Re: So, the conclusion is ..
Uh, it's the USA that will have put Oliver on the "known associate" list, mate.
7021 posts • joined 31 May 2010
Uh, it's the USA that will have put Oliver on the "known associate" list, mate.
When have I ever started with the solution "put it in the cloud"? Hmm? Do you even read the articles anymore? Or you just see "cloud" then whip your your Mighty Ragekeyboard of Justice? Dear $deity man, I have a pretty solid track record as being one of the most anti-cloud writers The Register has! I have written any number of articles warning about the many and varied dangers, and not to take the supposed cost savings at face value.
Despite that, the cloud is worth consideration. It is - for backups - probably even cheaper (under the right circumstances). It's one tool amongst many, but it is an increasingly valid and important one. Even to "cloud haters" like me.
What shocks me is that you are so averse to cloud computing that you would advise customers to be prepared to simply lose data rather than use the cloud. And, of course, you're assuming that the customer has sorted and organized all their data or has the time to do so. In many cases - in my experience, in most cases - it is actually cheaper to just buy the extra damned storage space than it is to throw umpteen man-hours at an organization and rationalization project.
While I agree that not everything in every company has to be backed up, or made disaster proof, not every company has the means to make that determination, either. And - to be perfectly blunt about this - not only are you better safe than sorry, but the cost of cloud storage just isn't high enough to piss and moan about any more. The cost of data loss, however can be the whole company.
So, while you and I could sit here listing exceptions to every rule, the existence of an exception does not invalidate the rule. The rule is: everyone needs backups and everyone should be sending some or all of those backups to a disaster recovery site. The addendum to that rule is that cloud backups are generally cheaper and certainly way the heck easier for most companies, like it or not.
Now i personally don't like it - I have massive data sovereignty concerns with cloud computing - but my personal preference doesn't change reality. And I submit to you sir that your preferences don't change reality either.
Entry level of scale is indeed a single socket Quad Core Xeon with 32GB of RAM that can't be upgraded...because Intel won't allow you to use more than 32GB of RAM with a single socket Xeon. Period.
But had you looked at one model up from the HC1000, you'd have found Scale Computing offered the dual socket models in a plethora of configurations that could be upgraded at will. You are complaining that the lowest possible tier model can't be upgraded because Intel designed their lineup that way. Sorry mate, there's nothing to be done about that. If you want the flexibility you have to pay the minimum cost for a two-socket server, even if it has one CPU. That ain't Scale's fault, and it would be the same if you rolled your own.
"We are working mainly on the EU market so we haven't seen Scale Computing much yet"
Sorry to have to be the one to inform you, but you will be seeing a lot more of Scale in the EU market very soon. Hans and I will be seeing to that. Also expect Maxta, Yottabyte, Gridstore and many, many others.
Also: for the record, I have three HC1000s, so I do get to test what moving things around the cluster is like. I will be interested to give NodeWeaver a proper look see, just like I have for nearly every other hyperconvergence solution out there.
If you work with one hyperconvergence company you are biased towards that company. If you work with all the companies (or nearly all) you're developing expertise. I prefer the latter to the former, and I haven't' been disappointed. Each company has their charms, and each solution is special in it's own way, with it's own use cases.
So I'll find time later this month, and we'll see about getting Nodeweaver spun up!
@PVecchi My lab: http://www.trevorpott.com/thelab/ The problem is not finding nodes. The problem is finding time...
"I'm not sure you ever heard a ScaleComputing pitch"
Uh, Hans, my company - eGeek Consulting Ltd - runs it's production infrastructure on Scale Computing's appliances. Jason sent over 3x HC1000 nodes and they've proven quite reliable and usable thus far. At some point The Other Scott Lowe and I are going to set up a multi-site replication setup for testing, and I think Justin Warren is on the list too.
Actually, you know I know about Scale because we had a whole discussion on Twitter about Scale. Anyways, Jason's really reaching out to the community at large and working with many of us to make sure we know what they have to provide. For the most part it's good stuff. (I should have a review up some time next week, as a matter of fact.)
