Re: Rearranging chairs
So Windows 8 has almost reached the same % of the population as prefer to be the "submissive" in BDSM bedroom play. You'll pardon me if I think it won't be making big gains past that number.
5212 posts • joined 31 May 2010
So Windows 8 has almost reached the same % of the population as prefer to be the "submissive" in BDSM bedroom play. You'll pardon me if I think it won't be making big gains past that number.
Win 7 EOL is 2020. Looking at the economy, my guess is "slaves." Manpower will be cheap enough - and Microsoft licensing so expensive and convoluted - by 2020 that it will actually be cheaper to just pick up a bunch of wetware and whip them repeatedly. Maybe they're more error prone than using a PC and some software to write your TPS reports, but the labour/licensing delta will mean you can just throw several hundred slaves at every TPS report and one of 'em will inevitably get it right.
" if you've attempted parallel processing on any larger scale, you would notice that getting the system to run efficiently, given a limited memory bandwidth, is a major task and often crucial for deployment on any cloudy distributed platform."
Absolutely true, which is exactly why I don't think "fat cores" is the answer. On my HPC-like applications I run into real issues with memory bandwidth on the local node, let alone bandwidth for message-passing between nodes. Now, the new A3Cube PCI-E fabric might help a little on the inter-node stuff, but local to the host? We still need a hell of a lot more memory bandwidth per core.
Even in "standard" virtualisation loads I hit the wall on memory bandwidth. Things like Atlantis ILIO using RAM as a cache for VDI will wreck the memory bandwidth available, leaving those big, meaty cores gasping.
Give me stringy cores with fat RAM pipes any day. All the CPU muscle in the world is worth exactly nothing if I can't feed the damned things. That means RAM, it means storage IOPS and it means network fabric. CPU oomph just doesn't appear on my radar, excepting for the most carefully-tuned (and hence exceptionally rare) applications. There are just too many other bottlenecks that need addressing first.
Actually, I do have the maximum memory installed for the motherboards in question. Nor am I saying that everyone is the same OMFGWTFBBQ!!!111!!11oneoneone.
I do, however, have this tenancy to pay attention to the world around me, and I have noticed that people who fund the CPU a bottleneck are the exception, not the rule. What's more, of those who do find the CPU the bottleneck, the overwhelming majority of them rewrite their code for a GPU, custom ASIC or otherwise move to non-CPU silicon.
This is the era of custom chip, bub. Big, fat, meaty CPUs are just not needed by the majority...and for the kinds of reasons I stated above.
But hey, get your panties in a bunch because you are incapable of parsing things excepting as absolutes and extremes. You must be a blast at parties.
Okay. I also have nodes with 2x Intel Xeon 8 Core E5-2680 CPUs, 128GB RAM/host, 2x Intel 520 480GB SSDs and 2x 10GbE Links. Across the average day the cumulative CPU usage is less than 10%. In fact, it only ever hits 80% for about 30 minutes a day.
Methinks the bottleneck be not the CPU. Not for me, and - quite frankly - not for most folks.
The world needs Xeons, eh?
Then why do my 6-year-old AMD Shanghai servers sit below 50% CPU utilization even when their VM capacity is completely maxed out? CPU isn't the bottleneck, Intel. RAM, and IOPS are.
And that, sir, is the question. Which is exactly why all nations - including our own - are very big on making people feel like encryption will get them in shit. I start by installing hte HTTPS everywhere Firefox plugin everywhere I can. When I have the opportunity, I do more. It's all I know to do. What ideas do you have?
By encrypting everything. In this day and age no traffic should be unencrypted as no government can be trusted. The more traffic is encrypted the less encrypted traffic stands out. The less encrypted traffic stands out the more secure are our right to free speech, affiliation and assembly.
The people are now the enemy of the government, (as opposed to the government working on behalf of and at the sole discretion of the people). Where have you been the last 30 years?
I don't care about edge caching. I pay the ISPs money so that they continually and constantly upgrade their network. Not so that they pocket every dollar they can and provide the minimum possible service.
If you want to create a protocol that enables edge caching you create a protocol where content requested from a central source is redirected to an edge cached source and the stream encrypted from there. It should be one in which the request, the data and the transport are all encrypted.
