Re: Embrace, extend and extinguish
What the fuck does "making a lot of money" have to do with being trusted? The mafia makes a lot of money too, because they will break your fucking kneecaps if you don't pay up.
5322 posts • joined 31 May 2010
What the fuck does "making a lot of money" have to do with being trusted? The mafia makes a lot of money too, because they will break your fucking kneecaps if you don't pay up.
First of all: I don't believe that you work anywhere other than Microsoft. Secondly, even if you did work for some other big enterprise, does it make you feel special to be a disposable faceless drone amongst a sea of similar "resources"?
Do you somehow feel superior to others becasue of the size of the company you work for? Does the opportunity to specialise ever more narrowly, knowing more and more about less and less until you know absolutely everything about absolutely nothing make you feel like you somehow know everything?
You're a coward. A faceless, nameless, useless coward. You vomit assertions and tautologies and won't even put your name to your befuddled ravings. There's no reason to accept or believe you are anything other than a paid shill waving the banner of their paycheque in desperation.
Your livelihood very obviously depends on you believing Microsoft uber alles. Mine doesn't. Mine also doesn't depend on seeing any technology vendor succeed, or fail. I get paid the same regardless of who wins or loses because my job is to discuss technology as a whole, not to give a bent fuck who "wins".
We'll let the readers decide whether or not faceless assertions and transparent tautologies hidden behind a veil of anonymity represent sound technological - or business - advice.
For the most part...yes!
Companies move things to the cloud right now in large part because the monthly billing mechanism allows them to bypass internal purchasing regulations. It's politics - not prudence - that makes cloud computing attractive.
For the very, very few that see cost benefits from the cloud, you have to see what they're comparing it against. VCE versus cloud comes out roughly a wash. Running your own Supermicro + VMware setup absolutely and emphatically isn't going to be cheaper.
Christ, man, it costs over $1500 a year to run a single 2GB Linux VM in the fucking cloud! That may be cheaper for a single VM than buying a server, setting up a place to run it, dealing with backups, DR, etc. But as soon as you get to 5 VMs that isn't really the case any more. By 10 VMs you could be running a completely redundant setup that needs intervention only a few times a year and can run hundreds of "2GB Linux VMs".
So no, cloud computing isn't cheaper. It's easier...for managers. Which makes it politically expedient, nothing more. It's outsourcing by another name, and the people claiming "cloud computing is the solution to all ills for all companies of all sizes" are no different in any way than the shysters who trumpeted outsourcing to India as the solution to all ills.
They were wrong, and so are you.
Now, I at least put my name to these comments and predictions. Why should anyone believe you when you don't have the conviction in your words to attach your name to it? Your assertions and tautologies nothing. As do you, until you can stand up and say who you are and why you assert what you do.
No, we accidentally confused you with someone who had wits.
I used to be one of Microsoft's loudest and proudest proponents. It should make you stop and think "what could have happened over the years that made him so vehemently anti-Microsoft, especially when he readily admits Microsoft has great technology?"
Or rather, it would make most people stop and thing. I suspect that you are not willing to engage critical thinking with regards to Microsoft.
Azure absolutely is a very good product.
It is not good value for money. "Cloud computing" in general isn't. Unless, of course, you're comparing it only to managed implementations of the most high-margin enterprise gear. Cisco on Cisco with a side of EMC and a thick layer of Oracle. Then they're about the same.
But hey, if you want to massively overpay for your IT, that's up to you. Cloud or no, you have opportunity to do so.
Amazon may have had a few outages - and frankly, Microsoft's uptime is worse - but outages are not related to nixing (or PlaysForSureing) customers. Microsoft is the one with the reputation for overt condescension towards customers, developers, partners and staff combined with a history of cutting every valuable program and reneging on ever important promise they've made.
Amazon has not - to my knowledge - screwed their customers in grandiose Redmondian fashion even once. Microsoft are not trustworthy. Amazong might be. And "might" is a hell of a lot better than you'll get from Microsoft. Microsoft will betray you, me and everyone else. It's only a matter of time.
Microsoft can not be trusted. And they don't give a fuck about that, either. They have no intention of earning anyone's trust because they don't feel they need to do so.
