that proxy is persona non grata to the current government?"
Then you're an idiot in choosing your in-country proxy? The person you choose to act on your behalf must be legally capable of doing so. We have a term in Canada that pretty much encompasses the concept, we call such individuals "bondable."
You're really - really - stretching for edge cases here when common sense will tell you that everything has boundary conditions. The existence of boundary conditions doesn't preclude the usefulness of the concept.
I should be able to select whomever I want to represent me. If the country in question refuses to deal with that person based on that individual's past behavior - as opposed to the concept that for some asinine reason I should not be allowed to operate by proxy - then I have chosen my representative poorly. That's pretty damned straightforward and I don't see how it invalidates anything I've said above.
Some people will attempt to commit crimes, even human rights violations against their own children. Again, I don't see how this invalidates the concept of a proxy rights.
Your arguments seem to be grounded largely in "what will other people think" of you choosing to do this?
I ask simply: why the fuck should I care what they think? My life absolutely should not be held hostage to the irrational moral whims of others. Unless what I am doing infringes upon their liberties, I should be free to do as I please. They should not have the "right" to impose arbitrary moral standards on me.
If I am doing something to harm them or common property that is owned by all citizens then by all means, restrain my liberty in order to curb my excesses. That is right, proper and just. Unless and until such an even occurs, however, get the hell off my lawn.
My choosing a representative to act on my behalf in any of the scenarios you outlined does not infringe upon the rights of others. If you can imagine a scenario in which my choosing a representative does in fringe upon the rights of others then that is situation in which a compromise needs to be discussed and likely legislated.
Telling me what I can and can't do because of arbitrary morality or religious belief is not a right I recognize, so I do not recognize the "right" of others to tell me that I can't choose a representative just because they don't happen to like the idea.
That we happen to live in countries where others do in fact succeed in restraining liberty where the exercise of htat liberty harms noone (say, sexual relations between consenting adults) is indicative only of the fact that they are willing and able to use force to make others comply.
Pointing a gun at my head and telling me that I am not allowed to engage in an activity is not remotely the same as there being an ethical or rational reason to prevent me from engaging in that activity.
Also: do remember that most of us did not choose our nationality. I swore no oath of allegiance to Canada, her laws, politicians, religious organizations or NIMBYs. I was born here, and if I don't obey the dictates and whims of those who wish to impose their irrational desires upon me then I will either be killed or forcibly confined.
That is not the same as laws crafted ethically and rationally wherein I am given the choice to agree to abide them and do so because I believe that on the whole they are just.
So I return to my original thought: I see no reason I shouldn't be allowed to chose a trusted proxy for everything, so long as what I am doing is legal. In addition, most of what's currently illegal probably shouldn't be. They are two separate issues, and certainly there will always be bad people trying to beat the system, but I believe both statements are valid.
Picky any basic human right and you'll find people who are vehemently against it. A great example would be freedom of religion.
Is legalization of prostitution going to solve every single problem related to the profession? No. It still stakes actual enforcement of regulation. Hey, how's that financial industry working out, 100% problem free?
As for: "Regarding X, would X include: receiving a primary education?"
Sure, why not? I get the right to one education, courtesy of the taxpayer. What if I have enough money privately to get an education from an alternate facility or even from an alternate country? Why should I not be able to assign my "chit" to a fellow from (for example) Nigeria, whom I fly up in order to be educated at my country's public institutions using share of the social contract?
As for: "Regarding X, would X include: voting in one’s country?"
Absolutely, 100%. I trust my wife my my life, my sanity and access to every aspect of my finances. Why should I not be able to ask her to vote on my behalf? I also happen to trust a handful of individuals at the same level; why could I not ask the same of any of them? I can do so at a corporate level: my shares are represented at shareholder meetings by a trusted in proxy in all cases (I hate AGMs). Similarly, one of those aforementioned "trusted parties" in my life is the proxy for my vote regarding my condo board, and absolutely casts my vote as I would, even when we both vehemently disagree on the topic (and thus he's voting for and against his own position!)
I can think of ways you could abuse this ability - I.E. the local Mafia Don pressuring people - however, quite frankly, they could do that anyways. The methods would simply less direct and the fallout from the vote not going the Don's way more indiscriminate and messy.
As for: As for: "Regarding X, would X include: entering one’s country?"