Anywho, thar she be...
Yes, PVecchi NodeWeaver is one of the projects I was talking about. There are others. I actually just learned of a new one a few hours ago. Don't ask me how I ended up being "hyperconverged guy", but here I am. :/
NodeWeaver is interesting, and I can't wait to see the code when it's ready for a more open beta. Keep an eye out for some of my articles this month, I've got entire series on hyperconvergence due.
One thing worth noting is that other hyeprconverged players are already working on Docker support. Maxta, for example, supports VMware, KVM, KVM/Openstack (Via Mirantis) and Docker. And that's just one of the many, many players in the hyperconverged market.
Nutanix isn't the only one talking about open source either, and there are at least two "open hyperconverged" projected that have started in stealth. Hyperconvergence is going to be a commodity just like the hypervisor. The money is in the management tools.
Make it easy to use and cheap to deploy with licensing that's simple and comprehensible...or get out of the game!
Hey, everyone, I made a religious Tea Party type all angry! What a perfect, glorious start to a Monday. I'm so proud!
Seriously though, Mr. Paul, you can't shame me into thinking I should be tolerant towards bigots. That whole "you're not tolerant unless you tolerate the intolerant" thing is bollocks, and I don't buy it.
There are lots of things that make me happy. The problem you and I have is that I am made happy by things like "organizations and governments that comply with the UDHR" and "your right to swing ends at the point of my nose". I'm made angry by religions and politics that seek to control people.
And no, corporations aren't people.
So, in general, a whole lot of the first world outside of the US, the UK and OZ makes me very happy! Especially Nordic countries. Oh, every country has their flaws, but there are still some pretty great thigns in this world...even great politics!
But America? I can't see why I would like it, Mr Paul. It's filled with people like you. And there's not a damned thing to like about you.
As for "bigoted namecalling", I don't particularly see why I should refrain. The whacko loony tunes side of the right wing pulpit certainly doesn't hold back. Why honour them by treating them or their viewpoints as somehow worthy of anything other than utter contempt and extreme prejudice? They don't espouse evidence-based philosophies, ideals, politics or really anything. So why should I spend even a bent iota of time attempting to play nice, use logic or bother with evidence when debating them?
Attempting to have a rational, evidence-based, logical conversation with someone who honestly believes "because God" is an acceptable answer to something is completely pointless. Similarly, attempting to have such a conversation wtih someone who still believes - against all evidence - that supply side economics works, is just silly.
The whacko right wing aren't espousing rational philosophies or using rational argumentation. They are using faith and rhetoric! You can't argue against faith and rhetoric with logic and expect anything other than a circular wankfest. So fuck it, skip it, and go straight to simply calling them out for being crazy and then ostracizing them.
So, you know what? I think I'll keep on keeping on. Making you unhappy and pissing in the cheerios of the types of folks who think they have a "right" to control women's vaginas, people's sexual orientations and how many people of what colour live where. I'll piss off that lot with a shit-eating grin on my face and feel great about myself.
I've read your own posts, sir. You're pretty damned vitriolic yourself. Of course, you seem to think that's fine, so long as it's "the evil liberals" you're attacking. Well boo fucking hoo. Your entire life philosophy is wrong, and I'm not afraid to call you on it over and over and over and over. Let's dance a dance and weave our tapestry of political interferometry across the Internets, shall we?
It seems like the thing to do.
"And if the caller is I'D as international and vanishes the next day?"
Then they succeed in annoying you. That said, you know they're a scam because they aren't obeying the DNC.
Just because a given law isn't perfect and doesn't solve every possible use case doesn't mean it isn't a step in the right direction. What would you prefer, a DNC law that is imperfect and in which some scammers make it through or no DNC law at all in which you are irritated dozens of times a night by telemarketers?
People who let perfect be the enemy of good are, to my thinking, batshit crazy.
No, the worst offenders are the ones above the law. Then there are some criminals who would track people regardless, but they would be investigated by the law and brought to justice. That's what laws are for.
