I agree wholeheartedly that the SAN storage consolidation model isn't going away. It's logical and it's been so widely adopted with so many dollars and man-hours invested in it that it might never go away, regardless of storage device changes.
That being said, the "hyperconverged" software defined model of server nodes possessing some storage and clustering it into virtual SANs is gaining some traction. VMware has vSAN and Windows 2016 server will extend storage spaces to allow for this.
The challenge for this model has always been storage scaling requires node scaling and even if you can cut out the SAN, it remains an exercise in cost modeling to see if increased node licenses plus node costs (now that they're fatter with local storage) results in meaningful cost savings. Plus, there are questions of performance and operational complexity versus a traditional SAN model,
All that being said, if Optane offers "DIMM" modules and you can pack 6 or 12 TB easily on a motherboard at MLC NAND pricing, I can see where this model might gain a lot of traction. Relatively cheap and simple nodes with extremely fast and large scale internal storage on 10+ Gb ethernet could make it an interesting alternative.
I'm trying to decide why Russia is so eager to say it wasn't a bomb.
Since caution and reason aren't part of the usual repertoire of Russian responses, I can only guess that the knee-jerk reaction is not to admit any vulnerability. A failure of the aircraft itself would be something they could blame on the west and sanctions.
On the other hand, a terror attack on Russian civilians like this has massive propaganda value for a country doubling down on a long-simmering Middle Eastern civil war. It would give their incursion into Syria less the look of a tyrant supporting a tyrant and allow them to claim the same kind of moral status of a post-9/11 United States. I'm not even sure I'd put it past Putin to stage a false-flag operation for these very reasons.
Someone should really sell this as a kit (working out some of the issues like the Kee Klamps not being meant for structure), it's applicable to just about any recliner.
If it's cheap enough, it'd still be useful as a hard disk replacement even if it's not the most optimal way to deploy it. Fixed storage isn't going away tomorrow even if this turns out to be the holy grail of NVRAM.
I'm not sure it is, either, as its durability is compared to SSDs, not to DRAM.
Even if it was a game changer, it'd be years before hardware and upstream architectures adapted to more optimal uses for it. And if it doesn't have DRAM durability, it's more likely to be used as permanent storage anyway. Conventional flash is packaged in just about every interface, from PCIe to USB2, even though its more useful in some versus others.
If this technology can be adapted to fit into SAS-compatible packaging at MLC/3D NAND pricing this will rock the enterprise storage world for sure.
Entire brands/products in enterprise storage are built around features like caching/tiering that charge you $30k for a little flash and way more than they should for spinning rust under the promise that they'll deliver flash performance for all your workloads, most of the time.
Doing so requires beefy controllers to run elaborate tiering schemes, and along with the sky-high prices for media makes them extremely expensive and extremely profitable.
If (and this is a big if) you can get SLC durability at MLC pricing and simultaneously cut the controller cost (need less compute because you're not bothering with tiering, far less software complexity), suddenly you could have someone selling entry level 24 drive shelves with millions of IOPS and sustained transfers that will melt SAS-12 cables.
Basically it will make sense to quit using rust at all without paying nosebleed pricing at pretty much any scale.
"A bunch of straight, old, white professors thought the solar system formed this way, and then a blind, black, transgender, muslim girl proved them wrong. You won't believe their reaction!"
Jaguar is mostly Cadillac and ford parts, Range Rover is also borne from many shared components of chevrolet and to a lesser extent GM.
How did Jaguar end up with Cadillac parts when it was part of Ford's Premier Auto Group for nearly a decade? At the 2010 auto show, the Jaguar XJ I sat it felt a hell of lot like my 2007 Volvo S80 in the cockpit and things like the outside mirrors were identical to my Volvo. I had always assumed at the time that the model shown in 2010 was still based off of shared parts from the Premier Group parts bin, although scanning Wikipedia just now shows they used differing platforms.
I'd ask the same questions about Range Rover -- how would that brand have been owned by PAG yet built with a bunch of GM-sourced parts?
I'm not saying any of this isn't true (hey, you work for "bored"..) but it seems kind of funny that a Ford owned group of brands would have kept sourcing parts from a competing automaker. Given that Ford unloaded all those brands after years of not creating synergies, maybe it's not surprising.
