Parents have to do a cost/benefit estimate and ask themselves rhetorically: are they social climbing through the kids "keeping up with the Jones'" and investing (or wasting) a large fraction of disposable income creating spoiled kids or creating lasting benefit? Could also be helicopter parenting meets academic overpressure, however there may be some value if subsequent schools look at, or are biased by, pedigree. That monoculture of demonstrated rarity which is a function of self-reinforcing exclusivity, i.e., just look at ASW. The likelihood of schools and other communal gatherings devolve into picky cliques is no surprise: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-psychology-of-...
A service's customer data must persist somewhere. "On the cloud" is a marketing abstraction to fool customers into a false sense of integrity.
Just remember that most cloud services do not do backups, do not have a disaster recovery / BIA plan, do not use ECC memory in network, compute and storage systems. Users must take personal responsibility for ensuring their private data is safe, because wishing is not a winning strategy.
While compute servers aren't backed up this is by design (use storage). Storage is indeed backed up and replicated. Also most assuredly there are extensive disaster recovery plans.
The cloud isn't for everyone, but FUD doesn't help.
While compute servers aren't backed up this is by design (use storage). Storage is indeed backed up and replicated.
And yet, you are referring to pages about redundancy, not backup. Redundancy helps when a disk, server, or perhaps even data center fails. Backups help when your cloud storage provider makes an error and removes your data from redundant storage.
There have been enough incidents to show that cloud computing alone cannot be trusted [1]. Unfortunately, most cloud services are data silos, so you couldn't even backup data if you wanted to.
And then we haven't talked yet about data leaks. Some larger incident than last year's iCloud leak will probably happen sometime. Hopefully then people will realize that client-side encryption is important.
For one the iCloud leaks had not one thing to do with cloud computing. Nor did the dropbox one you linked. Those were application level problems, and could well have occurred with on premises based storage (obviously with a public interface for an icloud issue). Let me assure you that bad synch algorithms have caused data loss before the cloud. Applications can fail to backup or record things.
For one the iCloud leaks had not one thing to do with cloud computing. Nor did the dropbox one you linked. Those were application level problems, and could well have occurred with on premises based storage (obviously with a public interface for an icloud issue).
Sure. But the difference is that if you manager your own storage, you know what backups are made, etc. Dropbox claims that backups are made, but these users lost data regardless.
rsync.net uses ECC memory and always has (since 2001).
We do not do backups, however, unless you are paying for geo-redundant storage. If you use single site storage, the idea is that we are the backup.
Since the conversation has drifted this way, let me also point out that we have s3cmd and gsutil in our platform, so if you're paranoid about trusting data to google or amazon (and to some degree, you should be) you can easily import/export to an independent cloud platform (rsync.net).
When you're an Orrick customer, most of their documents come from their standard internal library. If you need something custom or have to negotiate terms, that gets more expensive because legal drafting and review needs to happen with a human in the loop.
It is likely there is a master agreement with them that outlines use rights beyond customary client-attorney rights and responsibilities so custom and standard deliverables such that customers don't warez them to BitTorrent or sell them to friends. (The lawyer or law firm always retains copyright unless otherwise ageed.)
Obviously, I agree in principle with this, but I would write a cautionary counter-argument:
If you are making agreements and signing contracts without understanding the legal default position, you are doing so from an exceptionally poor negotiating position.
People who do sign contracts should equally be prepared for possible conflict and litigation, and act to mitigate this with good communication skills and an honest commitment to the agreement (and by knowing basic IP principles). Nothing is ever 100% clear upfront; no contract can account for every contingency: no contract can be exhaustive.
I wouldn't let them have any copies, period. They can just resell them to stock photo sites or do whatever else they like and it's nearly impossible to police them.
If the subject of the photograph is an identifiable person, that type of publishing without a model release opens the publisher up to civil liability...
Artist arrogance must be cousin of designer ego: folks that overrate themselves with hubris believing that others will see that as a signal of quality.
The only reason for a photographer to retain copyright is to screw unsuspecting people and others that will bend to the manipulate nonsense. If it's your private event and they're any good, they don't need unlimited rights to your memories. That's offensive.
I, and I think most people, wouldn't want someone (nor the NSA) running around with license to do whatever they wish with my personal family photographs and then turn around and extort us either. Sure photographers have to make a living, but extortion and privacy violation is a bridge too far.
Might be cheaper to either have TaskRabbits with copyright assignment waivers or have family / friends do it at the expense of amateurishness for the peace-of-mind that you or your entourage doesn't end up on some stock photo site or kitsch choskey.
The currently served "old" version was probably disabled to redirects to the modern ordering website so the antique non/functionality from ever interfering with the modern website and not lose sales by attempting to convert customers into the new funnel.
Some open source startups fail because they are non-scalable service companies deluding themselves that they are product companies. Furthermore, they do not own enough of any durable advantage (IP, talent, mindshare), and so multiple "product" companies pretend to not compete while offering similar services in a niche that does not have that much demand. Furthermore with FOSS, most potential customers are often politically incentivized to poach upstream code and talent, give nothing back and eschew overpriced "consulting" services entirely. So it's almost always the wrong business model, unless you dominate it.
(I've plenty of enterprise FOSS consulting to realize there are easier ways to make much more $/time, like enterprise startups that are product companies. Also, PGs essays about "consultingish.")
Yeah, you are right; look at companies in the hadoop eco system: cloudera, hortonworks, mapr. They are just burning the cash; most of the money comes from the services/consulting. This will succeed if one dominates the sector, the way Redhat does in the area of enterprise linux.
I think this is a big part of it (from someone who has considered a consultancy). These aren't necessarily hugely scalable, which isn't a problem unless you are looking to be a big hit...which is exactly what VCs are aiming for.
Perhaps if the less wealthy were able to wrest power from the very wealthy whom have clearly gamed the US tax code with Enron-like complexity, personal taxes could be fairer and similar to Norway's dual model, where the govt computes taxes for persons in the majority of cases based on standard deductions and can be easily approved by the taxpayer by SMS if it is correct. This would end most of the unnecessary labor and drudgery that also happens to be extremely unfair.
The first point is the troubling one, because politicians in the US are drunk with money of the very same people whom pay the least taxes and amass large piles of cash to buy their interests, a behavior few people can do individually (but could collectively, if they were sufficiently organized and singularly aggressive on such an issue (crowdfunding-like model)).
