I believe that it SHOULD be! Virtualization is the thing that's new. One of your datacenters burns down? Transfer your VM instance to another one. High load? Automatically start a new instance (in some unknown datacenter...). Low load? Shout down instances or dynamically decrease ressource allocation to your VM and save money.
Everything else is nothing but a plain old datacenter.
Because that's what "the cloud" was MEANT to mean in the first place. To distinguish it from other kinds of co-hosted servers, Software as a Service, or plain Webservices
And now these survey clowns come out, mock people for not knowing what the cloud is, and then TELLING THEM they already use the cloud when they do online banking and facebook??!?!
It seems that the meaning of that word has severly shifted and now every frigging website labels itself "cloud service" just because it is online.
Interest on accounts is not something for nothing. There is an very obvious opportunity costs that comes with depositing your money. You lose control of it and you lose some access to it.
Yes, and that's exactly the same what this scheme promised: let me control your bitcoins for a while and you'll get them back later - with intrests.
So this alone was no criteria for recognizing a scam.
"getting sumthin for nuthin" is exactly what intrest is.
and even if you count lending something for a while as something, it would still bethe same something that happend here. Giving someone money and getting back money + x is the base principle of all saving accounts, so at least teaching this principle won't work here.
I know it was meant as a joke, but if you're really stuck somewhere in the middle of nowhere, your proposal is definitly more feasable than creating gasoline or electricity out of thin air... besides that: target market is India. labour is cheap there. How many rupees to pay a guy to stomp on a bellow 3 or 4 hours?
Those rights come bundled with what is called "Full Responsibility".
Pilots and captains have it because when there's a problem, they can't simply pull right and wait for the friggin AAA like a bus driver could do. Or take the time to call headquarters and ask some manager for instructions. So who would you give authority instead? Some bean counter from airline management?
I *want* a pilot with the power to say "I don't care how much money 10 minutes delay cost. I'll fly around that thunderstorm!" or "This plane will go nowhere until the brakes are fixed" "But the records say they're good for 3 more weeks " - the pilot should be able to just say "STFU"
And who gave you the idea that a stewardess could get you arrested? The pilot on the other hand...... at least until the plane touches ground again.
Yes, that would be sensible. I agree with you on that.
But sometimes you want - espescially pilots - to be overly carefull than sensible.
If someone panics in midair, that might indeed lead to a dangerous situation. But having the captain ask pre-flight "Ladies and gentlemen, please look around if someone's shirt might scare you later. you will then be removed from the flight before takeoff" sounds like a Monty Python skit and not like a practical solution, even if ot would be technically correct.
Definitly right. But that's a rather high-level view on the matter.
The pilot has full responsibility for the plane and passengers. And by "full", I mean "FULL". Basically, when boarding a plane or a ship, you're under martial law. At the captains mercy. He will be held responsible for what he does, but usually that's in a review and not immediatly. (That's the part that's missing for the TSA. They can only be sactioned but never praised for thinking instead of following the rules)
Ok, I probably should have read the article. Espescially if it has pictures...
But it seems to me that (with the exception of the TSA) everything was handled well and has been fixed. The passenger got compensated and arived at his destination, and the pilots descision will be reviewed and evaluated by the airline.
As i just wrote in another answer. That would depend on the actual shirt. Even if managed to explain to the TSA that "I'm a terrorist" is a joke-T-shirt, the pilot would not be to blame.
But that's a matter between the airline and the pilot, respectivly the airline and the passenger.
The fact that the pilot can make descisions that aren't to be questioned immedeatly, doesn't prevent him from beeing responsible for his descisions. Neither does it force the airline to stick to pilots who make wrong descisions.
The question if the airline owes compensation to the customer is a completly different one. (but related.) Let's take another T-Shirt examply to make it clearer:
Imagine some guy with a Manchester United jersy wants to board the airplane. Nothing wrong with that. But now imagine a hoard of other guys with Manchester City jerseys already in there. If the pilot now realizes that this might lead to a dangerous situation and removes the single guy from flight, He is right to do so, but still the airline owes that guy a flight (and perhaps an apology and an upgrade when he's rescheduled.)
We don't know the t-shirt from here, but if it was something along the lines of "I'm a dangerous terrorist!" removing him might have been reasonable to avoid panic from the "simpler" passengers, who don't share the same kind of humour. And I don't think the airline would owe him anything.