Again, absolutely, why not? There are some tasks that simply need to be done country-side. Why can't I send a spouse or an aide to resolve the boring stuff? If some mindless bureaucrat needs to see me say "yes sir, very good sir, three bags full sir," can't they fire up Skype and stare at my jiggling jowels?
Obviously, when something is physically happening to the meatsack I occupy - I.E. the meatsack I occupy if physically moving across the border - then that is pretty hard to outsource, but with the sole exception of my not having solved the physics of paying someone else to do that, what's the issue? If I need to stay in the US for an extra month, but there is $red_tape to be dealt with, why cant' my wife fly home, grab a telepresence robot, head to the federal building and sign whatever bits of monotony need to be signed on my behalf? Why not a trusted personal assistant or aide?
Hell, here's a giggle: why, for any of the questions above, do I even need wetware at all? Why can't I just get a telepresence bot with a pair or arms and send that everywhere "I" am supposed to be? I can run a dozen of the things at a time and they could be semi-autonomous. They can do the boring things like "standing in line" and "fetching per-selected items", only alerting me when there's something I need to actually pay attention to, like signing a piece of paper or answering pesky questions for nosy wetware.
I fail to see a single legal thing in life where I shouldn't be able to pay someone else to do it on my behalf, if that's what I so desire. And frankly, most of what's illegal shouldn't be.
Re: Dear Broadcasters. Fek Off.
Prostitution is legal, in civilized jurisdictions where we recognize that the state has fuck all right to tell an individual of any gender what they may or may not do with their bodies. Legalizing prostitution allows the practice to "come in from the cold", where it can be regulated, accomplished in a secured environment and the overwhelming majority of negative consequences deal with in a sane and rational fashion.
If I have the right to do something then I have the right to pay someone to do it on my behalf. There is no moral or ethical rationale behind such an arbitrary restriction. Only greed and/or the desire to insert your personal control over the lives and doings of others (see: religion as the major culprit) can even begin to explain the asinine philosophies underpinning the concept that one could be allowed to do X but not pay someone to do it on their behalf.
Regardless of what X is.
I didn't say they'd get it. I said that's what they'll be aiming for. I have no idea if they'll get it only because I am absolutely convinced that we are within 18 months of the collapse of the bubble. If they don't IPO before then, they're probably done for.
But what VC doesn't make a play for at least 10X return? Let's be real here, people: venture capitalists don't invest a half a billion dollars into a company without expecting at least 10x. Not when there are WhatsApp deals going on left and right.
NetApp is chained to the past. Technologically and culturally. They don't have the constitution to be cannibalizing their own efforts in order to feed the future and that is leading to all this nippy little rats eating their lunch. Their valuation is so low right now not because storage is inherently a low-valuation sector of IT, but because they are fundamentally unable to adapt to the changing landscape quickly enough.
Could Pure get away with $8B? If they IPO very, very quickly and they manage every single aspect of it up to that point perfectly, then yes, I believe they could. Will they get $3-$5B? Unless something goes horribly, horribly wrong, yes they will.
IPOs aren't about what the company is worth now. It's hype and drama about the "promise" and "potential" of the company.
At the end of the day, storage is huge. Bigger in most ways than compute and bigger even than networking. China will cut networking to shreds in short order just as it has done with compute...but storage has a long way to go based solely on the promise of doing every increasingly clever things with infinitely expanding amounts of data. The market for storage is - quite literally - unlimited.
Pure, like a few other storage startups, has a culture that seems able to innovate. To generate new ideas and proactively seek out new markets instead of react. Unlike a lot of storage startups they have a metric hoo-haw of money to play with and a few folks who are really, really determined to get things right instead of beta testing on live customers.
Timing is everything. If they get in before the bubble collapses they could be one of the last big IPOs of this cycle. After all, they have real-world value when compares to a Twitter or a WhatsApp, and if you take a moment to talk to their actual customers, they don't just have "users", they have acolytes.
It's going to be an interesting next year and change before the bubble goes pop. Then it's going to be a spectacular next 2 years while the carnage ensues and the body count rises.
"If it can do that and ride a growing flash array wave then a successful IPO at, say, a $3bn to $5bn valuation could be possible. That'd be highly profitable for the VCs who are now betting big on the outcome."