My iPhone 6 on ATT LTE gets 1.06 Mbit/sec upload speed. 75 TB would take 22 years running continuously to upload that data, and of course, not counting data caps or throttling.
Wifi would improve this, but on average not more than an order of magnitude unless you make the unrealistic assumptions of a continuous 802.11ac connection tied to an uplink of 100Mbit or better.
Lenders are the clients of the credit reporting system, you are merely the product. Lenders make more money if they can charge you a higher interest rate.
Therefore, credit reporting agencies have a vested interest in biasing everyone's credit risk upwards because it makes *their* scoring system more profitable.
I have no doubt that banks internally rank the loan profitability of all the credit reporting agencies. If banks analyze their loan data by credit reporting agency used and agency A and B both have the same default rate, but B biases all credit reports to be slightly more negative, the banks will see loans made with agency B scores as more profitable than A scores.
Now the bank will funnel more scores through B than A, even though A is just as safe from a risk perspective, it's less profitable. This works even if they have a policy of querying all agencies for every loan, they will chose the credit "risk" that makes them the most money.
This is basically a tax on every borrower and there's little means to escape it, since all banks use the same agencies and have the same motivation.
The credit reporting agencies bias there data against borrowers through intentionally sloppy record keeping -- assuming negative data to be true and requiring burdensome and difficult steps to obtain and challenge bad data.
The only way to fix this is through more regulation. Greater transparency -- you have to show me ALL the data you use to compile my score, not some filtered subset. The credit score has to be a number that can be explained and understood based on the data -- no "proprietary" scoring formulas whose calculations are a trade secret and only explained under NDA. If I challenge an item, you have to remove it unless you can provide documentary evidence in 30 days -- not just some EDI data in a database.
No, it means a small mobile phone capturing pictures, recording videos and uploading to Microsoft OneDrive via a good internet connection. Probably shared between multiple people, but not necessarily.
Not likely. 75 Terabytes is the complete contents of 1,172 smartphones with 64 GB of storage, with all 64 GB uploaded. If only 2/3 of that storage is really available for photos and videos, now it's 1,750 smarphones uploading that content.
I suppose it's not *impossible* that some club or organization opened the account, shared it with its members and encouraged them to share every picture they took, but that would likely multiply the number of photos they shared by some factor like 10 or 100. I'm thinking we would have heard about 17,000 or 170,000 people all sharing photos with a single OneDrive account.
I'm curious about the person who has 75 TB of storage AND access to a pipe that would make it realistic to actually upload it.
In the scheme of enterprise storage, 75 TB isn't very much. In the scheme of home storage it becomes more complicated and would involve using a SAS cabinet and at least 16, 6TB drives in RAID-5.
Maybe somebody's just crazy enough to have that much data with not even minimal redundancy (and using 6TB drives with RAID-5 doesn't really count as redundancy, other than the loss of a drive won't immediately kill it), so you could get your drive count down to about 13.
But now the pipe -- 8 days at 1 Gbit, but I'm guessing that unless you were in a well-connected data center, and maybe even if you were in a well-connected data center, you'll not get 1 Gbit of usable throughput end to end. If sustained was only 100 Mbit (which is still crazy fast by US standards for home and a lot of office connectivity), you're looking at 86 days to upload the data. My guess is that if they had all of this in one place and tried to upload it, the actual timeline would be closer to 4 months.
Why do I suspect that this isn't real data, but some kind of programatically generated garbage (generated in Azure, for maximum speed to storage) designed to see how big of an account they could create?
75 TB is kind of a lot of data by many standards, but I would not have expected it to be super meaningful by Global Evil Empire Scale standards.
My old Compellent certification books list an SC8000 controller as supporting 5 SC280 fully configured enclosures, for a total of 1.6PB raw in about 30U. They always talk about these data centers being extremely vast, so I would expect that storage would be approaching exabyte scale.
So I'm guessing that device capacity isn't the actual problem but instead its some kind of migration/load balancing/operation issue that makes user "blobs" of 75TB problematic.
I could almost by into it being legitimate if the suppressing entity's radios do not radiate off their private, controlled access property and the property is in no way public access.
