Bingo, I saw, "...especially given the millions companies spend on security and their intense focus on compliance?" and laughed.
Suspects? No such thing, there are only 'persons of interest' now.
HBR, you mean the Honolulu Board of realtors?
and for those of you who have no idea what he's (she's?) parodying, http://www.timecube.com/
To give some perspective, at your stated one or two percent failure rate per month, a 45 drive pod would last over a year before all three RAID 6 arrays were likely to have failed. Just "refresh" the dead drives in each pod every three months and the likelihood of actually losing a whole pod is miniscule.
In their world, a drive failure is a non-event. An array failure is an "indicator of possible proplems". A pod failure is a reason to schedule it for maintenance tomorrow. The only thing that might get them to sweat is if they lost 10% of their boxes simultaneously.
There are two ways to run a reliable business. Either buy expensive reliable stuff and watch it like a hawk, or buy cheap stuff and make it redundant and self-healing.
Who gets to decide what our laws are in general? Are you against the law if you do X? Y? Z? Building foundations of law is a difficult task, but in the end we managed - "who is to say" is not really much of an argument. The danger that it would banish speech that is politically unpopular is a better point - it is a dangerous tool to have, and it does make me a bit nervous to suggest we weaken our existing strong tradition against its broad use, although the cost of not doing so could be quite harmful. Like the basic costs of having laws and courts (what if we make a mistake?), it is a muddy water into which we must tread gingerly.
And yes, to a certain extent we do need to be protected from them, not like a bunch of children, but rather like a bunch of humans. We have seen times in history when people have been captivated by the ideas of these groups. Would you deny history?
No, I'm not proposing a magic number system
Hey, we can volunteer other people for this? See, I know his guy, he's a telephone sanitizer...
Do any of you know someone?
Better change that to a management consultant. I heard of this place that got rid of all his phone sanitizers and got royally screwed.
That isn't adding "general welfare" as a end-run around enumerated powers so that anything the government wants to do is fine. It is adding the power to collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises to those two things with a restriction on how they can be used.
So a tax on gasoline with the aim of reducing gasoline usage as opposed to with the aim of raising revenue to fund the government would be unconstitutional (not that anyone cares) at the Federal level.
If you really think that's adding "general welfare" as a new power then you must also think that the government can't spend money it gains from selling assets on "general welfare", right? That's not listed in those revenue items after all.
It would be in the "general welfare" for the government to kill all disabled people and elderly people whop are no longer productiviely contributing to society. Is that OK?
Or is it only things you think are in the "general welfare".
And yes the government has been in that camp since moments after the ink dried on the document.
Windows 2000 is 5.0
Windows XP is 5.1
Vista is 6.0