2 Good reasons: first, because he is a world class attention whore, which means that when he says something, it's news and it's being listened to. Second, because it is not elementary to many. I think few people out there know of the scope and capabilities of current and upcoming surveillance technology.
That is exactly it: group bonding through shared experience. Getting shitfaced together with friends, colleagues, or customers is great, and it beats mountain climbing for several reasons:
- You need a mountain to go mountain climbing, but drinking you can do pretty much anywhere
- You need skills to climb a mountain. Booze, in contrast, is the great equalizer. Anyone can drink, and anyone can drink too much
- Mountain climbing is dangerous, whereas the worst that will happen in a night on the town is you falling off a bar stool.
Plus, rock climbing makes Joel and the bots cry.
All good reasons to prefer drinking over other forms of bonding. It's not tough; it just makes sense.
This message brought to you by Lagavulin single malt scotch. (A brand name even known by my spelling checker)
It works for email. I get rather a lot of it and I have stopped filing it in neat little folders; instead all mail goes into an "archive" folder. Some time management methods like GTD recommend this: do not waste too much time on filing stuff, just throw it on the pile and rely on search to find it later.
Checking when the application starts and silently applying the update when it closes leaves the software vulnerable for hours while the user is using the old version.
So prompt the user about the urgency of the patch *if* it is a critical patch. Or even force them to update before the software can be used. Some software already does this.
or glomming onto some centralised updater (take the App store as an example).
Which usually requires an annual fee plus a cut of the sales.
True, at the moment there isn't a good, free and widely used mechanism for this. Not on Windows or Apple platforms anyway. That doesn't mean current practices are acceptable.
The legal department often demands this when it updates the EULA to cover a newly discovered loophole.
Screw the legal department. Seriously. And if there is some law that requires the EULA to be accepted on *every* patch, then screw the legislators too. I understand that sometimes there is a requirement to change the EULA, but it should be a rare occurrence, and if it happens they can just link to the new version and just post the delta. You know, so that we actually have a chance of understanding what it is we're agreeing to, without having to spend a few hours wading through legalese.
- Program updater asks to install a browser toolbar (the default is "yes", of course). Seriously, Adobe, a browser toolbar, in 2012???
What other revenue source would you recommend for an application distributed for no fee?
Ads are fine. Or charge for your software and see how fast people adopt your proprietary standard. Or charge for the backend stuff (which Adobe already does). Not by making sure it is the de facto standard first, then bugging your clients with this douchebaggery.
Newly released software often has critical security or functionality defects that are discovered "every other day or so" once the user base expands by orders of magnitude from beta to general availability.
I frequently remark to my colleagues how bizarre it seems to me that after 50 years or so of software engineering, we're still building awful crap. If we were architects, we'd be unveiling skyscrapers built using favela techniques of plugging any old crap together, in the mud, next to a river.
Good software engineering is harder than architecture. There, I said it. (And by the way, I am not a software engineer; I'm more of a favela style programmer...). As the tired old saying goes: if we build our skyscrapers like we do our programming, then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilisation. But it wouldn't be because of poor design or slack discipline, it would be because a poorly designed light switch or ill-fitted door would cause buildings to topple. That is the condition under which software engineers work.
The problem is that software engineers have to deal with a great many abstraction levels. Part of that problem is the poor quality and ever-changing nature of the APIs, but that's only part of the problem. Even a well defined and agreed API is likely to constantly change under the hood because of changing technology, new platforms, etc, and the smallest flaw at the lowest level can propagate upwards to cause unexpected results and disaster. I'm not so sure we can really shield against that, unless we spend an enormous effort to do so (like we do in space programs and hopefully in control software for nuclear plants). In contrast, tiny flaws may cause disasters in buildings, but it's very, very rare. The comparison is cute but not at all realistic.
Indeed... and that brings me to an area that needs way more attention than installers, which (in my experience) mostly work reasonably well. Lets talk about the way installed software is kept up to date. You'd think by now we would have solved this problem, but the following list of my issues with this process is still sadly valid in 2012:
- Program installs a little update process to run in the background. Don't. Acceptable ways to check for updates are: checking when the software itself is run, or glomming onto some centralised updater (take the App store as an example).
