"So, 100% of the money you don't need to minimally feed, clothe, and house yourself, you send to various federal, state, and local governments?"
Obviously not. But can you please point where I said you owed 100% of your income? It is you here the one making the strawman going from "only a small part of the fruits of your labour can be enterily attributed to you" into "therefore 100% of your income above survival you should return in taxes".
"Oh, so I owe something?"
Of course yes. While I can't tell you an upper mark I certainly can point you to a lower one: you owe at the very least the proportional part of your country's sovereign doubt and whatever takes to provide sufficient army, police, health, education, food and shelter. The authority comes from the government of the people, by the people and for the people every country should assign to itself.
"That's a straw man. Those societies are not respectful of individual liberty for everyone [...] When I talk about Liberty, I mean as a fundamental and primary right for everyone."
While it might be a bit of an hyperbole, it certainly is not a straw man but it is more that you went into such a simplistic argument as to make your position false. Remember we reached here because you said:
"Why should I have to work to provide you a minimum level of food, shelter, and clothing? [...] are you selfish for wanting to take the fruits of my labor by force through government?"
But then, you can't have it your cake and eat it too: either taxes are against your individual liberty because they mean taking out by the force the fruits of your labour, in which case you certainly are more free in Somalia, or they are there to provide for "maximizing liberty for all".
But then, "maximizing liberty for all" means providing for all reasonable levels of security, wealth, knowledge, health, food and shelter for without them there's no real freedom to act.
So, in the end, yes, I do think that for all practical purposes, the average Swedish, taxed at 49%, ends up benefiting higher levels of individual freedom in the very sense of the Declaration of Independence than the average American at his 27% taxation level.
"Am I selfish for choosing how to spend the fruits of my labor?"
Yes, because you purposely choose to ignore that only a small part of "the fruits of your labour" can enterily be attributed to your individual efforts.
"tyranny against individual liberty"
It is not tyranny when you understand, accept and respect the weight of your sourrounding society on what you want to call your "individual liberty".
But I suppouse you are in fact free to migrate to Haiti or Somalia any day you want: they certainly are more respectful of the "individual liberty" than any first world country (I'm not kidding: I really mean it).
"It will be a painful 6 to 8 years more, but at some point it won't make financial sense to outsource / off shore jobs."
Please have a look at a world map and maybe you'll realize there are more countries apart from USA, China and India and some of them will be ready to take the place when China and India become "too expensive".
"businesses would probably campaign against reducing working hours"
And they would do for a good reason.
Capitalism as a social tool is based on the premise that each one's egotism somehow drives global social benefit. And the basic tool to achieve that is parallelizing the pursue of global comfort by making each one, driven by his own egotism, responsible for his own share of it.
And the problems of capitalism are therefore obvious: the "somehow" and the local optimum problem.
In the last decades we saw a false globalization arising, and I say "false" because it was a globalization of the financial sources but not of the people access to wealth -which is an obviety since while electronic money might move around at the speed of light, people do not and won't be able to do in the foreseeble future, which in turn introduces a inequality between people and finances, as the last crisis has clearly shown.
So, returning to the topic, how in hell would any company -or any country for that matter, introduce a reduced labour day when other companies/countries do not? We already see what happens when a country (say, China) has a longer workday with lower wages: in a globalized world, man labour rush there while only the people that financially controls the output of that labour stay here -remember that money flows easily than people, and even that, just for a while.
Yes, *theoretically*, with enough time, wages will rise in those countries so eventually the world will become "flat" again, unless: a) No other other countries rise to be lower wages to occupy the niche, which would mean other countries are in turn going poorer and poorer more or less in the fashion of a human wave in a sports stadium. b) Again due to the fact the money flows easier than people the world becomes a place where instead of rich countries and poor countries there is a worlwide elite of rich people and a mass of servant ones with a kind of a concrete wall between them (remember, right now 93% of the wealth of USA is in the hands of 1% of the people) c) Even if everything went perfectly for world society and in the end the world becomes a paradise, it won't be in a lot of years and, as Keynes stated, well, yeah, but in a lot of years will all be dead -and in the meantime it is going to be a living hell.
"Among other things, the data security issues really haven't been adequately addressed.
It's about perception. The only real problem that remains is one that is neither new nor unknown about how to manage: service outsourcing.