Malls, hotels, or other spaces which are privately owned by freely accessible by the public wouldn't be covered by this.
Although I'd bet that rogue ap suppression gets used all the time by businesses in multi-tenant buildings to suppress wireless activity within range of their radios.
The people who design standards for 802.11 seem to be designing the standard for the apocryphal home user who wants 3l173 5p33d5 in line with Ethernet, doesn't get interference and is too far away from anyone else to be interfering.
And then enterprise vendors take this standard and want to sell it as if it was purpose-built to blanket 200,000 square feet of space and be usable by 50,000 people simultaneously.
And then commercial providers want to deploy it as if it was a cellular technology designed to blanket entire cities.
I'm not even asking that the entire management and executive structure be sent to jail.
But that's exactly what would help prevent these kinds of things.
The mindset of senior management is that there is no consequence for their actions. There will only be dollar/euro costs and these will be borne by the company, to be extracted from shareholders and future customers.
I'd advocate for two things. One, the real likelihood of jail time. After that, some kind of law that requires executives to be personally financially liable for these crimes, up to and including auctioning off their personal property to pay the fines, even with some kind of clawback provision that allows the courts to go back 12 or 24 months to reclaim money from other people or institutions to help prevent asset hiding.
Once these people have personal skin in the game, either their liberty or perpetual penury, I think their cost/benefit calculus will change drastically.
It seems like much of the problem originates from the limited spectrum available to wifi, which makes it hard/expensive to cover large, dense spaces, especially if people are bringing in their own network devices.
This leads to "rogue ap suppression" which I'd wager is motivated as much by network operators tired of getting screamed at because "the conference room wifi sucks" and thinking that suppressing hotspots will improve it as much as it is by greedy operators who believe that crushing hotspots will improve profits.
"This interconnection oriented architecture means we contract with colocation facilities where we can place our inspection tools and GE services into dense meeting areas of the multi-cloud environment. These are places where you find many cloud providers under one roof and we can place our services, inspection and data sets within them to obtain cloud agnostic, high speed adjacency."
While spoken like a true executive, I don't think he's being idiotic besides tone and language.
If they are structuring workloads to be cloud agnostic -- which only seems smart, then locating data centers where multiple providers are tenants is a pretty decent strategy. They guarantee maximum intra-provider bandwidth and low latency, allowing them to shift workloads between providers or build multi-provider clusters that might not work if you're spanning datacenters.
All of this seems reasonable, as does Wal Mart's push for tools to increase cloud-cloud compatibility and portability. The biggest problem with cloud compute is the lack of VM compatibility between vendors. Fix that, and find data centers where you find providers colocated and you can treat cloud vendors like one giant cluster where you can migrate VMs between providers.
A cow-orker and I were just wondering the other day if you couldn't build an appliance that would let you migrate a VM between VMware and Hyper-V.
IMHO, hosts seldom fail. PSUs fail (rarely), but who doesn't do redundant PSUs? HDDs fail, but all but the tiniest sites have centralized storage with double-parity RAID and two hot spares, so the failure is contained and ameliorated with no interaction past a 20 minute online ticket for a replacement hard disk.
Aging out of hardware is a problem virtualization and centralized storage solved. You rack up a new host, install your software, patch, add to cluster, migrate VMs off the old host, done. I do these upgrades all the time and frankly I spend more time on the nuts and bolts of racking and cabling than any data migration. SAN upgrades take longer, depending on your data amount and software, but really the impact isn't much more.
Switching fabric upgrades probably are the most complex, but the complexity is often self-imposed by brain damaged initial configurations and lack of rack space. When those aren't an issue, it's far less complex and with host/SAN redundancy/teaming/MPIO, you can usually integrate the new fabric with the old, move connections to new hardware and experience zero interruption. The biggest downtime inducers are lack of redundancy to remote closets.
I'm just saying that if there's going to be a resurgence of the Civil Rights Movement in the form of Black Lives Matter (we'll see if that hasn't calmed down within the next year), there IS going to be a counter-movement as a reaction.