Cloud vendors? Anyone But Microsoft, thanks. I've learned my lessons the hard way.
"You are basically complaining about your lack of planing and your inability to use Powershell or other more suitable tools to get the information that you need..."
Yep, you definitely work for Microsoft. Condescension and blaming the user as SOP. Bravo.
"you clearly need marketing 101 lessons."
If you're in marketing, why the hell are you on these forums? These are for technologists, not shills. You're a bad person and you should feel bad.
"The very fact that you would put CentOS in production because you're too mean or greed to pay for RedHat on production machines (but use it on dev/test ones!) says *you* can't do your job - I would never deploy something that way just to save some money"
So, you're actually, factually an idiot that is overpaid and doesn't know how to do their job. Congratulations, you are the living embodiment of the Peter principle.
Why do you need RHEL in production for VMs you are never going to change or manage directly? And why the metric monkey fuck are you changing or managing your production systems directly? They should all be automated and orchestrated through vCAC and config-managed with Puppet. There is nothing about a production system that should ever require you to log into it. Logs should be collected centrally, configs pushed centrally, and everything about the system automated and disposable.
There's no business case for spending an RHEL license on that. You spend the RHEL licences on Dev and Test, which is where you actually to the work of building out new configs, testing your dependencies and checking for errors.
Also, I never said I don't know hot to use Microsoft's toolchain, you fucking numpty. I get paid to know how that all works. I have all-Microsoft production environments (well, for the moment they are) and I am willing to be I spend more time learning the ins and outs of that technology in my lab than you do working on it in production. Knowing that shit inside out and backwards is my job.
And yes, it's a relic. What AD and System Center can do, Puppet can do better. I don't tout Puppet because I like it, I tout it because it's the best. As a matter of fact, I hate how Puppet is implemented. I'm a GUI baby and I dislike this "lines of code" fuckery. But you can't argue with results, and Puppet is emphatically superior to Microsoft's monoculture management tools.
You are a Microsoft fanboy. You always have been. You can't see past your own emotional investment in the company and it's tools.
I was a Microsoft fanboy, once. I still deploy their stuff widely. But it has been a long time since I was narrow-minded enough to think them the solution for all ills. What matters is getting the best results in the shortest time with the lowest expenditure. If that isn't your goal as a systems administrator than you are doing your employer a massive disservice and you should quit now if you hope to retain a shred of personal honour and dignity.
Learn a bit about how IT has evolved in the past 14 years since Microsoft Monoculture was ascendant. You might be surprised at how amazing it has all become.
You may not need Puppet for that, but why would you use a monoculture management toolset when you can use a toolset that works with everything? Why restrict yourself? What benefit does that give you as a business owner? Keeping geeks with biases happy isn't a viable rationale.
You could work for a company with millions of employees, that doesn't mean a damned thing if you can't do your job.
You're absolutely right that you need to worry about things like "buying certificates." Except that you can script that by having Puppet call the cert site's API, request a cert renewal, etc...or even just buy the cert and push it out using Puppet manually. It's like two lines of code to ensure that the old certs are removed and the new ones installed.
Complacent sysadmins are a problem. But the biggest complacency issue are sysadmins who refuse to learn new technologies that can help them be better at their jobs. Puppet and similar tools are the future. GPOs and other monoculture tools are relics of a best forgotten era.
Most Linux admins just use Puppet. That way they can push out cert changes, patches, etc. to hundreds of thousands of VMs instantly.
You actually don't even know how IT works in the real world anymore, do you?
"Group Policy"? What are you, from the aughties? Puppet, ya old crank. Puppet. That's how proper sysadmins handle systems management today. "Group Policy". Next you'll tell me you still develop software for legacy Wintel systems! 
Group Policy is limited to low value-for-dollar high-licensing-requirement Microsoft OSes. That's it's flaw. It would be great as a management infrastructure if it could support Linux, BSD and so forth, but it can't. So why both investing in it? Puppet can handle what needs to be handled, is cross platform, and allows you to get all the benefits you would have had from GPOs and GPPs.
