my thoughts exactly. Apple is all about avoiding product cannibalization. Thus the super price tag and performance disparities on the Mac Pro vs iMacs, iPad/Mini vs iPad Pro, MacBook Air vs MacBook pro 13, MacBook Pro 13 vs MacBook Pro 15, and even MacBook Pro 15 vs MacBook Pro 15 with dedicated graphics. The only notable exception is the iPhones standard and plus, but hey, they still do the price disparity on the amazing price differences for storage capacity on those.
What that would wind up doing is product cannibalization - Apple doesn't want to lose market share on tablets nor the premium ultra portable notebook (which they pretty much have on both) by doing a more expensive product that will induce the buyer on second thoughts, and making him skip that day-1 urge to get in line and buy the next iThingie.
This seems like the "kill a fly with a canon" solution. But it does look like it could work if money and infrastructure is no object, with full-fledged system images as a plus.
I believe the problems of a company needing backups are usually too specific for there to be a swiss army knife for the backup topic. That's why I mentioned the "on-the-rocks" solution always being the better one. That's why many companies end up releasing their own versions of so many things, backup tools included, and then only a portion end up gaining traction.
While you do present very fair arguments, you failed, like me, to address important issues of the OP. Not to mention your inconsistency on such examples.
For instance, you argument for customization with an example based on the trigger of a proprietary recovery system. So you can trigger a remote process with Bacula. I have a one-liner shell script command for that, nice job. Especially with a proprietary system which the OP specifically excluded in the title (Open. Source.). And from the clues I got, Bacula has issues with Windows systems, or you're gonna be needing at least 2 different sets of binaries to support both MSW+NIX. You need something pre-main-OS boot for a completely dual solution (as an under user, I think of the likes of Acronis or Ghost, and stuff too complex for me even to start name dropping for enterprise-level).
Numero dos: tapes? Your argument for having a clue for backups is name dropping TAPES? In case you didn't notice, snapshot'ing, with rotation doesn't really need tape support. You're not going for the petabytes, and I doubt you're going for the 10+years, even for corporate. A snapshot will have only the diff of the previous one. With that said, Why da fck do I need tapes for, or barcodes, or bells and whistles?. You could have mentioned diff support in Bacula, that would have been big, if it wasn't so deep in its manual (mostly what took me away from Bacula/Clonezilla. Now to be fair, my example also does full backups over time, no diffs and integrity checks, but with exceptions - my method happens to produce really, REALLY minimal, compressed tars with 100% parity and 99% reliability to what was on that backup day if needs be (you just update Debian until that point of time, single difference in the system will be the hardware/UUID).
You know what else was designed to interface with everything and anything (including emulating virtual tapes as entire drives, or even just files)? The Unix CLI
And just to make a fking point, this guy came to/. asking around for a backup solution. Put yourself in that perspective before you go demanding the manpower of setting a datacenter-wide B&R process. Because when you start mentioning the big bucks Oracle (seriously, when there's something which's presentation page has a Training/Certification section, like that Oracle crap does, it's big bucks), that pretty much translates that you're gonna need an IT section just for managing that B&R process. This guys came to slashdot, Ima' repeat that, to SLASHDOT asking for FOSS. No matter how much he keeps mentioning "we" or "the company", he is 100% either a manager of a small team (1-3 ppl) who is trying to focus on not-so-scalable stuff. He doesn't need tapes or Oracle's antics, unless he's already on that wagon (which he's not, he was ordered to use FOSS... and HE CAME TO SLASHDOT, not Oracle support forums). And he if wants FOSS, if he does have that big a company, there's nothing more FOSS than going the extra mile and making your own fucking shell script-based super-duper-complex process, since the company is pressuring wide FOSS usage, then upping it to github with a copyleft/apache license afterwards. In the end, that's what the big guys who want to go FOSS are doing now, unless you didn't have a clue.. If that company is going FOSS for financial reasons, they are doing it wrong.
triple post, but just noting my compressed backups for a 100 mailbox, jboss instance with heavy app deployment and traffic, and fully configured ISP-config would range between 2 to 4GB. I had a 30 day rotation set in place, then every 6 months I would run some cleanup tools to go back to 2GB'ish archives.