This requires the active participation of all three parties: data provider, cache provider, and requester. The requester sends an encrypted request for data from the data provider. The data provider receives the request and informs the cache provider that it has received a request with the following hash. The cache provider then determines if it A) has that data in it's cache, B) wants that data to cache or C) if the data provider should provide the data directly.
If A) then the encrypted data is serves to the requester from the cache provider. If B) the data is sent to the cache provider from the data provider who then sends that data to the requester. If C), the data provider sends the data to the requester directly.
In this manner "what data is requested" as well as the content are never made visible to the data cache provider, nor to the spooks. Everything in encrypted end to end and only the data provider and the requester know what information is being exchanged.
If this is to technically or politically difficult to implement then we simply should not be using caching, full stop.
The security and privacy of citizens is of far greater importance than the profits of the ISP. Nothing on the internet should be unencrypted. Ever.
Why is there any aspect of the HTTP2 specification that is unencrypted? Why are we even creating protocols that use anything other than strong encryption for any traffic whatsoever?
Encryption in flight, encryption at rest and disaggregated, decentralized key exchange or just go the fuck home. It's 2014. The time for unencrypted data transmission is long past.
If you think for a second that Apple are betting the future of their company on mobiles you're a [puppies] [rainbows].
Apple's next jaunt will be into home robotics, mark my words. Mobile devices will be around for some time - you can still buy an iPod, eh? - but Apple are at work on the next high-margin thing. That means "lifestyle devices" (read: portable medical units and "the quantified self" widgets) as well as home robotics.
Similarly, Google has invested $stupid into robotics recently, and the old rivalry will continue.
Microsoft, meanwhile, is poised to become a third-rate power in a market that peaked 12 months ago. Rock on!
Yeah, it seems globalization has managed to what it was intended to do: drive the cost of Western labour down to Chinese prices (in part by raising the cost of Chinese labour) while dramatically increasing the volume and relative % of money flowing to the top 1% of individuals. All it took to make America competitive on the international labour market again was massive nation-wide unemployment and doubling the wealth gap.
This is a clear victory for the free market and tea party voters everywhere.
"i sincerely hope that they checked everything that could have caused the problem with the suit but can't believe that they got all of them."
They got all of the things the very best minds on our planet could think of...which is all that anyone rational can ask.
"I estimate that I am at somewhat more risk should that information fall into the hands of unscrupulous private parties...under that rubric, I trust the US a bit more than Russia."
Wow, in no way do we think alike here. While I agree there is a very critical threat model of personal information getting into the private sector (where it will be abused), I view the USA as far more likely to loose this info than Russia. Russia might sell some info to the mob, but the USA will make selling it legal.
If the mob gets your credit card, you are inconvenienced and you get a new card. The bank reimburses you because their security was breached.
If the USA sells all your info to insurance companies, suddenly you find you can't be covered for anything, ever, without forking over $_virgins. Meanwhile every advertising company on the planet has your full psychological profile and are able to coerce you into buying things you don't need using methodologies custom-tailored so that you cannot resist.
The USA is a far bigger threat with mass data than Russia. Hoodlums - organized or not - can be dealt with. Banks, insurance companies, and advertisers powerful enough to buy up the world's supply of group psychology PhDs cannot.
I have been interrogated in the room with the overly bright lights every single time I've crossed the US border in the past few years. And I'm a nobody.
There's a reason people are afraid of giving unlimited power to those who have no need for it.
I have to agree. I go into the US for conferences. I go into the UK for same. I live here at home. I have nothing to do with China or Russia nor do I ever expect to. If China and Russia want to spy on me, I'm perfectly okay with that.
The US, however, I'm not okay with. I have to go through their border patrol. Those guys are the bottom of the barrel to begin with, but they have absolute power. They decide based on their gut instinct and fuck all else the course of the rest of your life. I'm not okay with the USA spying on everything I do just so they can present some information to their overworked, underpaid and undereducated border guards to take completely out of context.
China spying on me doesn't impact my life at all. The USA spying on me can ruin it.
"You won't laugh when the British are extinct, and they declare Sharia law in the UK."
Why do "the British" need to survive? What about their genetics is (more) worth of propagation than that of another group?
As for culture, no empire lasts forever. Even were the whole world to be united under Sharia law some day, eventually that too would pass and humanity would evolve, adapt and move on. Your xenophobia is so small, so petty...it's nonsensical when viewed from a time horizon of centuries, let alone millenia.