Let me put this another way. In Canada there is a phone register where you put your phone number ever 3 or so years and you are on the list for "do not telemarket to me you poxy whoresons". Only newspapers registered charities (usually "can we pick up used household items") and political campaigns are exempt from this law.
Immediately after implementation the number of irritating phone calls dropped to about 10%. Of those, the "can we pick up used household items" folks are useful because they send a truck round twice a year to pick up stuff you've no use for. Newspapers could fuck off any time - as could politicians - but a call a week from those groups is way better than the 10-20 a night of telemarketers we were getting before.
Now, there are scammers - mostly based out of the US and India - but you know that they are scammers because they are not respecting the do not call list. You can just hang up on them.
Most individuals and companies obey the law. They don't want to pay fines or end up in jail. Some organizations (newspapers in this case, technology companies in the case of online advertising) try to have the laws drafted so as not to affect them.
Only governments and politicians think themselves truly above the law. Everyone else are criminals, and you can ignore them because they are criminals.
In the case of DNT and online advertising there are whitelists that are assembled and can be fed into things like AdBlock. Compliance with the initative gets you on the white list. Non compliance gets you blocked. One day we may be able to take a blacklist approach, and that would be nice...but it would require laws and proven enforcement before we go there.
But therein lies the problem: the corrupt governments - namely the US - that won't look after individual liberties. Most especially because they are the worst offenders for infringing on civil liberties.
So because the almighty US of A refuses to not be a worthless sack of fetid shit, ordinary citizens need to take their own liberties into their own hands. In this case, through methods like Adblock.
Were laws in place legitimate companies would follow them. Period. They might rail and moan and lobby and campaign, but when all is said and done they'd obey. The risks of not doing so are just too high.
Unfortunately we can't get laws put in place. The reason is a combination of fatalistic apathy (which the American populace excels at) and a blame-the-victim mentality that is fucking abhorrent.
We have made serious dents in these sorts of problems in other spheres. We can make serious dents in these problems online as well. Can we completely eliminate the issues? No. But we can make it obvious who are criminals and who are not and implement technologies to isolate those criminals and mitigate the damage they do.
And for the record, individuals seeking privacy are not the criminals here. Those seeking to infringe the privacy of others are. And for that matter, those who meekly accede to those who want to invade the privacy of us all should be tried as accomplices!
I wasn't too harsh on Doug at all. If anything, I was far, far too lenient.
"If you make a law, that's great, but that's an option only available to those of you in the EU. In the US the odds of such a law are zero."
Then get rid of your useless, corrupt, inept and socially backwards rulers. Stop wasting your time preventing gay people from marrying and start finding a way to provide health care to your people universally and at the same cost per citizen as the rest of the civilized world. Stop locking up your people for stupid petty shit and start educating them instead, so that they aren't trapped in a life of poverty that requires crime for subsistence.
In short, stop treating your populace as peasantry to be kept ignorant and oppressed and maybe - just maybe - your country wouldn't suck out loud. Of course, that would me throwing all the idiots who believe in supply side economics or want a theocracy into the ocean, but to be perfectly honest you lot should be doing that as a matter of course.
If you make it the default, web sites will just ignore it saying "the user didn't intend to set it like that". If the default is off, then anyone who has DNT set most definitely DID intend to set that, and that argument that they "didn't mean to" falls flat.
What is the point of a setting like that if it defaults to not allowing tracking? No one is going to enable that.
Websites shouldn't be tracking you by default. It should be opt in, not opt out. Those that choose otherwise should be dragged up to Mt Erebus and chucked the fuck in.
I don't know, I wouldn't mind it if my notebook skittered over a few inches to the inductive charging pad when the cat knocks it askew...
@Hargrove Like the previous poster, I suspect you are a religious apologist rather than anything approaching an impartial observer. The biggest reason for my suspicion here is that I did indeed acknowledge that this sort of authoritarian mindset can exist outside of the welcoming bosom of religion, yet you seem to feel that I not only did not say this, but that the existence of this mindset outside of religion somehow removes religion from consideration in this matter.
