Sure. Hard drives/storage racks/tapes at my site have failed far more often than cloud providers have had failures which lost my data, though. It's a trade-off, but not a terrible one.
It's not more secure because you are paying them. But if you use a competent cloud company, it is more secure because they pay very talented people to test and roll out patches quickly, while your company grumps about downtime and won't pay weekend overtime for your staff to fix everything, plus you forgot about that server under Frank's desk that he won't let anyone touch (and he's friends with your manager so you lose).
Most smaller companies I have seen will only patch once a month or less, with inadequate testing and no good rollback method.
Cloud companies are not perfect. But neither are most sysadmins.
I think you are oversimplifying. For many companies, building redundant capacity (maybe 30 modern servers) in two+ places separated by at least 500 miles, and having the competent staff to support the hardware and the network in each place, is terribly expensive. With the cloud, if you pick a provider wisely, you can get all that for far less than you would spend yourself. Your support staff only deals with the software and the network at your headquarters, and can therefore all be in the same room (or can be remote 80% of the time). You can get competent and reliable off-site backups for $money, and you can quickly add capacity anywhere with effectively no lead time. Hardware maintenance and upgrades is built into the cost.
If you have the right combination of talented and techs, managers who will listen to those techs, and CxOs who will listen to those managers, then you can do all of this yourself for potentially less than the cloud company can.
But I've worked at few companies where that was true. I can set up a very reliable off-site backup system, but I need to trust the other employees to maintain it and move the tapes, and I need to get management to pay for expensive tape drives and software, and because it is expensive it will be single-homed. Or, I could pay a cloud company $money/month to do it, which is more per 5 years than the expensive custom system but much less at once, and I can automate the backups on my machines so I know they are done correctly. Same logic for every other piece of the system.
Sure, the cloud company may screw up. That happens, but less often than I or a clueless co-worker screws up. AWS doesn't have 100% uptime, but it's better uptime than any single-homed system my bosses would pay for (and most will NOT pay for true redundancy).
I am paying for infrastructure. Just $x for AWS, rather than $3x (counting salaries) for less reliable local stuff.
The head of the FBI, who is a republican and hates Clinton, said that they would never charge someone who did what she did (handled classified material poorly but with no attempt to leak it). Good thing that you know the law better than lawyers and law enforcement officials, though.
You ask "Why would anyone sell her out" to powerful billionaires and a party that controls about 50% of the government? That question answers itself.
I think that the rest of your evidence is "she helps out her friends", which is proof she is as evil as Satan and Genghis Khan.
I'll never claim that Clinton is a candidate for sainthood, but she seems fine. She's certainly a power-broker, but no more than other politicians. She doesn't spew hatred like her opponent; on policy matters she sticks close to facts and has proposals with numbers which actually add up. She'll compromise where Sanders wouldn't, which sucks if you're a purist but means that she'll get a lot more left-friendly legislation passed than he would.
I like your second definition: "arising from actual OR IMPUTED bad character or conduct". So you're going with the "I don't like her so therefore she is EVIL EVIL EVIL" method. Which is fine, I just ask that you admit it. You're right though that "evil" is a better term than "corrupt" or "reprehensible"; the latter two can be disputed with evidence while "evil" is "that which I dislike, so there".
Actually, I rather doubt the "people" want Clinton. Democrats barely want her, and everyone else is pretty much given that she is a total and complete crook.
She has been under continuous investigation for over 20 years, by both legal authorities and by many billionaire political opponents (Scaife, Murdoch, the Kochs, and more). These investigators have pumped insane amounts of money, people, and political pressure into finding some way to indict her or her husband. And so far, they have proven that Bill gets blowjobs from other women, and that Hillary has no clue how to do secure email. Wow!
So sure, I realize that many people think that "she is a total and complete crook". Many people also believe that vaccines cause autism, that GMOs are unhealthy, and that the earth is only 6000 years old. People are gullible. Sounds like you are too. Unless you have some amazing proof that nobody else does?
It turns out that many people like facts rather than bombastic hearsay. And many people seem quite happy with Hillary. Coincidence?
Huh; her voting record doesn't show any particular desire to help wall street or big corporations. Much of our government is pro-corporate, and Hillary has tended to be far less helpful to corporations than, say, anyone with an R after their name. She's not anti-corporate like Warren and Sanders, but she's a hell of a lot closer to them than most of the current government.