I think that more or less, the general intensity of racism is less than it used to be. It's debatable what the reasons are, but because of this I think the kind of open, militant racism of the 1960s or earlier Klan or any other racist groups just won't fly, regardless of whether BLM becomes an enduring phenomenon or not.
That being said, I think that despite increased racial acceptance, racial ill-feeling hasn't gone away completely, but become more muted and coded. But I think it would take something like open warfare in the streets to go back to the racism of the past.
Trouble is, I don't discount open warfare in the streets..
If your goal is simply to take money from people who earned it and give it to others who didn't, I can't help you. My impression was that you were trying to improve the economy, not destroy it.
That's a misleading oversimplification, and again, with the subtle value judgements about "who earned it". With that logic, you may as well just erase all the social welfare programs and the progressive tax system along with it and return is us to the thrilling days of Dickensian social policies. I think the social welfare system is broken and just eliminating it without any kind of a replacement is worse. A negative income tax has far less administrative overhead than existing social welfare systems and allows individuals to make market choices versus imposed choices.
The reality is that you, I and everyone is *going* to give money to "people who didn't earn it" one way or another -- welfare as-is or policing and prisons. We might as well do it in a way that's more efficient than what we're doing now and stands a better chance of ending dependency than mass imprisonment.
Note that the opposite situation can also be a problem, external influences causing under-consumption and over-investment. There is a natural balance between consumption and investment. Deviating from this balance, in either direction, is a net loss for society as a whole.
I'd say corporations sitting on 1.2 trillion in short-term cash is a pretty good example of under-consumption *and* under investment. If you broaden the statistic to include financial firms, the short-term cash number is closer to 5 trillion. Financial firms are usually excluded from the statistic because there are practical reasons why they hold cash (liquidity requirements, market-making, etc), but it's probably a reasonable bet that a significant amount of the 3.8 trillion held by financial firms is the result of corporations and individuals seeking short-term liquidity investments on cash banks won't accept without negative interest rates.
Their corporate x86 server support was really good in the 1990s.
I can remember a problematic Netserver LX Pro which had some strange problem that we knew ultimately had to be hardware based because we had 5 of them running identical Netware installs, and only one of them had this problem.
We had 4 hour support and had a field engineer on site with a trolley full of spare parts on a Sunday night who was able to diagnose and replace the parts pretty quickly.
Getting that kind of support now out of anyone else would be impossible. You'd end up with some 23 year old gamer with no clue on how to diagnose the problem, only after hours of telephone troubleshooting designed to be a "How can we not replace parts?" obstacle course.
The good news is that hardware is better and infrastructure virtualization lets you route around problems, but the support is nowhere near as good.
Is it just that a wireless mesh doesn't work or is it that this particular wireless mesh suffers from underinvestment or poor engineering?
Environmental hazards would seem to apply to all outdoor infrastructure and many of the hazards specific to wireless would seem to be something that could be mitigated -- taller antennas to avoid trees, low power heaters to melt snow, hardening of equipment to discourage animals and insects. Atmospheric events are about the most difficult thing to mitigate against (active snow or rainstorms).
I guess if you were dependent on house-mounted relay antennas, some of this might be hard to avoid.
Economic activity is not a good in its own right, it's a mean to an end. And while money sitting in the bank may not be doing anything "productive", it also isn't consuming anything; it's neutral. Forcing that money back into the economy to be spent on extra (over-)consumption or on investments which will not provide a worthwhile return is a net loss for the economy, which is worst than being non-productive.
The "end" is better income distribution. The core problem of inequality boils down to hoarding of capital by a small number people and corporations. One of the common criticisms of emerging Asian economies is an excessive savings rate -- money being stockpiled and not put to work in the economy.
Putting that cash back into the economy produces economic activity and growth. Labeling it as "over-consumption" is value-laden, implying that people who spend it have "enough" and they are consuming too much. I think in a negative income tax economy, the most likely to spend it are people who don't consume very much. If over-consumption was an actual issue, we'd apply sumptuary laws to the rich because by any rational definition the rich are over-consuming.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if Comcast has internal projections that show the cable TV business -- ie, delivering real-time TV broadcasts -- basically dying over time.
I have a hard time believing that would happen in the real near term but I would bet it's something that will happen.