Yes, authoritarian pricks exist outside of religion. But religion is, by a country mile, the biggest refuge of these types of people. The existence of exceptions does not invalidate the rule.
The problem isn't religion per se. If you want to believe idiocy, go right ahead, that's up to you. The problem is that we, as a society, give religions special dispensation. Everything from tax breaks to special legal (and in crazy countries, even constitutional) protections. This makes religions the perfect place for authoritarians to hide and attempt to build their power.
The result? While individual religious followers may not all be authoritarian douchecnaoes, religions almost universally are. The social construct of religions are dangerous. The existence of them as a class of thing separate from a corporation is a huge problem.
Religions are businesses. Businesses built on intolerance, guilt, shame, shunning and - above all else - fear. Like all businesses power and money are the end goals and they will cajole, manipulate and coerce anyone and anything to achieve their ends.
Some handful of religious believers that might sometimes be good people doesn't change the above. Individual belief rarely amounts to anything on a society scale. But the institution of religions can - and does - have massively negative consequences, especially as the special treatment we give these organizations makes them the perfect lure for the authoritarian powermongers in our society.
Lastly, it is a terribly human fallacy to presume that we are "normal". That what we perceive ourselves to be is somehow indicative of "the average" or "everyone else", if not for the world as a whole, then certainly for the social groups with whom/which we choose to self identify.
An Atheist may be passionate in his lack of belief, but it's a really, really, really, really, really rare occurrence that an atheist proposes a law allowing atheist business owners to refuse to serve people of faith, or gays, or any other group. Religious groups churn that sort of bigotry out on a daily basis, and that's just in the US of A!
I have also never encountered atheists going door to door to tell you to "lose Jesus" or somesuch. Athiests may not believe ardently, but they don't tend towards using that lack of belief as a rationale for oppression or bigotry.
Note: refusal to be tolerant towards intolerant bigots is not bigotry.
If you want to start towards a society where religion is something other than a massive net negative, let's start by ripping up every single "special treatment" reserved for religion out there. Religions should register as corporations. Not-for-profit if that is what they indeed are (as opposed to Scientology, which is emphatically for profit.) Charities if they do charitable works.
But no special protection. If you believe, or don't believe, or anything in between you are treated the same. No tax breaks. No superpowers. No get out of jail or get out of corruption or get out of oversight free cards.
Make religions no more enticing a place than your local anti-cancer charity and the distribution of authoritarian douchecanoes will massively change. They won't be able to hind behind the special protections of religion anymore, so they'll have to move on elsewhere.
Maybe then individual belief will mean something. As it stands, what you believe means nothing. What matters is what people do in the name of religion, with billions of dollars to throw around, and special protections no other class of organization enjoys.
It may not be the exclusive preserve of religious nutters to want to peek into every aspect of the lives of others but they are by far the worst offenders. Worst of all, they can never offer an logical rationale for their actions.
Anyone who waves around a book written by dead men as an excuse to remove civil liberties from others deserves to be chucked into a volcano. "Because god" is not a valid reason for anything.
The absolutism of faith offers up a whole other issue too: the inability to compromise. Faith is by it's very definition beyond logic, reason or boundaries. This means that when religion on morality-based-on-religion is the rationale for the removal of other peoples' rights there is no middle ground possible.
The religious types have faith that they are correct. Any attempt at balancing what may on the surface be a reasonable invasion of privacy (or breaking of any other rights/liberties/freedoms) will be viewed as hostile.
Limits, oversight, checks and balances are all viewed as attempts by unbelievers to question faith. Thus, what should be a reasonable, rational discussion about why we might want to look at intruding on the lives of others and how we might minimize that intrusion becomes an issue of "religious freedom".
In the eyes of the religious fuzzy wuzzy there exists a right for the religious man to order about others, know everything about others and control others. Any attempt to give those people control over their own lives or to enforce equality is viewed by the religious man as "oppression" because you are removing from them the "right" to tell others what to do.
But there is not right to order others, invade their privacy or control them. Any religious belief which says such a "right" exists is flat out wrong.
