<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_12_1418202</id>
	<title>The Sidekick Failure and Cloud Culpability</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1255357620000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>miller60 writes <i>"There's a <a href="http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2009/10/12/the-sidekick-failure-and-cloud-culpability/">vigorous debate</a> among cloud pundits about whether the <a href="http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/10/11/0335210/Server-Failure-Destroys-Sidekick-Users-Backup-Data">apparent loss</a> of all Sidekick users' data is a reflection on the trustworthiness of cloud computing or simply another <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/02/20/1543208/Magnolia-User-Data-Is-Gone-For-Good?art\_pos=1">cautionary tale</a> about poor backup practices. InformationWeek calls the incident '<a href="http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2009/10/cloud\_goes\_boom.html">a code red cloud disaster</a>.' But some cloud technologists insist data center failures are <a href="http://samj.net/2009/10/if-its-dangerous-its-not-cloud.html">not cloud failures</a>. Is this distinction meaningful? Or does the cloud movement bear the burden of fuzzy definitions in assessing its shortcomings as well as its promise?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>miller60 writes " There 's a vigorous debate among cloud pundits about whether the apparent loss of all Sidekick users ' data is a reflection on the trustworthiness of cloud computing or simply another cautionary tale about poor backup practices .
InformationWeek calls the incident 'a code red cloud disaster .
' But some cloud technologists insist data center failures are not cloud failures .
Is this distinction meaningful ?
Or does the cloud movement bear the burden of fuzzy definitions in assessing its shortcomings as well as its promise ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>miller60 writes "There's a vigorous debate among cloud pundits about whether the apparent loss of all Sidekick users' data is a reflection on the trustworthiness of cloud computing or simply another cautionary tale about poor backup practices.
InformationWeek calls the incident 'a code red cloud disaster.
' But some cloud technologists insist data center failures are not cloud failures.
Is this distinction meaningful?
Or does the cloud movement bear the burden of fuzzy definitions in assessing its shortcomings as well as its promise?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718777</id>
	<title>Cloud Computing</title>
	<author>b3x</author>
	<datestamp>1255362060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>No matter where you go, there it is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No matter where you go , there it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No matter where you go, there it is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719821</id>
	<title>Re:A reason why cloud computing might be hated on</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1255366800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is an unforeseen hole in the bulletproof Gandhi mechanism, so I foresee a quick "GPL V3.1" to close this. And then all is well.</p></div><p>How is it a hole when people who don't redistribute code aren't required to redistribute the source that created it?  If you maintain a local branch of my code and use it to process your data, more power to you.  It'd be nice if you <em>did</em> give back your changes, but that wasn't the offer I made to you and I don't have any right to expect it of you.  End-user licenses like the AGPL are dangerous hacks that'll get more bad press than they'll make up for with the minor community good they do.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is an unforeseen hole in the bulletproof Gandhi mechanism , so I foresee a quick " GPL V3.1 " to close this .
And then all is well.How is it a hole when people who do n't redistribute code are n't required to redistribute the source that created it ?
If you maintain a local branch of my code and use it to process your data , more power to you .
It 'd be nice if you did give back your changes , but that was n't the offer I made to you and I do n't have any right to expect it of you .
End-user licenses like the AGPL are dangerous hacks that 'll get more bad press than they 'll make up for with the minor community good they do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is an unforeseen hole in the bulletproof Gandhi mechanism, so I foresee a quick "GPL V3.1" to close this.
And then all is well.How is it a hole when people who don't redistribute code aren't required to redistribute the source that created it?
If you maintain a local branch of my code and use it to process your data, more power to you.
It'd be nice if you did give back your changes, but that wasn't the offer I made to you and I don't have any right to expect it of you.
End-user licenses like the AGPL are dangerous hacks that'll get more bad press than they'll make up for with the minor community good they do.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719635</id>
	<title>if you don't control your destiny, you will fail.</title>
	<author>swschrad</author>
	<datestamp>1255366080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>not just stuffy history book stuff or national security, IMPHO it fully applies to "the cloud."</p><p>if Microsoft can't even build a robust cloud environment, that experiment is done.</p><p>"danger," indeed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>not just stuffy history book stuff or national security , IMPHO it fully applies to " the cloud .
" if Microsoft ca n't even build a robust cloud environment , that experiment is done .
" danger , " indeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not just stuffy history book stuff or national security, IMPHO it fully applies to "the cloud.
"if Microsoft can't even build a robust cloud environment, that experiment is done.
"danger," indeed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29720281</id>
	<title>Exactly</title>
	<author>Lysol</author>
	<datestamp>1255369140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is headline trolling. The 'cloud' is just a term used to describe what's already been around for over a decade. This has nothing to do with 'the cloud' and everything to do with bad infrastructure policy and incompetent IT staff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is headline trolling .
The 'cloud ' is just a term used to describe what 's already been around for over a decade .
This has nothing to do with 'the cloud ' and everything to do with bad infrastructure policy and incompetent IT staff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is headline trolling.
The 'cloud' is just a term used to describe what's already been around for over a decade.
This has nothing to do with 'the cloud' and everything to do with bad infrastructure policy and incompetent IT staff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718767</id>
	<title>Who do you think will get fired over this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255362000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The managers responsible for not implementing the backups or the techs maintaining the infrastructure?