Um...Pure has had at least $470M pumped into them. A $3B IPO would be substantially less than 10x flowing back to VCs and even $5B probably isn't going to see 10x flowing to VCs, depending on how big a share the founders still have. I humbly suggest that you're off somewhat in what they are going to be seeking from an IPO. $8b-$10b seems more likely...
Re: "From the country that gave you"...
Okay, let's turn your logic around: the USA and the UK need to sort out their shit before spying on the rest of the world and trying to get other nations to do their bidding by force. They have poverty, corruption and out of control public debt just as a start. After that we could look at the education issues, what with a significant % of the country badly misinformed about proper science and critical thinking and a huge % of both countries still believing that a theocracy is a grand idea, so long as it's their religion that is in charge.
Every country has problems. Two of the biggest bullies on the international scene are the USA and the UK, both of which have umpteen problems of their very own. Brazil is, in this case, doing something good for a goddamned change, and I daresay they are actually ahead of the almighty anglo-american power bloc on civil liberties here, which just goes to further illustrate that both of those countries have lost the moral authority to be telling others what to do.
The world is moving on without you, and now developing nations are starting to slowly get their shit together and even becoming the defenders of liberty you claim to be, bu aren't. Get used to it. The anlgo-american moral hegemony is done.
And good fucking riddance.
Re: They should charge more
What they should do is get together with Google to form a bleeping empire. Start putting up hardlines and LTE everywhere. Youtube + Netflix can provide content while Google becomes the advertising king of the next generation. make sure everyone has fat pipes and access to every scrap on content they could ever desire theALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD
Re: Breaking News!!
"A country with a monarchy that is more of a meritocracy than the governing party !"
At least the Limeys have some part of their grey and soaked country that has a meritocracy. That's a hell of a step up from the US of A.
"There's no room in this world for a [motor vehicle] that can't be a half-tonne truck, a mini-van and an F1 racing car all at once. Nobody's going to buy that when we have this here vehicle that is a mediocre attempt at all while also being a complete failure at all. The world will be exactly as it is today until such a time as a new company comes out with something exactly like what we have today, at which point it the world will be exactly the same, except with a different name on what you buy."
It may well be that Microsoft owns the general-purpose desktop PC market...but that market is stagnant-to-declining. The new hotness is task-specific computing devices, as the silicon - and the software - is cheap to the point that we can have a "good enough" device for everything, rather than a "not quite good enough" device that tries to do everything badly.
The world is changing. Oh, not all at once, but it is changing. Microsoft's role as the dominant force of the nerd-verse is going away. There is a thing happening. It's called diversity. "One OS/productivity suite/storage array/pop star/car model/brand of toilet paper to rule them all" is a dead concept. Horses for courses is the new normal and uppity nerds terrified of losing their place in the hierarchy are just going to have to fucking cope.
Re: Why in the hell are any of us stupid enough...
How many lines of code does it take to print "bend over?"
Re: Why in the hell are any of us stupid enough...
"The point being that not everyone who makes a decision to target the most commonly used and widely supported software suite in the world"
Re: @Sandtitz Some nice ideas @poopypants again @Trevor
Nope. I expect El Reg forum users to know better than to use Windows 8. :P
And with that, happy easter!
Re: @Sandtitz Some nice ideas @poopypants again @Trevor
Let me me more clear, given that my usage of lolcats-like meme grammar didn't spell it out clearly enough for you:
How is the average user - you know, the mindless consumer to whom Windows 8 was targeted - supposed to update if the store download is borked? Blah-blah-blah something .iso is to them what someone saying "you just [in comprehensible static] CV joint [Charlie Brown adults] the googenplexit" when telling me how "easy" it is to fix my car.
Funny, there are plenty of ways to build an App Store that enhances the install experience without giving Microsoft a means to remotely control your computer, remove applications without warning or delete your data.
A great example would be Ninite Pro. The Ninite One installer is basically an App Store that installs free software and it works like a goddamned champ. It can even push those applications out to every PC on the network, update every PC on the network and more.
And yes, my dear old "Aunt Tilly" does use it, despite never having learned what the right mouse button was for, or how to use a USB key. So take your "on message" bullshit and GTFO.
Re: @Sandtitz Some nice ideas @poopypants again
How to upgrade to 8.1 when store are broke?