Using Puppet you can do what normal people do: Buy RHEL support for Dev and Test, then run CentOS for production. Manage the whole lot with the same Puppet scripts. Drive your licensing costs into the floor, keep your support costs virtually nonexistant.
 Okay, that's disingenuous. I know nobody with cognitive capacity is still developing new Wintel software. But it's still hilariously fitting given the whole "group policy" thing.
Could a smart dinosaur have existed? Maybe. But no matter how much Hollywood puts "idiocracy" into a movie, evolution doesn't work like that, and it doesn't work anywhere near that fast.
Psittacopasserae - Songbirds, Parrots, Corvids and the like - are pretty smart. But Cariamae - not to far off the evolutionary tree from Psittacopasserae are pretty mediocre, at least by mammalian standards.
Go on up to a side branch of Telluraves and look at families like Strigiformes (owls) and Piciformes (woodpeckers) and they're nowhere near as bright as Corvids. They're about as bright as Cariamae.
This means that the extreme high intelligence seen in Corvids and Parrots is probably restricted to Psittacopasserae. (Let's save arguments about Falconidae for later, hmm?)
Go all the way up the tree to Neoaves and look at Galloanserae (chickens and other waterfoul) and they're dumb as posts. With the sole exception of Columbiformes (pigeons), pretty much everything under Neoaves are dumb as posts, and the Ratites - which are up a bit from Neoaves are just as dumb.
Now, this says to me one of two things happened: Pigeons evolved intelligence separately from Psittacopasserae, or intelligence evolved prior to Ratites, and virtually every bird family since birds began evolved to be dumb except Pigeons, Parrots and Corvids.
So we start looking at Pigeons versus Corvids. Long story short: Pigeons are nearly as smart as Corvids overall, but they are good at completely different tasks. Parrots, OTOH, aren't quite as smart as Crows, but are generally proficient in the same sorts of tasks.
This says that it's really likely Pigeons evolved intelligence separately from Parrots/Corvids, and that Parrots and Corvids likely shared a common "smart" ancestor. (With Corvids evolving more towards intelligence than Parrots in the same time.)
So if dinosaurs were smart, where did that smart go? It didn't seem to make it into birds. It's possible that non-avian dinosaurs were smart...but when we start looking for signs of advanced brain structures in their skulls - for whatever little that's worth - we don't find them. No evidence of higher complexity, or any species of non-avian dinosaur with even an avian EQ, let alone a mammalian one.
So I honestly don't think it's very likely that "dinosaurs were smart, then evolved into dumb." Evolving to be less bright can - and usually does - come with "evolving to be small". Smaller animal = smaller brain. There are exceptions - Modern Humans, Corvids, Proboscidea, etc - but as a general rule "smaller brain = dumber". This is where looking for special brain structures comes in, as they could indicate intelligence in smaller brained animals.
Most dinos weren't huge. We're pretty sure that the huge dinos tended to have brains that were actually less massive than their spinal columns. So where does that leave us? Potentially a freak family here or there that evolved intelligence then snuffed it rather quick? Possible.
But how likely do you really think it is, given the evidence, that said smart dinos even existed, let alone devolved over time. Idocracy takes millions of years, and usually leaves a fossil trace.
"The idea that they would ever have come DOWN from the trees to hunt... well, it's just side-splitting."
Why? Dinosaurs were stupid. Hell, chickens have several million years worth of evolution on them. Being large and vicious doesn't mean nearly so much as being clever.
Lions, tigers and bears - oh my! - didn't stop us. Why would dinosaurs have? Do remember that the really scary stuff - gigantasaurus and so forth - lived in a world with massively different temperatures and atmospheric oxygen content.
Dinos lives in a world of much higher free oxygen. Most wouldn't be able to breathe in our atmosphere. So yeah, we'd have to deal with some truly terrifying things...but they're all more or less like what we've had to deal with already.
Our ancestors faces down dire wolves and saber-toothed cats, dined on mammoth and fought terror birds. While I, personally, wouldn't want to face an angry velociraptor or a pack of compys, that doesn't mean at all that we wouldn't have been able to take the bastards, if they'd made it.
Of the dinosaurs that could have survived to today more or less unchanged, I doubt there are any that would have truly threatened our extinction.