Looking at your question again, this might not be your best bet due to scale and usage of Windows. Still a good choice for the Linux, 5-machine tops sysadmin.
I once was in a crossroads of choosing between stuff like Clonezilla and Bacula, for small business purposes. Bottom line is they add a lot of complexity for low to no flexibility. I ended up building my own tar/move/ script with cron triggers at after ours downtime, then I would simply move them around network locations for avoiding single points of failure messing up the backups. Adding your own exceptions for the backup is a plus. At the last point, I had something reliable, fast, and that would require the simple overhead of re-installing Debian before the actual restore, then an update-grub and a change in fstab for the new disk replacing the broken one's UUID (because you don't really do that many restores so it's a fair trade-off, while you do save time exponentially by not backing up the entire OS). A good starting point is http://www.aboutdebian.com/tar...
Game Manager, social media integration, system notifications tab...
Seems to be ticking all the right boxes on my graphic driver customization shit list. Please bring more clutter to an already confusing piece of software that should have as main focus its simplicity, transparency, and not meddling in tasks my OS and Browser are supposed to be doing...
I just dug deeper into this issue and found some Google documentation stating it might not be as bad as I initially thought:
Note that if verification fails at any stage, the user must be visibly notified and always be given an option to continue using the device at their own discretion. (source: https://source.android.com/dev...)
So everything I expected could be rendered useless will actually still have a chance to run. *Exales in relief*
...and as soon as I turned it on, I realized that I not only had 200 cable channels to chose before, but now I also have on demand content that would fill a lifetime in front of tv only for my top 3 genres. Then I remembered they have a great recommendation engine that will feed me the best of what I really like, giving me some comfort, and saving me that lifetime.
Bottomline is: we shouldn't worry with too much choice - we should worry about the quality of the choices we have, and the quality of the choices MADE FOR US, that don't originate in ourselves. Having few choice is a subset of the environment making a choice for you, the only option left being to accept or not that choice (chosing "nothing" as the OP says). This curation has been the past, present and will stay the future basis of human society as a whole: it is, for example, what a government does for you after you elect it, or what newspaper editors, television/radio programming managers' work is all about. This article states choosing nothing is the worst choice and a consequence of having a lot of choices (only partially true, i.e. a BAD ASSUMPTION). I say having a lot of choices with different characteristics makes you chose "nothing" a lot more easier (because you value things by what they are rather than everybody using them), which is always good when you consider you have limited time in this earth to make use of your life choices. One obvious case of when this is bad, for example, for companies, is when your business model is based on using something rather than paying for the curation itself. Competition is the best thing about capitalism. It is the essence of freedom applied to organizations. But I believe if there's something clearly valuable by itself, it will always stand out, reducing this problem to peanuts.
1. the population that they are targeting with nostalgic remakes is almost entirely through "the point of no more gaming" - that moment you no longer buy 1/5 the games you did because adulthood catches up
2. they don't really have that many games that can be salvaged in an economically efficient way. FF7 remake should be proof of that when the production costs come out - you can't reuse the most expensive stuff, which is basically source code, graphical assets and marketing initiatives
3. remakes might be easier to digest for critics (it's hard to see a game remake getting bad rep), but at the same time, the moment they get one instance of generalized REALLY BAD criticism on a remake (especially the first ones), every project you have on the pipeline with bucks spent is gonna suffer the consequences. This doesn't happen with a single very bad game.
4. I understand this being a financial decision by a gaming company , but this encumbers human development indirectly - newcomers purchasing these games are gonna face cultural clash with them, since they weren't made for this point of time, especially their stories, while their genres, even despite a rework, will be out of place (time*)
In any case, I hope for the best. I'm a big fan of anything Squeenix. But I would rather they pay the big bucks, purchase Mistwalker, and bring back old timer Sakaguchi, Uematsu et al, and just play on with the sure win match plan
So, if I get this right, Google just made boot-level customization useless, because verified boot will pretty much prevent CWM, TWRP, unlocking the bootloader etc. There goes also easy rooting, easy custom ROMs (CyanogenMod), easy backups, MultiROM, fastboot de-bricking for the semi-knowledgeable, sideloading, custom flashing............. Right? RIGHT?
