If and when you decide to donate (or buy a DVD), do it because you want to reward them for their creativity. Not for their bandwidth.
That's the same as with piracy. I will never ever pay these guys a single kopeck (penny, eurocent, yuan). These videos are fun, but I am not a rational economic agent, so for me they are simply in a different category - "stuff, which I can enjoy for free, but will never pay for". Do you enjoy chatting with your sister or wrestling with your brother? But would you consider paying for it? Thought so.
Red vs. Blue, as well as most of the movies are in the same league for me. I enjoy them, but won't pay. If I can't have them for free, I will live without them, but I will not pay (not because I am a cheapskate, simply because).
The fact that I won't pay doesn't mean I wouldn't enjoy a better quality copy. So it would be only natural for me to get it from BitTorrent, eDonkey or another P2P. And of course, in this case I will be paying for bandwidth, in the form of my ISP bill.
The parent poster probably feels the same way. He won't pay for the videos, because for him it is not worth an arbitrary small amount of money. But he still would like to contribute to the bottom line of these guys. The only way he can do that is by not wasting their bandwidth. So he wants to get the videos on BT and in that case, why not high-quality versions? BTW, I am sure that he would be more than happy to buy them beer or something else, as long as this is not a direct monetary contribution.
And because the way the trademark law works, Microsoft has to defend their trademarks; writing letters, suing; or else they risk the trademark being generic; free for anyone to use. Please tell me if I understand you correctly. You are implying that if Microsoft DIDN'T attack Mike with their lawyerdogs, there would be a significant chance they might lose the right to the Microsoft trademark, right?
Well, to me that looks like the biggest crock of shit today on Slashdot and that says something.
This may be offtopic, but anyway. The original words are by Pastor Niemoller (1938)
First they came for the Jews And I did not speak out ? Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the communists And I did not speak out ? Because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out ? Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me ? And there was no-one left To speak out for me.
P.S. It is an important reminder to stand for the rights of others, to stand for the rights of terrorists, murderers, child pornografers, P2P programmers, christian fundamentalists, and for the rights of everyone else. We may disagree with people, but only in a free and tolerant society can we expect to be safe ourselves.
When it becomes possible to "upgrade ourselves" so that we no longer have aggressive impulses, am I to understand that you'll be at the front of the line? Why, yes! I don't want to have impulses, when a rational behaviour would be much more efficient. Just this morning I was woken up by a heated debate of my parents.:)) It was perfectly clear to me that they should just calm down, sit down and discuss it, but they actions were not controlled by ratio at the moment.
As for the defence from still aggressive humans, first, there won't be a point in attacking me (since at some stage most material or immaterial needs would be fulfilled by nanotech and AI), and second, I would still be perfectly capable of "aggressively defending" myself if I rationally decide it's the wisest course of action.
There will always be times when violence is a valid strategy, and anybody who thinks otherwise is totally delusional.
Violence? May be. Violence against other humans? Don't think so. What could be the reasons for violence, when scarcity of material resources or information is practically obsolete? When you can have pretty much everything that you want, what would be the reasons for you to act violently towards others?
Re:Why, exactly, the *fear* of China?
on
The Future of NASA
·
· Score: 1
I guess, Hirishima and Nagasaki bombing qualify. But I've never heard about civilized nation such as China doing the same.
Re:Why, exactly, the *fear* of China?
on
The Future of NASA
·
· Score: 1
Can't we then rename them to Magnetists, just like NMR was renamed to MRI?:)
As difficult to defend against as the U.S. military is right now, it will be completely unstoppable if it manages to gain and retain control of space. And as an [un?]intended side-effect this would force these third-world countries to take the only feasible route - sneak into the US, plant some under cover networks and blow some shit right there. Bioterrorism might be another area to look into. And who would be responsible for that?
The US is simply the pinnacle of the world's capitalist empire, and as such, is the most glarying obvious example of what capitalism is really about: profit at any cost.
We can't naively assume that space will only be used for peaceful means, and if we don't take the initiative in ensuring that we have adaquate countermeasures we take on significant risk.
I thought we have been over this already and our leaders decided that it's not worth it to start another arms race... There was supposed to be a threat against militarisation of space, but I don't remember how it panned out. And it's not like international treaties are relevant these days anyway...
It is simply impossible that this nonsense would continue much longer. Humans are animals, humans are stupid, that's why we aren't always nice. But the advances in technology will bring time when it would become easy to upgrade ourselves, and then being aggressive would cease to be a valid strategy. Witness the European states - they can already see this utopia. If only they could remove greed from politicians and remove stupidity from immigrants...