I don't know about that. You make the rather large assumption that humans will make it out of the anthropocene. I see no reason to assume this.
Mass extinctions generally end up totally disrupting the ecosphere. Ecosystems suffer right down to the primary producers (and pollinators!) which ultimately ends up with the collapse of higher order food webs. We have no way of knowing if humans will survive that. At our current level of technology we would not. Will we develop the ability to survive without pollinators, let alone other primary and secondary producers?
If we can't survive, why would any of our dependent species do so? Even if we do survive, will there be enough scraps for the birds (or the bees?) That's before we start assessing the kind of damage currently occurring to the oceans. If the oceans go, we've had it.
So I think it's a crapshoot. We don't have enough data to know how it's all going to play out for our species, let alone any of the others. Hopefully some will make it. I'd like to think Earth has one more shot at sentient life before it moves too far our of the habitable zone. (500M years, give or take.)
"why didn't the human beings survive <disaster X>"
Where <disaster X> is "the Yucatan impact event" the answer is "because human beings hadn't evolved yet."
A) Dinosaurs were not cold blooded
B) They didn't get wiped out. Avian dinosaurs survived. (Small ones, mostly).
C) Some large animals (crocodilians) survived.
Why did the dinosaurs die out? Size, mostly. But also that they needed to eat rather a lot, and on a regular basis. Crocodiles, for example, don't eat much and they can survive off carrion for a long, long time. That's why they survived. Small avian dinosaurs and small mammals probably survived for the same reason. A combination of being omnivorous, small and able to live off carrion. Wide global distribution helps too.
Most mammals (individuals) and mammal species, as well as avians and avian species probably died off. But there were so bloody many of them in so many diverse little niches that they basically could live off the dead and dying for generations. At least until plants started to grow again and the planet began the very long, slow, miserable path towards healing.
I wonder what major species groups will make it through the anthropocene?
Well, the Deccan traps were already acting up, but the Yucatan impact probably punched it into overdrive. What's more, the impact likely dislodged a few methane clathrates which lead to some additional oceanic die-off, and caused the climate to yo-yo around for some time, ringing like a bell until it stabilized. In all, the Yucatan impact event could hardly have happened at a worse time. There was such a convergence of miserable events, it's kind of amazing so many major strains survives.
Crocodilians, Amphibians, Lizards, Birds, Mammals and a lot of water-based life all made it through. But land and ocean fauna above a certain size didn't...and a lot of different types of plants were simply wiped out. The K-T event was huge. Not nearly as huge as the P-T extinction or the current anthopocene extinction, but still very much a major extinction event.
If we were around then, we would not have survived. Nothing our size would have. And that's worth pondering for those who believe space exploration is a waste of time.
As recently as two years ago I was still a fanboy, at least of their server team. I still worship Jose Barreto and his gaggle of gangsta goons. But great minds and great technology cannot overcome the overwhelming douchiness of management decisions.
You could have Elon goddamn Musk working in the server team and it still wouldn't make a difference unless they let him set policy. (At which point Microsoft would go from 0 to hero in about 0.0000001 picoseconds.)
So that's where we are. I love a lot of the folks that work there. I think they make some great tech. But I cannot condone their actions or choices. They are simply dishonorable. Not trustworthy. I'll gladly use technology from a vendor that doesn't have as many great minds, or products quite as advanced if I can place just that little bit more truth in that vendor. If there is a relationship to be built.
But like hell am I going to accept a relationship with a vendor - any vendor - in which my part of the relationship is "subject of $vendor". I am nobody's subject.
@Tom the backbone providers did have to tear up all their stuff to be IPv6 ready. But for the whole internet to be ready everyone has to. And they ask - quite rightly - "why should I?" It doesn't benefit them to do so.
"Implement securely? What are you even talking about? Even if your 1999 firewall doesn't support IPv6, your 2014 firewall supports IPv4 and IPv6 simultaneously."
Damned few consumer grade routers do. Oh, they might pass IPv6 packets, but now you've moved defense of the home network from a single device (the home router) to every. device on that network needing to be defended. Unless you have a really good (read: expensive) router/firewall and someone who knows how to use it.