The USA: from a country that once proudly considered itself the champion of "the people" and a defender of individual liberty throughout the world to huddled masses of insecure internet commenter delusionairily defending the wrongdoing of their government with "everyone else is as crap as we are" in as little as three generations.
Re: PCs are much faster than they were 3 years ago
"I think that everyone in a work environment deserves a new PC."
Why? What's the business case?
"If I can run software tests in 10 minutes instead of 40 minutes then it makes sense to buy me a £200 i3 PC to do my job."
You may have a reason to have a faster PC for the specific business case that software tester. Assuming you ignore the options of cloud computing (public or private) or providing them multiple older PCs so that they can run multiple tests in parallel.
Personal preference does not a business case make. Certainly, one cannot extend this specific use case - that of testing software - to apply to all workers.
Re: PCs are much faster than they were 3 years ago
For what purpose does a consumer of content require anything more powerful than a Pentium III with H.264 offload?
This plan is so bad for AT&T that they're refusing to participate...
...so it must be fantastic for actual customers then. Carry on, FTC.
It offers higher value for dollar and
there aren't a lot of nerd knobs for you to twiddle so keeping the thing up to date is relatively minor annoyance. (That said, they do have some work to do in this regard to make it completely idiot proof.)
If you aren't spending your own money, aren't responsible for the budget in any way and are constitutionally allergic to storage that doesn't come with an EMC sticker, ScaleIO is a great choice.
If you want an off-the-shelf product that Just Works, with no fiddling and no decisions to make, choose Nutanix.
If your goal in life is an off-the-shelf offering focused on multi-site data management, SimpliVity are the folks you want.
If you want the ability to roll-your-own converged infrastructure with minimal fuss, muss and above all expense, knock on Maxta's door.
If you just want to make your existing spinning rust go faster - or you are dealing with dunderheaded storage admins from the past who will never buy anything except EMC/Netapp rust arrays - Proximal Data will make you happy and do so cheaper and easier than anyone else.
If you are ready to forklift your storage - but not your compute - then turn to a hybrid vendor like Tintri for a moderate boost or an all-flash one like Skyera for the bat-out-of-hell option.
In today's storage world no one product - or vendor - fits all. There are enough niches for everyone and there's more than enough money to go around.
"If productivtiy software is a commodity, what's the alternative to Outlook?"
Depends on who you are. Personally, I've found Thunderbird is a good alternative for a lot of people. Many others like Google Apps + Gmail is as integrated as they need. I've seen a lot of people uptaking Zimbra recently. It is all about horse for courses.
Is there a like-for-like, feature-for-feature replacement for Office, especially for Outlook? No. But that doesn't matter. Office is huge; it tries to be all things to all people and most people just don't need it. They're fine with the alternatives.
Some folks legitimately need Office. Still others have a need to cling to it like a security blanket. All roads lead to personal happiness here, so why judge? The point is that we have choice now. Not so long ago we really didn't.
There are viable alternatives to Office today for the majority of users and that's huge progress. Microsoft must compete on merit int he productivity space and other vendors are meeting niches and price points that Microsoft doesn't feel like embracing. That's a good thing. Monoculture is bad. Let the good times roll.
Productivity software is a commodity now. Only niches have an actual need to pay for a version with certain special features, though inertia has a lot more people convinced they need to pay than those who actually do. That and FUD, of course.
Most folks get by just fine on 2-ply, but some people are just sensitive enough to need 3-ply or more. While I don't give a bent woo-hoo about MS's subscription moneygrab, the more offerings the merrier. I like that the toilet paper aisle has all different sizes, numbers of rolls and varieties of softness. I can find the one that's just right for me.
an application he said had been "born in the cloud,"
What does that even mean?
Microsoft is always correct. If you are dissatisfied, the fault lies with you.
Good luck, SpaceX.
WD Mycloud. How's that workin' out for ya?
Re: If they want to go global...
Aye, the world is filled with xenophobes. I say: let 'em pay more for less. Those without the innate bigotry will benefit, as it should be.
Re: Has there ever been a "line"?
The populace has denied both forgiveness and permission. Now what?
Re: Developers, developers, developers
Funny you should ask. I was thinking about that just yesterday. The answer? When proper engineers are involved and given final say. They manage to build bridges here with no major mistakes all the time. They pave roads, erect skyscrapers and build pipelines that go thousands of kilometers that are well thought out, well planned and work as intended for the intended lifetime of the project (and beyond.)