As this will be eventually possible (if we do not kill ourselves), any sci-fi stories about Martian nations, Solar System Federation, etc., etc., are just groundless speculations.
America will suffer as long as people believe that the right to earn money is the most fundamental one. I agree you should be free to decide what to do with your private property. But I don't think the same rights should be extended to corporate property.
Private property is important so that you can exercise your freedoms. Corporate property is needed so that someone can make money. First goal is respectful, second one is relatively unimportant. Thus I believe you should have the final say in what is allowed in your house, but companies (and even private businessmen) should be limited in what they can allow/prohibit in their places of business.
The truth is that in a competitive economy (world) most technologies are applied too early. Witness Linux on the desktop (5-10 years ago), Iridium, Final Fantasy movie, all kinds of gadgets, etc. This is mainly because 1) most people are overoptimistic and believe they can pull it 2) there is a certain first-mover advantage that makes greater risk acceptable. We just have to cope with it. Many things will be tried and fail, only to be redone correctly in a few years. Maglev might become successful, but we don't know exactly when.
Been there, not done anything, lost all.:( We had a space station, a great and very useful space station, which was really-really good. We liked it very much, but then our government decided it doesn't make any sense to keep it up there. It costed peanuts to maintain it there, compared with the price of the ISS, but you can't argue with bureaucrats or politicians.:( And so Mir was "grounded". Now Hubble may face the same demise.:(
The only thing that saves me from depression is the fact that thanks to an unexpected fit of rationality, Iridium was left in space and is now functional... I wonder if the government would sell Hubble for 1$ to someone... Surely, some foreign government, a university or a private corporation would happily invest the $40 mln required, because it would be rather easy to pay it back through paid access.
If you diversify, the expected return doesn't change.
I still stand by it. You misunderstood me again, this time partly because I made a minor error. What you wrote next (until ----) is absolutely correct, but it still doesn't disprove my point - diversification in stock with the same risk, but in different areas (I stated it wrongly first time) doesn't change the expected return, but it reduces unsystematic risk.
As for your comments about the reality of the stock/management systems, sadly, they are true to a large extent. But the theory is true nevertheless.:) It doesn't help the company (or shareholders themselves) if shareholders start interfering in the business. If, as a result of that, managers do not invest in projects with positive NPV, everyone will eventualy lose. And who can calculate/guess the NPV better than the managers (assuming they are good, not like in Disney now)? Not shareholders, that's for sure.
My young sister still uses a 14" TVM LR NI that was bought in 1995 with my 486. In addition to having wonderful colours (still after 8 years), it has a rare distinction of being a 14" monitor with support for resolutions higher than 1024x768. It actually supports 1200x1024, which is quite cool. I remember that at least two times the tech support people did not believe me when I told them that, claiming that 14" monitors can't support that. It still makes me proud.:)))
What also makes me proud is when I returned to the store two standard A4 mice (in 1995) with a peculiar problem - they stopped working under the light.;))) I remember playing X-Com: Terror from the Deep (I was on one of the underwater missions) and the mouse just suddenly stopped working.:) I might have moved migh hand over it correctly, so it started working again... stopped again... started again... Soon I figured that if I turned the lamp off, it would work. Was very funny. Was even more funny when I found out that it doesn't work in complete darkness, it might have been a very sensitive mouse.:)
It was even more funny when I brought it to the store and explained the problem to the salesperson. He must have thought I am another clueless newbie, who thinks the CD drive is a cupholder. He plugged it in, showed that it works fine. Then I holded my hand over the mouse, moved it and the pointer didn't.:) I told the guy to do the same. Imagine my exultation and his (and that of the rest of the store) surprise when the mouse refused to work in the darkness.:))) They gave me a replacement and I promptly brought it in again in a few weeks with a same problem. Third one worked like a charm, though.;)
Plagiarism-Detectors Fight Universities for Students.
But seriously, you in the US have it easy. In Russia practically all students in practically all universities are expected to cheat. They are also expected not to know anything, but to pretend they do. And to pretend they are actually learning...
It goes as far as this:
A student comes to the Internet class in the library, asks the assitant to find her the "topic" (i.e. the essay), he offers to find her some materials about the topic on the Net, she asks fearfully what is she expected to do then? The assistant replies that she can string it together and write an essay, but the girl modestly refuses, saying that her teacher would be shocked at her impudence. "Who am I to write my own essay?" A true story, and while a little bit extreme, it is still quite representative.