"If a cloud provider upgrades their old equipment, what guarantee do you have that they really did a secure wipe"
If your bank upgrades his old equipment, what guarantee do you have that it really did a secure wipe? If *you* upgrade your old equipment, what guarantee do you have that your minions really did a secure wipe? Answer in all cases: the money you threw at it.
"What happens if someone hacks into one of these services and gets ahold of your data?"
What happens if someone hacks into your bank's services and gets ahold of its data? What happens if someone hacks into one of your services and gets ahold of your data? How the subject in any of those cases makes the answer any different?
"There's also a real question about outages being handled in a timely manner."
Yeah... which is managed exactly the same way you yourself do it or your bank does it.
"BUT, the catch is, when they have an outage, they've got hundreds (even thousands?) of pissed off users"
And you think that's a catch? It might be as well the strongest incentive for a) avoid that happening and b) restore service as fast as possible.
"Meanwhile, these guys only make relative peanuts from you"
Meanwhile, due to their high profile, any serious incident can take out *a lot* of money *really* quickly (not exactly a SaaS company, but remember what happened to Netflix when they announced their billing changes).
All in all there's nothing new to see here: there are good service providers and there are bad service providers. Even more, what's good enough for some people is not for others, so one people wants to pay some numbers, at a certain service level while others will pay more for a higher service.
Services "in the cloud" are not any different from the business point of view to any other service provider, and you already use a lot of them on a daily basis, even for critical (as in life threatening) services. Why should you want to own and manage your own compute resources any more or any less than to own and manage your own cutlery mill, your own oil refinery or your own electrical substation?
Except, of course, in the minds of unimaginative people unable to see *any* kind of change for its own value.
"under normal circumstances, people are honest and moral, but circumstances can make them go either way".
But my point is I'm more convinced by Hobbes than Voltaire: under normal circumnstances, people usually *behave* honest and moral (and Nietzsche even put a name to that: "slave morality") but when feeling they are owners of their own destiny (i.e.: rich and powerful) their true nature appears: 'homo homini lupus".
"and watch the sheep flock fill your company's bank account! "
And there you made a point *in favour* of "Tha Cloud": where's your bank account? It is your damn money, for christ's sake! Don't tell me you passed the control of your dear money to a third party, don't tell you don't take of your dear money on premises.
If an external company can be your money's custodian, certainly an external company can be the custodian of your company's data.
"The only thing worse then saying something bad happened and all our data is gone, is saying, the cloud disappeared and all our data is gone."
It was never the case. The worse thing than saying "all our data is gone" is "*I* made all that data to go through the bathtub". CYA is as strong if not stronger on managed services "in the cloud" than on premises.
"I don't agree. Most people are nice. Honest. Moral."
And yet, when the proper conditions arise, there you have Milgram's experiments or nazi Germany. Maybe we are not as nice, honest and moral as we want to believe about ourselves.
"That meant that some people had more gold than others. But you can't eat gold."
I specifically said "wealth", not gold, for a reason. There was enough food for everybody, except locally and on bad years but, more importantly, there was much more than enough production capability... that was redirected to other pursues by those controlling wealth (which basically is, of course not gold, but the ability to control the productivity of others) since they already have enough food for themselves.
"People were "poor" during Napolean's age because the world didn't produce enough food to feed everyone."
Yeah, it's only that it is, well, false. By Napoleon's days the rent differences between the rich and the poor where no less than nowadays: if you retain literally somewhere between 10.000 and 100.000 times the wealth of a peasant is no wonder that 5.000 peasants are in famine.
"Except the research shows that it is precisely being in a higher position which makes you immoral."
Or is it Sturgeon's law redux?
90% percent of anything is crap. This includes human beings. So 90% of people when feeling they are above the masses will allow their "real" ego to surface, and it won't be pretty.
I have to admit that not being English native I had to look for what exactly a shotgun was. Well, now I know and certainly I expect it having a stronger recoil than a short gun if only because of the greater payload (you see? mass again). But, please, pay attention that it was *you* the one specifically talking about shotguns and it was *you* the one throwing the strawman implying there's nothing in between a.22 caliber and a shotgun; I just talked about -as well as the parent post I was answering to, generic firearms.
"That was exactly my point! Except on earth you have the planet's gravity keeping you in place, not so in space."
I now I'm repeating myself but, yes, you need some entry level classes. Not only on chemistry but on physics too.