I'm curious why you claim that she is controlled by donations to the Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Foundation has been looked at by lots of people; their finances are fairly public. They bring in lots of money and give that money to lots of local charities who are doing good work. They don't seem to be corrupt and they have far lower administrative overhead than most other foundations their size.
And you really think that Putin has got something on her that one of the US oil billionaires hasn't already bought? That seems unlikely.
If you support Hillary, you're supporting Hillary. It's obvious. If you give your approval to candidates like that, you're going to get candidates like that.
Both sides have a job to do this fall, which is to rise up and say that we will not just accept the most corrupt and reprehensible people imaginable for leadership in high offices
So Hillary is one of "the most corrupt and reprehensible people imaginable"? Citation needed.
She has been under investigation almost continuously for more than 20 years by both legal authorities and very rich political opponents. During that time, the only thing which has been proven is that she sucks at email security. If she had done anything serious, SOMEONE would have sold out and given proof.
I hear this sort of thing alot. People claim "I don't listen to the media! I'm too smart!" and then repeat Fox News talking points as if they were true. I don't know why people do this, but they do.
In this case:
- A law enforcement officer killing a citizen, seemingly for no good reason: not a big deal.
- Facebook showing the livestream of this event: EVIL MEDIA!! CENSORSHIP! CORPORATE OVERLORDS!!!
I get the sense that TFA would be happier before cameraphones or facebook, when police would kill minorities regularly but since we rarely got pictures of it, we could pretend that it didn't happen.
Not sure how it would do that since it would sense the obstructions in the road. And if the sensors are not working, it would not move at all.
Kinda like asking "what if you were driving down the highway at 65mph after being blinded?" When you make up "what if" scenarios, they should be at least vaguely plausible.
That's the great thing about these thought experiments; they can be as unlikely as you'd like, which means that they are as inapplicable to the real world as you'd like.:-)
What's more, in any accident including a self-driving car, the car will have lots of reliable evidence of the crash, including what other drivers in the area did. So the jury will have a much easier time deciding who is responsible, and it will almost always be the human (because humans are incompetent drivers).
I'm sure that someone will try to blame the car for "choosing wrong", but case law will sort that out within a few years. Blaming the car involves beating well-funded corporate lawyers; you can do it, but not if you don't have facts on your side.
And those are??? You make a pretty big assumption that the regulations help consumers instead of offering ample opportunity for graft from the local government.
I, for one, am rather happy that hotels where I stay have to follow various building codes and health codes. They have to pay taxes, which is fair since their business depends on local infrastructure. If they break the various rules or if they endanger guests or employees, they can be investigated and punished by someone. None of this is free, so lets make the people benefiting from it pay for it. Sure, there is always some level of graft. Much like if you buy a bushel of apples, there will usually be at least one that is damaged. That's no reason to burn down the apple grove.
I guess that makes sense though as foul-month people tend to be among the most corrupt and uncaring.
Funny; I find that the most corrupt people often have the kindest faces and manners. I've not found that vulgarity is correlated in any way with corruption. But your experiences may differ.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying: "People who want to rent out their house/apartment as a business have to register like any other business. This proves that the Rule of Law is dead in the US."
I'm not sure of your gender, so I don't feel right calling you a Drama Queen. Maybe Drama Royalty?
Government has always had the right to regulate commerce. To me, this seems quite reasonable. Sure, sometimes it regulates poorly, in which case I can spend my days wailing about how I'm being oppressed like a peasant in a Monty Python skit, or I can vote for people who will improve it, or (since I have enough money) I can move somewhere where the government works the way I want it to. I prefer the second method myself, and am glad that the third method is available to me.
In the US we get the government we want, by voting in the people we want. Different regions have wildly different laws because of this fact. Seems like a good thing to me.
Just as it reduces the ability of OEMs to make undesirable changes to Android, it also makes them more dependent on Google. An OEM who wants to be able to fork Android can take the OS itself as open source, but they need to re-implement Google Play Services themselves.