You are really insecure, aren't you? Anyway, you would probably fit very well in Engsoc, since it's so easy to make you feel like a criminal. Do you feel like a criminal when a cop stops you on the highway too?
Students cheat, that's a fact. You cheated at least once in your life, that's a very valid hypothesis. A professor checking the papers through the Turn-It-In is doing everything right, because today assuming the student is a cheater would be correct in >50% cases.
1. Every student is a suspect, because most students do cheat. And since there is no criteria to judge an original paper from plagiarised, except for comparing it with others,teachers have no other option.
2. Well, the company gets to use the paper, so what? It's not like they are going to publish it, they are just going to check whether you gave this paper to your younger friend. If not, nothing ever will happen.
3. I understand the concerns of this student very well and I would support him, if not for the fact that most students are lazy jerks (let's ignore the reasons for that for a second) and cheat as much as they can. Damn it, if you are too lazy/stupid to do the work required in the university, it was not the right place for you to be in the first place!
At the risk of being nationalist, I think that's actually a peculiarly American attitude, encouraged by your absurdly over-litigious society. Let me start by saying that I am Russian and I've never been to the US.:) And while your comment about the American society certainly has merit, "Who is to blame?" is one of two fundamental questions in Russian culture. The second is, of course, "What shall we do now?":)
Returning to the topic at hand, I think that blame should result not in a lawsuit, but in some actions to remedy the situation. The article you linked actually hints at a solution - the judges (the patent examiners) should raise their voice and complain to the society about litigious bastards (in our case, excessive patenters). Such problems cannot be solved within the system, we need to look from aside, identify and fix the weaknesses. Still, I am not sure there is enough rationality in today's world to solve such problems before they become really serious.:(
Crimes, in the English common law, are grave offenses which were originally capitally punished (murder, rape, robbery, arson, burglary, and larceny), as distinguished from misdemeanors, which are offenses of a lighter grade.
If you want to call pirates criminals, fine, English language allows you to do it, but only if you admit you are a criminal yourself for parking in the wrong place, exceeding the speed limit by 1 km/h or by crossing the street in the wrong place.
And how about breaking the laws of grammar or the laws of visual perspective?:) Are the people who do it criminals?
On a side note, I think you are wrong with your assertion that finance theory calls for investors to diversify (to minimize risk). Diversifying unsystematic risks (the risk that the return on a particular stock will deviate from the expected value) is a must. If you diversify, the expected return doesn't change, but the risk decreses, so everyone must do it, unless they hate money. And it doesn't take much effort, buying about 10 different stocks (with different beta) is usually enough.
You are right about risk-return, but in fact it is mostly irrelevant to manager's decisions. An investor can use a combination of any stock and riskless loan/deposit to achieve any combination of risk and return available on the market. So the managers should ignore individual preferences of the shareholders. The fact that they don't is a proof that American MBAs shirk their corporate finance lessons.;)
What this buzzwords promise is essentially economy of scale. But here lies the catch. If you are a small business, a budget PC meet all your computing needs. If you are a large business, it makes sense to have your own computing centre.
It's the same with data storage. If you are small, you store the files on the workstation. If you are large, you store them on corporate server. Offsite storage doesn't enter the picture, except for reliability.
It provides technical ability to scale computing resources dynamically up and down to cope with fluctuating workloads.
It changes IT pricing from up-front investment to real-time, pay-as-you-go.
The fine-grained monitoring required to generate pay-for-use billing reports provides much greater visibility into IT operations, their costs, and their relationship to the business activities they support.
The question is - do we need a new paradigm (oops!) for that? Or are the existing strategies capable of providing a synergy (oops!). I mean, can't we do the same or better with the tools we already have?
1) Scaling resources. How necessary is that? Does you company need huge amounts of CPU power at one time and not at the other? I can't think of an example when you would need a supercomputer for a minute every day. With most existing applications you either need a lot of CPU or you don't. The variation is usually too small to warrant outsourcing, given that fast processors cost only 100$. 2) IT-pricing. Is there anything that a 3-year bank loan to buy all these computers can't do? 3) Completely irrelevant. They sound like a cellular operator explaining to a customer why pay-per-minute plan is extremely convenient to him.
Conclusion: stupid, stupid, stupid. Now I think I will get my Bluetooth-enabled WAP-phone and use location-based service to order some pizza from an e-business. That's what I call on-demand computing.:)
Slashdot Mirror
If and when you decide to donate (or buy a DVD), do it because you want to reward them for their creativity. Not for their bandwidth.
