4903 posts • joined 31 May 2010
- ← Prev
- Next →
Re: Pat Gelsinger
America is 350M(ish) people. There are 7 Billion of us out there and Google has the bulk of the market share everywhere else.
With the rapidly growing wealth gap in the US (that has seen virtually every single dollar of the "recovery" from the latest recession go towards the super-rich with almost none of it making its way down the stack) the US is of rapidly decreasing relevance. To put it simply: an increasingly impoverished and indebted populace with a rapidly shrinking middle class has ever less disposable income to spend.
Apple can have the USA. Nobody cares. They can clean up there for the next decade and every year they will continue to show less growth than the last as the US population is simply no longer capable of sustaining Wall Street's appetites for corporate growth. A decade from now they will be a middle-tier country no different from so many others.
Google prefers to play the world at large. To continue to bolster growth they need to chase booms and abandon busts. When an economy looks to be slowing down or closing it's borders to outsiders Google moves on and invests elsewhere. They are perfectly prepared to jumpstart the economy of an entire nation in order to skim a % off the top as profits.
Real US purchasing power stagnated years ago. It has been in decline for the past several. Worse, the hoi polloi are paying off their debts and this is further restricting consumer activity. At the same time issues like the NSA being douchenozzles, laughably terrible US government (literally, laughing stock of the world) and continued horrible foreign policy mean that pepole of other nations dislike the US more today than they have in quite some time.
Wrapping yourself in an American flag will win you points at home, but kill you overseas. If your domestic market is collapsing, that doesn't seem like the brightest move.
Oh well, Google, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft...screw 'em all, I say. I've no loyalty to any of 'em.
Re: Pat Gelsinger
Actually, I think the article is pretty close to spot on in it's conjecture. Look at history: when Google announces it is looking at a particular technology it is because it is seeking to generate buzz, interest and - ultimately - a strong community following. These technologies are rarely truly "new", but they are unique twists on extant stuff that need a far broader base of people to get involved in order to make things really happen.
Here I am thinking of Android, Glass, Wave, Google +, many of the "in depth features" of Google Maps (such as Moon, building interiors, etc), Hangouts, Ventures, and Google TV.
When Google "just does it" then the technology in question is usually truly pioneering (GFS, Analytics, Google custom switches, Google AI load balancing and so forth.) These are core to their business operations and their competitive advantage and they don't like to share info until they are well on the way towards the next version.
To me, this says that Google has already made the decision to pursue ARM server processors and are in the first stages of a prolonged run up to the creation of an ecosystem. This is the hype phase. Next will come a lot of hint dropping and "idea mining." (Where they wait for the wider tech ecosystem to come up with great use cases and means of working together.)
After that will come a limited trial and prototyping phase (invite only, natch). This will be followed by "invite your friends" which will effectively be a free-for-all to anyone interested, but with enough legal CYA-this-is-still-a-beta to be get-out-of-jail-free, also "we can steal your ideas and not compensate you".
There will then be a bit of a lull as the community collapses inwards a bit, sheds the less interested and becomes more about a hard core of evangelists. Meanwhile, Google will be beavering away on internal stuff (probably on version 2 of implementation internally by this point) and readying a public release product. Google will quickly snap up the top 30% of the hard core of evangelists to staff the new consumer-facing department and launch the product.
They'll start slow, but subsidize heavily. The idea is to gain market share. The 70% of evangelists who weren't bought up will be cranking out applications like mad in the vain hope of getting hired at Google, driving a new explosion of interest and the foundations of a real ecosystem. The hardware will slowly creep up in price to just above 1.5x cost. It will stabilize here.
Google, meanwhile, will have had it's minions building an entire ecosystem delivery apparatus around the software layer and slowly start to "own" the ARM server market. Other competitors will have entered by this point, but they won't make a real volume dent.
By this point, we're 7-10 years out and Google will be on the 4th or 5th iteration of its hardware internally and will already have a sub-department filled with PhDs devoted to driving innovation in all areas of ARM server design that will give it a massive leg up on competitors. Those designs will find their way into the "consumer" product a few years later creating an ecosystem cycle much like the GFS/Hadoop one.
Overall, Google will have accomplished several goals:
1) reduced the cost of it's own infrastructure.
2) kickstart a "physicalisation" movement (likely complete with the ability to "vMotion" workloads on physical hardware the same way we can virtual ones. HA, Fault Tolerance, etc will all rear their heads.)
3) remove the "ownership" of the server market from Microsoft, Unix/Non-Google Linux and VMware.
4) made server applications something that can be - and increasingly will be - delivered through it's "Play" store (necessary for Google to retain control while allowing other manufacturers to bear the R&D burden of actually making the kit for punters.)
5) created a movement towards the TRUE integration of on premises server apps with cloud-based processing and application provisioning (only really possible if you create an ecosystem with zero legacy).
