Yes. AWS, Azure, etc. are focused on (and are actually pretty good at) providing compute services (whether that be PaaS or straight-up VMs). However, what they are not is contractually responsible for the safekeeping or integrity of your data.

There are definitely use cases for using "someone else's servers." Use them for external-facing resources like a web presence, customer portal, extranet services or even email. But when it comes to business critical systems and data, no one has a more compelling motive to secure and maintain them than an internal IT staff.

I imagine you'll disagree with me, which is fine. I would point out that despite the costs of implementing and maintaining a highly availabile internal virtualization environment, many of those costs are significantly offset by the usage and maintenance contracts as well as network connectivity required to support internal access to "someone else's servers."

In the end, it's a matter of balancing the costs against the criticality and confidentiality of the data, IMHO.

Assuming it would require me to provide personal information, remind me not to do business with whatever company you work for. Then again, if you're a shill for a "cloud" (marketing-speak for "someone else's servers), I understand. Either way, carry on.

The novel was written by Carl Sagan, so religion isn't treated gently, and rightly so.

Not as I recall. There were other things that the movie ruined too. It's an okay novel, I wouldn't buy a hardcover it's not worth that, but the mass market paperback would certainly be cheap enough to make it worthwhile to read.

There. FTFY. Pedantry and grammar nazism all in one pretty package. You're welcome.

Exactly. Because if Amazon screws up, they won't blame you. That fantasy and a couple bucks will get you a Starbucks latte.

Using someone else's servers is always a bad idea for critical systems. Virtualization is definitely the way to go, but use your own hardware. Yes, that means you need to maintain that hardware, but that's a small (or not so small, in a large environment -- but worth it) price to pay because Murphy was an optimist.

If you're going to channel "Contact" at least use the novel instead of the movie. The novel was enormously better. Not that that says much, as the movie was awful.

That's so cute! I bet you believe in Santa and the tooth fairy too! You are very naive, friend. Things would not go down that way, at all. Also back in the 1960s and 1970s, not all the protesting was non-violent. And even when it was non-violent, the police often were not. That certainly hasn't changed.

What's more, you'd see quite a bit of this sort of thing. I'm not sure who this "militia movement" might be, but if you think they'll spark firefights with police/military/other government folks over sending other people's kids to war, you're kidding yourself.

I suggest you educate yourself and go back on your meds.

You might want to take that up with Austria, Finland, Israel, Norway and Greece, amongst others.

Note that the US (unlike many other countries) does most emphatically not have compulsory military service. So, your call for a constitutional amendment seems rather ridiculous.

There. FTFY. As I recall, I had to register with the Selective Service System when I turned 18. There was no draft. However, the law did have some teeth, as those who did not register were deemed ineligible for Federal college financial aid programs.

I'm not at all confused.

Perhaps you should read my comment again. The claim is (and not my claim, either) that the conclusions (and data) of that 97% actually agree that AGW exists. Agreement about how much impact, potential (if any) action to be taken and the validity of any particular climate model or models is much more fragmentary and is, as it should be, contested, discussed and, most importantly, research along these lines continues.

I never asserted that those 97% are "completely in line with each other." I merely noted that the oft-cited study which makes such a 97% claim, only claims that 97% of climate scientists agree that AGW *exists*. I make no claims or assertions at all. I was attempting (and in your case, apparently failing) to clarify that single point.

My apologies if my grasp of English was inadequate to that task.

No. But that's not the claim that's being made. The claim is that 97% of climate scientists agree (based on their research and the data underpinning that research) that AGW (climate change due to human impact) exists. Questions about severity, impact and potential mitigation/solutions are not included in that claim. Understand now?