You think financial systems. I think industrial control systems. When your industrial hardware is 35 years old then a 35 year old piece of software is still entirely fit for purpose.
Comparing the Allan key to the socket wrench doesn't help much in the real world. IT is huge. So many tools exist, each for their own purposes and each with their own lifespans. I need to replace drill bits on a regular basis; some times several times a year. But that old clawhammer that my dad bought when he was a teenager still works exactly as intended.
"but if every other bastard is using Office and I need my documents to come out formatted exactly as intended (some formatting I've seen is just ridiculous)"
Then you have a defined business requirement. One that - quite frankly - will never be met. I have cranked stuff out of Office 2013 that isn't properly read by Office 2013 on the computer sitting right beside the originator. Office and Libreoffice do indeed have rendering errors between them...but so do Office and Office as well as Libreoffice and Libreoffice.
Quite frankly, I think you are using a completely impossible requirement to justify purchasing software. If formatting matters use HTML. That's what it's there for. Your content is independent of your styles and it's easier to beat into shape when a render engine does something stupid.
Or just output to PDF. Really, bitmapping your output is the only way to be sure.
But, that aside, assuming that the planets align and for your specific use cases Office will render Office-created files accurate enough, but for some reason won't render Libreoffice-created files, then you have identified a requirement for you. I acknowledge that this may well be the case and I sincerely hope that you can resolve this business case with the purchase of Office 2013.
This is not, however, a requirement of mine, nor of my clients. Thus this is not a requirement that addresses the question "why should I hand over money for Office 2013?"
"Whatever you may think about Microsoft, I don't consider them any more "evil" than Samsung"
"and they're a bloody sight less "evil" than Google."
"But I also have no time for the constant bickering and squabbling of GNU radicals and extremist FOSS nutters either."
Look: you make your decisions about what's best for you, and so do I. In my experience this Dilbert is an entirely accurate representation of IT product design. Based on this, I don't trust any of these companies more than the other. That means the following decisions making process is optimal for me:
1) Determine a list of products which will do what I need them to do.
2) Select the product which offers the best value for dollar amongst that list.
In some cases you need to make a choice whether or not to support entire ecosystems. Here it becomes about the company as a whole. There are very few companies I avoid on general principle. Making these kinds of decisions becomes a game of cutting through FUD. Microsoft versus Google is a fantastic example.
Microsoft has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in trashing Google's name. To obvious effect. Despite this, nobody has been able to prove to me Microsoft aren't guilty of the very same things they accuse Google of doing. Instead, they simply sidestep the issues by talking about how you have the choice not to use their products if you don't want to, or to use their on-premise solutions.
So Microsoft have waged an effective campaign of disinformation against Google, but not actually set themselves apart in any meaningful fashion. As far as I can tell both are entirely too cavalier with my personal information and I trust neither particularly far.
So what then is to be the measure of my selection? Well, Microsoft has proven to give zero bent fucks about it's own partners, mainly by cutting our margins, raising SPLA pricing and refusing to make the clusterfuck that is VDI and multitennancy licensing into something sane. That's a whole bunch of me disliking Microsoft right there.
As a customer, Microsoft has told me to go fuck myself with the Ribbon bar, then again with Windows 8, then doubled down on it with Windows 8.1. They have told me that they view my 6-to-10-year refresh cycles as taking the crusts of bread from the mouths of their starving children and are putting every resource available into getting me to pay a subscription fee that isn't cost effective unless you are on 2 or 3 year refresh cycles for software with interfaces I abhor. That's the other part of me disliking Microsoft.
Microsoft also have put literally billions of dollars into making the punishment for copyright infringement as harsh as possible whilst simultaneously making their licensing so convoluted and open to interpretation that it is almost impossible not to be in violation of some aspect of it. They have put a great deal of time and effort into making sure that only can you not pirate their software, but any systems administrator, hobbyist, student or tech journalist trying to teach themselves Microsoft's suite of products cannot afford to do so. (AND THE HORSE YOU RODE IN, MICROSOFT. AND THE HORSE YOU FUCKING RODE IN ON, YOU TECHNET MURDERING BASTARDS!)
