He does. He comments are very explicit in this regard.
He will probably not admit to it open but he is (and to be fair many others are also) actually saying that the laws governing the correct behavior by pedestrians on a roadway are more important than democracy.
Because democracy is voting once per term for the party you find least reprehensible. (or not bothering to as is all to common nowadays)
Apart from that you should just shut up, lube up and bend over and brace yourself.
Nice. Can't see why your system of government is so broken...
I am sorry but this statement is contrary to the 100's of examples given by someone who does this for a living.
That is probably an example of a very large company doing it wrong...and you cannot save idiots from themselves 90% of the time unfortunately. But you are right though - this sort of thing can just be lumped with IT and blamed on IT even though they are not really the cause of the trouble.
But how is this different from normal again??:)
This is not the experience of almost all people from my reading - hence why it is so damned popular!?
What is fantastically ironic about this statement is that it is 100% true. I am not sure whether that is what you are intending but if not it is rather ironic.
The whole point is a service delivery model based around turning IT into a commodity to make it exactly that: easy to use.
So yes. If they actually get it to the point where dummies can use it without an expert involved then they have achieved their ultimate aim!
This is a great example because the "private cloud" is one of the things that has been mercilessly beaten up on the most here!
Summary of reasoning:
Premise 1) Cloud computing is just "outsourcing" or like a "mainframe" Premise 2) Private cloud is using those resources/systems/etc in-house Conclusion 1) Therefore the term is ridiculous Conclusion 2) This is conclusive proof of cloud computing term being ridiculous
The problem is with the P1 premise: you just don't get it if you think that is true. And as an IT person with any decent future you probably really should.
The contrast you point out is a perfect example of what I am saying: the cloud is very much more than the above comments and IT has NOT delivered this sort of thing before.
NB: Ironically I am probably going to be unfairly labeled a troll for this comment but this is NOT my intention. But it needs to be said because there is too much group think going on here and I have karma to burn so here goes...
Many people DO know what the cloud is - just not that many people here it seems?! I am surprised at the number of vitriolic comments on all this topic and all "cloud" articles on/.. It is out of whack with the typical thoughtful discourse here.
The main accusation is that the "cloud" has no meaning and/or that it is the rehashing of things that used to exist and has no value.
Well I think I disagree to a large extent - but please hear me out. I have not drunk the kool aid I have just read and discussed it a lot. There certainly is a lot of hype and BS around this issue but that is expected as we have just crossed the "hype part" of the hype cycle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle) and are now on the downward slope into reality. I think people are attacking the hype and missing the "reality" to come. Short sighted I think?
But am not really surprised by the comments or the very negative reaction as this "movement" as it is a major threat to many IT people. One of the main, explicit goals of the "cloud" is to fire many of the readers on slashdot! (NB: How well this nefarious plan works out is besides the point.)
This NEW definition of cloud (who cares what used to be on network diagrams) for me is intertwined with SaaS/PaaS/IaaS and to be fair you cannot talk about one with out the other. You don't always use both together but they are interrelated. And yes it IS a "just form of outsourcing" and yes it rarely uses ground breaking technologies of the type we have never seen the likes of before. (possibly why a lot of people on this site don't seem to get it) However none of that means it is a load of old tosh and not worth anything. This is not directly about IT people or technology, this is about USERS and their perspective and a model that enables them to do things they have never been able to do before this easily. Specifically this is a service delivery model and it is making chunks of old-school IT services a commodity and will continue to do so. How effective it will be in the future at achieving its aims is up for discussion and prediction but, again, none of it means the definition is not worthwhile! And it is early days yet so don't poo poo the idea just yet - it has only just begun.
These cloud services are easy to sign up and purchase, integrate easily and are bought on a "as needed" basis with a very easy ability to upgrade and scale with your business without the typical budget blowouts etc. (theoretically - there are of course many bad implementations at the moment as there are with anything) And many of the major cloud providers HAVE achieved this. When you bundle it up with the (S/I/P)aaS models things get very interesting for users.
Just look at what it has done for SalesForce which is a great example of how things should be done. I have talked to marketing people who initially turned down Salesforce because of the huge licensing costs to buy, install and maintain it on their own hardware. The buy-in costs were ridiculous for an SME so they would typically settle for some cheap crappy alternative they were never happy with. Now it is not even a consideration. They just rent it as they need it and really don't have to worry about upgrades or budgetary surprises or upgrading hardware or up-skilling new IT staff for the product. For marketing people this is a best case scenario and a revelation. And they typically still use IT people to set it up - specialist 3rd party managed service providers who charge them a lot less than having IT people on staff and take care of the details. (no disrespect as I am an IT person - this is just the perspective of a marketing department) In short: they just don't want adopting Saleforce to be a hideously expensive and time consuming project with large on
What is hilarious and immensely sad is that the poster thinks that police stopping radioactive people is the where the current battle lines over privacy and the first amendment rights are in the US.