So you're telling me there's a "scientist" somewhere who wants to restrict knowledge pervasiveness to the elite that can pay for academic journal subscriptions. And here I was thinking journals were just a curation service for good science, and that all good scientists pursued human development among all other things. For someone who already knows the title of an article, I'm guessing there's no longer a need for the "curation" - the requester is only asking for what the article, in essence, had to go through in order to be curated: PEER FKING REVIEW.
Somewhere along the path to "will to power", I guess money and self-development took priority for this type of "scientists". I'm calling Coca-cola on this Andrea Kuszewski and bet there's some financially-induced bias here (just like coke does with sugar research) - no decent scientist would defend restriction of his or her articles based on "for-profit publishing", nor any member of academia, nor education institutions of any kind (even for-profit ones) want to encumber human development. If anything, scientists crave approval, validation, or whatever you wanna call it. I see nothing encumbering validation with a person requesting access to a document they feel they need to read.
There's nothing techcrunch-y in what Enron did, it was something targeting individual stock players/pure investors (gamblers) on the energy department, not innovation. I think you're trying to force this point that Theranos investors did/do so only to make money out of it, and not to disrupt the market (i.e. improve society) through areas the investors (the VC) are actually comfortable with on a technological level.
Touché, but this is investment made by pondered venture capital and not by more "linear" investment funds - it seeks explosive ideas rather than flat out, stabilized growth predictions based on market speculation. I like to think the risk VC entails has a more justifiable disruptive potential, and is backed by a deeper scientific pitch than what Enron investors looked for in the energy industry (sorry if this sounds confusing but it's not easy to speak techcrunch'y when you're not a native english speaker like me).
Yet I'd like to say two words about the WSJ: Rupert Murdoch.
But I'd rather trust 10B of funding than an article on the WSJ that could very well be a public opinion bomb from the highly influent big pharma lobby. My two cents
As I said, seems way off to shoot someone for trespassing. But making it look like you will shoot them with 5.56mm caliber, that's a whole 'nother story. Those can (actually should) be rubber point rather than FMJ if you're worried about "mistakes". Any security company will tell you 95% effectiveness comes from appearance of force, and the other 5% to actual application of force. If you're the type of guy who develops and names a "bioweapon defense mode" in a car, you're the type of guy who is aware of certain dangers of society, and worrying about public opinion on the security of something everyone knows will be heavily scrutinized by fossil fuel lobbying, seems to me much like worrying that the earth is round.
Jail time or not, there's still little reason to kill someone over tresspassing, or even theft or vandalism of physical property.
In any case, I find the lack of heavier security surprising. Even for a straight up company like Tesla, this is a factory pretty much deciding the near-future of clean energy, and, at the very least, of +1Billion USD of taxpayer money. It could even be Big Oil trying to undermine the place by acquiring intel ffs.
Not being protected by armed personel (and I mean SMGs and above), along with them bigg ass signs stating "Tresspassers will be shot", is a clear lack of responsibility by itself. Such measures have worked for the military - I bet you can count with one hand the number of tresspasses on continental US military bases (excluding of course: kids, drones, acts of war and the obvious crazy person that is clinically diagnosed with lack of common sense).
Right in the feels. No sentence I read this week makes as much sense as: "When you entrust your health, safety, or privacy to a device, the law shouldn't punish you for trying to understand how that device works and whether it is trustworthy." The problem is when laws change name for "Acts" and start benefitting companies over individuals.