6) create an "enterprise" component to it's IT offering that suddenly makes ChromeOS and Android relevant in a way that they can't be today. (True app-store delivered integration of everything, backed by central Google Cloud processing, Google-based authentication, etc.)
Ultimately, it would lead to a completely new way of thinking about resource usage, data storage, identity, security and so forth because this new ecosystem simply wouldn't have the x86 legacy. It would start small, face fierce resistance and struggle for every inch of ground...but Google's gotten good at managing the human side of these sorts of things. They know how to create evangelists, create an ecosystem and offload the risk (and most of the heavy lifting) onto the community, swooping in only once the model has proven itself to cream the profits.
Worst case scenario, none of the above materializes, but Intel absolutely pisses itself in terror and starts busting a nut to prevent the ARMpocalypse. Google then gets cheaper servers and the ability to bully Intel for the next two decades.
Either way, Google wins.
Re: history repeating itself, why?
Hey, uh, MS shill dude...you know how RedHat made Linux Enterprise class?
PistonCloud is the RedHat of Openstack. Keep an eye out next year for lots on them. They've made my list of "companies Trevor is interested in" and I expect I'll be testing their stuff in my lab rather a lot.
0/10 Troll harder next time
Do not tempt me.
Exactly how dumb are you anyways? There are a dozen people who frequent these forums that could tear you a new one so comprehensively you'd be a gibbering mess rocking back and forth in a corner tearing out your own hair. Please don't lower our collective opinion of Microsoft's deep web and social media contractors even more than it already is. You should know better by now.
That's right guys, web developers don't all hate IE any more.
Some people carve designs into their own flesh with dull, rested, unsterilized bits of metal.
I don't think they're sane either.
With IPv6 the IP = device = person.
With NSA++ secret superpowers the OS/App/Router/Lightbulb/Whatever = trojan
Your browser tracks you.
Your apps track you.
Your logins track you.
Ads track you.
Encryption is cracked.
Cloudy providers can (and will) be compelled to give up your data.
The only privacy you have is keeping your data under your own control at all times and erecting a truly paranoid defense setup. There are no rights against unreasonable search or seizure on the internet.
In fact, if you're a prole, there really are no rights for you on the internet at all.
This is the future that the "awesome" CEO in question embraces. Profit uber alles.
Re: Monkey trap maybe . . .
A) Legacy systems with massive sunk investment and which would take even more massive investment to migrate away from.
B) Please link me to even one independent code review (let alone a hardcore security audit!) of an entire Linux distro. The many eyes and many hands contributing commits include those of the NSA.
I'm all for Linux, but you're talking bollocks.
It's not really "not wanting to do an Apples to Apples comparison" so much as it is "wanting to cut through marketing malarky."
Microsoft crows about sticker price (using very carefully defined scenarios). VMware screams about TCO (again, using very carefully defined, enterprise-only scenarios). The answer is very much so in between.
You answer is very much the same with the discounts schemes of the two as it is with the retail pricing. VMware is better as the low end and at the scale end. Microsoft absolutely cleans up in the middle. But neither one is guaranteed to be a better deal than the other unless you analyze the very specific cases for each customer. Microsoft is not cheaper than VMware. If can be, in some circumstances, but it also can be a lot more expensive.
For Microsoft to be cheaper you have to be working in Microsoft guest OS licensing and presuming (heavily) that these will be the predominant VMs in use. That's less and less the case these days. CentOS is spreading like a weed in the datacenter, even in enterprises that were traditionally Microsoft shops!
In addition, you are presuming that Hyper-V and VMware are equal. They aren't. My experience shows you can cram more VMs per host in almost any given environment onto VMware infrastructure than Microsoft, lower your costs there as well.
I'm not even touching the OpEx costs with a stick except to say that OpsMan is way easier to use. That's a subjective thing.
I'm no VMware fanboy here. I'm not a Microsoft fanboy either. I think both companies charge way to much and screw us all up and down the pipe...but in the real world neither has a decided advantage. Both have areas of strength and weakness, in operation as well as pricing.
Microsoft was best for the hobbiest. Well, until they killed technet. Fuckers.
VMware owns the up-to-three-node space. Microsoft owns the space between that at somewher ein the middle of the commercial midmarket. From there VMware takes over again for a spell. There's a brief area around the "this turns into proper enterprise territory" where Microsoft is cheaper for a bit again and then VMware is going to consistently be cheaper.
With very few exceptions, retail pricing means bupkus and is only a fraction of the costs that have to be worried about. Neither solution exists in isolation. It's not just the licensing that's an issue, it's that - quite frankly - almost nobody buys "full stack from one vendor" solutions. This is on some instances a purely price issue. In most others, however, it's because the OpEx costs of third party offerings are so significant that they outweigh any benefits of the "complete stack" play.
Maybe if this were 2006, where Microsoft was ascendant and a virtual monopoly in the datacenter it would be easier to call. But they're not, and they won't ever be again.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some CentOS templates to build.