Business method patent, one of the worst kind.
But it may only apply to cellular telephone minutes and not generally to all data on every communications platform.
I agree wholeheartedly that the SAN storage consolidation model isn't going away. It's logical and it's been so widely adopted with so many dollars and man-hours invested in it that it might never go away, regardless of storage device changes.
That being said, the "hyperconverged" software defined model of server nodes possessing some storage and clustering it into virtual SANs is gaining some traction. VMware has vSAN and Windows 2016 server will extend storage spaces to allow for this.
The challenge for this model has always been storage scaling requires node scaling and even if you can cut out the SAN, it remains an exercise in cost modeling to see if increased node licenses plus node costs (now that they're fatter with local storage) results in meaningful cost savings. Plus, there are questions of performance and operational complexity versus a traditional SAN model,
All that being said, if Optane offers "DIMM" modules and you can pack 6 or 12 TB easily on a motherboard at MLC NAND pricing, I can see where this model might gain a lot of traction. Relatively cheap and simple nodes with extremely fast and large scale internal storage on 10+ Gb ethernet could make it an interesting alternative.
I'm trying to decide why Russia is so eager to say it wasn't a bomb.
Since caution and reason aren't part of the usual repertoire of Russian responses, I can only guess that the knee-jerk reaction is not to admit any vulnerability. A failure of the aircraft itself would be something they could blame on the west and sanctions.
On the other hand, a terror attack on Russian civilians like this has massive propaganda value for a country doubling down on a long-simmering Middle Eastern civil war. It would give their incursion into Syria less the look of a tyrant supporting a tyrant and allow them to claim the same kind of moral status of a post-9/11 United States. I'm not even sure I'd put it past Putin to stage a false-flag operation for these very reasons.
Someone should really sell this as a kit (working out some of the issues like the Kee Klamps not being meant for structure), it's applicable to just about any recliner.
If it's cheap enough, it'd still be useful as a hard disk replacement even if it's not the most optimal way to deploy it. Fixed storage isn't going away tomorrow even if this turns out to be the holy grail of NVRAM.
I'm not sure it is, either, as its durability is compared to SSDs, not to DRAM.
Even if it was a game changer, it'd be years before hardware and upstream architectures adapted to more optimal uses for it. And if it doesn't have DRAM durability, it's more likely to be used as permanent storage anyway. Conventional flash is packaged in just about every interface, from PCIe to USB2, even though its more useful in some versus others.
If this technology can be adapted to fit into SAS-compatible packaging at MLC/3D NAND pricing this will rock the enterprise storage world for sure.
Entire brands/products in enterprise storage are built around features like caching/tiering that charge you $30k for a little flash and way more than they should for spinning rust under the promise that they'll deliver flash performance for all your workloads, most of the time.
Doing so requires beefy controllers to run elaborate tiering schemes, and along with the sky-high prices for media makes them extremely expensive and extremely profitable.
If (and this is a big if) you can get SLC durability at MLC pricing and simultaneously cut the controller cost (need less compute because you're not bothering with tiering, far less software complexity), suddenly you could have someone selling entry level 24 drive shelves with millions of IOPS and sustained transfers that will melt SAS-12 cables.
Basically it will make sense to quit using rust at all without paying nosebleed pricing at pretty much any scale.
"A bunch of straight, old, white professors thought the solar system formed this way, and then a blind, black, transgender, muslim girl proved them wrong. You won't believe their reaction!"
Jaguar is mostly Cadillac and ford parts, Range Rover is also borne from many shared components of chevrolet and to a lesser extent GM.
How did Jaguar end up with Cadillac parts when it was part of Ford's Premier Auto Group for nearly a decade? At the 2010 auto show, the Jaguar XJ I sat it felt a hell of lot like my 2007 Volvo S80 in the cockpit and things like the outside mirrors were identical to my Volvo. I had always assumed at the time that the model shown in 2010 was still based off of shared parts from the Premier Group parts bin, although scanning Wikipedia just now shows they used differing platforms.
I'd ask the same questions about Range Rover -- how would that brand have been owned by PAG yet built with a bunch of GM-sourced parts?