Google make products I actually want to buy. Google invest massive amounts of money into lobbying for internet regulation that - for the most part - would seem to benefit me as an individual as well as a small business owner. Google make sure that individuals, developers, systems administrators, hobbyests and small businesses can get access to the full suite of Google offerings for free. Google's pricing is simple, sensible and cheap.
Google spies on everything I do in a horrifically creepy fashion in order to advertise at me. I have zero believable evidence that Microsoft does not do the same. Google offers a difficult to use opt-out mechanism that doesn't quite cover everything. Microsoft does the same. Google's spying can be blocked with the most basic use of browser sheilding. So can Microsoft.
Google build out city-wide WiFi and 10-gigabit fibre projects. Microsoft give free software to schools so long as those schools agree not to buy/install competing products. Google are building a robotic car and a robot butler. Microsoft makes a video games console.
No matter which of these companies I pick, I will get screwed in one way or another. The difference is that I feel I get a lot less screwed with Google than Microsoft. Same with choosing RedHat over Microsoft, or Open Document Foundation over Microsoft.
I was once one of Microsoft's greatest champions. Today I am one of their most bitter detractors. I championed Microsoft because Microsoft had - and still have - some of the most amazing technologies on the market. I became a bitter detractor because of the barriers Microsoft erects to any attempt I have to make use of those technologies.
I believe wholeheartedly that Microsoft has some of the best technology on the planet. They have many of the smartest minds mankind has ever birthed. Microsoft is a company of influence and power that will be around for a long time and is a very safe bet if you are a well capitalized large enterprise of government wanting to make conservative decisions about what to do with your IT.
But to me, as an individual, as a small business owner, as an managed service provider, as a small cloud service provider, as a systems administrator, a developer and as a journalist Microsoft has been for the past five years - and remains today - far more of an impediment to getting what I want to do done than it is an enabler.
When what I can do technically with the products on offer from a vendor are not allowed legally or financially then they are of no use to me. They are the disease, not the cure.
TL;DR: I'm not on Microsoft's side because they aren't on my side. Changing that dynamic is entirely up to Microsoft.
I'm a writer by trade. I own a business that provides content for money. I rely on my office package for my livelihood. I rely on interoperability with what others are providing.
I fail to understand how the fact that corporate inertia exists in other corporations should affect my decision making process. If you have a business need for Office 2013 because you are imbedded in a bunch of VBscript macros, then you that is a definable business need and off you go.
What I am asking - and nobody is able to answer - is why I, Trevor Pott, a writer by trade who also does a reasonable amount of Excel mathhackery and Powerpoint work should buy Microsoft Office 2013. What are the killer features that make it worth the money and time to migrate my Office 2003 and Libreoffice systems to this software?
This is a very simple question with a defined set of parameters. It isn't a broad question about the entire industry. It isn't a question about other companies or other people. It is a question about me, my circumstances and the advantages - or not - to me and my company.
At the end of the day, that's what this always comes down to. Person by person, company by company. Individual needs analysis.
I don't know how you buy your stuff, but I don't buy based on popularity. I create a list of products that meet the needs posted (i.e. they are fit for purpose) and then I select the one that gives me the biggest bang for my buck. This is frequently the cheapest, but not always. If there is a strong argument to be made for convenience, scalability concerns or future upgradability.compatibility I am willing to pay more for a product on the fit for purpose list than simply choosing the cheapest option.
If, however, all products on the fit for purpose list do what is required of them and there are no compelling strategic concerns regarding the product why would I choose any product excepting the cheapest?
I am asking for the logic and rationale behind purchasing Office 2013 for my circumstances. I am entirely open to being convinced, if the argument can be made. I'm waiting patiently for rationale.
"If a company provided no benefit to anyone, it would go out of business rapidly."
This is nothing more than an assertion based on philosophy proven false decades ago.
"blah blah Microsoft is evil blah"
All big corporations - and most small ones - are evil. The question is "does their evil benefit me?" The answer to that became "no" about 5 years and change ago.
"I'd rather have a format that works because there's a financial reason for it to succeed, than one that was being pulled from all directions from the "include my feature too!" crowd."
What value does your proprietary format have if I can't afford your proprietary software in the first place? Also: name the features that I actually care about that your proprietary software has which the open source stuff doesn't. Actual features. "Must have" stuff that will pull me away from LibreOffice.