To translate:
Initially, Google let the OEMs do whatever they wanted with Android. But as the OEMs proved to be incompetent, Google has started taking away that power. So now some of them (Samsung with Tizen, now Huawei) are throwing temper tantrums and building their own systems. Of course, they've already demonstrated their competence at maintaining an OS, so this is likely to fail badly for them.
Remind me again why anyone would trust an OS from one of these OEMs?
More importantly, carrying a gun on my person is so that I am not reliant on the police to solve my problems. I find myself in a bad situation where deadly force is required, I'd rather have my gun than wait on the police to come and save me.
When the government says "we need to spy on you or EVIL TERRORISTS WILL KILL YOU" it is a pathetic excuse.
When you say "I need to carry a gun or EVIL CRIMINALS WILL KILL ME" it is... ????
Spreading fear is spreading fear. Please don't do it. Also, please don't fall prey to it. Turns out that the more hammers that are out there, the more problems look like nails. And the more guns are out there, the more situations seem to require deadly force. Somehow us non-gun-carrying folks seem to avoid deadly-force situations; I suspect that you can too.
And while none of it would have directly outlawed firearms - that's because the democrats know they cannot get away with total and complete bans. Instead they try to chip away, bit by bit, until there are so many regulations and laws that you have to be rich or politically connected to own a firearm; an effective ban on 99% of us plebians.
The ultimate goal isn't making America more safe, either. It's about banning guns entirely.
I hear lots of people saying that democrats want to ban all guns. Oddly, none of them are democrats. I wonder why that is?
As far as I can tell, most democrats want to not fear being killed because of their skin color, or sexual orientation, or religion, or really for any other reason. They also don't want their neighbors, both their gun-toting and non-gun-toting neighbors, being killed. They're just not sure how to do that, except for limiting (but not banning) guns. It's worked in other first world country in the world, so it seem logical that it would work here too. As proofs go, that's fairly convincing.
If you have a way to greatly decrease violent deaths besides limiting guns, we'd love to hear it and your proof.
Because muslims who proclaim hate are Islamist Terrorists, while christians who proclaim hate are either trusted pillars of the community (if nonviolent) or misguided, mentally ill souls (if violent like McVeigh, Roof, Dear, or the Bundys). Skin color/race may also be a factor.
Personally, I think they are all criminals and should be dealt with by law enforcement, not by the military or by spy organizations. My life is in more danger from my car than from them, but I'm still planning on driving to work tomorrow. My freedoms (whether to say what I want or marry who I want), on the other hand, are under constant attack from those who proclaim hate.
A very clear pattern. If you (and all of your dependents) are in good health, physically and mentally, you don't care about sharing that data. If you are not in good health, someone will try to use that against you.
now that the FCC is regulating the internet, which you may recall got to be what it is today largely because it was unregulated.
In the late 80s, the internet was just this weird academic network that could not make money so no corporations paid any attention to it. Businesses were fighting over various online services (were you on Compuserve, or AOL, or The Source?). Then the government funded the NSFnet, and let outside companies join onto the NSFnet. And still nobody cared about the internet.
Then government-funded CERN invented the WWW, and government-funded NCSA invented Mosaic, and people started to care about the internet.
So "unregulated" for a bunch of government-funded projects is a very relative term. Far less regulated than the other online services, I'll grant you, but those were all regulated by their corporate owners, not by the government.
And that's really the lesson here. The internet won because it had far less overall regulation, while the other services were locked down and controlled. Now, the big ISPs want to "regulate" their pipes. The government passed a regulation, net-neutrality, which says "nobody can lock-down and control their pipes in certain uncompetitive ways". So, I think that you are arguing for very high (but corporate) regulation, and the NN folks are arguing for very low (but governmental) regulation.
You want no regulation? As long as it makes money, that cannot happen. But we get to choose between one hands-off sheriff, or a bunch of small despotic warlords. And I'm happy with how the court has chosen.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure. Hard drives/storage racks/tapes at my site have failed far more often than cloud providers have had failures which lost my data, though. It's a trade-off, but not a terrible one.
It's not more secure because you are paying them. But if you use a competent cloud company, it is more secure because they pay very talented people to test and roll out patches quickly, while your company grumps about downtime and won't pay weekend overtime for your staff to fix everything, plus you forgot about that server under Frank's desk that he won't let anyone touch (and he's friends with your manager so you lose).