- Program doesn't really update itself, but initiates the download for a fresh install file that I then have to run and click through. Don't. Instead, make sure the program updates itself with minimal user interaction. (Kaspersky does this well; the Battlefield 3 browser plugin doesn't)
- Program updater makes you specify every install option again, like the installation directory, or even the ^&%$*(&@$ license that has to be accepted again. (Java is one of the many things that does this)
- Program updater asks to install a browser toolbar (the default is "yes", of course). Seriously, Adobe, a browser toolbar, in 2012???
- On top of all of the above: publish an update every other day or so. Don't unless you're patching critical security holes.
In short, the updater should not be implemented as a background process unless there is a very, very, very good reason to do so, and should perform the update with minimum user interaction required. That is: asking me for permission, and nothing else. And it certainly should not install anything other than the software being upgraded: publishing an update is not "an opportunity to re-engage with existing customers".
True, in France the TGV will run on nuclear power. But in any other case, the plane does win on long distance journeys. The thing is that a plane uses *assloads* of fuel on take-offs, but once airborne it uses little. If your journey is long enough, it'll beat the train.
Or the people who deride others for flying, as they prefer to go by high speed train. Tip: traversing a country like France by plane is actually greener, unless that high speed train is powered by those nice French nuclear power stations.
I'm very much pro nuclear, and against smelly hippie activists, but I wouldn't go so far as to call them complete whackos. They have a point: the old nuke plants were pretty bad and so were the old ideas around waste disposal. But that's improving; newer plants are far safer than the old crapholes at Fukushima and Chernobyl. Newer designs (thorium plants) can be made far safer still, and also bring the amount of time we need to store waste down to manageable levels (think a few decades). But I agree: we got these improvements not because of the activists, but despite them. And their "no nukes ever" stance has now been picked up by most of Europe in the wake of Fukushima, slowing development even further, to the point where we may end up buying our thorium plants from the Chinese or the Indians a few decades down the line.
The articles are a little confusing... Some state that they only check if students are on campus, in others it is mentioned that they can track the exact position of students on campus at any moment. Big difference.
"My religion forbids me to wear a badge, so forcing me to wear one is a prohibition of the free exercise of that religion, and a violation of my rights. I should therefore be able to attend school without a badge".
Is that the line of reasoning here? Fine. Now replace "a badge" with "pants".
So what is she objecting to? According to TFA, it is about her privacy and religious sensitivities. I fail to see how carrying a simple badge (they offered one without a chip but she still refused) at school violates her right to privacy.
So is this about religious objections? Freedom of religion is a human right, but that freedom does not free you from normal consequences of your choices, nor does it free you from the obligation to follow normal laws and rules. Unless a law is about prosecuting or harassing a particular religion, asking for exemption is the same as expecting special consideration, as GP rightly calls it. Don't want to wear a badge? That is your problem, so find a different school or go for home schooling; other people or institutions choosing to cater for your religious idiosyncrasies is a matter of politeness, it is a privilege not a right. Or do we really want every believer to be allowed to object to school policy? Have pastafarians sue the school for serving spaghetti on Tuesdays? Or muslims for not providing separate classrooms for boys and girls?
By the way, I think that the word "religion" has no place in law or the constitution. Freedom of religion is adequately covered by freedom of expression (or speech), and freedom of assembly. The only problem with (read: advantage of) the latter definition is that it doesn't come with special privileges for religious groups.
What freedom would that be, exactly? The right not to be tracked, or to go where you please without having to carry an ID? You have that right... and yet you are still required to bring your RFID card to the office, and you still need an ID to pick up a parcel at the post office.
Schools shouldn't be allowed to track children everywhere they go. But since they are charged with the education and well-being of these kids for a certain portion of the day, is it unreasonable that they ask children (and others) to carry an RFID card while on the premises? I fail to see what principle of freedom or privacy is violated by the requirement to carry an ID card (with or without a chip) at school.
You're kidding, right? Our (Dutch) minister of justice recently suggested it might be a good idea to use DNA gathered and stored for research (with the donors being told that it would be used for that specific reason alone) for criminal investigations like this one as well.
The problem with Dutch politicians (especially with the current government) is that they often are very practical. Which is great if you want to get something fixed. The problem lies in the fact that they forget or ignore base principles in the process. To them, civil rights are not a boundary not to be crossed, but merely an impediment to getting results, and always up for negotiation.