Except that only a very narrow slice of the market uses retail licensing. At the SMB side, you're using the SMB packages and by commercial midmarket size you're arguing volume licensing. Something VMware builds a LOT more flexibility into.
Re: KVM = fastest Windows Virtualisation performance
"That's a laughable test with *MULTIPLE* VMs - just piling it as high as they can - KVM can't manage 1,000,00 IOPS in a *SINGLE* VM - which tests the true scalability of the hypervisor..."
[Redacted], Redmondian hyper-shill. Who the [redacted] runs one VM per host? KVM is good enough for Google, which makes it better than anything the rest of the world has. Google's tech > the rest of the world.
Added bonus: they don't posses an Empire of Sadness.
"Cost of Hyper-V + FULL System Centre Suite is MUCH cheaper than even base vSphere + Virtual Centre costs"
Completely untrue. Especially at scale, or down for the SMB level. (VMware Essentials Plus for the win.)
Begone, Empire of Sadness hyper-shill. [Redacted]!!!
Re: Microsoft licensing is a bitch.
Yes. It's VDI licensing. I believe I was very clear about that. It doesn't change the fact that Microsoft licensing is a bithc, nor that every single person who works for The Empire of Sadness should [redacted] into [redacted] and then [redacted] [redacted] [redacted].
And the horse they rode in on!
"It's effectively free - it's covered under Software Assurance that you pay on your ELA."
Okay, *YOU* are a Microsoft shill. Flat out. The bald-faced assumption that everyone pays a subscription fee and presenting this not only as a fait accompli but "normal" (without any comment or provision for the other 80% of businesses in the G8 nations) shows you attempting to push Micfosoft's preferred vision of the world in defiance of what the majority of the world actually looks like.
In fact, you're probably an operative of The Empire of Sadness. I hope you [redacted] and [redacted] you [redacted].
You needed a real OS to perform any work.
Which is why Windows 7's growth exceeds that of Windows 8. *ba dum tish*
As someone who is up on Microsoft licensing I can only say that there are reasons why I refer to Microsoft's licensing department as the Empire of Sadness.
After war criminals and a few select violent sociopaths, those who people the Empire of Sadness are, in my opinion the worst individuals our species has to offer.
Re: Virtuozzo licensing has no benefits over any other hypervisor
Trust the Empire of Sadness to have per-emptively prevented innovation yet again.
It's entirely fair. Unlike Windows 8, which was a counter-rotating clusterfuck of pain, shame and psychological abuse, Server 2012 is a truly excellent operating system that was significantly improved by Server 2012 R2.
Whereas the people responsible for the major design decisions of Windows 8 deserve to be [redacted] with [redacted] and [goats, again, really?] and then [nobody deserves exposure to the Empire of Sadness. Not even the endpoint team], the Server geeks did a fucking fantastic job and delivered a great operating system worth the full price upgrade.
It was not, however, worth the $2000 price hike on top of the full price, nor the gutting of SPLA of the annihilation of partner rebates.
But hey, my CentOS installations have gone up 2400% in the past 4 months. The price of rice is just too much for China...
Roughly 1.2x what it would if you were to just put that drive in a standalone system and use something like DBAN to write all 0s on a single pass. (At least if it's anything like it's smaller brethren.) The system tends to be operational during the rebuild process.
Hey Frank. This is another one of those replies that has turned into an an article all on it's own. You should see it early next week...
No you are being purposefully obtuse. I never said including products from QNAP was impossible, and you know that.
I said that it would be impossible for The Register to purchase everything it reviewed as it doesn't make enough on each article to cover the cost of the hardware to be purchased.
What I said - and what you are purposefully refusing to acknowledge - is that it is up to QNAP to submit things to The Register. QNAP hasn't submitted a unit for testing, so they don't have a review. I can't speak for Chris Mellor, but they don't even send me press releases, so they don't get published here.
If I went through those other sites - through any site that does reviews - I could find tens of thousands of products they haven't reviewed. Even in narrow categories all but the most popular and definitive sites for that category are going to have product (and even entire companies) missing.
In some cases the reason a product is missing is prejudice on behalf of the publication. In almost all cases, however, it is because the PR firm hired to represent the vendor simply didn't bother to contact the publication.
If you want QNAP to be reviewed, ask them to contact The Register. We are not going to buy a QNAP to review any more than we are going to buy an EMC unit to review or buy 25 Juniper switches and set up a full-bore SDN.
Getting reviewed is on the vendor. We'll publish interesting news, but we aren't going to go broke doing reviews. I don't care how much you, personally like this one vendor. It is the principle of the thing: if we bought review equipment that costs more than we'd make from writing the article for one vendor we'd have to do it for all. That's objectivity and neutrality.
If we did that then The Register wouldn't exist.
So why do don't you take your moaning and go bother QNAP's PR people. They're the ones who aren't doing their jobs.
To be clear: the job of The Register and her journalists is emphatically not to become paupers because you have a cracked view of reality. Cheers.