Dude...have you been in a coma or something???
Re:Such systems have been proposed before
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 1
"An increase in wealth is otherwise known as an income." eh??
Its called capital gains and can be taxed independently as is done in many countries.
How you tax it fairly and when are very difficult discussions.
Since when are corporate campaign donations "free speech"? That is complete tosh sir. What a twisted and perverted version of free speech that is!?
It is a cliche but here is what the wisdom is with corruption and conflict of interest (one which my country actually adheres to BTW): It is not enough to simply not have the INTENT of conflict. Avoiding a conflict of interest is NOT about intent to be proved in court. Avoiding a conflict of interest means not have the appearance of conflict. Even the appearance of a conflict is not good enough and should be avoided. The reason: Because humans cannot consciously control their biases and are mostly unaware of them.
Bribery (a form of corruption) is where there is not just a conflict of interest and you have actively and purposively sought to benefit from the conflict. This of course has to be proved.
In the case of Dodd he just admitted (what we already knew of course) that he is not just in a conflict of interest and is in fact corrupt. He has effectively admitted that accepting a lobbying donation (which is ALWAYS a conflict of interest) is dictating his decision regardless of the public good he is entrusted to represent.
I am not sure which part you find hard to believe?
- They do have a fast track. I hire a lot of people and am currently in the process of hiring 5 more and most of the candidates just landed or are on the way. So I do know what I am talking about. - The "brain drain" has been a hot topic in this country for some time now and the immigration/emigration deficits are routinely reported in the local papers.. Especially amongst our skilled and this includes skilled manual labour as well as the uni grads. Most go to Australia who are going through a mining boom and almost managed to sidestep the recession unlike us. Many do return later but overall we bleed. This might be due to our general education system (rated in the top 10 last time I checked) and the perception of our work ethic which is quite high in many countries.
So yeah. This is not just meaningless opinion.
I assume your last comment is some random "anti-communism even though I don't know what that is or the difference between 'their' and 'there'" comment. About as ignorant as it could possibly be. Nice one.
Yes. IT geeks have basically a fast track to citizenship in this country. I hire a lot of foreigners including someone from California just recently.:)
And don't blame kiwis for being too stupid to take the jobs...our best and brightest (except me) all leave for Australia!
But our government (NZ) is not as corrupt and in fact comes out routinely as one of the least corrupt in the world. Not that I am being patriotic. We are probably just too small to be worth buying!:)
Of course buying politicians with campaign donations is not considered corruption by many - and for those they deserve what they get...which is this and many other things.
While my tongue was in my cheek I would argue that everything you just said could be applied to computer security as well. In fact this is the very argument that is made around code obscurity.
And it does hold some water let's be honest. It MAY delay and it certainly makes it somewhat harder if not impossible for MOST.
The argument is that the other way everyone can look and critique and come up and implement the solutions before a hacker. Certainly close the window.
Slashdot Mirror
He does. He comments are very explicit in this regard.
He will probably not admit to it open but he is (and to be fair many others are also) actually saying that the laws governing the correct behavior by pedestrians on a roadway are more important than democracy.
Because democracy is voting once per term for the party you find least reprehensible. (or not bothering to as is all to common nowadays)
Apart from that you should just shut up, lube up and bend over and brace yourself.
Nice. Can't see why your system of government is so broken...
But clubbing WITH protesters is just awesome.
Maybe all the problem here is semantics?
Errr....
And so you think spraying large amounts of pepper spray into people's face because they are protesting is ok then?
riiiigghhhtt....
Is democracy completely dead in your country or what?
I am sorry but this statement is contrary to the 100's of examples given by someone who does this for a living.
That is probably an example of a very large company doing it wrong...and you cannot save idiots from themselves 90% of the time unfortunately. But you are right though - this sort of thing can just be lumped with IT and blamed on IT even though they are not really the cause of the trouble.
But how is this different from normal again?? :)
This is not the experience of almost all people from my reading - hence why it is so damned popular!?
Not on this board as I stated.
But since you stated you never read my post then I would not expect you to have got it.
So I label yours: Too short, wasn't worth reading.
What is fantastically ironic about this statement is that it is 100% true. I am not sure whether that is what you are intending but if not it is rather ironic.
The whole point is a service delivery model based around turning IT into a commodity to make it exactly that: easy to use.