The statistic at hand - 12 people dead with phone in hand - doesn't take into account deaths that were caused by the sheer intention to take a selfie afterwards. The guy that recently fell from a 25m tall statue in Paris comes to mind... It's not just the act of having using a phone with a dangerous background that kills - sometimes the problem comes from getting to the place with that background. Problem, obviously, is the dead aren't here to talk about it anymore.
It's just mostly an acronym (Department of Electronics & Information Technology), with an added Y at the end for simplicity (acronyms end better in vowel sounds), which can very well be taken from the last letter of the last word. I'd be more concerned with their dated website, using low-res, stretched imagery, and the notorious HTML 0.1 Alpha and Javascript 1999. It even looks like iframes are used at first glance... Maybe they still need to run stuff in Win98 down there.
Google, Facebook, or even Elon Industries know that. They aren't really trying to look cool while doing public service. They know the problem with a ground-based solution is neither lack of technology nor environmental. The problem is actually scale: when you start projects based on premises such as "universal", "ubiquitous", "unlimited" or "free/cheap", not even big companies can supply all of those due to obvious political reasons, such as those that bolster fair competition. Let's consider major gov'mt lobby poker Google, for instance - if they decided to extend their internet providing services to wireless in the US alone, they would pretty much have to spend billions to topple AT&T's (among others) influence on the administration. It would just make it too costly to actually provide the "free/cheap" service, and would probably imply restrictions to the other two as a trade-off, becoming effectively not "universal" nor "ubiquitous". They already have problems like that with Google Fiber (why are only some cities getting such a great service? You guessed right, existing cable company influence is blocking all newcomers on a political level), and wireless is just a much harsher market due to players being so well positioned. Now scale that to the entire world, with 200'ish countries to lobby. This goes without saying that quasi-orbital (and orbital) solutions such as balloons and satellites actually scale rather easily with minimal costs, even considering maintenance. Suffice to say, it is much easier to have this cool looking, bleeding edge solution that few will have the power to contest, due to universally acclaimed common good and obvious technological prowess (but eventually, stupid ways will be found for that, and stupid arguments will be made. Just look at Uber's case...).
Slashdot Mirror
my thoughts exactly. Apple is all about avoiding product cannibalization. Thus the super price tag and performance disparities on the Mac Pro vs iMacs, iPad/Mini vs iPad Pro, MacBook Air vs MacBook pro 13, MacBook Pro 13 vs MacBook Pro 15, and even MacBook Pro 15 vs MacBook Pro 15 with dedicated graphics. The only notable exception is the iPhones standard and plus, but hey, they still do the price disparity on the amazing price differences for storage capacity on those.
What that would wind up doing is product cannibalization - Apple doesn't want to lose market share on tablets nor the premium ultra portable notebook (which they pretty much have on both) by doing a more expensive product that will induce the buyer on second thoughts, and making him skip that day-1 urge to get in line and buy the next iThingie.
This seems like the "kill a fly with a canon" solution. But it does look like it could work if money and infrastructure is no object, with full-fledged system images as a plus.
I believe the problems of a company needing backups are usually too specific for there to be a swiss army knife for the backup topic. That's why I mentioned the "on-the-rocks" solution always being the better one. That's why many companies end up releasing their own versions of so many things, backup tools included, and then only a portion end up gaining traction.
While you do present very fair arguments, you failed, like me, to address important issues of the OP. Not to mention your inconsistency on such examples.
For instance, you argument for customization with an example based on the trigger of a proprietary recovery system. So you can trigger a remote process with Bacula. I have a one-liner shell script command for that, nice job. Especially with a proprietary system which the OP specifically excluded in the title (Open. Source.). And from the clues I got, Bacula has issues with Windows systems, or you're gonna be needing at least 2 different sets of binaries to support both MSW+NIX. You need something pre-main-OS boot for a completely dual solution (as an under user, I think of the likes of Acronis or Ghost, and stuff too complex for me even to start name dropping for enterprise-level).