SMBs and the commercial midmarket are in worse shape: they have more diverse requirements than "open up a port so I can RDP into my home machine" or "push the VPN button so that I can VPN to work." Their costs are proportionately higher, as is the complexity they have to cope with, trying to now defend a network where every single node has a globally addressable IP address.
I do, however, find it hilarious that you quote the bit where I said "in order to make IPv6 work you have to tear up the internet and replace it" and then go on to say both "that's a lie" and "it works just fine if you buy all new stuff". Great compartmentalization of thought there. Top class.
Actually, yes, one address does map to a person since there's nothing like NAT to anonymise users. There aren't a hell of a lot of things NAT's good for, but the helping to hide exactly which individual behind the edge router is responsible for posting that dissident comment about the government is one of them.
I never said IPv4 and NAT guaranteed privacy, just that they offered one layer that IPv6 doesn't.
Don't see why. The existing internet's pretty shit. Full of monied interests and governments trying to remove civil liberties. Let's get a proper decentralized meshnet going with a brand new protocol and ditch the existing Internet, eh?
IPv6 isn't seeing rapid adoption mostly because the astounding arrogance of the people who created the protocol resulting in our getting a protocol that requires tearing up the entire internet to implement it. You need to buy at least one new everything and to implement it securely you need to often replace "one new everything" with "several". The cost of the transition is enormous for end users and SMBs and the ongoing costs are higher than IPv4.
And all because whiny baby developers were so sad about having to ad a few extra lines of code to deal with NAT that they turned purging it from IPv6 into a religion. What the world wanted was IPv4 with a larger address space and a few under-the-hood enhancements. What we got was a clusterfuck designed to restrict how we can run our own networks and strip away any hope of privacy from the average job by making damned sure that an IP in fact DOES map to a person.
If a new protocol showed up with concrete benefits that didn't require throwing out the baby with the bathwater it would be uptaken in short order. The problem underlying IPv6 is that, ultimately, we don't want to give up the good parts of IPv4 to get at the good parts of IPv6. We're being frogmarched towards it with a gun at our heads, but you can't expect that we're all that happy about it.
Well shit, that would have been useful in November. It does, however, a lot of paint-peeling cursing that went on then...
Windows RT works fine on ARM devices. The only problems with are completely artificial. Microsoft locked down the OS, preventing the use of desktop-style apps or server apps. Windows RT is worthless as a tablet OS. It would have been glorious as a server OS. You know, servers. Where it's not out of the question to develop entirely new software to match a platform, if there is a good reason.
Consumers, SMBs and the commercial midmarket, OTOH, aren't just going to throw away decades worth of software investment so that Microsoft can have a new one-application-at-a-time (or two side-by-side in utterly useless fashion) touch-based OS.
*shrug* Microsoft. Missing the point is a thing.
"When you additionally consider that the Windows Driver Kit 8.1 can pair with Visual Studio Express and are both free with a valid MSDN account"
So, for $300 you get a low end Atom without even an Ethernet port and a copy of a Windows OS designed for tablets. To make use of it you need an MSDN account.
Price of MSDN starts at $700 for just "operating systems". Visual Studio Pro with MSDN is $1200. The one you actually need as a sysadmin is $2170 but they go all the way up to $13300. All of that per year.
A Raspberry Pi + case + as many copies of as many variants of Linux as you want is $100. Tops.
Only you can decide if Microsoft's offer is worth it for you. Based on the above, I think I will develop my applications for non Microsoft platforms. Microsoft is simply too rich for my blood.
Didn't they just prove that you could build an internal combustion engine that worked better. in space than on Earth? With Titan being all hydrocarbons, seems to me you could now get conservatives interested in space exploration...
Fun times! Good fun for all. Made me smile.
"We aim to build products that deliver the features, security and reliability customers expect, and we will address any concerns the government may have."
That's the greatest cover your ass quote of all time, even if horribly inaccurate.
1) Microsoft products have way more features than customers expect, or know about.
2) Microsoft products are way more secure than people have come to expect based on past performance. With the exception of IE, they're actually not bad, for being among the most attacked products out there. The issue is typically third party software.