Let us, for example, look at gathering demographics. Government -run long form statistical surveys backed by force of law can - at first glance - seem intrusive. Yet they have perfectly valid and rational reasons to exist. With the correct controls, oversight and checks and balances in place that information can help researchers in various fields such as epidemiology, sociology, city planning, social services and many others.
There is not, however, any rational reason for non-researchers (under heavy NDA, etc) to have access to that information. There is certainly no good reason for individuals to be able to mine the information to determine, for example, who responded to the survey as LGBT.
Now, mix that up with the sort of things going on in Indiana: again, religious whacko driven. Here we have religious nutters who somehow think they have a right</i. to discriminate against people based on identifiable characteristics. Sexual orientation in this case, but I'm willing to bet the same people wish entirely they could discriminate on age, gender, race, country of origin, etc.
Every business owner should have the right to refuse to serve individuals who are abusive, or who have mistreated them (failure to pay, etc) in the past. Or to refuse a client because your capacity is full and you cannot meet the needs of additional clients. That falls under the positive right to take preventative measures against harm to yourself or your business for clear reasons that would be accepted by any reasonable jury.
But refusing service to others based on identifiable characteristics (AKA discrimination) when there are no capacity issues and no history of misconduct is simply unacceptable. Despite this, it's a key component of religious belief and practice: <i>shame, guilt and shunning.
Religion is all about control and power. It is about keeping those who have power in power and about providing a social framework that ensures predictable power structures across generations, usually ones where the minority benefit at the expense of the majority.
In today's world, violence isn't allowed in first world nations as a means of obtaining and retaining control, thus religions are falling back on shame, guilt and shunning. As a consequence, they are obsessed with getting their hands on personally identifiable information and every last detail of every person's actions, thoughts, hopes dreams and desires.
That knowledge is power. It's power over the individual but it is also the means by which the religious power structures can be maintained and transmitted down the generations. And for that reason alone we should be fighting against privacy invasion, but it is also why we need to be exceptionally wary of the use of the cloak of faith and "religious rights" as a pretext for the breach of civil liberties.
They'll never stop trying and we can never let them win.
No, it's simple: never invade the privacy of others. Whether you are an individual, a government or a corporation. Neither bizarre religious beliefs or fear of "terrorists" nor desire for profit gives you the right to intrude on the lives of others.
More to the point, it's time we stopped judging other for what they do in private. The problem isn't those who choose to enjoy themselves, it's the religious fuckpopsicles who believe making other people miserable is something they need too, should, or have a right to do.
String the revenge porn assholes up by their genitalia and any of the judgmental religious freaks who try to shame victims right along side them!
"but if you allow yourself to recorded doing such things...."
Then you're perfectly normal. Your morality and judgement are irrelevant. People have a right to privacy, no matter what they do in the bedroom. You and your pious bleating can go to whatever version of hell you believe in.
"Are Uber providing a transportation service, or are they simply providing a marketplace and payment services. It seems clear to me that they are in the business of bringing buyers and sellers together (in the UK at least) much more than they are hiring drivers to take people places."
And there's nothing wrong with being a market place for licensed transport services at all. The problem is when Uber doesn't enforce compliance with local laws for all those transport drivers signed up to it's service. Then it's no longer "helping people get taxis" it's "letting people roll the dice to see if they'll get Bob's Candy Van".
There's nothing wrong with ordering a taxi via an app. There's everythgin wrong with offering taxi services where there is no audit system in place to ensure that:
1) Taxis and their drivers have all relevant licensing and insurance
2) Taxi drivers are known, background checked and less likely than the average citizen to be crazy murderapists
3) Taxi drivers are somewhat capable of driving (we hope)
4) Taxi drivers are not allowed to discriminate on who they pick up
5) Taxi companies cover the whole of the city, not just the lucrative bits
There are some others, but you get the idea. There is a pretty big difference between a licensed and regulated taxi company and "Bob's free candy van and iPhone App emporium".
There's a reason I don't fix kit out in the sticks anymore. This province is from the ****ing stone ages.