That's the same as with piracy. I will never ever pay these guys a single kopeck (penny, eurocent, yuan). These videos are fun, but I am not a rational economic agent, so for me they are simply in a different category - "stuff, which I can enjoy for free, but will never pay for". Do you enjoy chatting with your sister or wrestling with your brother? But would you consider paying for it? Thought so.
Red vs. Blue, as well as most of the movies are in the same league for me. I enjoy them, but won't pay. If I can't have them for free, I will live without them, but I will not pay (not because I am a cheapskate, simply because).
The fact that I won't pay doesn't mean I wouldn't enjoy a better quality copy. So it would be only natural for me to get it from BitTorrent, eDonkey or another P2P. And of course, in this case I will be paying for bandwidth, in the form of my ISP bill.
The parent poster probably feels the same way. He won't pay for the videos, because for him it is not worth an arbitrary small amount of money. But he still would like to contribute to the bottom line of these guys. The only way he can do that is by not wasting their bandwidth. So he wants to get the videos on BT and in that case, why not high-quality versions? BTW, I am sure that he would be more than happy to buy them beer or something else, as long as this is not a direct monetary contribution.
And because the way the trademark law works, Microsoft has to defend their trademarks; writing letters, suing; or else they risk the trademark being generic; free for anyone to use.
Please tell me if I understand you correctly. You are implying that if Microsoft DIDN'T attack Mike with their lawyerdogs, there would be a significant chance they might lose the right to the Microsoft trademark, right?
Well, to me that looks like the biggest crock of shit today on Slashdot and that says something.
These are not question marks, but dashes - stupid Slashdot doesn't understand Unicode. :(
This may be offtopic, but anyway. The original words are by Pastor Niemoller (1938)
First they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out ?
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the communists
And I did not speak out ?
Because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out ?
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me ?
And there was no-one left
To speak out for me.
P.S. It is an important reminder to stand for the rights of others, to stand for the rights of terrorists, murderers, child pornografers, P2P programmers, christian fundamentalists, and for the rights of everyone else. We may disagree with people, but only in a free and tolerant society can we expect to be safe ourselves.
When it becomes possible to "upgrade ourselves" so that we no longer have aggressive impulses, am I to understand that you'll be at the front of the line? :)) It was perfectly clear to me that they should just calm down, sit down and discuss it, but they actions were not controlled by ratio at the moment.
Why, yes! I don't want to have impulses, when a rational behaviour would be much more efficient. Just this morning I was woken up by a heated debate of my parents.
As for the defence from still aggressive humans, first, there won't be a point in attacking me (since at some stage most material or immaterial needs would be fulfilled by nanotech and AI), and second, I would still be perfectly capable of "aggressively defending" myself if I rationally decide it's the wisest course of action.
There will always be times when violence is a valid strategy, and anybody who thinks otherwise is totally delusional.
Violence? May be. Violence against other humans? Don't think so. What could be the reasons for violence, when scarcity of material resources or information is practically obsolete? When you can have pretty much everything that you want, what would be the reasons for you to act violently towards others?
I guess, Hirishima and Nagasaki bombing qualify. But I've never heard about civilized nation such as China doing the same.
Can't we then rename them to Magnetists, just like NMR was renamed to MRI? :)
As difficult to defend against as the U.S. military is right now, it will be completely unstoppable if it manages to gain and retain control of space.
And as an [un?]intended side-effect this would force these third-world countries to take the only feasible route - sneak into the US, plant some under cover networks and blow some shit right there. Bioterrorism might be another area to look into. And who would be responsible for that?
The US is simply the pinnacle of the world's capitalist empire, and as such, is the most glarying obvious example of what capitalism is really about: profit at any cost.
Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism by Vladimir Lenin. I just love when a 87-year work can be just as relevant as if written yesterday. Or do I actually hate it?..
We can't naively assume that space will only be used for peaceful means, and if we don't take the initiative in ensuring that we have adaquate countermeasures we take on significant risk.
I thought we have been over this already and our leaders decided that it's not worth it to start another arms race... There was supposed to be a threat against militarisation of space, but I don't remember how it panned out. And it's not like international treaties are relevant these days anyway...
It is simply impossible that this nonsense would continue much longer. Humans are animals, humans are stupid, that's why we aren't always nice. But the advances in technology will bring time when it would become easy to upgrade ourselves, and then being aggressive would cease to be a valid strategy. Witness the European states - they can already see this utopia. If only they could remove greed from politicians and remove stupidity from immigrants...