Edited to add: For the record, I've checked my e-mail and I have personally asked QNAP for review gear twice. Neither occasion even elicited a response. I've asked about for gear form other vendors. You don't get to climb on your high horse and whinge that The Register hasn't done it's job. We've asked twice more than we should have to. We won't ask again.
But it's not a shame. That's the entire point here. Why should El Reg do what you're proposing? What's the justification and rationale? Where's the impetus or the benefit? What does this add to their coverage, or to their approach to journalism?
More to the point, when did it become The Register's duty to review every item in a given space? How could they be reasonably expected to even be aware of all vendors in a space - or all developments in a space - unless the PR people hired by those same vendors actually do their jobs?
I'm not simply saying "that's the way it is." I'm saying your entire viewpoint is cracked, if not outright broken. Just how big do you think The Register is? It's one of the largest technology magazines in the world but I promise you it doesn't have the manpower to cover everything that goes on in all segments of IT. Do you have any comprehension of how big the IT industry is?
This is why things like PR companies exist. They exist to write press releases and get the attention and interest of reporters. Reporters look at the world around them - press releases, equipment they own, equipment they work with, etc - and make judgement calls about what's newsworthy and what's not.
A magazine like The Register is made up of several individual reporters, all working more or less independently, with a centralized e-mail address for blind submissions and a ruthless, jaded disenfranchised editor picking only the most interesting submissions from that e-mail and writing about them.
As a freelance writer, as a columnist for The Register and as someone who is building up his own technology magazine I simply don't comprehend how you expect it to work any differently. Not only do I not understand how you think it can work differently, I fail to understand why you think it should.
I don't publish every press release that hits my inbox, but I won't even know about a product launch unless it hits my inbox, so how could I write about it?
Similarly, The Register - or any technology magazine, news organization or what-have-you that you could name - simply cannot spend more than they earn.
You appear to either be decrying the moral injustice of The Register not spending more buying kit to review than they'd ever make off of publishing that review or your understanding of the amount of money an organization like The Register makes is utterly, completely broken. The Register can't spend money in the manner you're suggesting because it doesn't have it to spend. Nobody does.
So I am very curious about which category you fall into. Are you really an entitled prat who believes others should pay money for the privilege of doing your bidding, or are you just not comprehending the (increasingly tight) economics of journalism?
"It's a shame you don't do the impossible" isn't a remotely valid criticism or either the reporter or the magazine. At best it's a vain lament.
1) I am not ignoring QNAP or pretending they they don't exist.
2) I will cover anything that happens across my testlab. If I don't get the bandwidth on The Register, expect it to show up on WeBreakTech. That's right, I created my own tech magazine for when there's something I have to review by but El Reg doesn't have the budget. What isn't covered by me is covered by one of my sysadmin bloggers. Check out the latest review, System mechanic by Aaron Milne.
3) I have no trouble giving a crap review if something is crap. I punch Microsoft in the mommy-daddy buttons all the time.
4) I only review what is sent to me, what I personally buy or what I come across in my travels. I do not get paid enough to go out and buy every little thing and review it. What I get paid for a review article would not come close to covering the cost of even the cheapest of the QNAP boxes. In fact, for reviews, it rarely even covers the time I put into it. Per hour, reviews are the worst money I make at any of the jobs I work.
I don't see where your entitled attitude comes from? "Trevor, I demand you buy an expensive product with your own money and then review it on The Register so that the company in question can get some coverage and I can read about them." Here's a giggle: no.
It might shock you, but writers write to get paid. Not being willing to spend my hard-earned money to review something isn't a lack of objectivity. A lack of objectivity is giving someone a good review because they sent you a widget, or allowing your personal beliefs to interfere with an objective analysis.
You are attempting to use the word "objective" as some kind of moral sword to turn journalists into something less than slaves. You want journalists to pay to do your bidding.
Well, [redacted], buddy!
Do you think you could just demand that I go out and buy an EMC filer with my own money and review it? How about an IBM Mainframe? Next will you demand I pay my own way to Burma and cover the plight of the Rohingya, or that I buy a ticket/hotel/airfare to every conference and cover them all for you?
Where does the money come from? The Register doesn't have that kind of cash just lying around. I sure as hell don't. My company doesn't either. So where's the money for your personal take on objectivity coming from?
I'll tell you what, there is a perfectly objective way to ensure that any product, service or event that the readers want covered can get covered: they pay for it. IndieGoGo is easy: my crew raised over $10,000 for cancer. That is both fair and objective.
This isn't Fox News. "Fair and balanced" does not mean "equal airtime for any opinion, no matter how fringe, ridiculous or badly supported." I'm not putting timecube guy on TV and saying "he has an alternative theory of everything to the Standard Model." If I have to talk about him all I'm going to call him an utter whackjob, because that's what he is. That isn't how journalistic ethics or objectivity works.*
Nothing prevents QNAP from submitting a unit for review. Nothing prevents you - or anyone else - from pinging QNAP on Twitter, through their contact page or what-have-you and saying "you should get your unit reviewed on The Register."