"but in the "funny because it's true" sort of way."
While I'm the first telling "cloud" is mostly marketroid speech, paraphrasing The Promised Bride, "there's a big difference between mostly marketroid speech and all marketroid speech".
"if the customer is not location-aware and can self-service on-demand, it is cloud", then cloud is old news."
Well, of course cloud is *mostly* old news, but please tell me about specific examples where, i.e., prior to common virtualization for the Intel platform, the end user was in fact able to self-service on-demand IT platforms and services under a common "layerization" IaaS->PaaS->SaaS... all at the same time.
I do this for a living so I know it's been a constant race towards that goal: I have had PXE environments to fastly provision pre-stocked servers; I have had web forms to make easier for end users to sign the IT people their needs within the services portfolio; I've been using cfengine and gold images to fastly produce most common platforms; I've been using server's monitoring and instrumentation to backcharge some usage concepts... what I didn't have was a whole toolset to fastly produce all these kinds of solutions over common grounds and idioms and doing so in a fully flexible and automatized way, so yes, "cloud" adds something to the equation and it's more than simply "something that your data could pass through, but that you could not see through".
"You've never fired anything more powerful than a.22, have you"
Yes, I did.
"You have to keep a shotgun stock tight against your shoulder when firing or you'll have a hell of a bruise"
Good to know there's nothing like a short gun firing anything larger than a.22. Those 9mm parabellum Glocks? I must dreamt of them.
"Fire a 20 guage in space and the recoil is going to send you backwards pretty damned fast."
Just about damn exactly the same as here, in Earth. Do you really think space has its own physics laws?
"It doesn't take much thrust to move a weightless object in a vaccuum."
It doesn't take much thrust to move a weightless object in an atmosphere, either. And with regards of weigthed objects, well, they take about the same thrust in a vacuum than in an atmosphere. Newton once told that f=m*a, he said nothing about vacuums.
"Oh, and it doesn't need oxygen; the oxidant is in the gunpowder"
No sir. The oxidant is the Oxygen.
"Light a cherry bomb, throw it in the toilet, and flush it. Not much oxygen in the sewer pipe."
You should take some basic classes on chemistry, I think.
"Cloud is not defined by the hosting facility/type, whether self, 3rd party, or co-lo"
Yes, you are right on this.
"Nor does it have to be virtualised architecture"
Truly. Right again.
"Cloud IS a decentralised, distributed set of services & infrastructure, that are made centrally available - the user/customer doesn't & shouldn't give a rat's arse where/what the apps run on, how the database is stored or who is doing the admin/maintenance"
Right again. And exactly *this* is what makes "private cloud" not only not an oximoron but a very obvious reality. My (internal) users have no idea where the resources are and you can bet they are decentralised, they don't get a rat's arse where/what the apps run on, where the database is stored or who is doing the admin/maintenance. They only know they have a portfolio of products/services they can serve themselves and that's all.
"Good examples of true cloud computing/services are Google & Amazon."
And who tells you a big company cannot offer exactly the same kind of products and services to their internal users? Unless "cloud" is defined to be "whatever Amazon or Google do because they are Amazon and Google" there're exactly zero obstacles to offer the same within a company: therefore the term "cloud" with the qualifier "private". In fact, given the money or the use case my users even don't know if they are using infrastructure from their own company or from Amazon/Rackspace, which adds another qualifier: "hybrid" + "cloud".
"That sounds like someone with a computer with a couple of external hard drives plugged in using cloud as a buzzword."
That sound a customer restriction to me. I can own a bazillion petabytes worth of storage but if you are in the other side of a cable modem there's no way you can exchange with me 38TB a week.
Slashdot Mirror
s/doubt/debt/
"So, 100% of the money you don't need to minimally feed, clothe, and house yourself, you send to various federal, state, and local governments?"
Obviously not. But can you please point where I said you owed 100% of your income? It is you here the one making the strawman going from "only a small part of the fruits of your labour can be enterily attributed to you" into "therefore 100% of your income above survival you should return in taxes".
"Oh, so I owe something?"
Of course yes. While I can't tell you an upper mark I certainly can point you to a lower one: you owe at the very least the proportional part of your country's sovereign doubt and whatever takes to provide sufficient army, police, health, education, food and shelter. The authority comes from the government of the people, by the people and for the people every country should assign to itself.