I'm not saying any of this isn't true (hey, you work for "bored"..) but it seems kind of funny that a Ford owned group of brands would have kept sourcing parts from a competing automaker. Given that Ford unloaded all those brands after years of not creating synergies, maybe it's not surprising.
Do the math!
My iPhone 6 on ATT LTE gets 1.06 Mbit/sec upload speed. 75 TB would take 22 years running continuously to upload that data, and of course, not counting data caps or throttling.
Wifi would improve this, but on average not more than an order of magnitude unless you make the unrealistic assumptions of a continuous 802.11ac connection tied to an uplink of 100Mbit or better.
Lenders are the clients of the credit reporting system, you are merely the product. Lenders make more money if they can charge you a higher interest rate.
Therefore, credit reporting agencies have a vested interest in biasing everyone's credit risk upwards because it makes *their* scoring system more profitable.
I have no doubt that banks internally rank the loan profitability of all the credit reporting agencies. If banks analyze their loan data by credit reporting agency used and agency A and B both have the same default rate, but B biases all credit reports to be slightly more negative, the banks will see loans made with agency B scores as more profitable than A scores.
Now the bank will funnel more scores through B than A, even though A is just as safe from a risk perspective, it's less profitable. This works even if they have a policy of querying all agencies for every loan, they will chose the credit "risk" that makes them the most money.
This is basically a tax on every borrower and there's little means to escape it, since all banks use the same agencies and have the same motivation.
The credit reporting agencies bias there data against borrowers through intentionally sloppy record keeping -- assuming negative data to be true and requiring burdensome and difficult steps to obtain and challenge bad data.
The only way to fix this is through more regulation. Greater transparency -- you have to show me ALL the data you use to compile my score, not some filtered subset. The credit score has to be a number that can be explained and understood based on the data -- no "proprietary" scoring formulas whose calculations are a trade secret and only explained under NDA. If I challenge an item, you have to remove it unless you can provide documentary evidence in 30 days -- not just some EDI data in a database.
No, it means a small mobile phone capturing pictures, recording videos and uploading to Microsoft OneDrive via a good internet connection. Probably shared between multiple people, but not necessarily.
Not likely. 75 Terabytes is the complete contents of 1,172 smartphones with 64 GB of storage, with all 64 GB uploaded. If only 2/3 of that storage is really available for photos and videos, now it's 1,750 smarphones uploading that content.
I suppose it's not *impossible* that some club or organization opened the account, shared it with its members and encouraged them to share every picture they took, but that would likely multiply the number of photos they shared by some factor like 10 or 100. I'm thinking we would have heard about 17,000 or 170,000 people all sharing photos with a single OneDrive account.
I'm curious about the person who has 75 TB of storage AND access to a pipe that would make it realistic to actually upload it.
In the scheme of enterprise storage, 75 TB isn't very much. In the scheme of home storage it becomes more complicated and would involve using a SAS cabinet and at least 16, 6TB drives in RAID-5.
Maybe somebody's just crazy enough to have that much data with not even minimal redundancy (and using 6TB drives with RAID-5 doesn't really count as redundancy, other than the loss of a drive won't immediately kill it), so you could get your drive count down to about 13.
But now the pipe -- 8 days at 1 Gbit, but I'm guessing that unless you were in a well-connected data center, and maybe even if you were in a well-connected data center, you'll not get 1 Gbit of usable throughput end to end. If sustained was only 100 Mbit (which is still crazy fast by US standards for home and a lot of office connectivity), you're looking at 86 days to upload the data. My guess is that if they had all of this in one place and tried to upload it, the actual timeline would be closer to 4 months.
Why do I suspect that this isn't real data, but some kind of programatically generated garbage (generated in Azure, for maximum speed to storage) designed to see how big of an account they could create?
75 TB is kind of a lot of data by many standards, but I would not have expected it to be super meaningful by Global Evil Empire Scale standards.
My old Compellent certification books list an SC8000 controller as supporting 5 SC280 fully configured enclosures, for a total of 1.6PB raw in about 30U. They always talk about these data centers being extremely vast, so I would expect that storage would be approaching exabyte scale.
So I'm guessing that device capacity isn't the actual problem but instead its some kind of migration/load balancing/operation issue that makes user "blobs" of 75TB problematic.