You, the reader, can take action to see items you prefer covered here. But demanding that a journalist buy something he doesn't want out of his own pocket in order to review it for you - at a loss - is just asinine.
If I happen to run across a modern QNAP box and am in a position to put it through it's paces, it will get reviewed. Everything I run across like that gets reviewed. But I won't spend my hard-earned on something I'm not convinced will be a benefit to me just to satisfy you. That's fair...and balanced!
*In fact, that's the opposite, it is presenting fringe ideas as somehow equivalent to logical, well supported, scientifically backed ideas supported by the overwhelming number of professionals in the industry. Fox News-style "balance" is where "opinion" columns and editorials come in. Fox News isn't news at all, it's just editorializing and attempting to present massively disproven fringe ideas as equivalent to the actual truth in order to whip up political anger and make yet more money off their geriatric audience.
Re: Synology - are you receiving me... ?
Cheers! I'd been making sure the Synology marketing geeks watched the thread so they woudl be able to take notes on any/all complaints and work to address them.
For all the grief that the neggers want to throw Synology's way, my experience with them is that they are genuinely interested in providing the best product possible at the lowest price point possible. There are not a lot of companies I could say that about.
They're dwarfed in size by a lot of the competition, so sparse resources are not always distributed in a way that makes everyone happy...or is even optimal. But they do seem to try to make things right. It wasn't always the case...but in the past year and a half I've really noticed an uptick in their corporate culture. Here's hoping you do too!
Re: "Far cry from the prosumer NASes upon which Synology built its name"
K, I'm not misunderstanding at all. Synology are not currently making claims of enterprise-class support. Rumblings are that this is the direction they are moving towards. How will that new support effort look? Nobody knows.
The whole argument about 4-hour enterprise support is somewhat pointless. That's not currently something you're promised when you buy Synology. Instead, what you get it low cost systems where one entire unit can fail and the other just keeps going. That gives you leeway in getting the downed one repaired.
Personally, I prefer that model over so-called enterprise support, because none of my customers can withstand a 4-hour-long outage. Not even the smallest of SMBs. Thus the Synology model works incredibly well for my customers and thus why I have units are in production. 4-hour support just isn't good enough for me; nothing other than truly redundant hardware is.
That said, I understand that it's a staple of enterprise sysadmin thinking. So it will be critical for them to meet those requirements when they roll out their enterprise support offering.
That's interesting. I'm currently using an HA pair of 5 bay units for a review I'm working on. Even the nodes without Proximal Data caching enabled don't throw a wobble, and I'm using 7200rpm disks!
Re: Synology - are you receiving me... ?
Jeremy, e-mail me and I'll get you formally introduced. :)
Replication is not backup. Snapshots and backups still need to take place. Replication is just for hardware failure, and I trust it far more than I do "redundant controllers".
I far prefer two physical units in block-level sync over just a pair of failover controllers. Failover controllers still leave the motherboard, CPU, RAM, backplane etc as single points of failure.
Unless I can physically shoot the primary node and have the set still work it isn't redundant.
Good points all.
Noxious Ancient Souls
...because if you say "Thetan" you +++++------CARRIER LOST
Re: "Far cry from the prosumer NASes upon which Synology built its name"
Their support - for me - has been excellent. Similarly, I have heard no complaints for those I personally know who've worked with their support.
I do know that new versions of the DSM often have issues right at release and that you still have to do your due diligence as a sysadmin before updating, but I have been running these things in production for literally years now. Not a single issue.
Now, I have no particular loyalty to Synology, so if you have horror stories, please to e-mail them in. I'd love to investigate, poke around and see what I can so. So far, however, I see a massive community of die-hard evangelists and a few people on the edges who complain. (As there would be with any company.)
If this perception is inaccurate, I'd love evidence. It would give me something to chase down Synology's PR people with and ask pointed questions. If they are going to aim for a more enterprise-class support, how are they going to deal with the kinds of support issues that people raise to me?
So please, send in your squaks!
Re: If tablets are so ...
Because people want a consumptive device to consume content. Simples.
They already have a productivity device (PC) that works just fine...and are evne continuing to buy those productivity devices in the hundreds of millions each year.
There will always be more consumers of content than creators of content. That doesn't make a devices designed to consume content remotely useful for creating it.
Unless you're into selfies. In which case, go hard.
Re: Will these updates...
You're right; change happens. Nothing compels us to accept it as is. We have every right to fight that change, or to work to create yet more change which better suits our needs.
We're not stuck with anything. We can protest, we can vote with our wallets, we can direct resources into creating the alternatives we need. There are always options available, even if the only one left is revolution.
You have to deal with that, as the above is reality. But fuck you, sir, we don't have to deal with your bullshit assertions at all.