Rack Monkey != Network Admin
Google are going to make the UI? Well, that'll suck then. Google UIs are terrible. And they change all the time. I'm sorry, but I'd rather not have surgery assisted by a Googlebot. I can see it now: my chest cracked open while the doctor is about to do something to my heart and the inevitable strangled cry of the frustrated nurse: "Google, stop moving my fucking buttons!" For lack of information, I die on the table why everyone tried to figure out the new UI.
"At some point you're going to have to accept that a certain number of deaths through terrorism are unacceptable and require a surrender of part of your inviolable shield of privacy. It seems like you haven't reached that moment yet. How many deaths a year?"
7 billion and change is about right.
It's better we die on our feet than live on our knees.
Because government agents are both incorruptible and subject to adequate oversight
I have over 5000 Supermicro servers deployed across my client base, in addition to what's in my lab. The failure rates aren't particularly high, and I did have a very nice conversation with the Supermicro CEO yesterday that completely put to bed al my questions and concerns about their enterprise support. So, I don't know how much more real world you need...ask a specific question, I'll give you a specific answer....
Just, you know, ignore the part where I work from home, so the work lab is...yes, dear...
Maxta runs their own file system on top of individual "drives" that are running ZFS.
NordVPN is a really easy to use third party VPN service.
I have a mid range package in Canada (which has terrible internet connectivity for normals) and have 2Mbit up. Also: unless you're a hobbiesty photographer you're note taking 10-100GB a day of new data. Large transfers like that will be rare unless you're into the "should be considered an SMB" space of data turnover.
Smoking affects more than the smoker. Second-hand smoke is a very real problem. A car that doesn't phone home after an accident doesn't cause the death of others. It just doesn't help save the idiots without it.
To me, liberty is more important than safety. Clearly to you safety is more important than liberty. Why should you get to impose your beliefs on me? By what moral or ethical right?
Except for the part where there is lots of evidence of the US committing economic espionage and passing that information back to their own corporations. The Brazilian aerospace industry would be one example. There are many others.
That you, personally, believe the NSA doesn't commit industrial espionage isn't really relevant. They do it. Your belief is unnecessary.
To compound your error, the Chinese government is not "everything" in China. There is a strict separation between individual and state ownership in most cases, though the state does retain the right to hold shares in individual enterprises there just as it does in my home country of Canada. (For example, my local municipality owns a majority stake in a fairly large power generation and transmission company.)
And no, we're not ignoring that other governments hoover up information. Not at all. We're simply making risk assessments about which governments are most likely to directly (and negatively) affect us with that hoovering.
China, for example, can hoover all it wants and it doesn't negatively affect 99.9% of us. We just don't have to do business there, visit there or otherwise interact with China in any way. Most of us, however, do have to interact with the USA, visit there and otherwise interact with it in many, many ways. Especially those of us who own businesses.
As for my local country hoovering up data, well...they're doing it within the same legal jurisdiction as I reside. If they try to use what they find against me, I can sue them. If they try to sue or detain me, I have the right to defend myself. If they try to take my information and sell it to a competitor I'll take 'em to the cleaners.
As a Canadian, I don't have those rights in America. I'm a dirty foreigner. No rights...but still dependent on trade with the country run by lunatics in question.
So contrary to your assertion, this has all been thought through. We just came to a conclusion that wasn't blinded by patriotism. Which, you know, makes sense...seeing as how the US of A isn't our country.
I would suspect India should be on that list too. Most certainly Russia, if only because Putin's people actually support him being an utter crazypants. And that's pretty terrifying.
"You do know that there are parts of America that have no running water, or electricity or internet?"
Sure I do. And some of them are great places to be. Some of them ain't. But in virtually every circumstance, the people occupy those places by choice in the US. Not every circumstance, but most.
The fact that the US has poor people - or a handful of innocent actually good people - doesn't change the fact that the overwhelming majority of America is either outright bad people or apathetic to a dangerous degree. And I absolutely classify the apathetic as equally complicit with the actively bad people who are out there trying hard to keep the masses poor and powerless.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
If it makes you feel any better, I hold Australia in equal - if not worse - contempt. They keep electing Xenophobic asshats to power over and over and over. The UK isn't much higher in my esteem, what with their own brand of Xenophobic asshats being increasingly popular.