Now, things do go titsup.com when people do stupid things. For example, running an oil pipeline for 20 years beyond it rated lifespan. But for the most part proper engineering - at least around here - has been free of the kinds of high-profile screwups we so blithely accept in IT.
Engineers build models, simulations, over design and underpromise. They are the antithesis of the kinds of marketdroid beancounting asshats that design software these days and that's precisely the problem.
Software is all about "get it out the door", not "make it work as originally specced." Beta testing on live people is considered acceptable. That attitude is complete shite, and we shouldn't stand for it.
Developers, developers, developers
Microsoft knows better than it's customers and partners, why not it's developers too?
Re: Public cloud barriers
For quite some time to come "100% in the cloud" will be the corner case, not the norm...and the cloud will never fully replace "owning your own gear" for all businesses.
New technologies are a supplement to exiting ones. They don't supplant them.
And bear in mind it's a lot easier to start a brand new - and entirely virtual - company (such as Netflix's VOD offering) as a 100% cloud-based service. Hell of a lot harder for an established business or one of the many that have on-premises needs for IT.
Will 100% cloud be a possibility for some companies? Sure. Will 100% cloud be a possibility for most companies? I doubt it. Will 100% cloud be cheaper than on-premises for any excepting the odd corner case? I sincerely doubt it.
The public cloud is great for (mostly American) companies that will either not exist for long (such as a political campaign) or those (mostly larger) companies whose internal politics is such that buying a capital asset is a miserable pain in the ass, but paying rent is (for now) under the radar. (Though finance people will catch up to covering that in red tape eventually.)
And again, none of your pro-cloud rah-rah even begins to address the issue of sweating your assets. Can't pay your subscription? Fuck you then, go out of business.
No, I think that even if it were cheaper - and it's not - and even if it were feasible - and for many, again, it's not - lots of businesses would chose to avoid putting 100% of their workloads in the cloud.
Boil it all down to it's purest essence and it comes down to risk aversion. Most people who run businesses do so because they want to be in control of their own lives. You'll find a significant % of them don't want anyone's iron-gripped hands around their testicles, regardless of how "household name" the American super-company paying the marketing dollars in question is. When you are 100% public cloud, then a little squeeze and you beg for mercy.
Though, hey, if you like it rough...
Re: Public cloud barriers
Okay, I need to print 4TB of high-resolution photographs per day at my photolab on printers the size of cars. Please explain how I am going to run all my servers in the cloud and stream the images I need back to my photolab. Consider that the lab in question probably clears about $5M a year and wobbles on the edge of profitability as is. It can't afford a bigger pipe than it has now. What magic do you use to make this work?
Now, let's look at my machinist shop which has the same sort of requirements; data that must be delivered to local equipment in a timely manner from the cloud. The next-generation stuff does a closed-loop between the manufacturing equipment, sensors and analysis software which needs ultra-low-latency in order function properly. Am I going to run all of that in the cloud?
I also have bakery that falls into a similar category. These folks do a million samples a second from their sensors across the whole of the factory then crunch that data in real-time and feed the results back to the machinery for real-time modifications of the environment. Are you going to do that all in the cloud?
I have remote drilling teams that are doing real-time seismological analysis, modelling and simulation based on feedback they receive from on-site sensors. This information helps them decide where to drill, how and when. Their access to the internet is via an orbiting dirigible with an LTE booster. Are you going to put their workloads all in the cloud?
I have a storm chaser that collects over 50 billion samples a minute from over 1000 sensors and crunches that in real time to determine how storms are going to evolve. He is often driving between mountains where even cellular signals won't reach and satellite is thready to the fact that he drives into tornadoes for a living. Are you going to put his workload into the cloud?
I have a journalist that deals with Chinese dissidents, pursues human rights violations by the American government and is currently trying to uncover some unspeakable horror in Burma. Even if you could put all his workloads in the cloud, would you?
I have a fire hall that absolutely has to have the diagnostics and maintenance systems for their equipment running 60/60/24/7/356, no exceptions. They need 100% uptime and access to a number of emergency systems and are increasingly using sensors ranging from deepscan sonar to thermal sense drones to determine safety. Are you going to put their workloads in the cloud?