A) Microsoft won't price products at a level that customers can actually afford. See: VDA, SPLA, or the new "per core" licensing. Thanks,
B) Microsoft won't address any of the concerns that customers may have regarding their products*.
So a great bit of fluffy PR faffery...but ultimately means nothing.
*From soul-destroyingly bad UIs to tentacular omnishambles licensing through to privacy or even something as simple as guaranteed product lifespans to ensure that we don't get PlaysForSured in this increasingly Cloud First, Mobile First, Customers/Partners/Developers/Staff last world.
When the servers are turned off because they don't represent "ongoing shareholder value" for Microsoft, but you rely on them...what then? Hmm? And just who can see your data, under what circumstances? What is Microsoft doing to reduce that to "you and only you can ever see your data"?
A bunch of evolutionary updates and even dual SIM support. It sounds like a a great update that could really benefit Microsoft's Windows Phone customers.
...what's the catch?
I'm sorry, it's a personality flaw. I'm functionally incapable of lying, and as a consequence I am functionally incapable of being politically correct. I say what I think, and as such am generally uncensored. In fact "you're an idiot" was positively polite, compared to the raw version that appeared in my brain after reading that fellow's reply.
I get the whole "you're supposed to look better than the other guy by being all prim and proper and grey poupon and professionalism." I'm just actually incapable of it.
I could say "I disagree with you so thoroughly that, upon careful examination of your response, I believe that there is something fundamentally flawed in your reasoning process such that it affects your ability to perceive and act upon reality in a logical and rational manner." The problem is that sounds haughty and pompous and I'm not entirely certain the individual in question would get it. "You're an idiot" is more pithy, but accurate and bears with it social connotations of exclusion, ostracisation and even mockery that I really do kind of want to include in my riposte.
Does the desire to fire that barb make me a bad person? Almost certainly yes. I try to be a good person, but I'm still very human. I don't tolerate well people who are selfish. I hate them on so fundamental a level you'd think it was genetic.
The individual in question's responses indicated a selfishness that incensed me. His responses were individual-centric and his vision narrow, even mundane. The scope of his understanding was small and so he tried to reduce everyone else to his level.
When talking about something so critical - and so essentially non-individual - as the long term survival of our species, to insist on the scope of the one to the detriment of the many is infuriating. It's like being in the middle of a conversation about diverse stellar phenomena and having some dude walk in and say "I saw a black hole explode once." It's preposterous on it's face, and so jarring as to be almost physically painful.
Maybe I wouldn't have been so petty if he hadn't begun his comment "That's a silly idea, and you know it." Maybe. Starting his response with that line made me feel a lot like Foghorn Leghorn trying to have a serious conversation while Henry Hawk keeps trying to challenge him to a fight. "Go on, git, ya bother me!"
I care nothing for the individual claiming the singularity is about to explode. By tomorrow I'll have forgotten then exist at all. But I absolutely want to make it clear in no uncertain terms to anyone reading this thread that what they're espousing is at best horrifically misinformed and at worst purposefully misleading. "You're an idiot" seems a particularly expeditious means by which to make my feelings in that matter known.
Now, as to why I feel the need to jump in when someone is wrong on the internet...when you solve that one, I'll be quite interested. I have narrowed it down to comments made as factual statements that are both demonstrably incorrect and where decisions made on the basis of those incorrect statements would negatively affect large numbers of people. For reasons beyond my ken, those comments bother me a great deal and I am compelled to attempt to set them right...
...but I am still work on "politely".
No, you're actually an idiot. There's lots of stuff that could happen to the Earth that would wipe out any underground colonies. Especially if they didn't use a closed system. Plus, Earth is tectonically active; those colonies have extra risks there that they simply don't on Ceres or Vesta. (I never said the moon. The moon is a ridiculous place to colonize.)
Survivability of the species is about not having all your eggs in one basket. That means as many colonies as possible. Earth will eventually die. Period. Nothing we can do will stop that. It will be a lifeless ball of rock a billion years before the sun consumes it. Indeed, according to our best estimates there is less than a billion years left to this planet's ecosphere, probably less than half a billion during which it can support sentient life on the surface.