At least in Canada we have a piss poor excuse: over successive years we have been Jerrymandered so hard that the conservatives can get a majority in this country with less than 30% of the popular vote, but if either our centrist or our leftist party wants to win a majority they need 50% of the vote (taking into account the ridings that will never, ever change their colours.)
It's a shitty excuse - and we collectively deserve to have our asses kicked - but it's also an issue that Canadians are aware of and actively fighting. Electoral reform is a huge issue here. As are things like the TPP, spying and a whole host of other things that are anti-populace, but wholly embraced as "necessary" by the majority of American voters.
We also have an active enough political system that there are always three possible parties (right, center and left) with a plausible possibility of winning, and a few up-and-comers that are gaining strength. We don't just have "sort of centrist and right wing" as options (like the US) with the "right wing" party currently undergoing a civil war because half of the thing is off in fucking crazy cuckoo land and wants to drag the whole goddamned world damn with them.
So you go right ahead and call me anti-American. I am. But I am not "anti-American" as some form of reactionary diatribe where I "want what America has". No...I fear everything you have. I find you a danger to my nation's way of life. I find your culture to be an infection that is harder to combat every year and your xenophobia and paranoia to be dangerous to the stability of the world as a whole.
I am not merely irked with your country for teaching and preaching American exceptionalism. I'm irked because you lot actually believe that lunacy and because of it you are collectively unable to see the damage you do to yourselves and to the rest of the world.
Worse: other western nations are (for now) completely dependent on commerce with the US. That's slowly, but surely changing as BRICS countries rise to power, but it will be decades before any of us can really tell America to take it's one-sided "treaties" and go fuck themselves. Unfortunately, the damage you'll do to our countries in your desperate attempts to export your laws while you gaze about with your dull cow eyes blubbering over your waning international influence could still prove to be catastrophic.
We can only hope.
"The American gov't are the bad guys, not the Americans,"
I don't see the American people banding together to do anything about their government. Or the excesses of their corporations. I see aught but apathy. For a significant chunk of your nation, I see strong support for the power-mad types causing the trouble.
Maybe some Americans are good guys, but not remotely enough enough to make a difference...or to be worth viewing the populace as a whole in a positive light.
I agree. Flashray is not a bad product (in theory). Unfortunately, Netapp are incapable of comprehending that so have been starving it to death.
"SSDs great devices, I use them all the time, but we're still testing their endurance. A few more years will tell."
In a few more years we will no longer be able to advance SSDs and will be forced to use new technologies. So your solution to the emergence of technologies is to wait a decade or more after everyone else starts using them in mainstream applications, then, when the technology has reached it's absolute limit of advancement do you adopt it. Do you work for NASA designing probes or something? Do you still store you primary production data on mercury delay lines?
Question: is ADSL an okay technology yet, or are you still just coming to terms with k56 Flex?
No, but it is a question of return on investment. There's no pressing need to be on IPv6 right now, but there are eleventy squillion other fires, all of which provide more immediate reward for solutions.
Welcome to business.
I run a small cloud provider and I absolutely host a bunch of these sorts of tools. China, the UK, the US and whichever other regime wants to squelch political dissent can go twist.
So CloudFlare is manufacturing things in China now?
What he's saying - and I agree - is that I would pay extra money to use a provider that had the balls to not do business with regimes that enforced laws which were unconscionable. And what's wrong with that? Surely ethical cloud services is a market niche waiting to be filled.
"Be reasonable with your analogies, can you honestly tell the difference between fresh German bread and stale German bread?"
The gold connectors make all the difference!
Oh, and side note, having an ego and sense of self importance such that you feel the need to put the title "Dr" in your forum name really - really - destroys your credibility as regards lecturing others about "vanity". Just for the record. Because you don't seem to know that.