Numero dos: tapes? Your argument for having a clue for backups is name dropping TAPES? In case you didn't notice, snapshot'ing, with rotation doesn't really need tape support. You're not going for the petabytes, and I doubt you're going for the 10+years, even for corporate. A snapshot will have only the diff of the previous one. With that said, Why da fck do I need tapes for, or barcodes, or bells and whistles?. You could have mentioned diff support in Bacula, that would have been big, if it wasn't so deep in its manual (mostly what took me away from Bacula/Clonezilla. Now to be fair, my example also does full backups over time, no diffs and integrity checks, but with exceptions - my method happens to produce really, REALLY minimal, compressed tars with 100% parity and 99% reliability to what was on that backup day if needs be (you just update Debian until that point of time, single difference in the system will be the hardware/UUID).
You know what else was designed to interface with everything and anything (including emulating virtual tapes as entire drives, or even just files)? The Unix CLI
And just to make a fking point, this guy came to /. asking around for a backup solution. Put yourself in that perspective before you go demanding the manpower of setting a datacenter-wide B&R process. Because when you start mentioning the big bucks Oracle (seriously, when there's something which's presentation page has a Training/Certification section, like that Oracle crap does, it's big bucks), that pretty much translates that you're gonna need an IT section just for managing that B&R process. This guys came to slashdot, Ima' repeat that, to SLASHDOT asking for FOSS. No matter how much he keeps mentioning "we" or "the company", he is 100% either a manager of a small team (1-3 ppl) who is trying to focus on not-so-scalable stuff. He doesn't need tapes or Oracle's antics, unless he's already on that wagon (which he's not, he was ordered to use FOSS... and HE CAME TO SLASHDOT, not Oracle support forums). And he if wants FOSS, if he does have that big a company, there's nothing more FOSS than going the extra mile and making your own fucking shell script-based super-duper-complex process, since the company is pressuring wide FOSS usage, then upping it to github with a copyleft/apache license afterwards. In the end, that's what the big guys who want to go FOSS are doing now, unless you didn't have a clue.. If that company is going FOSS for financial reasons, they are doing it wrong.
triple post, but just noting my compressed backups for a 100 mailbox, jboss instance with heavy app deployment and traffic, and fully configured ISP-config would range between 2 to 4GB. I had a 30 day rotation set in place, then every 6 months I would run some cleanup tools to go back to 2GB'ish archives.
Looking at your question again, this might not be your best bet due to scale and usage of Windows. Still a good choice for the Linux, 5-machine tops sysadmin.
I once was in a crossroads of choosing between stuff like Clonezilla and Bacula, for small business purposes. Bottom line is they add a lot of complexity for low to no flexibility. I ended up building my own tar/move/ script with cron triggers at after ours downtime, then I would simply move them around network locations for avoiding single points of failure messing up the backups. Adding your own exceptions for the backup is a plus. At the last point, I had something reliable, fast, and that would require the simple overhead of re-installing Debian before the actual restore, then an update-grub and a change in fstab for the new disk replacing the broken one's UUID (because you don't really do that many restores so it's a fair trade-off, while you do save time exponentially by not backing up the entire OS). A good starting point is http://www.aboutdebian.com/tar...
Game Manager, social media integration, system notifications tab...
Seems to be ticking all the right boxes on my graphic driver customization shit list. Please bring more clutter to an already confusing piece of software that should have as main focus its simplicity, transparency, and not meddling in tasks my OS and Browser are supposed to be doing...
Note that if verification fails at any stage, the user must be visibly notified and always be given an option to continue using the device at their own discretion. (source: https://source.android.com/dev...)
So everything I expected could be rendered useless will actually still have a chance to run. *Exales in relief*
...and as soon as I turned it on, I realized that I not only had 200 cable channels to chose before, but now I also have on demand content that would fill a lifetime in front of tv only for my top 3 genres. Then I remembered they have a great recommendation engine that will feed me the best of what I really like, giving me some comfort, and saving me that lifetime.