Most smaller companies I have seen will only patch once a month or less, with inadequate testing and no good rollback method.
Cloud companies are not perfect. But neither are most sysadmins.
I think you are oversimplifying. For many companies, building redundant capacity (maybe 30 modern servers) in two+ places separated by at least 500 miles, and having the competent staff to support the hardware and the network in each place, is terribly expensive. With the cloud, if you pick a provider wisely, you can get all that for far less than you would spend yourself. Your support staff only deals with the software and the network at your headquarters, and can therefore all be in the same room (or can be remote 80% of the time). You can get competent and reliable off-site backups for $money, and you can quickly add capacity anywhere with effectively no lead time. Hardware maintenance and upgrades is built into the cost.
If you have the right combination of talented and techs, managers who will listen to those techs, and CxOs who will listen to those managers, then you can do all of this yourself for potentially less than the cloud company can.
But I've worked at few companies where that was true. I can set up a very reliable off-site backup system, but I need to trust the other employees to maintain it and move the tapes, and I need to get management to pay for expensive tape drives and software, and because it is expensive it will be single-homed. Or, I could pay a cloud company $money/month to do it, which is more per 5 years than the expensive custom system but much less at once, and I can automate the backups on my machines so I know they are done correctly. Same logic for every other piece of the system.
Sure, the cloud company may screw up. That happens, but less often than I or a clueless co-worker screws up. AWS doesn't have 100% uptime, but it's better uptime than any single-homed system my bosses would pay for (and most will NOT pay for true redundancy).
I am paying for infrastructure. Just $x for AWS, rather than $3x (counting salaries) for less reliable local stuff.
The head of the FBI, who is a republican and hates Clinton, said that they would never charge someone who did what she did (handled classified material poorly but with no attempt to leak it). Good thing that you know the law better than lawyers and law enforcement officials, though.
You ask "Why would anyone sell her out" to powerful billionaires and a party that controls about 50% of the government? That question answers itself.
I think that the rest of your evidence is "she helps out her friends", which is proof she is as evil as Satan and Genghis Khan.
I'll never claim that Clinton is a candidate for sainthood, but she seems fine. She's certainly a power-broker, but no more than other politicians. She doesn't spew hatred like her opponent; on policy matters she sticks close to facts and has proposals with numbers which actually add up. She'll compromise where Sanders wouldn't, which sucks if you're a purist but means that she'll get a lot more left-friendly legislation passed than he would.
I like your second definition: "arising from actual OR IMPUTED bad character or conduct". So you're going with the "I don't like her so therefore she is EVIL EVIL EVIL" method. Which is fine, I just ask that you admit it. You're right though that "evil" is a better term than "corrupt" or "reprehensible"; the latter two can be disputed with evidence while "evil" is "that which I dislike, so there".
Democratic Party has shown itself to be controlled by an unaccountable politburo that fixed the nomination
The democratic party isn't organized enough to fix a pie-eating contest, much less 50+ primaries.
The primary results were generally very close to the pre-primary polls. The polls were done by many different groups.
I can see that you don't like the results of the primaries, but blaming it on corruption says much more about you than anything else.
Or puts an anonymous hold on legislation. Or uses any of the many blocking tactics that the Senate rules allow.
A whole lot if they'd been united and competent.
"I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat." --Will Rogers
Actually, I rather doubt the "people" want Clinton. Democrats barely want her, and everyone else is pretty much given that she is a total and complete crook.
She has been under continuous investigation for over 20 years, by both legal authorities and by many billionaire political opponents (Scaife, Murdoch, the Kochs, and more). These investigators have pumped insane amounts of money, people, and political pressure into finding some way to indict her or her husband. And so far, they have proven that Bill gets blowjobs from other women, and that Hillary has no clue how to do secure email. Wow!
So sure, I realize that many people think that "she is a total and complete crook". Many people also believe that vaccines cause autism, that GMOs are unhealthy, and that the earth is only 6000 years old. People are gullible. Sounds like you are too. Unless you have some amazing proof that nobody else does?
It turns out that many people like facts rather than bombastic hearsay. And many people seem quite happy with Hillary. Coincidence?