...if Office 2013 is so amazing then tell me right here and right now exactly why it's worth my money. No vague fluffyness. No studies. Detailed specifics that will make it worth the pence paid for me.
"This equates to a little over 4,900 Windows 8 tabs being sold via distribution."
Actually...I wonder if that number is all that bad. Before you all explode, hear me out: Windows 8.1 didn't land until August 27, 2013. Most corporates wouldn't dream of touching a Windows OS until it had hit service pack 1. So it isn't unreasonable to assume that the majority of those units were snapped up not to fit a given "now" need, but instead were bought for "proof of concept" work eyeing future deployments.
How many businesses are there in the UK that really, honestly, need tablets for their work and aren't already deeply embedded into the Apple ecosystem? I'd guess that 4,900 tablets probably represents around a thousand companies at least putting in the effort to seriously consider Windows as a tablet platform for their needs in 2014.
Maybe those aren't stellar numbers...but corporate compatible Windows 8 (i.e. service pack 1) has only been out for about 4 months, compared to a Apple ecosystem that's 3.5 years old. It's the next 8 months that will tell the tale. If we start to see big corporate wins in the UK in the first half of 2014 we'll know that some of these were POCs that proved out.
If not, I'm thinking we can safely assume that Apple won this battle and Microsoft haven't a snowball's chance in a neutron star of clawing their way back.
Cannibalize your own products and services before someone else does it for you.
Amen. I don't see Microsoft or Apple out there funding 10GbE fibre to the home, space races or so forth. Maybe it's just Google "buying" goodwill. If so, good on 'em.
That'd be a hell of a kickstarter.
"A friend of mine that follows openstack very closely for a big company says"
As for $_vendor, who cares? They are irrelevant and don't matter. Too small with not enough customers. The real battle is $_established_vendor_upon_whom_I've_trained_my_whole_career_array, $_established_vendor_upon_whom_I've_trained_my_whole_career_array, and $_established_vendor_upon_whom_I've_trained_my_whole_career_array
As for Google, who cares? They are irrelevant and don't matter. Too small with not enough customers. The real battle is Lycos, Dogpile, and Yahoo
As for Lenovo, who cares? They are irrelevant and don't matter. Too small with not enough customers. The real battle is HP, Dell, and IBM
As for Tintri, who cares? They are irrelevant and don't matter. Too small with not enough customers. The real battle is EMC, Netapp, and HP
As for Piston, who cares. They are irrelevant and don't matter. Too small with not enough customers. The real battle is HP, IBM, and Red Hat
In my view PistonCloud have the greatest understanding of Openstack of all companies currently playing the game. As a consequence of such, they make the best Openstack implementation. They contribute an incredible amount of code. As a consequence of such they have a lot of say in the direction of Openstack.
Metacloud is another one to watch. Their implementation may not be the greatest, but their model is to deploy it for you and manage it for you. Openstack On Your Premises as a Service. Once they've won an account they don't lose it. They have gained an absolutely cult following.
RedHat is taking a very JBoss approach to Openstack, just like HP, IBM and everyone else dipping their toes in. To wit; they are focused on packaging up other people's work in an enterprise friendly fashion in the hopes of leveraging their existing sales channels to drive new revenues using a new product with the minimum amount of effort.
PistonCloud, by contrast, are focused on building the best damned product they can with the belief that if they are the best they will win. This is arrogance on their part and it shows immediately if you actually spend any time with PistonCloud employees. They honestly believe they are the best.
They're probably right.
Our industry is littered with examples of products that were mediocre at best winning out because of who backed them. Our industry is also chalk full of examples of companies that rose to unrivaled dominance because they were categorically better than anyone else.
When I analyze the former situation I see that mediocre products win out over better ones in situations where the companies in question can use market dominance in one area to create market dominance in another area.
When I look at Openstack I see a brand new market. One where open technologies are the driver because the new world of "cloud" means a race to the bottom on margins. Here is where the best technology with the easiest implementation wins.
That means that PistonCloud, despite their size, is a real, viable, honest to $deity threat...and I don't think we'll have to wait long to see that drama play out. What matters is the next 18 months. That is how long the major players have to buy or kill PistonCloud. I am curious as to what will happen.
Mark my words: Piston Cloud is the Red Hat of Openstack. Red Hat wishes it were the Red Hat of Openstack, but it's far closer to being the SuSE of Openstack.