My bet is on the little people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The managers responsible for not implementing the backups or the techs maintaining the infrastructure ?
My bet is on the little people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The managers responsible for not implementing the backups or the techs maintaining the infrastructure?
My bet is on the little people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29720693</id>
	<title>Re:An epic fail, and missed lessons (so far)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255371060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Blackberry users would be unaffected by data loss since all Blackberry devices can have their data backed up by the end user.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Blackberry users would be unaffected by data loss since all Blackberry devices can have their data backed up by the end user .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blackberry users would be unaffected by data loss since all Blackberry devices can have their data backed up by the end user.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719975</id>
	<title>New MS Datacenter in Chicago</title>
	<author>Metapsyborg</author>
	<datestamp>1255367580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just today in the Chicago Tribune there is an <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/columnists/chi-mon-burns-microsoft-1012-oct12,0,3048264.column" title="chicagotribune.com">article</a> [chicagotribune.com] about a new Microsoft "cloud computing" datacenter in the suburbs. It goes on and on about how great cloud computing is and how visionary Microsoft is for their work in this field (*snicker*). They briefly mention some other companies, I think one called "google" and yahoo or whatever, that are following in Microsoft's footsteps into this brave new world of internet-based applications.

<br> <br>Given that, I doubt MS planned the Danger/Sidekick fiasco in order to discredit cloud computing. In fact I found it very amusing to read about the new data center and then just under it another article about an MS data center losing all of it's user data.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just today in the Chicago Tribune there is an article [ chicagotribune.com ] about a new Microsoft " cloud computing " datacenter in the suburbs .
It goes on and on about how great cloud computing is and how visionary Microsoft is for their work in this field ( * snicker * ) .
They briefly mention some other companies , I think one called " google " and yahoo or whatever , that are following in Microsoft 's footsteps into this brave new world of internet-based applications .
Given that , I doubt MS planned the Danger/Sidekick fiasco in order to discredit cloud computing .
In fact I found it very amusing to read about the new data center and then just under it another article about an MS data center losing all of it 's user data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just today in the Chicago Tribune there is an article [chicagotribune.com] about a new Microsoft "cloud computing" datacenter in the suburbs.
It goes on and on about how great cloud computing is and how visionary Microsoft is for their work in this field (*snicker*).
They briefly mention some other companies, I think one called "google" and yahoo or whatever, that are following in Microsoft's footsteps into this brave new world of internet-based applications.
Given that, I doubt MS planned the Danger/Sidekick fiasco in order to discredit cloud computing.
In fact I found it very amusing to read about the new data center and then just under it another article about an MS data center losing all of it's user data.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29728079</id>
	<title>Ah good...</title>
	<author>Builder</author>
	<datestamp>1255364220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm \_not\_ the only one to have horrific experiences with Hitachi SAN rigs then. Not that this helps me sleep better, because they'll still probably blow up the next scheduled work again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm \ _not \ _ the only one to have horrific experiences with Hitachi SAN rigs then .
Not that this helps me sleep better , because they 'll still probably blow up the next scheduled work again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm \_not\_ the only one to have horrific experiences with Hitachi SAN rigs then.
Not that this helps me sleep better, because they'll still probably blow up the next scheduled work again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29731025</id>
	<title>Re:If You Want Something Done Right!</title>
	<author>elnyka</author>
	<datestamp>1255444380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why on Earth would you trust your valuable data (and if it wasn't valuable to you, why keep it in the first place?) to someone else, someone who doesn't answer to the same people you do? I have always thought that "the cloud" is an epic fail waiting to happen. As a concept, it makes no sense. It's a scheme worthy of Professor Harold Hill himself.</p><p>You want your data safe? You want it backed up properly? Don't want to lose it? Then put it on your own hardware and take care of it yourself. Don't leave it to someone else to save your bacon when something goes wrong. Because, in the end, they don't care about you. You're just a monthly fee to them, and the agreement/contract/whatever you signed with them absolves them of all responsibility.</p></div><p>You have never worked in a large scale enterprise that stores terabytes (or even petabytes), moving 100's of gigabytes (or even terabytes) <b>every single day</b>, have you?</p><p>

