It's funny you mention Little Brother. Gordon Bell, who is cited in TFA, has a new book out called "Total Recall" in which he talks about the future state of having us all recording / logging everything we do. He says it's not big brother you need to look out for, it really is Little Brother. We will all be each other's own paparazzi, in essence.

It is a pretty good read in general - and TFA is just one of the ways that his predictions are coming true.

I think more people should be asking your question: "what is cloud computing?". Because, in my opinion, it's easy to hide behind the name "cloud" - hell the name itself implies obfuscation and mystery.

But the real answer is that the "cloud" just is an internet-facing datacenter housing services or data. The trustworthyness (is that a word?) of the cloud is really dependent on the provider of the cloud. Some clouds are more redundant, resilient, and secure than others. That's important to consider when you're evaluating a move to the cloud. You _need_ to know where the data lives & how it's being backed up / secured. The term "cloud" implies it, but doesn't ensure it.

The cloud is like the internet - you could think of it as one giant nebulous entity, but in reality it's a bunch of independently owned & run services. just like AOL != the internet, geocities != the cloud. But there is a relationship there.

To me, this story about the "cloud failure" is like having someone's local ISP have an outage, then cry about how the Internet isn't reliable.

Even though your MS comment was humorous, the reality is that MS actually is in the cloud computing business: http://www.microsoft.com/online/default.mspx

It's becoming a huge part of MS's strategy. And as someone who works with customers to move to cloud services, I can also confirm that it is much easier to move your data to the cloud (both to MS and Google's clouds) than it is to move the data back. There are ways to move data back out, but most of what I've seen / used have been manual. For example - you can always export your Outlook data to a PST and re-import it to an Exchange mailbox. So it's possible, but not pretty.

Completely true!! re-read your quoted text: "this time PCs will have to work with all versions of Windows 7 to qualify for the sticker".

The last bit important - this is only about the sticker. At no point in TFA does it state Win7 will only run on 64-bit capable systems.

Yup you are correct: there is no Office 2007 64-bit. It obviously runs fine on 64-bit windows, but until Office 2010 there's no true 64-bit office apps.

You should check out Jim Collins' book "Good to Great". It's basic point is that the most successful, well-run companies are seldom led by the kind of CEO you describe & he's comes with a lot of data to back it up. Jackasses like that typically can't hold a large organization together because no one likes working for a jackass.

There _are_ plenty of a-hole leaders/CEOs like you describe - I'm sure. But the stereotype doesn't hold for most of successful ones out there.

Totally agree - a pattern of bad decisions should be enough to send anybody out looking for a new job. But I gotta say: most of the best IT people I know don't run from a job because the boss wants to change the platform / put it a new one- however crappy it may be. The best ones out there usually find a way to learn something new, work around the limitations, and maybe add another valuable skill to the resume. And then if life is still sucking, they hit the bricks.

In my own experience - it's been the crappy, do-the-minimum, the-world-is-so-stupid, IT people that throw the biggest tantrums when the boss or anyone decides to implement a solution that they didn't personally back.

The best IT people seem to be ones who got into IT because they love learning something new and are usually up for a challenge. Most of the garbage ones are just collecting a paycheck and don't like work - which is required to put in a solution you are unfamiliar with or don't like.

they should have left it in for 10 years, not 1.

Don't get me wrong - I love slashdot. But I have to disagree that posting on slashdot raises your logic quotient. 50% of the reason why I skim posts is to watch the irrational / illogical comment wars unfold. It's kinda fascintating.

As I mentioned, the civic and prius I drive / have driven are not noiseless. The tire noise & the motor noise are plenty to alert pedestrians. Not to mention the engine noise - you really only are on electric only for very short periods, usually less than a minute & at extremely low speeds. I've had one hybrid or another for 6 years and never once - ever - have I had anyone not pick up on my presence due to low noise. I know it seems like it would happen, but I'm telling you from experience it doesn't. Until someone shows me some data, it is a completely manufactured problem.

or is a s. african sprinter?

TFA links to the National Federation for the Blind's article about this topic. Here's the most relevant snippet: >> While there are no national data on pedestrian injuries or deaths related to low-noise cars... Ok - guys: get some data! This is just plain ridiculous to pass a law based on a mere assumption that quiet cars might cause a problem. If someone can prove that this is a plague upon the nation - great; pass the law. But otherwise this is a fake problem. I've owned a civic hybrid and a prius. Neither were really noticeably quieter (even when the prius was operating electric only) than your typical accord / camry. Does anyone have any data at all anywhere showing the increased incident rate for quiet cars? I'd love to see it, but I'm pretty sure it's not there.

Well, with most hybrids, the electric motor actually provides the most benefits between 1-12 mph. A lot of fuel is generally wasted getting a car from - 15 mph & that's why how hybrids are able to save on consumption.

So killing the motor at those speeds would really render a lot of hybrids less efficient.

one word: library

Hey dude - people only pay for MS licensing if it makes business sense. I can assure you that if there were some better, cheaper alternative - companies would use it. A corporation's job is to make money, period. If there's a way for a business to make more money & it involved never buying another piece of software from MS, they would.

Corporations don't love Microsoft, they don't love paying for stuff. But in a market-based economy, people and corporations are willing to pay for something that adds value.

So either everyone who buys software from Microsoft is stupid, or maybe you just are missing a few pieces to the puzzle.