"No doubt, but there are chowderheads of all religions on the internet. Your vanity - as the most righteous and caring person in the room - blinds you to some of your own defects."
I honestly don't see where you get "most righteous and caring person in the room" from someone who fairly publicly takes pleasure in your anger and intellectual disquiet. I am, however, interested that my having a moral code which places the needs of the many above the needs of the powerful few so deeply upsets you.
Somehow, you see that as vanity. I'm not saying I'm not a vain person - I think we all are, to some extent - but there is something really broken inside of you if "caring for others" makes you "vain". Really, really broken.
"I have replied to your other comment and do not need to repeat it."
No, actually, you didn't. You made a claim that the FCC doesn't have the legal authority to place data services under title II, but backed it up with fuck all. You're wrong. They do have that authority. The Supreme Court, when bounding the previous Net Neutrality attempt said as much. The sort version was "you don't have the legal authority to create a Net Neutrality compromise. If you want to impose this you need to classify under Title II". Which is exactly what they did. They also have the legal authority to forbear parts of Title II, which they did.
The FCC did not reach for powers it didn't have here. It didn't invent new powers. It used the tools it had (finally!) The fact that you don't like what they did, or that you believe they should have that authority doesn't matter. You are caught in the is/ought problem and can't shake yourself loose.
"At issue is legislative intent and the legal authority of the agency."
No. There is no issue with the legal authority of the agency. It is perfectly within its rights to do what it did. In fact, placing data services under Title II is one of the only powers it actually has.
"Just as I predicted, when challenged, you resort to self-righteous moralising."
You mean the part, several comments ago where I explained in plain English that you're wrong? No, actually, I'm pretty sure that I discussed things like Title II authority, the limits of authority, and why the federal government does in fact have the right to regulate here.
That I threw in some shots at you being an idiot and got your feelers all twisted up doesn't really distract form that. It just makes it a hell of a lot more interesting. Especially since you keep coming back to bellow your righteous indignation.
Oh, woe! Your ego! How low a blow, how callous this show! If only, (if only!) these heathens would listen to you, they'd know!
Maybe when you're all growed up you can learn about playing nice with others. After that we can work on your Randian belief that selfishness is virtue. Before you die we might almost make you human!
Until then, I'm just going to mock you. Because, in addition to being outright wrong in your analysis, you're not a very good or nice person. And so I will make my day better at your expense and feel no guilt about that whatsoever.
That makes me far from "the most caring person in the room", but I am really learning to live with - and like - the practice of selective benevolence. That whole part of being a tolerant person where you are supposed to tolerate the intolerant? Not a fan. So Praise Jibbers, let's have a beer!
"My students would receive a Fail mark for attempting such an argument."
Your students have a shit teacher. You have used Argumentum Ad Hominem, Poisoning the Well (special case of Argumentum Ad Hominem), Appeal to Authority and many, many other logical fallacies in your blustering vitriolic idiocy in this thread. It's clear you don't understand what you're talking about, and if you actually presume to attempt to teach anything related to politics or history to others then you should be locked away as a danger to all mankind.
Also: like it or not, moral issues absolutely are at the core of politics and law. From the formation of nations themselves to the rationale used by Supreme Court justices to - without question - the creation of laws by various elected officials. That you get bent feelers when I call you out on the fact that you are morally bankrupt just makes me gleefully happy. The angrier you get, the happier I am.
You have come in and made a bunch of claims and backed them up with absolutely nothing. Not morality, not law...nothing. Just your own religious interpretation about how the Constitution of your nation "should" be read...which your own top legal beaks disagree with.
You have a partisan chip on your shoulder and clear problem with anything that smacks of the greater good. So please, continue in your blithering. I hope that whenever someone Googles your name they find this thread, your inane witterings and the incontrovertible proof of not only your delusions of self importance but your amorality and hatred for your fellow man.
The law isn't on your side. Morality isn't on your side. Nothing is on your side, excepting your own ego. Best feed it then. Its all you have.
(And that, by the by, is how Argumentum Ad Hominem is properly done.)
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017