Re: But he actually has a case...
You know what, bob, I don't totally agree with you, but I want to give you props for actually making a coherent point. Good job, bob! Keep up the good work!
546 posts • joined 14 Oct 2015
PROTIP: In common parlance, people very often refer to programs or computers as "thinking" even when they do no such thing.
You may also hear people refer to "dialing" a number on a cellular phone. Try not to let it bother you too much, is my advice.
Of the many arguments in favor of regulating Facebook, this hardly seems like one. There are many alternate forms of communication, as this should serve as a (cough) Signal to investigate them. If you're depending on a free service for communication, now would be a good time to rethink that approach.
None of what you mention has had any practical effect on most people. Go ahead, point to one, single concrete effect on large numbers of people. A theoretical loss of privacy does not, in itself, count, since it doesn't have a noticeable effect on most people's day to day existence. Having your bank account pillaged does, having your identity stolen does; Facebook knowing what you ate for breakfast does not, for most people.
You can call them stupid all you like, but it's possible that their priorities are just different from yours.
"VAST's appeal centres on its claim that it can replace virtually all existing layers of primary, secondary and tertiary storage with a single online tier of storage."
... as long as your compute layer is only accessing storage via NFSv3 or S3. This sounds an awful lot like a knock-off of what Pure is doing with FlashBlade. I'm guessing Dell EMC told these guys to go out and build a FlashBlade killer (hence the investment from Dell), and the company, if successful, will get bought back into the Dull Evil Machine Corporation.
"As for El Registrites, we know they wouldn't ever stoop to that level."
Please, the correct term is "commentards."
Also, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the inability to post pictures, moderation, and a participant base that harks back to a more civilized time on the Internet combine to create a more civil and elevated discourse overall.
Whew, I think I sprained my shoulder, there.
I perpetually am fascinated by the notion that trying to achieve a civil discourse in which people are not attacked at all, much less simply due to the color of their skin or contents of their pants, is somehow controversial.
To put it another way, why is it so essential that you be allowed to act like a compete and total cockmonger?
Here's why it's unethical (a quick primer for the ethically challenged, stupid, or willfully ignorant): he is deceiving his customers about what he is actually doing by pretending to perform one action while actually doing another. Additionally, one reason for using a service like this would presumably be to avoid paying the actual scammers. The customer might think it's better to pay an additional surcharge to keep the initial wrongdoers from profiting, but her or she instead winds up paying two grifters instead of one.
That is why it's unethical.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019