Re: I had to Google how to find the Control Panel...
More to the point not everyone things in the same way. Thus, search is incredibly non-optimal (to the point of being deleterious) for a great many individuals. There are 7 billion people on the planet. Given human diversity, one input methodology does not fit all.
Re: Missing the woods for the trees
Empathy and emotion are emergent properties of the chemical reactions that make us. They aren't magic.
What they are however, is individual. That you experience one set of chemical reactions in response to a particular stimulus doesn't mean that someone else does. Thus saying "my emotions are the reason that my argument is valid" is both absurd and pointless. That response cuts both ways; the emotions of the opposing part logically would hold the same validity and thus when and where opposite they cancel eachother out.
This is why the emotion of the debating parties is irrelevant. The only way that emotions can be used to validate an argument is by saying that the emotions of one party are somehow more valuable than those of another. Which is perilously close to the same "dehumanising" concept you so casually threw around. Where's the line between "my argument is valid because my emotions have greater value than yours" and "you shouldn't vote because you're black and I'm white?"
All sorts of animals have emotions. Virtually all mammals, most fish...hell my lizards have very clearly observable moods. There's nothing special about emotions.
What does, however, set truly sentient, sapient beings apart from lesser creatures is logic. The capability for rational and predictive thought is rare. We only know of a handful of non-human animals that posses it, and that's not for lack of searching.
Thus in an argument attempting to establish fundamental ethics upon which to build a moral code - and ultimately laws - emotion of the arguing parties simply has no place. By the same rational belief/faith/religion have no place in these arguments either. Why is your belief/faith/religion to be taken as more important than mine? What the hell makes you so special?
Far more critically, why should your personal belief/faith/religion be imposed on those who don't share it? Like the emotions of the arguing parties, belief, faith and religion can't be entered into argument unless you posit superiority of one side. If you do that, you are throwing the entire concept of a society in which all individuals are equal under the law right out the window.
And like my ancestors, I will fight a fucking war to defend that concept. I will die, if I must.
That leaves logic, scientific evidence and reasoned discussion. So far, I haven't seen those used to validate the right-to-life belief.
Uh...you're pointing at the article that says Windows 8's growth was outpaced by it's three year old predecessor and failed to make a significant dent in it's 13 year old ancestor as evidence that Windows 8 is a success?
The fuck, what?
I think you need to read this, and then start learning a lot about how Microsoft reports figures. Such as the fact that units sold and then downgraded are counted as sales of the new OS, rather than the old one.
Windows 7 is an example of a beloved operating system. One with broad customer support and appreciation. It started off strong and grew pretty much linearly. Windows 8 - like Vista before it - started off weak and grew in an irregular pattern dominated by major contract renewals.
More critically, Windows 7 is still surpassing Windows 8's growth, despite that fact that all new contract renewals are counted as Windows 8 sales. This means that popular support for Windows 7 is so overwhelming amongst consumers and small businesses that their market signal is completely drowning out Windows 8's corporate and government contract renewal.
Are you even capable of understanding how unbelievably, overwhelmingly large of a failure that is? Consumers and SMEs don't have a lot of purchasing power when compared to the commercial midmarket, Enterprises, CSPs, MSPs and governments...all of whom are contract purchasers.
Windows 7 licence growth is almost exclusively coming from new system purchases or retail purchases of the OS. (Open licence could count here too, but almost everyone will buy the newer OS and use the downgrade options.)
The PC market has been declining year over year. So that means that in a declining market, so many systems are being purchased with Windows 7 that it's growth is outpacing not only retail purchases of Windows 8, but contract renewal rates as well.
That's mind boggling. That's a failure of epic proportions.
That's Windows 8.
Edit; I do realise we're looking at NetApp data here and not counted sales, but MS's official figures follow the NetApp data quite well so far.
Re: Had enough of Microsoft.. start menu whingers
I can't say what I really think. If I did I'd never be allowed to write on these forums again. Believe me, this is quite toned down.
Re: Missing the woods for the trees
Lexxy, I think with that statement any credibility you may have had evaporated. Are you seriously trying to say that an adult human being who is sentient, sapient and capable of processing information about their environment, making decisions, etc is rationally equivalent to a non-sentient, non-sapient clump of cells? That they are the same thing to you? Under what logic does that form?
Let's take one of the most extreme scenarios; someone with a genetic defect leading to mental retardation so sever they would score below 70 on an IQ test. As an adult, that human is still more aware than a cat or a dog. They are well into the realm of being aware of their environment, being able to have theory of mind and a fear of death. Are you honestly saying that even the most mentally bereft of adult humans is the same as a collection of cells without a functional neural network?
A blob of cells isn't human. It has the potential to be human, but the characteristics that make us sentient and sapient simply don't exist at that stage.