What cases is suppression legal?
I could almost by into it being legitimate if the suppressing entity's radios do not radiate off their private, controlled access property and the property is in no way public access.
Malls, hotels, or other spaces which are privately owned by freely accessible by the public wouldn't be covered by this.
Although I'd bet that rogue ap suppression gets used all the time by businesses in multi-tenant buildings to suppress wireless activity within range of their radios.
The people who design standards for 802.11 seem to be designing the standard for the apocryphal home user who wants 3l173 5p33d5 in line with Ethernet, doesn't get interference and is too far away from anyone else to be interfering.
And then enterprise vendors take this standard and want to sell it as if it was purpose-built to blanket 200,000 square feet of space and be usable by 50,000 people simultaneously.
And then commercial providers want to deploy it as if it was a cellular technology designed to blanket entire cities.
And then we wonder why it sucks.
I'm not even asking that the entire management and executive structure be sent to jail.
But that's exactly what would help prevent these kinds of things.
The mindset of senior management is that there is no consequence for their actions. There will only be dollar/euro costs and these will be borne by the company, to be extracted from shareholders and future customers.
I'd advocate for two things. One, the real likelihood of jail time. After that, some kind of law that requires executives to be personally financially liable for these crimes, up to and including auctioning off their personal property to pay the fines, even with some kind of clawback provision that allows the courts to go back 12 or 24 months to reclaim money from other people or institutions to help prevent asset hiding.
Once these people have personal skin in the game, either their liberty or perpetual penury, I think their cost/benefit calculus will change drastically.
It seems like much of the problem originates from the limited spectrum available to wifi, which makes it hard/expensive to cover large, dense spaces, especially if people are bringing in their own network devices.
This leads to "rogue ap suppression" which I'd wager is motivated as much by network operators tired of getting screamed at because "the conference room wifi sucks" and thinking that suppressing hotspots will improve it as much as it is by greedy operators who believe that crushing hotspots will improve profits.
"This interconnection oriented architecture means we contract with colocation facilities where we can place our inspection tools and GE services into dense meeting areas of the multi-cloud environment. These are places where you find many cloud providers under one roof and we can place our services, inspection and data sets within them to obtain cloud agnostic, high speed adjacency."
While spoken like a true executive, I don't think he's being idiotic besides tone and language.
If they are structuring workloads to be cloud agnostic -- which only seems smart, then locating data centers where multiple providers are tenants is a pretty decent strategy. They guarantee maximum intra-provider bandwidth and low latency, allowing them to shift workloads between providers or build multi-provider clusters that might not work if you're spanning datacenters.
All of this seems reasonable, as does Wal Mart's push for tools to increase cloud-cloud compatibility and portability. The biggest problem with cloud compute is the lack of VM compatibility between vendors. Fix that, and find data centers where you find providers colocated and you can treat cloud vendors like one giant cluster where you can migrate VMs between providers.
A cow-orker and I were just wondering the other day if you couldn't build an appliance that would let you migrate a VM between VMware and Hyper-V.
IMHO, hosts seldom fail. PSUs fail (rarely), but who doesn't do redundant PSUs? HDDs fail, but all but the tiniest sites have centralized storage with double-parity RAID and two hot spares, so the failure is contained and ameliorated with no interaction past a 20 minute online ticket for a replacement hard disk.
Aging out of hardware is a problem virtualization and centralized storage solved. You rack up a new host, install your software, patch, add to cluster, migrate VMs off the old host, done. I do these upgrades all the time and frankly I spend more time on the nuts and bolts of racking and cabling than any data migration. SAN upgrades take longer, depending on your data amount and software, but really the impact isn't much more.
Switching fabric upgrades probably are the most complex, but the complexity is often self-imposed by brain damaged initial configurations and lack of rack space. When those aren't an issue, it's far less complex and with host/SAN redundancy/teaming/MPIO, you can usually integrate the new fabric with the old, move connections to new hardware and experience zero interruption. The biggest downtime inducers are lack of redundancy to remote closets.