Huh; her voting record doesn't show any particular desire to help wall street or big corporations. Much of our government is pro-corporate, and Hillary has tended to be far less helpful to corporations than, say, anyone with an R after their name. She's not anti-corporate like Warren and Sanders, but she's a hell of a lot closer to them than most of the current government.
I'm curious why you claim that she is controlled by donations to the Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Foundation has been looked at by lots of people; their finances are fairly public. They bring in lots of money and give that money to lots of local charities who are doing good work. They don't seem to be corrupt and they have far lower administrative overhead than most other foundations their size.
And you really think that Putin has got something on her that one of the US oil billionaires hasn't already bought? That seems unlikely.
If you support Hillary, you're supporting Hillary. It's obvious. If you give your approval to candidates like that, you're going to get candidates like that.
Both sides have a job to do this fall, which is to rise up and say that we will not just accept the most corrupt and reprehensible people imaginable for leadership in high offices
So Hillary is one of "the most corrupt and reprehensible people imaginable"? Citation needed.
She has been under investigation almost continuously for more than 20 years by both legal authorities and very rich political opponents. During that time, the only thing which has been proven is that she sucks at email security. If she had done anything serious, SOMEONE would have sold out and given proof.
I hear this sort of thing alot. People claim "I don't listen to the media! I'm too smart!" and then repeat Fox News talking points as if they were true. I don't know why people do this, but they do.
In this case:
- A law enforcement officer killing a citizen, seemingly for no good reason: not a big deal.
- Facebook showing the livestream of this event: EVIL MEDIA!! CENSORSHIP! CORPORATE OVERLORDS!!!
I get the sense that TFA would be happier before cameraphones or facebook, when police would kill minorities regularly but since we rarely got pictures of it, we could pretend that it didn't happen.
Also, "and fuck everyone else" is pretty much the definition of immoral.
Yup. And pretty much every major religion affirms this.
But I'm truly amazed how many people who think they are moral include this in their "moral code".
Not sure how it would do that since it would sense the obstructions in the road. And if the sensors are not working, it would not move at all.
Kinda like asking "what if you were driving down the highway at 65mph after being blinded?" When you make up "what if" scenarios, they should be at least vaguely plausible.
That's the great thing about these thought experiments; they can be as unlikely as you'd like, which means that they are as inapplicable to the real world as you'd like. :-)
SMBC is good at lampshading that.
What's more, in any accident including a self-driving car, the car will have lots of reliable evidence of the crash, including what other drivers in the area did. So the jury will have a much easier time deciding who is responsible, and it will almost always be the human (because humans are incompetent drivers).
I'm sure that someone will try to blame the car for "choosing wrong", but case law will sort that out within a few years. Blaming the car involves beating well-funded corporate lawyers; you can do it, but not if you don't have facts on your side.
And those are??? You make a pretty big assumption that the regulations help consumers instead of offering ample opportunity for graft from the local government.
I, for one, am rather happy that hotels where I stay have to follow various building codes and health codes. They have to pay taxes, which is fair since their business depends on local infrastructure. If they break the various rules or if they endanger guests or employees, they can be investigated and punished by someone. None of this is free, so lets make the people benefiting from it pay for it. Sure, there is always some level of graft. Much like if you buy a bushel of apples, there will usually be at least one that is damaged. That's no reason to burn down the apple grove.
I guess that makes sense though as foul-month people tend to be among the most corrupt and uncaring.
Funny; I find that the most corrupt people often have the kindest faces and manners. I've not found that vulgarity is correlated in any way with corruption. But your experiences may differ.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying: "People who want to rent out their house/apartment as a business have to register like any other business. This proves that the Rule of Law is dead in the US."
I'm not sure of your gender, so I don't feel right calling you a Drama Queen. Maybe Drama Royalty?
Government has always had the right to regulate commerce. To me, this seems quite reasonable. Sure, sometimes it regulates poorly, in which case I can spend my days wailing about how I'm being oppressed like a peasant in a Monty Python skit, or I can vote for people who will improve it, or (since I have enough money) I can move somewhere where the government works the way I want it to. I prefer the second method myself, and am glad that the third method is available to me.
In the US we get the government we want, by voting in the people we want. Different regions have wildly different laws because of this fact. Seems like a good thing to me.
Just as it reduces the ability of OEMs to make undesirable changes to Android, it also makes them more dependent on Google. An OEM who wants to be able to fork Android can take the OS itself as open source, but they need to re-implement Google Play Services themselves.