So yes. If they actually get it to the point where dummies can use it without an expert involved then they have achieved their ultimate aim!
Yes...well.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2908941&cid=40290613
This topic has been covered.
I am sorry but your reasoning is flawed and the fact that you think this is an oxymoron shows that your don't understand the term.
But it must feel great to be able to dismiss a thoughtful post with an offhand one line cliche?? :(
This is very true.
This is a great example because the "private cloud" is one of the things that has been mercilessly beaten up on the most here!
Summary of reasoning:
Premise 1) Cloud computing is just "outsourcing" or like a "mainframe"
Premise 2) Private cloud is using those resources/systems/etc in-house
Conclusion 1) Therefore the term is ridiculous
Conclusion 2) This is conclusive proof of cloud computing term being ridiculous
The problem is with the P1 premise: you just don't get it if you think that is true. And as an IT person with any decent future you probably really should.
The contrast you point out is a perfect example of what I am saying: the cloud is very much more than the above comments and IT has NOT delivered this sort of thing before.
I replied to a similar comment above.
Nice metaphor. But it being a good metaphor does not make it the same.
There is a lot more to this and IT would be wise to at least understand it beyond "its a mainframe" or "its outsourcing".
While I appreciate the metaphorical similarity it is not the same thing. Although it IS a good metaphor. :)
These are complex services bundled up and delivered as a commodity product which has not been achievable for the mainstream before.
Timeshare was just sharing a single resource more or less.
And I think you are ignoring the *aaS part of cloud computing with this statement. It is not just about outsourcing your hardware nowadays.
NB: Ironically I am probably going to be unfairly labeled a troll for this comment but this is NOT my intention. But it needs to be said because there is too much group think going on here and I have karma to burn so here goes...
Many people DO know what the cloud is - just not that many people here it seems?! /.. It is out of whack with the typical thoughtful discourse here.
I am surprised at the number of vitriolic comments on all this topic and all "cloud" articles on
The main accusation is that the "cloud" has no meaning and/or that it is the rehashing of things that used to exist and has no value.
Well I think I disagree to a large extent - but please hear me out. I have not drunk the kool aid I have just read and discussed it a lot.
There certainly is a lot of hype and BS around this issue but that is expected as we have just crossed the "hype part" of the hype cycle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle) and are now on the downward slope into reality. I think people are attacking the hype and missing the "reality" to come. Short sighted I think?
But am not really surprised by the comments or the very negative reaction as this "movement" as it is a major threat to many IT people. One of the main, explicit goals of the "cloud" is to fire many of the readers on slashdot! (NB: How well this nefarious plan works out is besides the point.)
This NEW definition of cloud (who cares what used to be on network diagrams) for me is intertwined with SaaS/PaaS/IaaS and to be fair you cannot talk about one with out the other. You don't always use both together but they are interrelated.
And yes it IS a "just form of outsourcing" and yes it rarely uses ground breaking technologies of the type we have never seen the likes of before. (possibly why a lot of people on this site don't seem to get it)
However none of that means it is a load of old tosh and not worth anything. This is not directly about IT people or technology, this is about USERS and their perspective and a model that enables them to do things they have never been able to do before this easily. Specifically this is a service delivery model and it is making chunks of old-school IT services a commodity and will continue to do so. How effective it will be in the future at achieving its aims is up for discussion and prediction but, again, none of it means the definition is not worthwhile! And it is early days yet so don't poo poo the idea just yet - it has only just begun.
These cloud services are easy to sign up and purchase, integrate easily and are bought on a "as needed" basis with a very easy ability to upgrade and scale with your business without the typical budget blowouts etc. (theoretically - there are of course many bad implementations at the moment as there are with anything)
And many of the major cloud providers HAVE achieved this. When you bundle it up with the (S/I/P)aaS models things get very interesting for users.
Just look at what it has done for SalesForce which is a great example of how things should be done.
I have talked to marketing people who initially turned down Salesforce because of the huge licensing costs to buy, install and maintain it on their own hardware. The buy-in costs were ridiculous for an SME so they would typically settle for some cheap crappy alternative they were never happy with.
Now it is not even a consideration. They just rent it as they need it and really don't have to worry about upgrades or budgetary surprises or upgrading hardware or up-skilling new IT staff for the product. For marketing people this is a best case scenario and a revelation. And they typically still use IT people to set it up - specialist 3rd party managed service providers who charge them a lot less than having IT people on staff and take care of the details. (no disrespect as I am an IT person - this is just the perspective of a marketing department)
In short: they just don't want adopting Saleforce to be a hideously expensive and time consuming project with large on
Wibble.
