Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
Why would you assume that not making new laws regulating the cloud computing industry equates to "leave the government out completely".
I'm not saying that the government shouldn't enforce contracts, just that I don't think we need a bunch of new laws telling cloud start-ups how to run their business. Seeing as how they're all burning out anyway, it seems like a moot point.
People ought to be responsible for the contracts they enter into and who they enter into them with. To stay on topic with the situation post in the article summary, If a company closes it's doors, there's nobody to hold accountable to the other side of the contract anyway. At that point, all you can do is sue, and you might get a judgement, but you won't get your data back.
Currently, there is no direct way to migrate data to another provider, and there are no government rules or regulations specific to data managed by cloud storage providers.
Why is it that recently, people seem to think the answer is in government regulation, when in the past, people would choose a vendor based upon reputation and quality of service. I guess if it's a regulated industry, you can blame your shitty decision-making on the government.
To respond the concern about lost data, just because it's "in the cloud" doesn't mean that you don't have to back your stuff up. Data backup has always been and always will be a "best practice". From personal experience, a friend of mine ran a local ISP back in the late 90s. Shell accounts with storage were included with the flat access subscription rate. When he finally pulled the plug on it, he had 3 or 4 boxes just full of crap people put on there. We just went though it and made copies of the interesting stuff. I imagine the attitude of a startup wouldn't be much different than that. New technologies are tough, and tougher when you decide you want to embrace something like cloud computing, and see a bunch of companies you've never heard of competing for your business. You either go with Amazon, Google, IBM, or someone who might disappear in a year.
On a personal note, I think people should think very carefully about the decision to not host their own data, especially if it's of a sensitive nature. It's like paying someone to hold on to your vertical file for you and trusting that they won't tamper with it or make copies of your documents.
An interesting notion just occured to me though - people have trusted banks with things they put in safety deposit boxes for a long time so you have reputation to go by, would you trust a bank to host your datacenter?
I have been a huge fan of Bioware games since Baldur's Gate and they continue to churn out awesomely produced games in spite of the current gaming economy.
That is possibly a reference to this.
You seem pretty knowledgeable about this type of thing... you should check under your car for an illegal FBI GPS tracker!
Full Bladder Improves Decision Making
The obvious result is that your decision is to go to the restroom.
alias cd="you suck"
Of course people get much more creative. We had one guy get over 40 entries added to his local host file and his mouse buttons reversed.
Basically, it's your everyday snooping software, that will monitor all internet traffic, including searching through files on your computer, and checking the router configuration
This is enforced by a representative government?
Going lower than this is silly. The OP is asking about iOS and Andriod phones specifically. If were going to talk about the newest hardware, I'm not sure about the iPhone 4, but the HTC Evo and the Moto Droid X both support 720p video. HTC Just recently announced a new phone where they plan to support 1080, although it seems like overkill for such a small screen, I think they are thinking more people will use the hdmi outputs available on those phones.
Maybe consider doing 720p and 360p versions if you decide to do 2 encodes instead of just one.
Whats the difference between stripped-down Ubuntu and Debian ?
I've been seeing this fairly often lately and don't see why people strip down Ubuntu, it seems like extra work.
In the first action carried out as part of the initiative, authorities executed seizure warrants against nine domain names of Web sites that were offering first-run movies
A seizure warrant against a domain includes what exactly ? The host, the registrar, the technical contact's residence ?
I understand warrants for physical locations, but this seems a bit wrong. Maybe its just a poor choice of wording by the original author....
It was unclear whether or not the federal agencies actually seized and confiscated the servers hosting and streaming the pirated content, although the ICE said that it had worked with officials in the Netherlands to execute search warrants for some of the domain names and content.
This article is completely silly. It sensationalism based upon speculation. Do real journalists exist anymore ?