Bottomline is: we shouldn't worry with too much choice - we should worry about the quality of the choices we have, and the quality of the choices MADE FOR US, that don't originate in ourselves. Having few choice is a subset of the environment making a choice for you, the only option left being to accept or not that choice (chosing "nothing" as the OP says). This curation has been the past, present and will stay the future basis of human society as a whole: it is, for example, what a government does for you after you elect it, or what newspaper editors, television/radio programming managers' work is all about. This article states choosing nothing is the worst choice and a consequence of having a lot of choices (only partially true, i.e. a BAD ASSUMPTION). I say having a lot of choices with different characteristics makes you chose "nothing" a lot more easier (because you value things by what they are rather than everybody using them), which is always good when you consider you have limited time in this earth to make use of your life choices. One obvious case of when this is bad, for example, for companies, is when your business model is based on using something rather than paying for the curation itself. Competition is the best thing about capitalism. It is the essence of freedom applied to organizations. But I believe if there's something clearly valuable by itself, it will always stand out, reducing this problem to peanuts.
Or better, a list of problems:
1. the population that they are targeting with nostalgic remakes is almost entirely through "the point of no more gaming" - that moment you no longer buy 1/5 the games you did because adulthood catches up
2. they don't really have that many games that can be salvaged in an economically efficient way. FF7 remake should be proof of that when the production costs come out - you can't reuse the most expensive stuff, which is basically source code, graphical assets and marketing initiatives
3. remakes might be easier to digest for critics (it's hard to see a game remake getting bad rep), but at the same time, the moment they get one instance of generalized REALLY BAD criticism on a remake (especially the first ones), every project you have on the pipeline with bucks spent is gonna suffer the consequences. This doesn't happen with a single very bad game.
4. I understand this being a financial decision by a gaming company , but this encumbers human development indirectly - newcomers purchasing these games are gonna face cultural clash with them, since they weren't made for this point of time, especially their stories, while their genres, even despite a rework, will be out of place (time*)
In any case, I hope for the best. I'm a big fan of anything Squeenix. But I would rather they pay the big bucks, purchase Mistwalker, and bring back old timer Sakaguchi, Uematsu et al, and just play on with the sure win match plan
So, if I get this right, Google just made boot-level customization useless, because verified boot will pretty much prevent CWM, TWRP, unlocking the bootloader etc. There goes also easy rooting, easy custom ROMs (CyanogenMod), easy backups, MultiROM, fastboot de-bricking for the semi-knowledgeable, sideloading, custom flashing............. Right? RIGHT?
So you're telling me there's a "scientist" somewhere who wants to restrict knowledge pervasiveness to the elite that can pay for academic journal subscriptions. And here I was thinking journals were just a curation service for good science, and that all good scientists pursued human development among all other things. For someone who already knows the title of an article, I'm guessing there's no longer a need for the "curation" - the requester is only asking for what the article, in essence, had to go through in order to be curated: PEER FKING REVIEW.
Somewhere along the path to "will to power", I guess money and self-development took priority for this type of "scientists". I'm calling Coca-cola on this Andrea Kuszewski and bet there's some financially-induced bias here (just like coke does with sugar research) - no decent scientist would defend restriction of his or her articles based on "for-profit publishing", nor any member of academia, nor education institutions of any kind (even for-profit ones) want to encumber human development. If anything, scientists crave approval, validation, or whatever you wanna call it. I see nothing encumbering validation with a person requesting access to a document they feel they need to read.
There's nothing techcrunch-y in what Enron did, it was something targeting individual stock players/pure investors (gamblers) on the energy department, not innovation. I think you're trying to force this point that Theranos investors did/do so only to make money out of it, and not to disrupt the market (i.e. improve society) through areas the investors (the VC) are actually comfortable with on a technological level.
Touché, but this is investment made by pondered venture capital and not by more "linear" investment funds - it seeks explosive ideas rather than flat out, stabilized growth predictions based on market speculation. I like to think the risk VC entails has a more justifiable disruptive potential, and is backed by a deeper scientific pitch than what Enron investors looked for in the energy industry (sorry if this sounds confusing but it's not easy to speak techcrunch'y when you're not a native english speaker like me).
Yet I'd like to say two words about the WSJ: Rupert Murdoch.