Nice to hear Rogers have been upgrading! :)
Fido is the rogers rebrand, innit? I thought they were horrifically oversubscribed on the lower mainland. Are you in the Cariboo or Kootanees? I'd heard that's where Rogers does best in BC.
You can get a cost savings by going SIM only, in most cases. However, my provider has a thing where they do try very hard to keep you in their orbit, and they are willing to write off the entire cost of the devices for us, letting us keep the SIM-free price. (They like corporate mobile contracts.)
"I understand Trevor's position, but I would like to know what he recommends to his customers. From my POV, WP8 is the cheap and supportable one to beat."
iPhone, if they're part of the Apple ecosystem already. Nexus, if they're part of Android ecosystem already. Blackberry if they are not part of any ecosystem yet.
"> from the standpoint of a business owner and end-user ... use for hours every day.
How is that possible?"
It's easier when you're nearsighted.
"a : Trevor is getting old and the geek is fading into the darkness."
Get off my synthetic lawn.
"b : Someone needs to bring out handheld holographic devices, "today", in order to satisfy the waning geekness."
"c : The smartphone market has simly reached peak smartphone, fallen into complete banality and we, as a race, need to move on to newer grounds."
I suspect this is the case.
"Google scan everything you do to sell adverts and your information. Microsoft don't."
Instead of "don't be naive" I simply say "prove it." There is no reason to believe Microsoft isn't scanning everything you do. Even if Microsoft were to publicly categorically deny that they do this, what reason would we have to take their word for it?
Google is evil. This is not something a rational person would dispute. That said, however, Google is evil in a manner which benefits you, me, and the rest of the world's average internet citizens. Something I cannot say of Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, Oracle or any of the other would-be tech giants.
If all the available roads lead to hell, I'm taking the one that is offering to drive me there in the most comfortable automated car.
"Anyone who actually trusts any example of "BigCorp" really should get out in the sunlight more often."
"Can anyone actually trust Microsoft?"
With SPC-1 benchmarks? Not even close. Synology systems do fantastic at a fixed block size with a queue depth of 4. They do even better in Hybrid mode with a "normal" workload profile (such as 75% read).
But SPC-1 is a different animal. It isn't so much a factor of the disk speed as it is the RAID and caching algorithms. It throws all sorts of different blocks at high write levels with variable queue depths. I love Synology, but you'd looking at all-flash setups on their latest gear to get SPC-1 benches that high off them.
It would be a quarter the cost of the NetApp, but it wouldn't scale worth a damn. That's the real deal here: NetApp is claiming linear scaling at this performance level for their cluster. Synology and other low-end solutions (with the possible exception of a handful of Server SAN solutions like Maxta, which are highly unlikely to give you the low latency and high IOPS on an SPC-1 test) don't scale. They are typically 2-node affairs doing block-level replication.
If, however, the scalability doesn't matter, well...a pair of fully expanded RS3614xs+ units filled with Samsung EVO SSDs could likely take this NetApp outback and spank it, and for cheaper too. But again, bear in mind that limitation. NetApp can always add another node to the cluster. Synology cannot.
Also: Synology needs Flash to get there. That's less of a problem today, when flash is so cheap, but it does go to show how much effort had to go into those old systems.
Gotta +1 Dimitris on this. It's actually a pretty decent amount of IOPS for SPC-1.
A lot of IOPS numbers are either standard 80% or 75% read with a uniform block size, or they are 100% random write with a uniform block size. Most benchmarks also maintain a steady queue depth which dramatically helps with getting high IOPS numbers.
While I'd say the price for this Netapp box is moderately high for the performance delivered, it's still hella-impressive performance. And frankly, for that performance, it's reasonably priced if your only consideration is traditional vendors.
When the nation in question chose to name itself to the Cloud Kingdom the text in holy book of Licensing was reinterpreted. Once, long ago, the text was viewed to be straightforward. It was a simpler time, a 1.0. What the peasants paid for, they kept. They could even bring what they owned to the Lord's castle by day and trade them with the other peasants.
But a rival nation rose to become a minor power; then another, and then yet another. In an effort to retain its status as the world's lone superpower, the Great Renaming occurred and The Cloud Kingdom was born. The book of Licensing was reinterpreted. Peasants owned nothing, nor were they allowed to keep anything of their harvest, nor feed those who depended on them. All that was under the sun would be tithed by the Empire of Sadness and the Cloud Kingdom would regain its supremacy.
