Few people use IaaS because they fear owning servers. Some people really like or need the flexibility. Some people have done the calculations and it does save them money. Some people don't want the hassle of looking after servers and want to concentrate on their core business.

You try and build a reliable and fully redundant data center for less than amazon charges. It's not so easy.

You really should reserve judgment until you know what his company does. For a lot of companies owning physical servers doesn't make sense.

Nah. Get rid of the kit and use management direction changes as an excuse to buy better kit.

Well there is always reddit.

Try duckduckgo.com

I've been using them for a while now and I've not noticed their search results and any worse than google. Plus they promise not to sell your personal information.

And that's the real harm. A skilled woman or minority (whatever that is) will never be taken seriously as it's assumed they got their position though preferential treatment and not skill or hard work.

Then offer the course to anyone who deserves it and forget the racist and sexist nonsense.

Dr King claimed all racism is categorically bad. He was very clear on the point of wanting equality, and not wanting of more discrimination even if that was passed off as affirmative action.

I agree the gender balance in IT is worrying, but don't believe you can't solve discrimination with more discrimination.

One set of fake boobs, a razor, and a wig should do it.

Seriously though this undermines the women in IT who actually worked to get there instead of getting unfair advantages. As far as I know schemes like this have never worked in the past. You just can't solve discrimination with more discrimination.

Maybe it's just a disaster recovery site with a few hundred secretarial staff located there, the real show could be elsewhere. We just don't know.

It's not illegal to be a shameless coward. The massive scale spying on US citizens and foreign allies was what was illegal and what we should be jailing people for.

I think we should close the comments here. The parent covered all the important points.

Sociopathic editors pick and choose rules as they see fit, everyone else gets their edits buried and endless warnings for things they never did wrong. Any information sources the sociopaths don't like they call a 'minority view' or pretend it violates any one of the many contradictory rules. I've not seen actual good faith on Wikipedia for years, only people pulling nasty tricks to enforce their own story whilst pretending good faith was involved.

I'd trust the court system about as much as Wikipedia these days.

If this man can prove in court that these editors are making libelous comments the Wikipedia foundation isn't going to raise a finger to help them. The wikilawyers abuse wikipedia's rules to get their biased viewpoints accepted, but they can't pull that nonsense with the court system.

This could be a good thing for wikipedia. For too long the loudest mouths and the sneakiest abuse of rules has been rewarded and truth has been treated with contempt.

So if I buy hardware from China and use an open source OS created worldwide somehow you own that?

If DARPA didn't develop IP someone else would have. Your argument makes no sense.