Every large organization (and many midsize ones) maintain most of their computing muscle and data on externally managed data centers (or proprietary data centers managed by 3rd party staff.) You can't just do it on your own, and if you can, it is awfully expensive.</p><p>

This doesn't count the <b>inevitable</b> politics and rivalries that arise when you take a DIY approach. You end up with  data teams, network teams, IT ops teams, all of them competing for resources (and sometimes prestige). Unloading most of that wild west crap out to a 3rd party that is only interested in sticking to SLAs to the letter frees a lot of time and $$$ to take care of actual business/business-related technology needs.

Disasters like these are actually extremely rare, and it seems to me it was more about the execution of the idea than on the idea itself (which has been done for years, decades without major problems.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why on Earth would you trust your valuable data ( and if it was n't valuable to you , why keep it in the first place ?
) to someone else , someone who does n't answer to the same people you do ?
I have always thought that " the cloud " is an epic fail waiting to happen .
As a concept , it makes no sense .
It 's a scheme worthy of Professor Harold Hill himself.You want your data safe ?
You want it backed up properly ?
Do n't want to lose it ?
Then put it on your own hardware and take care of it yourself .
Do n't leave it to someone else to save your bacon when something goes wrong .
Because , in the end , they do n't care about you .
You 're just a monthly fee to them , and the agreement/contract/whatever you signed with them absolves them of all responsibility.You have never worked in a large scale enterprise that stores terabytes ( or even petabytes ) , moving 100 's of gigabytes ( or even terabytes ) every single day , have you ?
Every large organization ( and many midsize ones ) maintain most of their computing muscle and data on externally managed data centers ( or proprietary data centers managed by 3rd party staff .
) You ca n't just do it on your own , and if you can , it is awfully expensive .
This does n't count the inevitable politics and rivalries that arise when you take a DIY approach .
You end up with data teams , network teams , IT ops teams , all of them competing for resources ( and sometimes prestige ) .
Unloading most of that wild west crap out to a 3rd party that is only interested in sticking to SLAs to the letter frees a lot of time and $ $ $ to take care of actual business/business-related technology needs .
Disasters like these are actually extremely rare , and it seems to me it was more about the execution of the idea than on the idea itself ( which has been done for years , decades without major problems .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why on Earth would you trust your valuable data (and if it wasn't valuable to you, why keep it in the first place?
) to someone else, someone who doesn't answer to the same people you do?
I have always thought that "the cloud" is an epic fail waiting to happen.
As a concept, it makes no sense.
It's a scheme worthy of Professor Harold Hill himself.You want your data safe?
You want it backed up properly?
Don't want to lose it?
Then put it on your own hardware and take care of it yourself.
Don't leave it to someone else to save your bacon when something goes wrong.
Because, in the end, they don't care about you.
You're just a monthly fee to them, and the agreement/contract/whatever you signed with them absolves them of all responsibility.You have never worked in a large scale enterprise that stores terabytes (or even petabytes), moving 100's of gigabytes (or even terabytes) every single day, have you?
Every large organization (and many midsize ones) maintain most of their computing muscle and data on externally managed data centers (or proprietary data centers managed by 3rd party staff.
) You can't just do it on your own, and if you can, it is awfully expensive.
This doesn't count the inevitable politics and rivalries that arise when you take a DIY approach.
You end up with  data teams, network teams, IT ops teams, all of them competing for resources (and sometimes prestige).
Unloading most of that wild west crap out to a 3rd party that is only interested in sticking to SLAs to the letter frees a lot of time and $$$ to take care of actual business/business-related technology needs.
Disasters like these are actually extremely rare, and it seems to me it was more about the execution of the idea than on the idea itself (which has been done for years, decades without major problems.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719193</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718921</id>
	<title>Not a cloud, so why the fuss?</title>
	<author>mangastudent</author>
	<datestamp>1255362720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A single data center apparently without even a geographically distinct failover site is about as far as I can imagine from being a "cloud".  Old fashioned best practices in the form of having two or more sites each capable of handling the entire load would have prevented this particular mess, let alone classic cloud approaches like that of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google\_File\_System" title="wikipedia.org">Google File System</a> [wikipedia.org] (GFS) which keeps at least three copies of a file's contents.