As this will be eventually possible (if we do not kill ourselves), any sci-fi stories about Martian nations, Solar System Federation, etc., etc., are just groundless speculations.
America will suffer as long as people believe that the right to earn money is the most fundamental one. I agree you should be free to decide what to do with your private property. But I don't think the same rights should be extended to corporate property.
Private property is important so that you can exercise your freedoms. Corporate property is needed so that someone can make money. First goal is respectful, second one is relatively unimportant. Thus I believe you should have the final say in what is allowed in your house, but companies (and even private businessmen) should be limited in what they can allow/prohibit in their places of business.
The truth is that in a competitive economy (world) most technologies are applied too early. Witness Linux on the desktop (5-10 years ago), Iridium, Final Fantasy movie, all kinds of gadgets, etc. This is mainly because
1) most people are overoptimistic and believe they can pull it
2) there is a certain first-mover advantage that makes greater risk acceptable.
We just have to cope with it. Many things will be tried and fail, only to be redone correctly in a few years. Maglev might become successful, but we don't know exactly when.
Been there, not done anything, lost all. :( We had a space station, a great and very useful space station, which was really-really good. We liked it very much, but then our government decided it doesn't make any sense to keep it up there. It costed peanuts to maintain it there, compared with the price of the ISS, but you can't argue with bureaucrats or politicians. :( And so Mir was "grounded". Now Hubble may face the same demise. :(
The only thing that saves me from depression is the fact that thanks to an unexpected fit of rationality, Iridium was left in space and is now functional... I wonder if the government would sell Hubble for 1$ to someone... Surely, some foreign government, a university or a private corporation would happily invest the $40 mln required, because it would be rather easy to pay it back through paid access.
If you diversify, the expected return doesn't change.
:) It doesn't help the company (or shareholders themselves) if shareholders start interfering in the business. If, as a result of that, managers do not invest in projects with positive NPV, everyone will eventualy lose. And who can calculate/guess the NPV better than the managers (assuming they are good, not like in Disney now)? Not shareholders, that's for sure.
I still stand by it. You misunderstood me again, this time partly because I made a minor error. What you wrote next (until ----) is absolutely correct, but it still doesn't disprove my point - diversification in stock with the same risk, but in different areas (I stated it wrongly first time) doesn't change the expected return, but it reduces unsystematic risk.
As for your comments about the reality of the stock/management systems, sadly, they are true to a large extent. But the theory is true nevertheless.
My young sister still uses a 14" TVM LR NI that was bought in 1995 with my 486. In addition to having wonderful colours (still after 8 years), it has a rare distinction of being a 14" monitor with support for resolutions higher than 1024x768. It actually supports 1200x1024, which is quite cool. I remember that at least two times the tech support people did not believe me when I told them that, claiming that 14" monitors can't support that. It still makes me proud. :)))
;))) I remember playing X-Com: Terror from the Deep (I was on one of the underwater missions) and the mouse just suddenly stopped working. :) I might have moved migh hand over it correctly, so it started working again... stopped again... started again... Soon I figured that if I turned the lamp off, it would work. Was very funny. Was even more funny when I found out that it doesn't work in complete darkness, it might have been a very sensitive mouse. :)
:) I told the guy to do the same. Imagine my exultation and his (and that of the rest of the store) surprise when the mouse refused to work in the darkness. :))) They gave me a replacement and I promptly brought it in again in a few weeks with a same problem. Third one worked like a charm, though. ;)
What also makes me proud is when I returned to the store two standard A4 mice (in 1995) with a peculiar problem - they stopped working under the light.
It was even more funny when I brought it to the store and explained the problem to the salesperson. He must have thought I am another clueless newbie, who thinks the CD drive is a cupholder. He plugged it in, showed that it works fine. Then I holded my hand over the mouse, moved it and the pointer didn't.
Plagiarism-Detectors Fight Universities for Students.
But seriously, you in the US have it easy. In Russia practically all students in practically all universities are expected to cheat. They are also expected not to know anything, but to pretend they do. And to pretend they are actually learning...
It goes as far as this:
A student comes to the Internet class in the library, asks the assitant to find her the "topic" (i.e. the essay), he offers to find her some materials about the topic on the Net, she asks fearfully what is she expected to do then? The assistant replies that she can string it together and write an essay, but the girl modestly refuses, saying that her teacher would be shocked at her impudence. "Who am I to write my own essay?" A true story, and while a little bit extreme, it is still quite representative.