"That's a straw man. Those societies are not respectful of individual liberty for everyone [...] When I talk about Liberty, I mean as a fundamental and primary right for everyone."
While it might be a bit of an hyperbole, it certainly is not a straw man but it is more that you went into such a simplistic argument as to make your position false. Remember we reached here because you said:
"Why should I have to work to provide you a minimum level of food, shelter, and clothing? [...] are you selfish for wanting to take the fruits of my labor by force through government?"
But then, you can't have it your cake and eat it too: either taxes are against your individual liberty because they mean taking out by the force the fruits of your labour, in which case you certainly are more free in Somalia, or they are there to provide for "maximizing liberty for all".
But then, "maximizing liberty for all" means providing for all reasonable levels of security, wealth, knowledge, health, food and shelter for without them there's no real freedom to act.
So, in the end, yes, I do think that for all practical purposes, the average Swedish, taxed at 49%, ends up benefiting higher levels of individual freedom in the very sense of the Declaration of Independence than the average American at his 27% taxation level.
"Am I selfish for choosing how to spend the fruits of my labor?"
Yes, because you purposely choose to ignore that only a small part of "the fruits of your labour" can enterily be attributed to your individual efforts.
"tyranny against individual liberty"
It is not tyranny when you understand, accept and respect the weight of your sourrounding society on what you want to call your "individual liberty".
But I suppouse you are in fact free to migrate to Haiti or Somalia any day you want: they certainly are more respectful of the "individual liberty" than any first world country (I'm not kidding: I really mean it).
"Neither the left nor the right should be satisfied with the current system, which fucks everyone except a few major shareholders and executives."
Which are properly rewarding those governing from the left or from the right, so being everybody that counts.
"It is neither installed or mentioned during a standard system installation. That's the difference."
Neither is Apache therefore web servers are the new thing, is that your point?
Of course not. I know what your point is: that no *true* Scotsman...
"notifying has been around for a while, but automatically acting is "new""
Do you really consider something that has been available, well, forever as new? (I'll just mention cron-apt as an example).
""The cloud" doesn't get rid of the need for computers at the office, or networks, or people to support it."
Yet.
"It will be a painful 6 to 8 years more, but at some point it won't make financial sense to outsource / off shore jobs."
Please have a look at a world map and maybe you'll realize there are more countries apart from USA, China and India and some of them will be ready to take the place when China and India become "too expensive".
"businesses would probably campaign against reducing working hours"
And they would do for a good reason.
Capitalism as a social tool is based on the premise that each one's egotism somehow drives global social benefit. And the basic tool to achieve that is parallelizing the pursue of global comfort by making each one, driven by his own egotism, responsible for his own share of it.
And the problems of capitalism are therefore obvious: the "somehow" and the local optimum problem.
In the last decades we saw a false globalization arising, and I say "false" because it was a globalization of the financial sources but not of the people access to wealth -which is an obviety since while electronic money might move around at the speed of light, people do not and won't be able to do in the foreseeble future, which in turn introduces a inequality between people and finances, as the last crisis has clearly shown.
So, returning to the topic, how in hell would any company -or any country for that matter, introduce a reduced labour day when other companies/countries do not? We already see what happens when a country (say, China) has a longer workday with lower wages: in a globalized world, man labour rush there while only the people that financially controls the output of that labour stay here -remember that money flows easily than people, and even that, just for a while.
Yes, *theoretically*, with enough time, wages will rise in those countries so eventually the world will become "flat" again, unless:
a) No other other countries rise to be lower wages to occupy the niche, which would mean other countries are in turn going poorer and poorer more or less in the fashion of a human wave in a sports stadium.
b) Again due to the fact the money flows easier than people the world becomes a place where instead of rich countries and poor countries there is a worlwide elite of rich people and a mass of servant ones with a kind of a concrete wall between them (remember, right now 93% of the wealth of USA is in the hands of 1% of the people)
c) Even if everything went perfectly for world society and in the end the world becomes a paradise, it won't be in a lot of years and, as Keynes stated, well, yeah, but in a lot of years will all be dead -and in the meantime it is going to be a living hell.
"Among other things, the data security issues really haven't been adequately addressed.
It's about perception. The only real problem that remains is one that is neither new nor unknown about how to manage: service outsourcing.