There is no good reason to stay on Earth except sentimentality. Earth is a great big gravity well where most of the really useful elements for high technology sank to the core long ago. Other than offering a magnetic feild and a trapped Oxygen/Nitrogen atmosphere it doesn't offer a hell of a lot we can't get elsewhere, and it has it's own problems to overcome.
What we need is to have colonies in small gravity wells. Ones where the cost of leaving the gravity well is negligible. We need colonies that can access resources like platinum group metals which make various flavors of high technology much easier. We need colonies that are not only self sufficient, they have enough resources to build colonies of their own.
You make the ridiculous statement that Earth having colony worlds decreases the chances of the human race surviving. You don't explain how that is possible. You just assert.
Would people on the colony world have increased risk compared to Earth? Yes. At first. Eventually, however, they'd adapt, the colony would grow and it would be as safe as Earth. Safer, actually, given that Earth seems to be filled with 7 billion humans all intent on wiping eachother out, while a colony would not only be a smaller and more homogenous population, they'd be focused on survival, not conquest.
And that - right there - is the biggest reason to leave Earth. Even if you have some sort of religious belief which prevents you from understanding that things like metor strikes can and will wipe out Earth-bound humans, the sad truth of it is that we will probably wipe ourselves out on this planet before long.
Humanity must spread to the stars in order to outrun it's own worst nature. It's as simple as that.
Adding colony worlds doesn't reduce the possibility of those on Earth surviving. It does make Earth irrelevant to humanity's survival in the long term.
The fact that you have such a fantastically poor understanding of science that you A) think we should live on the surface of a planet in a big gravity well as a colony world and B) think that a colony is particularly hard (as opposed to merely outrageously expensive) means you shouldn't be allowed to have this conversation at all.
We know how to survive in space. The #1 problem with space colonization isn't survival. It's that getting the materials needed to survive requires hauling them out of this accursed gravity well. Fortunately, that isn't a problem, long term.
We can send robots to Vesta and Ceres to refine the elements required for survival, construct structures, and prepare the way for colonists. We can - with enough money - assemble a ship that either has a massive fission-based power source which could generate a magnetic shield, or enough lead shielding to protect colonists on the journey.
That is all that we need. Once on Vesta or Ceres, with an army of mining robots at their command, the colonists will be able to create new ships and new colonies for a fraction the cost that could be accomplished on Earth. They will never want for space to expand, never have to murder eachother over ideology. If they want a place to practice their own vision of how things should be, they can just pack up and go. The entire universe will be waiting for them to do so.
Earth is a cage, not a lifeboat. This big, fat gravity well is a prison. The goal is not - and never should be - to create new Earths. It is to move beyond the need for such an incubator, and to explore the stars without the requirement for one large ball of rock filled with billions of us that can't get along.
All we need is that first little push. Not the moon, or Mars...but to new resources within easy reach and whose acquisition won't trap us for millennia. Earth is just one planet. It's not relevant in the grand scheme of things. Try not to get too attached.
We don't want to go to another planet because it will be safer for the individual than being here. The individual doesn't matter any more than the planet does. We want to make colonies both because we want to explore and because those on a colony world are safe when something does eventually happen to Earth.
Are the colony worlds more likely to experience catastrophic problems than Earth? Yes. But enough of them ensures humanity's survival. Whereas staying on Earth alone ensures humanity's demise. Eventually, all planets - and all colonies - will die. Every single person, no matter where they are, will die. But our species might survive, if we spread far enough - and fast enough - to outrun not only nature's worst tantrums...but ourselves as well.
There are two great places to move to in relatively easy reach: Ceres and Vesta. You don't need an atmosphere or a magnetic shield. You build underground. What's awesome about Ceres and Vesta is that they have lots of important minerals that we'll need for construction, lots of water and low gravity.
If you put a half kilometer of rock between you and space then you have a lovely shield against all sorts of radiation. Underground, building sealed pressurized environments is easy. There's enough gravity that with some relatively unspecified equipment we can maintain bone density, but still low enough gravity to make getting in and out of the gravity well very inexpensive.