If this happens with just a normal shirt, the airline should react fully as proposed by you. Plus send the pilot to a shrink.
But the airline should NEVER force the pilot to revoke his decision and carry that guy. That would be a slippery slope. I don't want airline in a position where they can "persuade" a pilot to fly that plane if he thinks that those bolts look a bit rusty....
As most of you, I only read TFS, but this wasn't the TSA to blame.
It's completly in a pilots discretion if he want's to have some prankster on board who doesn't care if the whole flight gets delayed because of a funny shirt.
He has the right to remove anyone from the plane. For anything else, complain to the airline afterwards.
This system works as long as you put somewhat reasonable and responsible people in the cockpit. And if he pulls that stunt too often, he'll be sanctioned by his employer. That's a completly different situation from some minimum-wage guy who only would get sanctioned for NOT bullying people around and gets paid (and perhaps rewarded) for strictly following procedures, not thinking about if that would be stupid.
Please note: I don't say what the pilot did was right, but he had the right to make that descision.
"Public Domain" in a strict sense means waiving all your rights to something. It becomes a common good. But here ownership of the parts of the articles stays with the author, even if it may be used by others for free.
well, most newspapers sites aren't much more than aggregators for news agency material, too... And both are competing for readers. but as I said, that's a wide definition of competitor. more of a worst case scenario that might happen in court.
I doubt that Google News copies whole news stories... Noone would have ever thought that that should be covered by fair use. The original draft for this law specifically mentioned headlines. and isolated sentences.
Slashdot Mirror
The only reason Bruce Willis and not Chuck Norris is sueing is that Chuck Norris CAN keep his iTunes collection in the family heirloom.....
but if you drink slower. you have to order less to cover the evening.
And remember that opel is under US management (it's part of General motors)
well... That's what Hedgefunds do....
bet huge sums on something, and slightly less against to minimize losses....
Amzon cloud service: yes.
Dropbox and facebook (which somehow are cloud services too, at least by the definition of TFA): no
Google Apps and other business services: not sure.
N=1000
RTFA
Yes. But people *KNOW* that they're putting their live in their doctors hands - and that that's the smarter choice.
But "in the cloud" tends to hide that underlying fact unlike e.g. "my data is on AWS servers" wouldn't do.
I believe that it SHOULD be! Virtualization is the thing that's new. One of your datacenters burns down? Transfer your VM instance to another one. High load? Automatically start a new instance (in some unknown datacenter...). Low load? Shout down instances or dynamically decrease ressource allocation to your VM and save money.
Everything else is nothing but a plain old datacenter.
Because that's what "the cloud" was MEANT to mean in the first place. To distinguish it from other kinds of co-hosted servers, Software as a Service, or plain Webservices
And now these survey clowns come out, mock people for not knowing what the cloud is, and then TELLING THEM they already use the cloud when they do online banking and facebook??!?!
It seems that the meaning of that word has severly shifted and now every frigging website labels itself "cloud service" just because it is online.
Interest on accounts is not something for nothing. There is an very obvious opportunity costs that comes with depositing your money. You lose control of it and you lose some access to it.
Yes, and that's exactly the same what this scheme promised: let me control your bitcoins for a while and you'll get them back later - with intrests.
So this alone was no criteria for recognizing a scam.
"getting sumthin for nuthin" is exactly what intrest is.
and even if you count lending something for a while as something, it would still bethe same something that happend here. Giving someone money and getting back money + x is the base principle of all saving accounts, so at least teaching this principle won't work here.
I know it was meant as a joke, but if you're really stuck somewhere in the middle of nowhere, your proposal is definitly more feasable than creating gasoline or electricity out of thin air... besides that: target market is India. labour is cheap there. How many rupees to pay a guy to stomp on a bellow 3 or 4 hours?
Those rights come bundled with what is called "Full Responsibility".
Pilots and captains have it because when there's a problem, they can't simply pull right and wait for the friggin AAA like a bus driver could do. Or take the time to call headquarters and ask some manager for instructions. So who would you give authority instead? Some bean counter from airline management?