Why do you think that is? Suppose you get the job to head the subcommittee to look into offensive speech on the internet. You might think it should be a free-for-all, but hey, it's a pretty sweet assignment for an up and coming bureaucrat so you accept. Then you recruit a few cronies and set to work. You're all for free speech, but what do you know, so you schedule meetings with a few other committees. And there are committees for everything and everyone these days, all too eager to tell you how public bad-mouthing of their target group is detrimental to society. Committees for every group... except of course for while males. And why would there be one? So... after everyone has had their say, the rules neatly cover every contingency except that one missing group.
The problem isn't having committees or advocacy groups for minorities per se, by the way. It's bored bureaucrats looking to extend their circle of influence. As Grand Visor of Internet Censorship, what glory is there to be had declaring all speech to be free? As Supreme Eradicator of Discrimination against Asian Line Dancers, would you tell your constituency to suck it up like adults if there's a derogatory comment about them on YouTube? You'd be out of a job right quick. No, you exert your power, have meetings, grant favours, and make sure your influence is felt as widely as possible. That way you won't only have a job but a career as well.
By the way, this phenomenon is much, much worse in the EC.
Really? I am not overly impressed with the quality of messages I get from the people who are paying for the privilege, on any medium or platform. That sort of content is called "advertising", and it sucks anytime.
It's not bad that FB wants to charge a wealthy commercial party to reach millions of customers, but it is bad that they broke the notification system itself in the process... Nonprofits or even people who happen to have a lot of followers also have to pay up, or their posts won't reach all of their followers. And if you follow someone, you might not get to see all of their updatess either unless they pay up.
The number of followers is much less relevant at live events (including sports events). Some followers might be drawn in that way, but many will simply tune in to the hashtag.
This. IP is not a natural right; it is a temporary privilege granted by society. As such, I don't see a problem with revoking a patent in certain cases, especially when the patent covers something that has grown into widespread use without the patent holder ever bringing suit for infringement (i.e. submarine patents).
By the same token, the process for invalidating patents should be way easier than going through lengthy trials in court. For instance, if you have a well documented case of prior art, requesting a patent review from the USPTO should be enough to result in a speedy resolution (as well as suspending any court cases for infringement against you, pending the outcome of the review). If the patent is actually invalidated, then the patent holder can appeal in court.
Actually, Microsoft does this as well, and they do have their hits, like Kinekt, and their Metro interface. Granted, the tiles stuff isn't completely new, but they improved it to a point of usability, just like Apple has with the iPhone. Metro works well in certain cases, especially phones an tablets, so well in fact that the concept is gaining popularity in iOS apps as well.
Now to "making sure the idea isn't too ludicrous". That's where making Metro the UI for Windows 8 comes in...
Europe is indeed very active when it comes to protect your privacy against 3rd parties. But they are still (part of) the big threat: they'd like to know anyhing and everything about you if they can get their hands on it, and it has been shown repeatedly that government cannot be trusted with our private info, both because they misuse the info, and because they are very poor custodians of the data they gather.
By the way, Scott Adams repeatedly mentions what data government could procure "upon presenting a warrant". To be clear: I am fine with the government procuring my private data if there is a proper warrant:
- issued by a judge;
- issued against named persons;
- issued in the context of a particular investigation or court case;
What I don't want is what we have in the Netherlands, where the District Attorney (Officier van Justitie) can issue a search warrant, and where even a city mayor can issue a so called "warrant to entry" which amounts to more or less the same thing. I think a judge still needs to approve wiretaps (they'd get rid of that requirement if they could get away with it), but even so, the Netherlands sometimes performs more wiretaps in a day than the USA performs in a year. And misuse of data? Our minister of justice suggested that it would be a fine idea to use DNA collected (past and future) for medical research in criminal investigations as well. Coupled with the unbelievable ineptitude of the state when it comes to safeguarding private data on government systems, I do not get a warm fuzzy feeling about my privacy in this small European country.
Hm, modded funny but I agree. Running a successful hosting firm requires more than just a technical trick; which powerhouses like Amazon or Facebook might well duplicate or simply steal. This guy might have the wherewithal to become the next NetApp, but it is doubtful that he can beat the majors.
If you want to be an entrepreneur, sell this company to Facebook and keep the money to start up your next business. That's actually what a lot of entrepreneurs do: sell and move on to the next one. Starting with your own cash puts that money at risk, but it buys an awful lot of freedom (sucks to have a VC looking over your shoulder). Oh, and try for a cash deal, not FB stock...
Slashdot Mirror
2 Good reasons: first, because he is a world class attention whore, which means that when he says something, it's news and it's being listened to. Second, because it is not elementary to many. I think few people out there know of the scope and capabilities of current and upcoming surveillance technology.