More to the point, both Ceres and Vesta are large enough that they can sustain sizable populations for quite some time...and they are in the middle of the main belt, so sending mining vessels out for additional volatiles or rare metals is cheap and easy.
I don't know why you think a colony has to sit on the surface of some rock with a big gravity well. That seems silly to me.
No no, really, everything's fine, nothing bad has happened to us so far!
So long as I die with more money than all of you, everything's fine and who cares about the rest?
How do you take action against a company selling things internationally using the internet but which doesn't have a presence in your nation? For that matte,r how do you pursue libel or slander cases internationally?
@Steve Davies 3
Actually, given that we have so many treaties with the US, I wouldn't be surprised if something like that ended up in a NAFTA court. Where US laws and Canadian laws conflict, Canadian judges don't tend to back down.
"So what happens when a Chinese judge orders Google to forget about Tienanmen all over the world?"
IIRC, Google subsequently left China. Which was quickly followed by Baidu's absolute dominance over that market.
Yes and no. The result will be one 100Gbit standard that is 10x 10Gbit links and another that is 4x 25Gbit links. They will be mutually incompatible. You won't be able to connect one to the other without a very expensive media converter.
"That's not your Grandfather's Microsoft. And that's no bad thing."
So the catch is elsewhere. You download the upgrade and then three months later men in black suits bankrupt you, kill your family and pets in front of you? I'd not put it past the bastards. They'd probably charge you a "per user" fee for each of your loved ones they killed while they're at it.
Microsoft doesn't do things that benefit others. Anything that looks like they might be turning over a new leaf is just one more attempt to suck you in so that they can PlaysForSure you or strangle you slowly with horrific VDA-like licensing. Trust them and they'll do the financial equivalent of stealing your kidneys and leave you to die in a bathtub full of ice.
Good technology - even great technology - isn't enough. Condescension for customers, developers, partners and staff is so fundamentally ingrained in that company that every seemingly beneficial development is a feint within a feint aimed at screwing all of us.
They'll probably create a UI that everyone likes and then change it something that required Microsoft-proprietary 3d glasses and can only be manipulated using Kinect. Just so they can laugh at the silly numpties who thought for a fraction of a second something nice had happened.
An no, I'm not bitter. This is me feeling generous today.
Except they'll make insurance mandatory. The uninsurable will probably just be moved to "relocation centers" where they will be "processed" into a state that is no longer a burden on society.
Citizen 1, you have not performed the required amount of cardiovascular exercise as per the computer specifications and you have eaten items that are not on the optimal list in quantities that differ from your schedule. Your insurance premiums are now $875 per day. To reduce your premiums you will follow the exact regimen laid out by the computer.
Citizen 2, the computer has determined that you have genetic predispositions towards three diseases considered expensive to treat. You are uninsurable and have been banned from receiving medical treatment, as society has determined that it will only spend its resources on individuals with a class 7 or lower risk category. As such the risk of employing you has risen to the point that now employer will employ you; they will not expend time and money training you when there are lower risk citizens that are easily acquired. Suicide booths are provided for your convenience.
Not all geeks are gamers, but some gamers are geeks. I don't see the problem?
Mine's the one with the D20 in it.
No. It doesn't. I use a regular Polycom Ethernet phone with no problem using QoS in the firmware, but if I needed "regular phone" stuff that would be...Microtik? I'd have to go look in the server room to verify.
It is in mine. I went out of my way to find an ALU Cellpipe 7130. It's Just A Fucking Modem. Then I use a WNDR3700V2 as a router, with OpenWRT as the firmware. It's glorious!
I presume BSD has something similar to Fail2Ban that you could use for non-keyed systems?
Based on that config, I suspect you have no management interfaces open to the net. I've seen stock home routers pwned in under an hour by placing them directly on a modem because they had management ports open to the net.
So with basic security you can get away with more stability. Without it - or where you have a production requirement for more risk - I suspect that security updates mean a lot more.
If you don't want to be tracked, don't turn it on.
If you want civil liberties, don't use any of the tools required to participate fully in modern society, hold a well paying job or even obtain such a job in the first place. Why stop there? Why don't you just tell people that if they don't like what governments and corporations do in their name they should kill themselves? Fascist.