I could go on and on and on, but suffice it to say you're talking utter fucking bullshit. Some workloads can be put into the cloud because they have no localized mission criticality. Some workloads absolutely can not. Even for SMBs - like my 10 man bakery - there are workloads that will run local and some that could be moved to the cloud.
But the cloud is a tricksy thing. If I have workloads that I must run local - and despite your propaganda this will always be a truth of the world - then I have a floor cost of investment in local IT that I must make. If I am already balls-in on some local IT, then the question becomes "do I have the spare capacity on my local setup to run $_workload or not?"
If I have the spare capacity to run $_workload locally I do. Period. It will be cheaper to do so than farming it out to the cloud. If I don't have the spare capacity to run it locally then I ask myself the next question "what is the cost of running this locally versus the cost of running it in the cloud?" I already have local systems, local nerd and the rest...if the TCO of adding that workload locally is lower than farming it out, it gets added locally.
The cloud is great for DR. That way I don't need to light up a DR site. Provided, of course, that everything is encrypted at rest as well as in flight, and that data sovereignty issues are dealt with. And that I can download the data to my local network - where it will inevitably reside once I light my factory back up - in a quick and financially painless manner.
Some workloads that are finicky and irritating, but not especially mission-critical - like email, instant messaging and so forth - I have no problems putting into the cloud. The world doesn't end if e-mail stops for a day or two because Amazon blew up. My company does stop working if the delicate dance of complex sensor-analysis interactions with the bakery machinery ceases.
And if I can't get the fire alarm notice, why then...people die>.
How about you get "off message" for a little while, stop thinking like a marketdroid and start thinking about the human impact of cloud computing. The cost in lost profits from downtime, the cost in jobs from lost profits or shuttered businesses and the cost in lives if some things go wrong.
Then tell me, with a straight face, that the future is to have all workloads in the cloud. Because if you can actually do so you are going on the blacklist of "IT professionals" that I will never, ever deal with...and association whit you wilt be the viral touch of death for any contracts, vendors and so forth that I deal whit in the future.
You have a whole great big box full of tools at your disposal. Don't keep using a hammer for everything because it's what you have in your hand at the moment.
Re: Mowing grass
/me shakes broom from rocking chair on porch
Sadly, Alberta has very few "knowledge workers" in that sense. We've a crazy amount of Structural/Mechanical/Civil Engineers, Geologists and so forth, but if you do IT and you aren't crazy you get the hell out of this province. It sucks that it took me until I was too poor to move to recognize that, but "trickle down economics" absolutely doesn't work.
IT - like many other things including heath care - is viewed as a burdensome cost that employers and citizens alike shouldn't have to pay for. These are people who will gladly spend $200,000 on a kitted out half-ton work truck but balk at the idea of spending $550 to buy a new laptop.
Alberta has a powerful economy with lots of things besides Oil that can and will keep it steaming along for decades...but the culture of Alberta is one of implementers, not innovators. This is not a place to invent new things, to improvise or experiment.
Other places in the world invent things. Then we put manpower together with a willingness to wreck any part of the environment necessary to make money and create fantastic amount of wealth. 90% of which leaves the province to the companies that do all the environment-wrecking resource extraction and the other 10% of which people hoard.
There's lots wrong here, but it isn't the labour laws screwing us up...
Re: @Arnaut the less - @Tom Welsh
Re: @Arnaut the less - @Tom Welsh
"Potts's Nietzschean view"
A) There is no S in my last name
B) Even is there were an S in my last name "Potts's" is all kinds of wrong. Grammer, motherfucker, learn it.
C) If you think I'm a follower of Nietzche, you're an idiot.
One thing we would both agree upon, however, is that the various supreme beings that our species has manufactured over the aeons are nothing more than myths. There are a few other minor points we'd be able to have friendly beers over, but from there he and I would diverge quite significantly.
Now, back in your box. Do 30 laps around your cage before you scream insanely into the aether. We need you tired out by bedtime, because the adults want to actually get some sleep tonight.
Re: No need to ask permission - @Trevor_Pott
"hyperbolic overestimation of homo sapiens sapiens"
Where did I estimate (over or under) homo sapiens? I said the purpose of sentience was to spread life to the stars. I never once said is was the purpose of sentience to spread sentient life to the stars and certainly not necessarily to spread it's own species to the stars.