"If a cloud provider upgrades their old equipment, what guarantee do you have that they really did a secure wipe"
If your bank upgrades his old equipment, what guarantee do you have that it really did a secure wipe? If *you* upgrade your old equipment, what guarantee do you have that your minions really did a secure wipe? Answer in all cases: the money you threw at it.
"What happens if someone hacks into one of these services and gets ahold of your data?"
What happens if someone hacks into your bank's services and gets ahold of its data? What happens if someone hacks into one of your services and gets ahold of your data? How the subject in any of those cases makes the answer any different?
"There's also a real question about outages being handled in a timely manner."
Yeah... which is managed exactly the same way you yourself do it or your bank does it.
"BUT, the catch is, when they have an outage, they've got hundreds (even thousands?) of pissed off users"
And you think that's a catch? It might be as well the strongest incentive for a) avoid that happening and b) restore service as fast as possible.
"Meanwhile, these guys only make relative peanuts from you"
Meanwhile, due to their high profile, any serious incident can take out *a lot* of money *really* quickly (not exactly a SaaS company, but remember what happened to Netflix when they announced their billing changes).
All in all there's nothing new to see here: there are good service providers and there are bad service providers. Even more, what's good enough for some people is not for others, so one people wants to pay some numbers, at a certain service level while others will pay more for a higher service.
Services "in the cloud" are not any different from the business point of view to any other service provider, and you already use a lot of them on a daily basis, even for critical (as in life threatening) services. Why should you want to own and manage your own compute resources any more or any less than to own and manage your own cutlery mill, your own oil refinery or your own electrical substation?
Except, of course, in the minds of unimaginative people unable to see *any* kind of change for its own value.
"under normal circumstances, people are honest and moral, but circumstances can make them go either way".
But my point is I'm more convinced by Hobbes than Voltaire: under normal circumnstances, people usually *behave* honest and moral (and Nietzsche even put a name to that: "slave morality") but when feeling they are owners of their own destiny (i.e.: rich and powerful) their true nature appears: 'homo homini lupus".
"and watch the sheep flock fill your company's bank account! "
And there you made a point *in favour* of "Tha Cloud": where's your bank account? It is your damn money, for christ's sake! Don't tell me you passed the control of your dear money to a third party, don't tell you don't take of your dear money on premises.
If an external company can be your money's custodian, certainly an external company can be the custodian of your company's data.
"The only thing worse then saying something bad happened and all our data is gone, is saying, the cloud disappeared and all our data is gone."
It was never the case. The worse thing than saying "all our data is gone" is "*I* made all that data to go through the bathtub". CYA is as strong if not stronger on managed services "in the cloud" than on premises.
"I don't agree. Most people are nice. Honest. Moral."
And yet, when the proper conditions arise, there you have Milgram's experiments or nazi Germany. Maybe we are not as nice, honest and moral as we want to believe about ourselves.
"That meant that some people had more gold than others. But you can't eat gold."
I specifically said "wealth", not gold, for a reason. There was enough food for everybody, except locally and on bad years but, more importantly, there was much more than enough production capability... that was redirected to other pursues by those controlling wealth (which basically is, of course not gold, but the ability to control the productivity of others) since they already have enough food for themselves.
"People were "poor" during Napolean's age because the world didn't produce enough food to feed everyone."
Yeah, it's only that it is, well, false. By Napoleon's days the rent differences between the rich and the poor where no less than nowadays: if you retain literally somewhere between 10.000 and 100.000 times the wealth of a peasant is no wonder that 5.000 peasants are in famine.
"The fact is, representative government is about giving people what they want"
It's only that, as you point out, that's not needed.
It's enough to:
a) Make it *seem* that you give them what they want.
b) Make them *believe* that what you give them is what they want.
Well... and that's very much all.
"Except the research shows that it is precisely being in a higher position which makes you immoral."
Or is it Sturgeon's law redux?
90% percent of anything is crap. This includes human beings. So 90% of people when feeling they are above the masses will allow their "real" ego to surface, and it won't be pretty.
"Maybe you can jump sharks AND hide in fridges all at once."
Oh, c'mon... everybody knows sharks come with lasers, LASERS! not nukes.
"A 9mm doesn't have the recoil of a shotgun."