But I'd rather trust 10B of funding than an article on the WSJ that could very well be a public opinion bomb from the highly influent big pharma lobby. My two cents
As I said, seems way off to shoot someone for trespassing. But making it look like you will shoot them with 5.56mm caliber, that's a whole 'nother story. Those can (actually should) be rubber point rather than FMJ if you're worried about "mistakes". Any security company will tell you 95% effectiveness comes from appearance of force, and the other 5% to actual application of force. If you're the type of guy who develops and names a "bioweapon defense mode" in a car, you're the type of guy who is aware of certain dangers of society, and worrying about public opinion on the security of something everyone knows will be heavily scrutinized by fossil fuel lobbying, seems to me much like worrying that the earth is round.
Jail time or not, there's still little reason to kill someone over tresspassing, or even theft or vandalism of physical property. In any case, I find the lack of heavier security surprising. Even for a straight up company like Tesla, this is a factory pretty much deciding the near-future of clean energy, and, at the very least, of +1Billion USD of taxpayer money. It could even be Big Oil trying to undermine the place by acquiring intel ffs. Not being protected by armed personel (and I mean SMGs and above), along with them bigg ass signs stating "Tresspassers will be shot", is a clear lack of responsibility by itself. Such measures have worked for the military - I bet you can count with one hand the number of tresspasses on continental US military bases (excluding of course: kids, drones, acts of war and the obvious crazy person that is clinically diagnosed with lack of common sense).
Right in the feels. No sentence I read this week makes as much sense as: "When you entrust your health, safety, or privacy to a device, the law shouldn't punish you for trying to understand how that device works and whether it is trustworthy." The problem is when laws change name for "Acts" and start benefitting companies over individuals.
The statistic at hand - 12 people dead with phone in hand - doesn't take into account deaths that were caused by the sheer intention to take a selfie afterwards. The guy that recently fell from a 25m tall statue in Paris comes to mind... It's not just the act of having using a phone with a dangerous background that kills - sometimes the problem comes from getting to the place with that background. Problem, obviously, is the dead aren't here to talk about it anymore.
How can you still see? CRT's release dangerous radiation! I hope you are using a filter...
If you believe diets are simple, I want you to tech me how to be able to stick to them easily :D
It's just mostly an acronym (Department of Electronics & Information Technology), with an added Y at the end for simplicity (acronyms end better in vowel sounds), which can very well be taken from the last letter of the last word. I'd be more concerned with their dated website, using low-res, stretched imagery, and the notorious HTML 0.1 Alpha and Javascript 1999. It even looks like iframes are used at first glance... Maybe they still need to run stuff in Win98 down there.
Google, Facebook, or even Elon Industries know that. They aren't really trying to look cool while doing public service. They know the problem with a ground-based solution is neither lack of technology nor environmental. The problem is actually scale: when you start projects based on premises such as "universal", "ubiquitous", "unlimited" or "free/cheap", not even big companies can supply all of those due to obvious political reasons, such as those that bolster fair competition. Let's consider major gov'mt lobby poker Google, for instance - if they decided to extend their internet providing services to wireless in the US alone, they would pretty much have to spend billions to topple AT&T's (among others) influence on the administration. It would just make it too costly to actually provide the "free/cheap" service, and would probably imply restrictions to the other two as a trade-off, becoming effectively not "universal" nor "ubiquitous". They already have problems like that with Google Fiber (why are only some cities getting such a great service? You guessed right, existing cable company influence is blocking all newcomers on a political level), and wireless is just a much harsher market due to players being so well positioned. Now scale that to the entire world, with 200'ish countries to lobby. This goes without saying that quasi-orbital (and orbital) solutions such as balloons and satellites actually scale rather easily with minimal costs, even considering maintenance. Suffice to say, it is much easier to have this cool looking, bleeding edge solution that few will have the power to contest, due to universally acclaimed common good and obvious technological prowess (but eventually, stupid ways will be found for that, and stupid arguments will be made. Just look at Uber's case...).