I said the purpose of life was life itself. That we as sentients have a duty to spread that life. You inferred that I must mean the spread of our species and of sentient life.
You were also the one prattling on about holy books and theology without actually stopping for a brief moment to ask what I might have meant. I gave you a very well known book by a seminal writer in our history from which at least one part of the quote - the purpose of life is life itself - is derived. From there, you're off on an anti-humanist tear that I think stopped somewhere around the intersection of hope-shattering nihilism, bleak despair, self loathing and evangelical atheism. (Where it isn't enough that you believe there is no supreme being, you must purge that belief from others.)
Quoting one phrase form Nietzsche does not mean endorsing all of his teachings, nor does acknowledging him as one of the pre-eminent philosophers of our history. Our culture and our values are what they are because of the great thinkers of our past as well as those who acted upon those philosophies. Positive, negative, neutral...we are as a species the sum of our predecessors; genetically as well as culturally.
If you want to sit in a corner and whip yourself for the sins of other people's grandfathers, you go right ahead. Have fun with that. You can hang any tag you want on it, I'm going to go with "beating yourself up over 'original sin'" because that's exactly what your tedious antihumanism appears to be from the outside.
Why don't you do you reset your neurotransmitter levels by smoking a huge bowl and just going and getting laid. Chill the fuck out, man. It's only life; noone gets out alive.
Re: No need to ask permission - @Trevor_Pott
The book I have to back my "theological" claim isn't from the iron age, but it is one of the most celebrated pieces of philosophical writing in all of human history. maybe you should go read it.
And I think Frederich Nietzsche would be a might upset about you calling his writings a work of theology. But hey, have yourself a ball with all that unbridled rage. Just don't break anything important, hmm?
Re: No need to ask permission
If they can do it, let 'em. Hell, cheer 'em on. Someone should escape this pathetic mudball. If we're not interested, more power to the Russians, the Chinese and anyone else who cares to try.
Quod ad astra. The purpose of life is life itself, and for sentience, to take that life to the stars.
Re: The race is on!
The problem with the interplanetary hyperloop you suggest is that if we want to launch people along that thing it needs to be a lot longer then the prairies. Length wise, from northwest Alberta to southwest Manitoba might work, but A) you can't build on muskeg and B) the yanks would have some nasty words with us lobbing ballistics over their nation at hypersonic speeds.
That means something long and south. Crow's Nest Pass in southern Alberta to Thunder Bay Ontario, or even the Quebec border. This puts it far too close to the covetous hands of the yanks, which poses all sorts of it's own problems.
Canada absolutely has the technology, the manpower and the money to build such a device, but we never would. The biggest reason being that it would violate all treaties regarding the treatment of international territory and severely weaken our claims to sovereignty in the north. There's a metric "holy shit" worth of unexploited - hell, unexplored - resources up there, and we're just not ready to pass them up in exchange for some airless rock that has fuck all to offer except nickle, silicon and iron.
If you poor buggers really need He3 that much, go hard. We've got enough Uranium to last us the next 10,000 years and when that's up, we'll just build some Lagrangian satellites with massive bussard ramscoops on them rather than trying to "mine" He3 from regolith.
I'm all for space exploration, but #occupyluna is the single stupidest idea I have heard of in my entire life. If you really want to be trapped in a gravity well, choose Ceres. Everything you need is there, including stupendous amounts of water. The gravity well is enough that plants will point their roots downwards when they grow, but easy enough to make getting off the damned thing and exploring cheap and easy.
Fuck Luna. If y'all want it, you can have it. We're Canadian, we need plenty of fresh water and spectacular amounts of valuable resources to make us happy. It's what we know how to work with.
Re: Just think of all those landfill firewall routers and modems out there...
Welp, then you've got bigger problems then someone changing your bittorrent ports.
For the record, just talked to the Sync.com folks. Yes, all client data is in Toronto. The main website proper is on Amazon, but once they have gotten some things sorted locally, that will be going into their refurbed Canadian datacenter too.
- Review Apple takes blade to 13-inch MacBook Pro with Retina display
- Game Theory The agony and ecstasy of SteamOS: WHERE ARE MY GAMES?
- Intel's Raspberry Pi rival Galileo can now run Windows
- Microsoft and HTC are M8s again: New One mobe sports WinPhone
- Kate Bush: Don't make me HAVE CONTACT with your iPHONE