Off an online ad supported alternative and you'll get a lot of those pirates back.

The studios are too fixated on people paying. We got free music on the radio. We got free television and movies... We just had the ads.

Put some ads up and offer it free. At no point has the industry tested this idea. Hulu is the closest they've come to it and it's a starved wreck. It has a very small selection of mostly old content. Give me a break. Put it all up. the hosting costs are ZERO. I believe youtube has offered to host their complete library for nothing or so close to nothing as to not matter.

Just try it before you bitch about it. We're not going back to dvds and cds. The future is digital. Get over it.

We've been saying for years the feds need to be very careful about increasing power over the internet because it gives legitimacy to all these international groups that want to do the same thing.

The only way to keep the internet free is for the US to focus it's efforts to keep other powers from taking control.

By listening to the copyright trolls they've jeopardized the whole stability of the internet.

Well, I've been reading your posts and you haven't been reading mine.

So we're done. You have nothing to meaningful to contribute to any conversation where you read nothing the other people say and go out of your way to be insulting.

Kick the internet connection out of the wall and find a less annoying hobby.

Small child, I actually did read beyond the insult which was probably a mistake since needless rude people are typically maladjusted idiots.

As to the first line, you blamed Enron. And you clearly didn't read the rest of my post where I pointed out that this was an issue long before Enron even existed. You know less about our situation then you believe.

As to your infantile need to cast pathetic little insults for no apparent reason, you're unlikely to gain anyone's respect that way. You say you're not America? Possibly in your culture people demonstrate their status by acting like jackasses. We have some people like that in the US as well... Regardless of their own personal delusions it rarely gains them any respect. You're basically quoting from the Donald Trump hand book on how to make an impression. Suggestions might include getting a comical toupee, painting everything gold, and then calling it "classy" without irony.

In any case, you have nothing to contribute to this discussion. You're an intellectual void as well as boring.

Good day, sir.

If you're going to virtualize something that gets a lot of traffic then it makes sense to scale up the server and environment.

If you're talking about virtualizing an enterprise scale server/server farm then you'll want a solution that is designed to handle that sort of situation.

As some people said, shared disk doesn't make I/O happy. That's a key point which is dealt with in enterprise scale virtualization by spreading the load across many different systems. So the hit of shared load is mitigated by access to multiple systems with redundant information. There are some very cool products that do this sort of thing very well.

But generally it's a bad idea to shoe horn an enterprise system into a limited virtualized environment where performance will suffer.

You don't want to virtualize unless you're consolidating servers. The costs just don't make sense. Where you save the money is when you get three servers to do the work of 10... or 10 to do the work of 100.

It's true that most businesses label IT as a cost and in the process ignore how much money IT saves the company every day. The man power they'd have to hire if they couldn't use these systems would be staggering. And instead of acknowledging that point they simply cite the only institution that allows them to make those savings as a cost. What do they want? They want it for free?

IT doesn't cost money. It saves money. Most cost cutting on IT tends to be penny wise and pound foolish in the long run.

That isn't to say you can just blindly dump cash down the hole and expect things to remain efficient. But business managers make a mistake when they label IT as costing money.

The cloud isn't terminal services. That's a totally different concept.

You say you don't like the term but you're not apparently aware what it means.

Remoting into a virtual machine is not the same thing as the cloud. The cloud amongst other things is almost always a web service. Google documents would be an example.

Windows terminal services is not the same thing.

And terminal services doesn't get rid of your IT department. They're just not as worried about individual systems and stick to the server room more. But you absolutely still need a very competent IT department or the terminal system won't work.

roughly 1 kWh at sea level per square meter.

The city of Los Angeles consumes about 6000 MWh every day.

So to meet that demand you'd need about 6 million square meters of solar cells to meet the demand for los angeles. That is six square kilometers of solar cells. Probably a good idea to increase that by about 40 percent just because the cells aren't going to be RIGHT next to each other and there's likely to be wasted space. Additionally, the DWP has over 7000 MWh on tap at any given time so ideally you'd want at least that plus whatever extra is required during winter, bad weather, etc.

Lets call it eight square kilometers of solar cells. When you consider that the city is about 750sq km you're looking at roughly 1 percent of the total city area. That's assuming I haven't screwed the math up somewhere. I'm being sloppy here so I might be off by a magnitude or two.

Anyway, most of the cheap solar panels can hit efficiencies of 20 percent. So multiply the area required by five and you'll be able to roughly supply all the energy demand of the whole city.

Solar will be the future when the cost of cells comes down or if we can get efficiency a lot higher. Either way it is the future. It's just not ready yet.

I understand their complaint and it's reasonable. Just use a pretty box.

But for security reasons there are some good things about closed source.

Lets be real here, we're talking about root financial systems. Neither individuals nor most corporations have any interest in this software. This is the prevue of nations and huge trade alliances.

Keeping the code secret makes it more secure. Yes, it can't be used as the only level of security. It must be on TOP of everything else. I don't think giving the chinese access to our treasury accounting software is going to make the world a better place.