They had the same problem prior to the year 2000, so why wasn't this lesson already learned?
No, it was a totally different problem.
Y2K was about an optimization made early in the history of software development, when every bit and byte was precious, and it was expected that the software would be replaced long before it became a problem. Well, not all of it got replaced before then - but everyone knew the problem was there, and exactly when it would bite us, so a lot of people worked hard patching system so that there were no major problems. And before you sneer at the short-sightedness of early developers, let me ask you this: how many of YOUR programs are Y10K compatible? Or Y2037 compatible? Or Y65536 compatible?
This is about security flaws (some due to criminally-negligent designs, some due to inevitable software bugs made even by skilled developers) that are NOT known about in advance, and that CANNOT be patched when they suddenly become a problem.
Or in the case of the situations and environments I work, your statement should read: "Move the applications to where they are not accessible when you have no internet connection while you need to do your work".
The definition of a networked system is "one you can't use because some computer you never heard of is down".
The cloud is highly shared and redundant clustering that is automated and agnostic. It can be public or private.
Wait, so I can save carbon by having a private cloud in my basement? I mean sure, that saves the lag and whatnot from the always-problematic last mile, but how does the movie get to my private cloud? I'm not seeing the carbon savings!
Most people will never learn.
"A distributed system is a system where I can’t get my work done because a computer has failed that I’ve never even heard of."
- Leslie Lamport, 2006 (or earlier)
so unless Jackson thinks HP should hire unqualified people just because they are black or latino, he should probably focus his efforts earlier in the pipeline
I doubt that's what he thinks - he doesn't actually care about black or latino people. He just wants the publicity, and some sort of "fund for underprivileged nerds" to be set up, which he can then "administer" in a way that benefits him and his friends. Shakedown, plain and simple.
And I do think it's fair (and helpful) to bring it down to a per-passenger level. Sure, the airlines operate at a large scale, so any fleet-wide investment will cost zillions, and any fleet-wide savings will save zillions. But that's compared to overall costs in the mega-zillions, so the numbers are almost meaningless to most people. Suppose someone wanted to eliminate the padding on the seats, and just have you sit on bare metal, and quoted a large dollar figure savings - the first thing I'd do is estimate the per-passenger savings: if it's $50-$100 per pax, then it could make a big difference in ticket prices (PLEASE let's not go off on a tangent about how the greedy bastards at the airline would just keep the difference!)
It's more likely you could use that same money to find a lot more than a couple dozen people by spending it more intelligently. The only thing that makes these people special is that they were rich enough to afford trans-pacific plane tickets, and they're in the news. If you think that makes them more important than other people, then YOU are the one barely attached to human reality.
A few hundred people per day per plane
Win for the airline. Win for the government involved. And fuck the consumer.
Gotta love Capitalism - and crony capitalism as it is practiced in most of the World - fuck the people!
Wow - another poster claimed that NOT installing the boxes was proof of how capitalism sucks, and you're claiming that installing them (the exact opposite!) would prove that capitalism sucks.
I think you left-wingers have a stock answer ("capitalism sucks") and you're always on the lookout for a question to attach it to.
Once again, the free market fails where regulation would succeed - the former can only correct for the future AFTER everyone's dead and un-buried.
Why do you say that? What makes YOU the authority on the "correct" answer? Maybe people are perfectly comfortable with the status quo - after all, it's not like this box would save anyone, it would just help to find their corpses a little sooner. Considering only a few hundred people a year die in commercial plane crashes (vs around 100 million total deaths per year), and the vast majority of those are found very quickly, it's not really that big of a deal. There are probably better ways to spend $100K per plane to improve the flying experience (safer, more comfortable, less TSA, whatever), yet you've suddenly decided that the best thing to do would have been to bump this box (which you never even heard of until today) to the top of the list!