That is exactly it: group bonding through shared experience. Getting shitfaced together with friends, colleagues, or customers is great, and it beats mountain climbing for several reasons:
- You need a mountain to go mountain climbing, but drinking you can do pretty much anywhere
- You need skills to climb a mountain. Booze, in contrast, is the great equalizer. Anyone can drink, and anyone can drink too much
- Mountain climbing is dangerous, whereas the worst that will happen in a night on the town is you falling off a bar stool.
Plus, rock climbing makes Joel and the bots cry.
All good reasons to prefer drinking over other forms of bonding. It's not tough; it just makes sense.
This message brought to you by Lagavulin single malt scotch. (A brand name even known by my spelling checker)
It works for email. I get rather a lot of it and I have stopped filing it in neat little folders; instead all mail goes into an "archive" folder. Some time management methods like GTD recommend this: do not waste too much time on filing stuff, just throw it on the pile and rely on search to find it later.
Fun for bus drivers: set the bus to Manual drive, and start playing chicken with vehicles on Auto drive.
Checking when the application starts and silently applying the update when it closes leaves the software vulnerable for hours while the user is using the old version.
So prompt the user about the urgency of the patch *if* it is a critical patch. Or even force them to update before the software can be used. Some software already does this.
or glomming onto some centralised updater (take the App store as an example).
Which usually requires an annual fee plus a cut of the sales.
True, at the moment there isn't a good, free and widely used mechanism for this. Not on Windows or Apple platforms anyway. That doesn't mean current practices are acceptable.
The legal department often demands this when it updates the EULA to cover a newly discovered loophole.
Screw the legal department. Seriously. And if there is some law that requires the EULA to be accepted on *every* patch, then screw the legislators too. I understand that sometimes there is a requirement to change the EULA, but it should be a rare occurrence, and if it happens they can just link to the new version and just post the delta. You know, so that we actually have a chance of understanding what it is we're agreeing to, without having to spend a few hours wading through legalese.
- Program updater asks to install a browser toolbar (the default is "yes", of course). Seriously, Adobe, a browser toolbar, in 2012???
What other revenue source would you recommend for an application distributed for no fee?
Ads are fine. Or charge for your software and see how fast people adopt your proprietary standard. Or charge for the backend stuff (which Adobe already does). Not by making sure it is the de facto standard first, then bugging your clients with this douchebaggery.
Newly released software often has critical security or functionality defects that are discovered "every other day or so" once the user base expands by orders of magnitude from beta to general availability.
I was talking about non-urgent patches.
Good software engineering is harder than architecture. There, I said it. (And by the way, I am not a software engineer; I'm more of a favela style programmer...). As the tired old saying goes: if we build our skyscrapers like we do our programming, then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilisation. But it wouldn't be because of poor design or slack discipline, it would be because a poorly designed light switch or ill-fitted door would cause buildings to topple. That is the condition under which software engineers work.
The problem is that software engineers have to deal with a great many abstraction levels. Part of that problem is the poor quality and ever-changing nature of the APIs, but that's only part of the problem. Even a well defined and agreed API is likely to constantly change under the hood because of changing technology, new platforms, etc, and the smallest flaw at the lowest level can propagate upwards to cause unexpected results and disaster. I'm not so sure we can really shield against that, unless we spend an enormous effort to do so (like we do in space programs and hopefully in control software for nuclear plants). In contrast, tiny flaws may cause disasters in buildings, but it's very, very rare. The comparison is cute but not at all realistic.
Indeed... and that brings me to an area that needs way more attention than installers, which (in my experience) mostly work reasonably well. Lets talk about the way installed software is kept up to date. You'd think by now we would have solved this problem, but the following list of my issues with this process is still sadly valid in 2012:
- Program installs a little update process to run in the background. Don't. Acceptable ways to check for updates are: checking when the software itself is run, or glomming onto some centralised updater (take the App store as an example).
- Program doesn't really update itself, but initiates the download for a fresh install file that I then have to run and click through. Don't. Instead, make sure the program updates itself with minimal user interaction. (Kaspersky does this well; the Battlefield 3 browser plugin doesn't)
- Program updater makes you specify every install option again, like the installation directory, or even the ^&%$*(&@$ license that has to be accepted again. (Java is one of the many things that does this)
- Program updater asks to install a browser toolbar (the default is "yes", of course). Seriously, Adobe, a browser toolbar, in 2012???
