I think that's what the author was getting at. Buying time on some server isn't really a "cloud", any more that we would have an internet if the failure of some node closed it down. Yep, "the cloud" is really just a marketing term for monthly payments.
I think you're right about affordable bandwidth not having caught up. In fact it's not even about affordable. Bandwidth simply isn't available to the average user. I can read and write to my old hard drive at 100Mbps and I can transfer among local computers/storage at the same speed. That's almost 100 times faster than my wireless internet here, and certainly 10 times faster than most people are getting on a common ISP account. The "cloud" has a very, very, long way to go before it becomes a reality. It's sad to see how many suckers there are out there who will pay money for a dream with so little substance. Perhaps they hope that when they wake up tomorrow, the internet will be "fixed". /sigh
I still think she will put many people off. Traditional business has always tried to encourage as many people as possible to visit their store - for any reason whatsoever. Being popular is a characteristic that benefits a business. Being expert and trustworthy gives extra points. In this case it sounds like the business owner made a mistake in trying to compete on price when in fact that isn't the kind of business she was in. I think the whole problem here is a matter of incorrect pricing.
I've worked in a store were we were in the business of giving out trustworthy and expert information as an essential part of what people came there for. When I mention something about prices being lower elsewhere, my boss just said, let them go there then. It was a very successful business, with very strong customer loyalty.
The problem of people going elsewhere is age old. It would appear that the "value added" part of this store under discussion, is not valued by some of its current "customers". Perhaps if the staff were to practice up on treating visitors well and being nice to them, they would be more successful. They might even be able to increase their prices substantially to pay for the extra value. Trying to compete on price is often a mistake. In fact it can encourage the wrong kind of customers - those that don't appreciate the value of what you are selling. Forget them. They're wasting your time, and you're wasting theirs. Just put up the prices to be fair for what you're really selling, and the "deadbeats" will go away.
The delivery channel matters because if the far end of that channel is in another country, the government on the receiving end cannot control the sale, and is left with having to monitor the arrival of the taxable item.
My thought exactly - just like the entertainment industries. The big box stores are kidding themselves though. I was recently in Walmart and thought I'd buy a cable that I needed. But I stopped short, because it was over 9 times the price of what I usually pay online from a US company (not even directly from China, and I'm in Canada). The big box stores have just had a long run of the gravy train and they're in denial that it will come to an end.
Come to think of it, how can a tax be collected if the goods are coming from another country - say China for example? Will they monitor all courier, mail, or shipping services?
Perhaps I don't quite understand your point, but it seems to me that the US was pretty aggressive in bringing down Megaupload, and there are many other examples of the US applying their laws (or trying to) in other countries. I guess everybody just wants to impose their will on others. It's one of those human flaws which just doesn't seem to go away. Of course having the courts uphold it doesn't help.
Yes, it really is difficult to use. I check it about once a month when I post there for an organization. Though occasionally getting updates on something, like during the Egyptian uprising, can be useful. In any case, if one wants something like the hateful tweets mentioned in the story, one has to specifically seek them out, there is absolutely no "public" harm. The ire shown towards Twitter in this case is just plain weird from my perspective. To me it just looks like some kind of aggressive masochism, or similar mixture of contradictory psychology.
Where else are we going to get shoe leather? Or do some people want to turn the whole world into plastic - green style, I call that.
I do understand the distaste for commercial feed-lot meat though. I get local free range beef from my neighbour and it's disease free, clean, and waaayyy better tasting than what you get in the cities.
I'm with you - good for Twitter. However, I do use Twitter a little bit. One thing that is noteworthy here is that one has to request the "tweets" one gets - by "following". In other words, I wouldn't get any messages from the offending parties in this case because I haven't requested them. I'm not entirely sure why someone would, and perhaps Twitter corporation is wondering the same.
I wonder if Wally has any idea of how content management systems work or even what CSS is, and that he himself downloads the CSS when he accesses the site. Wally, do you even write any html yourself, or are you just pretending to know something about the "crime" involved here?
I would like you to know that the damage done by the person who defaced the page(s) in question is undone in seconds. And yes, it would be prudent to check logs to make sure of what exactly happened, but that is what a sysadmin is paid for and can do in a couple of minutes. The reference to damage over $5,000 is just bogus. The actual damage is under $10 worth of a highly paid employee's time. The whole thing is completely childish and if the offended web publisher wants to get paid for revamping their security, then they are being dishonest. That the government legal workers are taking this to such heights, or even seriously, just makes me embarrassed for them. They should be more mature and know better.
In the case of Keys, it's evident that he did in fact send passwords of his colleagues . . .
I guess I missed that in the article. So, did Keys actually have to "hack" to get that? If not, then I'd be curious as to why the colleague gave out his password. If the colleague gave it out willingly, then that would complicate, if not weaken, the case. Something seems fishy here.