I have to admit that not being English native I had to look for what exactly a shotgun was. Well, now I know and certainly I expect it having a stronger recoil than a short gun if only because of the greater payload (you see? mass again). But, please, pay attention that it was *you* the one specifically talking about shotguns and it was *you* the one throwing the strawman implying there's nothing in between a .22 caliber and a shotgun; I just talked about -as well as the parent post I was answering to, generic firearms.
"That was exactly my point! Except on earth you have the planet's gravity keeping you in place, not so in space."
I now I'm repeating myself but, yes, you need some entry level classes. Not only on chemistry but on physics too.
"but in the "funny because it's true" sort of way."
While I'm the first telling "cloud" is mostly marketroid speech, paraphrasing The Promised Bride, "there's a big difference between mostly marketroid speech and all marketroid speech".
"if the customer is not location-aware and can self-service on-demand, it is cloud", then cloud is old news."
Well, of course cloud is *mostly* old news, but please tell me about specific examples where, i.e., prior to common virtualization for the Intel platform, the end user was in fact able to self-service on-demand IT platforms and services under a common "layerization" IaaS->PaaS->SaaS... all at the same time.
I do this for a living so I know it's been a constant race towards that goal: I have had PXE environments to fastly provision pre-stocked servers; I have had web forms to make easier for end users to sign the IT people their needs within the services portfolio; I've been using cfengine and gold images to fastly produce most common platforms; I've been using server's monitoring and instrumentation to backcharge some usage concepts... what I didn't have was a whole toolset to fastly produce all these kinds of solutions over common grounds and idioms and doing so in a fully flexible and automatized way, so yes, "cloud" adds something to the equation and it's more than simply "something that your data could pass through, but that you could not see through".
"You've never fired anything more powerful than a .22, have you"
Yes, I did.
"You have to keep a shotgun stock tight against your shoulder when firing or you'll have a hell of a bruise"
Good to know there's nothing like a short gun firing anything larger than a .22. Those 9mm parabellum Glocks? I must dreamt of them.
"Fire a 20 guage in space and the recoil is going to send you backwards pretty damned fast."
Just about damn exactly the same as here, in Earth. Do you really think space has its own physics laws?
"It doesn't take much thrust to move a weightless object in a vaccuum."
It doesn't take much thrust to move a weightless object in an atmosphere, either. And with regards of weigthed objects, well, they take about the same thrust in a vacuum than in an atmosphere. Newton once told that f=m*a, he said nothing about vacuums.
"Oh, and it doesn't need oxygen; the oxidant is in the gunpowder"
No sir. The oxidant is the Oxygen.
"Light a cherry bomb, throw it in the toilet, and flush it. Not much oxygen in the sewer pipe."
You should take some basic classes on chemistry, I think.
""Private cloud" is virtually an oxymoron"
No, it is not.
"Cloud is not defined by the hosting facility/type, whether self, 3rd party, or co-lo"
Yes, you are right on this.
"Nor does it have to be virtualised architecture"
Truly. Right again.
"Cloud IS a decentralised, distributed set of services & infrastructure, that are made centrally available - the user/customer doesn't & shouldn't give a rat's arse where/what the apps run on, how the database is stored or who is doing the admin/maintenance"
Right again. And exactly *this* is what makes "private cloud" not only not an oximoron but a very obvious reality. My (internal) users have no idea where the resources are and you can bet they are decentralised, they don't get a rat's arse where/what the apps run on, where the database is stored or who is doing the admin/maintenance. They only know they have a portfolio of products/services they can serve themselves and that's all.
"Good examples of true cloud computing/services are Google & Amazon."
And who tells you a big company cannot offer exactly the same kind of products and services to their internal users? Unless "cloud" is defined to be "whatever Amazon or Google do because they are Amazon and Google" there're exactly zero obstacles to offer the same within a company: therefore the term "cloud" with the qualifier "private". In fact, given the money or the use case my users even don't know if they are using infrastructure from their own company or from Amazon/Rackspace, which adds another qualifier: "hybrid" + "cloud".
"I like to go with the original definition. If you know what is being done with your data, it isn't a 'cloud'."
I expect you are trying to be funny (but sorrily you don't get it).
"That sounds like someone with a computer with a couple of external hard drives plugged in using cloud as a buzzword."
That sound a customer restriction to me. I can own a bazillion petabytes worth of storage but if you are in the other side of a cable modem there's no way you can exchange with me 38TB a week.