To translate:
Initially, Google let the OEMs do whatever they wanted with Android. But as the OEMs proved to be incompetent, Google has started taking away that power. So now some of them (Samsung with Tizen, now Huawei) are throwing temper tantrums and building their own systems. Of course, they've already demonstrated their competence at maintaining an OS, so this is likely to fail badly for them.
Remind me again why anyone would trust an OS from one of these OEMs?
More importantly, carrying a gun on my person is so that I am not reliant on the police to solve my problems. I find myself in a bad situation where deadly force is required, I'd rather have my gun than wait on the police to come and save me.
When the government says "we need to spy on you or EVIL TERRORISTS WILL KILL YOU" it is a pathetic excuse.
When you say "I need to carry a gun or EVIL CRIMINALS WILL KILL ME" it is... ????
Spreading fear is spreading fear. Please don't do it. Also, please don't fall prey to it. Turns out that the more hammers that are out there, the more problems look like nails. And the more guns are out there, the more situations seem to require deadly force. Somehow us non-gun-carrying folks seem to avoid deadly-force situations; I suspect that you can too.
And while none of it would have directly outlawed firearms - that's because the democrats know they cannot get away with total and complete bans. Instead they try to chip away, bit by bit, until there are so many regulations and laws that you have to be rich or politically connected to own a firearm; an effective ban on 99% of us plebians.
The ultimate goal isn't making America more safe, either. It's about banning guns entirely.
I hear lots of people saying that democrats want to ban all guns. Oddly, none of them are democrats. I wonder why that is?
As far as I can tell, most democrats want to not fear being killed because of their skin color, or sexual orientation, or religion, or really for any other reason. They also don't want their neighbors, both their gun-toting and non-gun-toting neighbors, being killed. They're just not sure how to do that, except for limiting (but not banning) guns. It's worked in other first world country in the world, so it seem logical that it would work here too. As proofs go, that's fairly convincing.
If you have a way to greatly decrease violent deaths besides limiting guns, we'd love to hear it and your proof.
Not true. He's rather anti-torture.
Being against one out of a thousand tyrannical actions is better than most of his colleagues.
Because muslims who proclaim hate are Islamist Terrorists, while christians who proclaim hate are either trusted pillars of the community (if nonviolent) or misguided, mentally ill souls (if violent like McVeigh, Roof, Dear, or the Bundys). Skin color/race may also be a factor.
Personally, I think they are all criminals and should be dealt with by law enforcement, not by the military or by spy organizations. My life is in more danger from my car than from them, but I'm still planning on driving to work tomorrow. My freedoms (whether to say what I want or marry who I want), on the other hand, are under constant attack from those who proclaim hate.
Yet they keep on getting voted back into power. Not to worry folks, I'm sure it will be different this time.
A very clear pattern. If you (and all of your dependents) are in good health, physically and mentally, you don't care about sharing that data. If you are not in good health, someone will try to use that against you.
Why, do you see another pattern?
now that the FCC is regulating the internet, which you may recall got to be what it is today largely because it was unregulated.
In the late 80s, the internet was just this weird academic network that could not make money so no corporations paid any attention to it. Businesses were fighting over various online services (were you on Compuserve, or AOL, or The Source?). Then the government funded the NSFnet, and let outside companies join onto the NSFnet. And still nobody cared about the internet.
Then government-funded CERN invented the WWW, and government-funded NCSA invented Mosaic, and people started to care about the internet.
So "unregulated" for a bunch of government-funded projects is a very relative term. Far less regulated than the other online services, I'll grant you, but those were all regulated by their corporate owners, not by the government.
And that's really the lesson here. The internet won because it had far less overall regulation, while the other services were locked down and controlled. Now, the big ISPs want to "regulate" their pipes. The government passed a regulation, net-neutrality, which says "nobody can lock-down and control their pipes in certain uncompetitive ways". So, I think that you are arguing for very high (but corporate) regulation, and the NN folks are arguing for very low (but governmental) regulation.
You want no regulation? As long as it makes money, that cannot happen. But we get to choose between one hands-off sheriff, or a bunch of small despotic warlords. And I'm happy with how the court has chosen.