Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:This cloud (Score 2) 62

It's just the abstraction of a remote server. The cloud isn't a technological innovation, though it depends a lot upon things like virtual machines to implement. It's a business model in which the customer pays for access to a computing resource, but is in no way involved in or even aware of how this resource is provided. This allows the cloud provider to benefit from economy of scale - they don't need to keep enough hardware to handle every customer at peak demand, because customers aren't all going to peak simultaneously, and they can utilize backup and storage media with a much lower per-gigabyte cost because they use it in such quantity.

That was the original idea, anyway. Because there is no real authority and cloud grew trendy, it's slapped on everything now. Cloud thermostats, cloud routers. I've even seen a NAS box with a webserver function sold as a 'personal cloud.' You might call this the 'trivial cloud.' There's still a service somewhere that the customer is using, but it's just a plain old-fashioned server.

Comment This only works for larger companies. (Score 1) 66

It's not subpoenas that worry node operators. A company gets subpoenas. An individual gets a squad arriving to smash the door down, throw everyone in the house to the floor and confiscate anything with a battery. All done for very good reason: If a suspect had any warning they may use that time to destroy evidence. Still disruptive enough to discourage operating an exit node.

Comment Re:Oblicatory (Score 1) 379

The movie also mentions that the global population is a classified number, again due to fear of inducing a panic.

The famously blurted line is in the context of the character exhausted and traumatised by their discovery. They aren't acting in the most rational way, just trying to scream their terrible finding to as many people as they can before the authorities catch up. The authories seek to surpress the truth about Soylent Green both because they know many people would react with instinctive disgust to the realisation that they have been unknowing cannibals, and because of what it implies about the sustainability of the food supply: The earth is farmed out, the oceans are dead, and the government has had to resort to the desperate measure of reprocessing the deceased to feed the living.

Comment Re:Oblicatory (Score 5, Informative) 379

I've seen the film. The official explanation is that the Soylent product line was named as it was originally made from soy and lentils, though it was implied that marine algae farms were also required. At the end it is revealed that the new product Soylent Green is made from reprocessed human corpses - a desperate attempt to maximize production when environmental damage has crippled agriculture, which the government tries to hide from people out of concern there will be mass panic if it becomes known how close to starvation the world is.

Where are the calculations that go with a calculated risk?