What is hilarious and immensely sad is that the poster thinks that police stopping radioactive people is the where the current battle lines over privacy and the first amendment rights are in the US.
Dude...have you been in a coma or something???
"An increase in wealth is otherwise known as an income."
eh??
Its called capital gains and can be taxed independently as is done in many countries.
How you tax it fairly and when are very difficult discussions.
OH MY GOD! AN OFFICIAL RESPONSE? THEY WILL BE SHAKING IN THEIR SHOES BROTHERS!
THE REVOLUTION HAS BEGUN!
In the words of William Wallace:
FREEEEEEDOOOOOOMMMMMMMM!!!!!
(appropriately the fake one in a historically inaccurate movie...)
You know the scene, just before he had his bowels torn out and put on display?
Yeah. That's the one. Fitting metaphor
errr...that is sort of what I meant?
I was not talking about "The US legal definition as perverted by a corrupt establishment, proven so in 2010".
I meant REAL free speech....
The article is about lobbying which in terms of dollars is 99.9% corporate.
So yeah. Nice try at a straw man. Also good one on the insults too. Real classy.
So let me reply in kind:
Didn't you realize, you naive little child, you need to be a millionaire to be elected in the US? Or at least be personally backed by one.
Though I better school you in case you have not being paying attention. (or lack the competence to which is most likely)
I also don't come from your country and our government is not close to being as corrupted as yours.
So yeah. Nice post. Ignoramus.
That is not correct.
Since when are corporate campaign donations "free speech"? That is complete tosh sir. What a twisted and perverted version of free speech that is!?
It is a cliche but here is what the wisdom is with corruption and conflict of interest (one which my country actually adheres to BTW):
It is not enough to simply not have the INTENT of conflict. Avoiding a conflict of interest is NOT about intent to be proved in court.
Avoiding a conflict of interest means not have the appearance of conflict. Even the appearance of a conflict is not good enough and should be avoided. The reason: Because humans cannot consciously control their biases and are mostly unaware of them.
Bribery (a form of corruption) is where there is not just a conflict of interest and you have actively and purposively sought to benefit from the conflict. This of course has to be proved.
In the case of Dodd he just admitted (what we already knew of course) that he is not just in a conflict of interest and is in fact corrupt. He has effectively admitted that accepting a lobbying donation (which is ALWAYS a conflict of interest) is dictating his decision regardless of the public good he is entrusted to represent.
He may of been a useless drunk and did terrible things to the country but he was occasionally funny.
PS: I think he was drunk when he called the last fateful snap election.
I am not sure which part you find hard to believe?
- They do have a fast track. I hire a lot of people and am currently in the process of hiring 5 more and most of the candidates just landed or are on the way. So I do know what I am talking about.
- The "brain drain" has been a hot topic in this country for some time now and the immigration/emigration deficits are routinely reported in the local papers.. Especially amongst our skilled and this includes skilled manual labour as well as the uni grads. Most go to Australia who are going through a mining boom and almost managed to sidestep the recession unlike us. Many do return later but overall we bleed. This might be due to our general education system (rated in the top 10 last time I checked) and the perception of our work ethic which is quite high in many countries.
So yeah. This is not just meaningless opinion.
I assume your last comment is some random "anti-communism even though I don't know what that is or the difference between 'their' and 'there'" comment. About as ignorant as it could possibly be. Nice one.
Yes. IT geeks have basically a fast track to citizenship in this country. I hire a lot of foreigners including someone from California just recently. :)
And don't blame kiwis for being too stupid to take the jobs...our best and brightest (except me) all leave for Australia!
It is called ACTA. So yes you are right.
But our government (NZ) is not as corrupt and in fact comes out routinely as one of the least corrupt in the world. Not that I am being patriotic. We are probably just too small to be worth buying! :)
Of course buying politicians with campaign donations is not considered corruption by many - and for those they deserve what they get...which is this and many other things.
While my tongue was in my cheek I would argue that everything you just said could be applied to computer security as well. In fact this is the very argument that is made around code obscurity.
And it does hold some water let's be honest. It MAY delay and it certainly makes it somewhat harder if not impossible for MOST.
The argument is that the other way everyone can look and critique and come up and implement the solutions before a hacker. Certainly close the window.
How is that different in the physical world? :)
Oooh...I just love playing the devil's advocate.
I agree, obfuscation is not security.
Wait...did I post this in the right topic??
Come on now, it is not that brilliant??
I have heard of reinventing the wheel (around 9000bc) but this is ridiculous?
We are reinventing walking now?! (200,000BC)
(Can I take my tongue out of my cheek?)