- On top of all of the above: publish an update every other day or so. Don't unless you're patching critical security holes.
In short, the updater should not be implemented as a background process unless there is a very, very, very good reason to do so, and should perform the update with minimum user interaction required. That is: asking me for permission, and nothing else. And it certainly should not install anything other than the software being upgraded: publishing an update is not "an opportunity to re-engage with existing customers".
True, in France the TGV will run on nuclear power. But in any other case, the plane does win on long distance journeys. The thing is that a plane uses *assloads* of fuel on take-offs, but once airborne it uses little. If your journey is long enough, it'll beat the train.
Or the people who deride others for flying, as they prefer to go by high speed train. Tip: traversing a country like France by plane is actually greener, unless that high speed train is powered by those nice French nuclear power stations.
I'm very much pro nuclear, and against smelly hippie activists, but I wouldn't go so far as to call them complete whackos. They have a point: the old nuke plants were pretty bad and so were the old ideas around waste disposal. But that's improving; newer plants are far safer than the old crapholes at Fukushima and Chernobyl. Newer designs (thorium plants) can be made far safer still, and also bring the amount of time we need to store waste down to manageable levels (think a few decades). But I agree: we got these improvements not because of the activists, but despite them. And their "no nukes ever" stance has now been picked up by most of Europe in the wake of Fukushima, slowing development even further, to the point where we may end up buying our thorium plants from the Chinese or the Indians a few decades down the line.
What then is freedom of religion? And how is that freedom curtailed if we drop it from the law books, but keep the other rights that all of us enjoy?
The articles are a little confusing... Some state that they only check if students are on campus, in others it is mentioned that they can track the exact position of students on campus at any moment. Big difference.
"My religion forbids me to wear a badge, so forcing me to wear one is a prohibition of the free exercise of that religion, and a violation of my rights. I should therefore be able to attend school without a badge".
Is that the line of reasoning here? Fine. Now replace "a badge" with "pants".
So what is she objecting to? According to TFA, it is about her privacy and religious sensitivities. I fail to see how carrying a simple badge (they offered one without a chip but she still refused) at school violates her right to privacy.
So is this about religious objections? Freedom of religion is a human right, but that freedom does not free you from normal consequences of your choices, nor does it free you from the obligation to follow normal laws and rules. Unless a law is about prosecuting or harassing a particular religion, asking for exemption is the same as expecting special consideration, as GP rightly calls it. Don't want to wear a badge? That is your problem, so find a different school or go for home schooling; other people or institutions choosing to cater for your religious idiosyncrasies is a matter of politeness, it is a privilege not a right. Or do we really want every believer to be allowed to object to school policy? Have pastafarians sue the school for serving spaghetti on Tuesdays? Or muslims for not providing separate classrooms for boys and girls?
By the way, I think that the word "religion" has no place in law or the constitution. Freedom of religion is adequately covered by freedom of expression (or speech), and freedom of assembly. The only problem with (read: advantage of) the latter definition is that it doesn't come with special privileges for religious groups.
Schools tracking attendance is a violation of human rights now? Please... They are not tracking her every move, nor could they if they wanted to.
What freedom would that be, exactly? The right not to be tracked, or to go where you please without having to carry an ID? You have that right... and yet you are still required to bring your RFID card to the office, and you still need an ID to pick up a parcel at the post office.
Schools shouldn't be allowed to track children everywhere they go. But since they are charged with the education and well-being of these kids for a certain portion of the day, is it unreasonable that they ask children (and others) to carry an RFID card while on the premises? I fail to see what principle of freedom or privacy is violated by the requirement to carry an ID card (with or without a chip) at school.
You're kidding, right? Our (Dutch) minister of justice recently suggested it might be a good idea to use DNA gathered and stored for research (with the donors being told that it would be used for that specific reason alone) for criminal investigations like this one as well.
The problem with Dutch politicians (especially with the current government) is that they often are very practical. Which is great if you want to get something fixed. The problem lies in the fact that they forget or ignore base principles in the process. To them, civil rights are not a boundary not to be crossed, but merely an impediment to getting results, and always up for negotiation.
Citizen 186804, I find your post offensive. Please remove it and refrain from further comment or I shall file a complaint with the police.
See how that works? It's all about definitions and slippery slopes.