Under the rule of the new leader the world grew to be a dark place. Those of other nations were able to take advantage of technological advancements. Their peasants lived happier, richer lives as the bounty of intellect was shared.
Within the Cloud Kingdom, however, only the richest could afford to use technologies that just a few years ago everyone could afford. Peasants began to flee to rival nations: refugees seeking a better life abroad. Innovation stagnated. Without exposure to the new technologies – or even the ability to afford the technologies common in the past - the Cloud Kingdom's populace were unable to create new ideas at the pace of their rivals.
The Empire of Sadness took over The Cloud Kingdom from the inside. It seemed so innocuous at first, as all such things always do. There was an Assurance, that the Empire of Sadness would serve a purpose. The Assurance stated that the tithe paid by the peasants would ultimately benefit the peasants themselves.
Over time, however, it was discovered that the Assurance was a scam, but the Cloud Kingdom was addicted to the regularity of the tithe under the Assurance and the Empire of Sadness craved more power. The Empire of Sadness itself was addicted, the Assurance had made it a power to be feared within the Cloud Kingdom and they sought more.
The Assurance was expanded, the book of Licensing reinterpreted, the paladins reinforced and the tithe expanded. It was deemed heretical for peasants to own things, treason for them to trade. Lords who sought to protect their peasants were hunted, as were any groups of peasants seeking to band together for protection.
The Empire of Sadness had begun to view the Cloud Kingdom's own peasants as its enemy. It cared not that by taking so high a tithe today that peasant would not be there tomorrow. All that mattered to the Empire of Sadness was this night's tribute, that it be larger than the last.
Did the actions of the Empire of Sadness succeed? Did the Cloud Kingdom's reinterpretation of the book of Licensing allow it to crush its rivals? Well, you see, the Cloud Kingdom decided that crushing its rivals was not to be its ultimate goal. Simply being at war with its rivals was enough, for the Cloud Kingdom had become ruled by the Empire of Sadness, a silent revolution from within.
It was better, they discovered, to always be at war than to actually win one.
But I cannot stay to tell more of the tale, good friend. The sun is dipping below the horizon once more. The paladins will be here soon, seeking from the peasants ever more tithe than nights past. I hear peasants screaming. I hear innovation dying. It is time for me to go.
I remember that one! It's the first time I ever read about neutrino heating. Which i hadn't really thought of as a thing before that. Science!
@Scroticus Canis you have no joy in your soul.
Yes, neutronium is a sci-fi term, but I think everyone is perfectly aware of what's meant by it's use. Neutronium has been a term used to describe the dense matter in a neutron star for longer than "neutron-degenerate matter" and I personally think it has a much nicer ring to it.
Besides, neutron-degenerate matter is so definite. It describes a very specific state of matter. (Assuming you believe that degenerate matter states should be states of matter, but that's a discussion for after you buy me some beers.)
Neutron is less exact. Are we talking about electron-degenerate matter? Proton-degenerate matter? Neutron-degenerate matter? Quark-degenerate matter?
All exist inside a neutron star, and frankly, I haven't the foggiest clue how dense this particular star got before it went boom. Electron-degenerate matter is a certainty, but what else exists in the moments just before the shockwave breaks through?
Nah, I'll stick to Neutronium. It sounds cooler, and it accurately conveys what I'm trying to convey whilst leaving enough uncertainty for me not to get into trouble by not knowing the precise details of the bits that go boom.
"Handwaving does not physics make. I also don't see how the PXP applies here. These neutrinos would definitely all have different states..."
The PXP is mentioned to give an idea of the density of matter we're talking about. The density of core material in a pre-supernova star is - and please correct me if I'm wrong - just this side of nutronium. Nutronium is what happens when the PXP is overcome. Thus I used a discussion about it not only to attempt to convey the extreme densities I was discussion, but also because it would give those who don't study astrophysics as a hobby something they could look up on Wikipedia.
Researching the PXP should give them an understanding of electron states, how atoms work, how things change at extreme densities and even how materials can heat when exposed to extreme neutrino bombardment. (And how the high density of the material makes neutrino impacts more likely.)