I *want* a pilot with the power to say "I don't care how much money 10 minutes delay cost. I'll fly around that thunderstorm!" or "This plane will go nowhere until the brakes are fixed" "But the records say they're good for 3 more weeks " - the pilot should be able to just say "STFU"
And who gave you the idea that a stewardess could get you arrested?
The pilot on the other hand...... at least until the plane touches ground again.
Yes, that would be sensible. I agree with you on that.
But sometimes you want - espescially pilots - to be overly carefull than sensible.
If someone panics in midair, that might indeed lead to a dangerous situation. But having the captain ask pre-flight "Ladies and gentlemen, please look around if someone's shirt might scare you later. you will then be removed from the flight before takeoff" sounds like a Monty Python skit and not like a practical solution, even if ot would be technically correct.
Definitly right. But that's a rather high-level view on the matter.
The pilot has full responsibility for the plane and passengers. And by "full", I mean "FULL". Basically, when boarding a plane or a ship, you're under martial law. At the captains mercy. He will be held responsible for what he does, but usually that's in a review and not immediatly. (That's the part that's missing for the TSA. They can only be sactioned but never praised for thinking instead of following the rules)
Ok, I probably should have read the article. Espescially if it has pictures...
But it seems to me that (with the exception of the TSA) everything was handled well and has been fixed. The passenger got compensated and arived at his destination, and the pilots descision will be reviewed and evaluated by the airline.
As i just wrote in another answer. That would depend on the actual shirt. Even if managed to explain to the TSA that "I'm a terrorist" is a joke-T-shirt, the pilot would not be to blame.
That's a completly valid possibility.
But that's a matter between the airline and the pilot, respectivly the airline and the passenger.
The fact that the pilot can make descisions that aren't to be questioned immedeatly, doesn't prevent him from beeing responsible for his descisions. Neither does it force the airline to stick to pilots who make wrong descisions.
The question if the airline owes compensation to the customer is a completly different one. (but related.) Let's take another T-Shirt examply to make it clearer:
Imagine some guy with a Manchester United jersy wants to board the airplane. Nothing wrong with that. But now imagine a hoard of other guys with Manchester City jerseys already in there. If the pilot now realizes that this might lead to a dangerous situation and removes the single guy from flight, He is right to do so, but still the airline owes that guy a flight (and perhaps an apology and an upgrade when he's rescheduled.)
We don't know the t-shirt from here, but if it was something along the lines of "I'm a dangerous terrorist!" removing him might have been reasonable to avoid panic from the "simpler" passengers, who don't share the same kind of humour. And I don't think the airline would owe him anything.
If this happens with just a normal shirt, the airline should react fully as proposed by you. Plus send the pilot to a shrink.
But the airline should NEVER force the pilot to revoke his decision and carry that guy. That would be a slippery slope. I don't want airline in a position where they can "persuade" a pilot to fly that plane if he thinks that those bolts look a bit rusty....
As most of you, I only read TFS, but this wasn't the TSA to blame.
It's completly in a pilots discretion if he want's to have some prankster on board who doesn't care if the whole flight gets delayed because of a funny shirt.
He has the right to remove anyone from the plane. For anything else, complain to the airline afterwards.
This system works as long as you put somewhat reasonable and responsible people in the cockpit. And if he pulls that stunt too often, he'll be sanctioned by his employer. That's a completly different situation from some minimum-wage guy who only would get sanctioned for NOT bullying people around and gets paid (and perhaps rewarded) for strictly following procedures, not thinking about if that would be stupid.
Please note: I don't say what the pilot did was right, but he had the right to make that descision.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence
You pay that there IS something to watch in the first place.... (Instead of fundfraising pleas from you PBS)
At least with that if someone does break in we'll have a nice vid to hand the cops.
And the damage from the break in to deal with.
That hack needs access to a debug/programing interface. Shouldn't that interface have been protected by a _mechanical_ lock in the first place?
"Public Domain" in a strict sense means waiving all your rights to something. It becomes a common good. But here ownership of the parts of the articles stays with the author, even if it may be used by others for free.
well, most newspapers sites aren't much more than aggregators for news agency material, too... And both are competing for readers. but as I said, that's a wide definition of competitor. more of a worst case scenario that might happen in court.
I doubt that Google News copies whole news stories... Noone would have ever thought that that should be covered by fair use. The original draft for this law specifically mentioned headlines. and isolated sentences.