I'm just saying that if there's going to be a resurgence of the Civil Rights Movement in the form of Black Lives Matter (we'll see if that hasn't calmed down within the next year), there IS going to be a counter-movement as a reaction.
I think that more or less, the general intensity of racism is less than it used to be. It's debatable what the reasons are, but because of this I think the kind of open, militant racism of the 1960s or earlier Klan or any other racist groups just won't fly, regardless of whether BLM becomes an enduring phenomenon or not.
That being said, I think that despite increased racial acceptance, racial ill-feeling hasn't gone away completely, but become more muted and coded. But I think it would take something like open warfare in the streets to go back to the racism of the past.
Trouble is, I don't discount open warfare in the streets..
If your goal is simply to take money from people who earned it and give it to others who didn't, I can't help you. My impression was that you were trying to improve the economy, not destroy it.
That's a misleading oversimplification, and again, with the subtle value judgements about "who earned it". With that logic, you may as well just erase all the social welfare programs and the progressive tax system along with it and return is us to the thrilling days of Dickensian social policies. I think the social welfare system is broken and just eliminating it without any kind of a replacement is worse. A negative income tax has far less administrative overhead than existing social welfare systems and allows individuals to make market choices versus imposed choices.
The reality is that you, I and everyone is *going* to give money to "people who didn't earn it" one way or another -- welfare as-is or policing and prisons. We might as well do it in a way that's more efficient than what we're doing now and stands a better chance of ending dependency than mass imprisonment.
Note that the opposite situation can also be a problem, external influences causing under-consumption and over-investment. There is a natural balance between consumption and investment. Deviating from this balance, in either direction, is a net loss for society as a whole.
I'd say corporations sitting on 1.2 trillion in short-term cash is a pretty good example of under-consumption *and* under investment. If you broaden the statistic to include financial firms, the short-term cash number is closer to 5 trillion. Financial firms are usually excluded from the statistic because there are practical reasons why they hold cash (liquidity requirements, market-making, etc), but it's probably a reasonable bet that a significant amount of the 3.8 trillion held by financial firms is the result of corporations and individuals seeking short-term liquidity investments on cash banks won't accept without negative interest rates.
Their corporate x86 server support was really good in the 1990s.
I can remember a problematic Netserver LX Pro which had some strange problem that we knew ultimately had to be hardware based because we had 5 of them running identical Netware installs, and only one of them had this problem.
We had 4 hour support and had a field engineer on site with a trolley full of spare parts on a Sunday night who was able to diagnose and replace the parts pretty quickly.
Getting that kind of support now out of anyone else would be impossible. You'd end up with some 23 year old gamer with no clue on how to diagnose the problem, only after hours of telephone troubleshooting designed to be a "How can we not replace parts?" obstacle course.
The good news is that hardware is better and infrastructure virtualization lets you route around problems, but the support is nowhere near as good.
Is it just that a wireless mesh doesn't work or is it that this particular wireless mesh suffers from underinvestment or poor engineering?
Environmental hazards would seem to apply to all outdoor infrastructure and many of the hazards specific to wireless would seem to be something that could be mitigated -- taller antennas to avoid trees, low power heaters to melt snow, hardening of equipment to discourage animals and insects. Atmospheric events are about the most difficult thing to mitigate against (active snow or rainstorms).
I guess if you were dependent on house-mounted relay antennas, some of this might be hard to avoid.
Economic activity is not a good in its own right, it's a mean to an end. And while money sitting in the bank may not be doing anything "productive", it also isn't consuming anything; it's neutral. Forcing that money back into the economy to be spent on extra (over-)consumption or on investments which will not provide a worthwhile return is a net loss for the economy, which is worst than being non-productive.
The "end" is better income distribution. The core problem of inequality boils down to hoarding of capital by a small number people and corporations. One of the common criticisms of emerging Asian economies is an excessive savings rate -- money being stockpiled and not put to work in the economy.
Putting that cash back into the economy produces economic activity and growth. Labeling it as "over-consumption" is value-laden, implying that people who spend it have "enough" and they are consuming too much. I think in a negative income tax economy, the most likely to spend it are people who don't consume very much. If over-consumption was an actual issue, we'd apply sumptuary laws to the rich because by any rational definition the rich are over-consuming.