Let me put this into context: are you familiar with the concept of stem cells? They are cells in your body flooded with telomerase and which have not had "fates" assigned to them. (Fate assignation methodology is beyond the scope of this comment, however, there's plenty of research if you want to hit up Google Scholar.) The short version of a stem cell is that it can become any kind of cell. Most stem cells could even be used to clone an entirely new copy of the host animal.
Adult humans produce thousands of these things per day. Our brains alone crank out several hundred new brain cells a day, to say nothing of the stem cells lining our guts, our marrow and various other aspects of our physiology: we are constantly being refreshed and renewed wiht new cells thanks to our stem cells. We couldn't be alive without them.
What's really interesting is that these stem cells don't always actually stay put. Every now and again we'll shed a few. One of the places this happens more than any other is our intestines. Or, to put this in a more compact version:
On a fairly regular basis you actually excrete as part of your feces collections of cells that could very easily (under the right circumstances) grow to become an adult human being. Not just any adult human being, one with your exact genetic code.
That's right, you poop people.
Well, that is, if you define any random collection of cells that could grow to become a fully independent adult human being a "person".
So, are you "advocating the destruction of a person" by taking a crap? What about by cutting yourself, bleeding and thus causing an uptick in blood cell production which ultimately jars loose a few stem cells that will probably be passed through the kidneys and excreted with your urine? How many "potential people" are killed by a night of intoxication?
Oh, so you don't consider the clumps of cells you excrete, bleed or murder with toxins to be "potential people?" Why, exactly? What differentiates that agglomeration of cells in your intestines from one that happens to exist in a uterus?
Did your mind generate something with the word "natural"? Interesting! But you see, "nature" is jut the result of fundamental forces interacting. The sort of thing that makes a hydrogen bond to a carbon, and those interact with another carbon...amino acids form proteins which cooperate and compete until you have RNA, DNA, cells, biofilms, multicellular organisms...and you.
You're a sack of chemicals and nothing more. That's nature.
What sets advanced multicellular life apart from less advances forms of life is the emergent properties of neural networks. The more complex the network the more complex the consciousness of the organism. Cats, dogs, people, elephants...where do you draw the line? Why?
Ultimately what this really boils down to is that you are arguing that potential people should have rights. But you are only arguing for a specific kind of potential people. Ones that arise under very specific circumstances. In order to grant rights to this special class of potential people you seem entirely ready to deprive actual people of their rights. Why?
What about non-human animals? Which among them deserve right? Why? Why not?
What about "potential people" that don't arise from your sanctioned methodology? Do they deserve rights? Why? Why not?
Your argument is based in emotion and rhetoric. I am open minded. I can be persuaded, my mind changed. I suspect you'll find that most of The Register's readership is the same. The key here is that you have to actually put the effort in. Answer the hard questions. Provide evidence, sound reasoning, logic and rationale.
Emotions of the arguing parties are irrelevant. Rhetoric is irrelevant. Faith is irrelevant. Either you can prove your argument or you can't, if you can't then don't expect to persuade anyone.
In the meantime, I will continue to advocate that women have the right to prevent a clump of non-sentient, non-spaient cells from developing a neural network advanced enough to be capable of choice. (Though I believe that once a neural network has evolved past that point the ethics of termination changes.)
I won't, however, denigrate adult humans - regardless of their mental faculties - by saying that they are remotely "the same" as something that can't think, or feel...or choose.
Office exists for Mac OSX
Re: Startisback and Modernmix is a necessity
I personally bay for RetroUI because Classic Shell doesn't make Metro Apps windowable.
Re: MOD NOTE
Your opinion was that I shouldn't be given a choice. As far as I am concerned that does make you no different than the oppressive, religious far-right.
Additionally, by what law must abortion be non-trivial? It seems to me the relative importance of it is an individual thing. That it is important to you does not make it important to me. It's quite obvious something I find very important - the right to choose - is not all that important to you.
You trivialized the immorality of removing choice from another. I engaged that and voiced my opinion that this was immoral. You then trivialized me and my personal beliefs by attempting claim that they paled in relevance to your own personal moral code and set of psychic traumas.
You are defending your choice to reach for the censorship button by saying my beliefs are more trivial than yours whilst crying that I am trivializing your beliefs. Nice.
And for the record, while I thought you were probably a douche before, I'm absolutely convinced of it now.
Isn't it interesting how diverging moralities generate dichotomies of perception and relative importance?
Edited to add: I'm not saying I'm not a douche. I probably am, certainly I appear to have broken a few people's doucheometers by disagreeing vehemently with them. What I am saying, however, is that given your actions I'm pretty confident I'm no douchier than you.
Re: Missing the woods for the trees
Hi Lexxy, well this is the classic debate, isn't it? I don't believe life is mysterious. I can tell you exactly why those cells are alive. I can explain it all right back to first principles. With enough science the need for religion evaporates.
I also don't hold that a clump of cells has the capability to make a choice. If they do, what then a mouse, a moose or even a biofilm? What makes one non-sentient, non-sapient clump of cells more important than another? My fish is more aware than a fetus. My cat more aware than a 3-year-old child. What makes humans sacred?