Why do you think that is? Suppose you get the job to head the subcommittee to look into offensive speech on the internet. You might think it should be a free-for-all, but hey, it's a pretty sweet assignment for an up and coming bureaucrat so you accept. Then you recruit a few cronies and set to work. You're all for free speech, but what do you know, so you schedule meetings with a few other committees. And there are committees for everything and everyone these days, all too eager to tell you how public bad-mouthing of their target group is detrimental to society. Committees for every group... except of course for while males. And why would there be one? So... after everyone has had their say, the rules neatly cover every contingency except that one missing group.
The problem isn't having committees or advocacy groups for minorities per se, by the way. It's bored bureaucrats looking to extend their circle of influence. As Grand Visor of Internet Censorship, what glory is there to be had declaring all speech to be free? As Supreme Eradicator of Discrimination against Asian Line Dancers, would you tell your constituency to suck it up like adults if there's a derogatory comment about them on YouTube? You'd be out of a job right quick. No, you exert your power, have meetings, grant favours, and make sure your influence is felt as widely as possible. That way you won't only have a job but a career as well.
By the way, this phenomenon is much, much worse in the EC.
Really? I am not overly impressed with the quality of messages I get from the people who are paying for the privilege, on any medium or platform. That sort of content is called "advertising", and it sucks anytime.
It's not bad that FB wants to charge a wealthy commercial party to reach millions of customers, but it is bad that they broke the notification system itself in the process... Nonprofits or even people who happen to have a lot of followers also have to pay up, or their posts won't reach all of their followers. And if you follow someone, you might not get to see all of their updatess either unless they pay up.
The number of followers is much less relevant at live events (including sports events). Some followers might be drawn in that way, but many will simply tune in to the hashtag.
This. IP is not a natural right; it is a temporary privilege granted by society. As such, I don't see a problem with revoking a patent in certain cases, especially when the patent covers something that has grown into widespread use without the patent holder ever bringing suit for infringement (i.e. submarine patents).
By the same token, the process for invalidating patents should be way easier than going through lengthy trials in court. For instance, if you have a well documented case of prior art, requesting a patent review from the USPTO should be enough to result in a speedy resolution (as well as suspending any court cases for infringement against you, pending the outcome of the review). If the patent is actually invalidated, then the patent holder can appeal in court.
Actually, Microsoft does this as well, and they do have their hits, like Kinekt, and their Metro interface. Granted, the tiles stuff isn't completely new, but they improved it to a point of usability, just like Apple has with the iPhone. Metro works well in certain cases, especially phones an tablets, so well in fact that the concept is gaining popularity in iOS apps as well.
Now to "making sure the idea isn't too ludicrous". That's where making Metro the UI for Windows 8 comes in...
Europe is indeed very active when it comes to protect your privacy against 3rd parties. But they are still (part of) the big threat: they'd like to know anyhing and everything about you if they can get their hands on it, and it has been shown repeatedly that government cannot be trusted with our private info, both because they misuse the info, and because they are very poor custodians of the data they gather.
By the way, Scott Adams repeatedly mentions what data government could procure "upon presenting a warrant". To be clear: I am fine with the government procuring my private data if there is a proper warrant:
- issued by a judge;
- issued against named persons;
- issued in the context of a particular investigation or court case;
What I don't want is what we have in the Netherlands, where the District Attorney (Officier van Justitie) can issue a search warrant, and where even a city mayor can issue a so called "warrant to entry" which amounts to more or less the same thing. I think a judge still needs to approve wiretaps (they'd get rid of that requirement if they could get away with it), but even so, the Netherlands sometimes performs more wiretaps in a day than the USA performs in a year. And misuse of data? Our minister of justice suggested that it would be a fine idea to use DNA collected (past and future) for medical research in criminal investigations as well. Coupled with the unbelievable ineptitude of the state when it comes to safeguarding private data on government systems, I do not get a warm fuzzy feeling about my privacy in this small European country.
Hm, modded funny but I agree. Running a successful hosting firm requires more than just a technical trick; which powerhouses like Amazon or Facebook might well duplicate or simply steal. This guy might have the wherewithal to become the next NetApp, but it is doubtful that he can beat the majors.
If you want to be an entrepreneur, sell this company to Facebook and keep the money to start up your next business. That's actually what a lot of entrepreneurs do: sell and move on to the next one. Starting with your own cash puts that money at risk, but it buys an awful lot of freedom (sucks to have a VC looking over your shoulder). Oh, and try for a cash deal, not FB stock...