Students cheat, that's a fact. You cheated at least once in your life, that's a very valid hypothesis. A professor checking the papers through the Turn-It-In is doing everything right, because today assuming the student is a cheater would be correct in >50% cases.
Moral of the story.
Use Turn-It-In.
Punish the cheaters.
and never trust your students.
1. Every student is a suspect, because most students do cheat. And since there is no criteria to judge an original paper from plagiarised, except for comparing it with others,teachers have no other option.
2. Well, the company gets to use the paper, so what? It's not like they are going to publish it, they are just going to check whether you gave this paper to your younger friend. If not, nothing ever will happen.
3. I understand the concerns of this student very well and I would support him, if not for the fact that most students are lazy jerks (let's ignore the reasons for that for a second) and cheat as much as they can. Damn it, if you are too lazy/stupid to do the work required in the university, it was not the right place for you to be in the first place!
At the risk of being nationalist, I think that's actually a peculiarly American attitude, encouraged by your absurdly over-litigious society. :) And while your comment about the American society certainly has merit, "Who is to blame?" is one of two fundamental questions in Russian culture. The second is, of course, "What shall we do now?" :)
:(
Let me start by saying that I am Russian and I've never been to the US.
Returning to the topic at hand, I think that blame should result not in a lawsuit, but in some actions to remedy the situation. The article you linked actually hints at a solution - the judges (the patent examiners) should raise their voice and complain to the society about litigious bastards (in our case, excessive patenters). Such problems cannot be solved within the system, we need to look from aside, identify and fix the weaknesses. Still, I am not sure there is enough rationality in today's world to solve such problems before they become really serious.
Sorry to burst the bubble for you, but
:) Are the people who do it criminals?
Crimes, in the English common law, are grave offenses which were originally capitally punished (murder, rape, robbery, arson, burglary, and larceny), as distinguished from misdemeanors, which are offenses of a lighter grade.
If you want to call pirates criminals, fine, English language allows you to do it, but only if you admit you are a criminal yourself for parking in the wrong place, exceeding the speed limit by 1 km/h or by crossing the street in the wrong place.
And how about breaking the laws of grammar or the laws of visual perspective?
On a side note, I think you are wrong with your assertion that finance theory calls for investors to diversify (to minimize risk).
;)
Diversifying unsystematic risks (the risk that the return on a particular stock will deviate from the expected value) is a must. If you diversify, the expected return doesn't change, but the risk decreses, so everyone must do it, unless they hate money. And it doesn't take much effort, buying about 10 different stocks (with different beta) is usually enough.
You are right about risk-return, but in fact it is mostly irrelevant to manager's decisions. An investor can use a combination of any stock and riskless loan/deposit to achieve any combination of risk and return available on the market. So the managers should ignore individual preferences of the shareholders. The fact that they don't is a proof that American MBAs shirk their corporate finance lessons.
What this buzzwords promise is essentially economy of scale. But here lies the catch. If you are a small business, a budget PC meet all your computing needs. If you are a large business, it makes sense to have your own computing centre.
It's the same with data storage. If you are small, you store the files on the workstation. If you are large, you store them on corporate server. Offsite storage doesn't enter the picture, except for reliability.
Sun defines utility computing as follows
It provides technical ability to scale computing resources dynamically up and down to cope with fluctuating workloads.
It changes IT pricing from up-front investment to real-time, pay-as-you-go.
The fine-grained monitoring required to generate pay-for-use billing reports provides much greater visibility into IT operations, their costs, and their relationship to the business activities they support.
:)
The question is - do we need a new paradigm (oops!) for that? Or are the existing strategies capable of providing a synergy (oops!). I mean, can't we do the same or better with the tools we already have?
1) Scaling resources. How necessary is that? Does you company need huge amounts of CPU power at one time and not at the other? I can't think of an example when you would need a supercomputer for a minute every day. With most existing applications you either need a lot of CPU or you don't. The variation is usually too small to warrant outsourcing, given that fast processors cost only 100$.
2) IT-pricing. Is there anything that a 3-year bank loan to buy all these computers can't do?
3) Completely irrelevant. They sound like a cellular operator explaining to a customer why pay-per-minute plan is extremely convenient to him.
Conclusion: stupid, stupid, stupid. Now I think I will get my Bluetooth-enabled WAP-phone and use location-based service to order some pizza from an e-business. That's what I call on-demand computing.