I was not "granted' life. That implies a sky fairy doling out lots which is - ultimately - absurd. I am the result of trillions upon trillions of chemical interactions and nothing more. My conciousness is an emergent property of those chemical interactions and humans are not the only animals that are both sentient and sapient.
By all tests, Elephants are likely just as sentient and as sapient as we are. Corvids most likely are close enough for jazz as are cetaceans and our cousins the other Great Apes. I do not hold humans to be exceptional. I do not hold myself to be exceptional. Holy hell, man, I'm mostly bacteria. Organisms we gleefully kill by the quadrillions without a second thought are absolutely critical to making sure the very chemical processes that keep my body alive continue to function.
Your argument seems to rest on the innate majesty of man, an argument which is typically rooted in religion. I reject both religion and the innate majesty of man. Sentience and sapience are the relevant qualities I respect. In this regard I respect an infant human no more (and no less) than I do a dog or a cat. I hold a completely non-sentient cellular mass with less regard than I do my fish.
As much as I respect your right to believe what you will, only science and hard evidence will change my views, and in that view you cannot remove a choice from something that isn't capable of making one. Nobody is a "person" to me until they are sentient and sapient...and frankly, I include a lot more of the animal kingdom in my definition of "person" than those who typically wield religious right-to-life arguments would ever accept.
Complicated world, many views.
Re: MOD NOTE
I'd also like to add that had you simply said to me "Trevor, I think that you're a gigantic fuckfaced douchball (to whom I hope something really terrible happens) and that post you wrote really offended me. For personal reasons I don't want to get into, it's all a little too close to home, can you please withdraw it?" I totally would have deleted the post.
Instead, you decided that the best possible route was to attempt to have me censored. To remove my choice to exercise my right to self expression. You didn't even try asking nicely. Or even asking douchily.
Butting heads on the internet needn't strip all of that humanity away. Most times, you'll find I'm actually quite nice and make earnest attempts to be helpful...even do many who have been utter douchewads in the past. But going straight for the censorship button off the bat is really rather a no-go for me.
That is where I start forming some pretty negative opinions of you, sir. It's where your actions very directly start to walk into territory I feel is immoral and unethical. You went straight to censorship. Do not pass go, do not collect $200, just push the big red button marked "nuke."
Well, maybe this will be a bit of a lesson. Try the carrot, then the stick. If both fail then and only then seek out someone with a far bigger stick. While I can't speak to the rest of the world, this is the best way to get good results from me.
Re: not factoring in storage or bandwidth?
This one I am going to respond to in article form.
Re: The 'cloud' is a tool, not a goal (or at least it should be)
Couldn't agree more. Well put.
Re: Let's see...
A) The NSA do listen on the pipe.
B) The NSA can - and do - demand the data via secret letters from a secret court using tangled (and secret) interpretations of purposefully obfuscated laws paired with secret letters to keep everything secret on penalty of all involved going to secret prisons for a secret amount of time after a secret (or no) trial.
If your data is at any point exposed in a an unencrypted format* to a company or individual that has a US legal attack surface - no matter how small - then your data belongs to the NSA. That simply cannot be contested at this point.
Nothing Microsoft, Google, Amazon or anyone else can do will ever make their clouds secure unless they find a way to offer 100% end-to-end (at flight and at rest) encryption that nobody but the keyholder can decrypt. No man-in-the-middle attacks. No secret give-us-the-key-now attacks. No hidden backdoors in the crypto algorithm. (It must be developed openly and audited by multiple independent reviewers with divergent - or opposing - allegiances.)
Neither Microsoft, Google, Amazon or any other American provider have the slightest interest in providing that level of security as it would eat a few points of margin to develop and maintain it. So, unless you can secure it yourself you can't trust cloud computing for anything but the most trivial of workloads.
I'll certainly not be putting any personally identifiable information for any of my customers in the cloud...
*Or encrypted with an algorithm the NSA has broken/compromised.
Re: "Oracle databases are still apparently a thing."
"Is a thing" is an expression that significantly predates the hipsterati discovering it and converting it into an image macro.
OMFGWTFBBQ. I have the Micron/Crucial 960GB SSD in my "desktop" (Alienware MX18). It's so stupid fast it [censored] the [censored] and [really, a goat?] with added [I can't unthink that]!!!
Basically can't live without them, now. OTOH, I have a Samsung 240GB mSATA that I'm tossing into my Lenovo x230, we'll see how that goes...
- ← Prev
- Next →
- Hi-torque tank engines: EXTREME car hacking with The Register
- Review What's MISSING on Amazon Fire Phone... and why it WON'T set the world alight
- Product round-up Ten excellent FREE PC apps to brighten your Windows
- Product round-up Trousers down for six of the best affordable Androids
- Why did it take antivirus giants YEARS to drill into super-scary Regin? Symantec responds...