I didn't want to just give the answers, I wanted to provide a brief overview so that others could enjoy the fun of learning and exploration. It's a quirk of mine, especially when it comes to science.
0) "while contained in the cooler outer shell of the reaction"
Typically the corona of a star is far hotter than the core. When this gets reversed, bad things happen.
1) "Neutrinos aren't compressible."
Know that for a fact, do you? You know more than any physicist out there then. I believe, however, this refers to the increased density of the stellar core which slows neutrino exit as there is now just so much matter that they can't help bumping into things on the way out. The compression and fusion of the matter also tends to generate a heckofa lot more neutrinos than otherwise.
3) "They do not tend to heat surrounding matter either."
If there are enough of them, they do. Neutrinos still impact matter, but the events are rare. If enough neutrinos pass through dense enough matter then darn tootin' they'd impart energy to the atmos they impact. That's how we can see them, just by the by. They strike an atom and transfer energy to it which it eventually released as a photon. I.E. "the damned things make matter light up."
Eleventy squillion neutrinos passing through matter that is just this side of violating the pauli exclusion principle will heat the matter in question.
Oh, you're right, you can use a uselessly broken "side-by-side" view to have two apps on the screen at the same time. Holy fuck. That's mind blowing. I mean, it's not like I can do that on my Samsung Android phone! 
How many years, do you think, before they reinnovate a paradigm shift to alter the productivity landscape by giving you the ability to stack applications vertically and horizontally? How many more years before you can dynamically resize these applications in both dimensions? Maybe you could even layer then, or have as many on the screen as you need at one time?
What would that even look like?!?.
It wounds fantastical. It sounds revolutionary. It sounds like magic.
Yes, I can. Stock. I can even get a windows UI if I bother to put a half a bent pittance of effort into it. Wowee. That shitty open source Android cancer can match the wonders of Metro! Flee! Flee for your goddamned lives, the world is ending OH NOES!.
"Running Win7 on a Pentium-M with a 1024x600 screen is "interesting" no matter what SSD and memory you cram in there. The screen size is also "really useful" at 8.9''"
For the record, the P1510D runs Windows 7 quite well, thank you very much. The only thing that ever held it back was the shitty rust drive it shipped with. 2GB of RAM is enough to make it a perfectly acceptable companion for the kind of mono-tasking a tablet is good for.
Metro is the same damned thing - one app at a time - just with more pixels. At 8.9" I don't need "more pixels" for something I'm holding that far from my face. It's got more than enough horsepower to do the jobs asked of it...or for that matter most of the jobs that most people ask of endpoints, period.
If you've been at this for as long as you say, and you are so very old and so very wise then I'd have hoped the "newer is better" and "ooh look, shiny toy" parts would have worn off long ago.
I still use a 386 notebook for writing. It does the job asked of it. What matters is not the technology, nor the age. What matters is fitness for purpose. You can run the fucking Hubble telescope off of a 486 SX. You don't need a quad core i7 to scan a barcode and hit submit.
Oooh, "what are your philosophical predispositions?" I love this game!
1) The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
2) The needs of the one outweigh the desires of of the many.
3) The desires of the many outweigh the desires of the few.
4a) Sometimes, to cross Borg space, you need to make a deal with the Devil
4b) Remember that the scorpion will always sting the fox, it's his nature.
5) Never pass up an opportunity to place someone else in your debt.
6) If two men always agree, one of them is redundant.
7) Dogma is deleterious.
8) Liberty is of greater value than security.
9) Long noun chains don't automatically imply security
10) Life is too short.
Stir the above and you get me. It's a philosophy mixture that ultimately informs how I treat everything. From companies to governments to people. My opinions of all will change as the companies/governments/people evolve, but the core philosophical beliefs the underpin my character are very difficult to modify.
Ultimately, how any of us view a company - what actions, business models, customer interactions and so forth we view as "good" or "evil" - comes down to our personal philosophy. It always does. So rather than attempt to define how one feels about a company it is better to expend the self-awareness on coming to terms with the roots of your own core beliefs.
Where did you learn them? Why do you still hold them to be true? What events in your life have reinforced them and made them such a fundamental part of you?
Then - and only then - will you understand why feel the way you feel about the world around you. Then and only then will you be able to explain your take on the world to someone else.
According to my philosophy, Google are indeed douchebuckets, but they may well be the lesser of many weevils.