</p><p>(Granted, if you're storing vital stuff in GFS or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon\_S3" title="wikipedia.org">Amazon S3</a> [wikipedia.org] you still have a logical single point of failure (e.g. a mistaken delete command) and therefore you aren't freed from the duty of doing your own backups, but that's a separate issue.)

</p><p>Or we could just say that trusting Microsoft for anything is <i>relatively</i> unwise compared to other "higher tier" companies.  Or that if you're depending on a service provider that's massively laying off staff you need to take action before something seriously ugly happens, because it likely will.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A single data center apparently without even a geographically distinct failover site is about as far as I can imagine from being a " cloud " .
Old fashioned best practices in the form of having two or more sites each capable of handling the entire load would have prevented this particular mess , let alone classic cloud approaches like that of the Google File System [ wikipedia.org ] ( GFS ) which keeps at least three copies of a file 's contents .
( Granted , if you 're storing vital stuff in GFS or Amazon S3 [ wikipedia.org ] you still have a logical single point of failure ( e.g .
a mistaken delete command ) and therefore you are n't freed from the duty of doing your own backups , but that 's a separate issue .
) Or we could just say that trusting Microsoft for anything is relatively unwise compared to other " higher tier " companies .
Or that if you 're depending on a service provider that 's massively laying off staff you need to take action before something seriously ugly happens , because it likely will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A single data center apparently without even a geographically distinct failover site is about as far as I can imagine from being a "cloud".
Old fashioned best practices in the form of having two or more sites each capable of handling the entire load would have prevented this particular mess, let alone classic cloud approaches like that of the Google File System [wikipedia.org] (GFS) which keeps at least three copies of a file's contents.
(Granted, if you're storing vital stuff in GFS or Amazon S3 [wikipedia.org] you still have a logical single point of failure (e.g.
a mistaken delete command) and therefore you aren't freed from the duty of doing your own backups, but that's a separate issue.
)

Or we could just say that trusting Microsoft for anything is relatively unwise compared to other "higher tier" companies.
Or that if you're depending on a service provider that's massively laying off staff you need to take action before something seriously ugly happens, because it likely will.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29720183</id>
	<title>Re:For the love of God the company is called "Dang</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1255368780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately, project director Robinson ignored all the warnings.  Had the company been named "Danger Danger", ol' Will would have paid attention.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , project director Robinson ignored all the warnings .
Had the company been named " Danger Danger " , ol ' Will would have paid attention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, project director Robinson ignored all the warnings.
Had the company been named "Danger Danger", ol' Will would have paid attention.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29720061</id>
	<title>Re:Management - We Saved Big $$$!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255368000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's symptomatic of the times, I think. "Git 'R Dun!" means provide the superficial essentials as fast and as cheap as possible and don't sweat the details. Once it's running, forget about filling in the missing stuff - all it does is make the product more expensive; and besides, "nothing like that's ever going to actually go wrong". Pat yourself on the back because you're so "productive". Rinse, repeat on next product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's symptomatic of the times , I think .
" Git 'R Dun !
" means provide the superficial essentials as fast and as cheap as possible and do n't sweat the details .
Once it 's running , forget about filling in the missing stuff - all it does is make the product more expensive ; and besides , " nothing like that 's ever going to actually go wrong " .
Pat yourself on the back because you 're so " productive " .
Rinse , repeat on next product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's symptomatic of the times, I think.
"Git 'R Dun!
" means provide the superficial essentials as fast and as cheap as possible and don't sweat the details.
Once it's running, forget about filling in the missing stuff - all it does is make the product more expensive; and besides, "nothing like that's ever going to actually go wrong".
Pat yourself on the back because you're so "productive".
Rinse, repeat on next product.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29720015</id>
	<title>Of Course this is not a "Cloud" problem...</title>
	<author>Vitriol+Angst</author>
	<datestamp>1255367760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A Datacenter is the backbone of a Cloud. Cloud Computing is 100\% reliable -- until of course, when it fails, and then Marketing/Tech Support will tell you this was a datacenter problem and ask you if you saved a backup.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A Datacenter is the backbone of a Cloud .
Cloud Computing is 100 \ % reliable -- until of course , when it fails , and then Marketing/Tech Support will tell you this was a datacenter problem and ask you if you saved a backup .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A Datacenter is the backbone of a Cloud.
Cloud Computing is 100\% reliable -- until of course, when it fails, and then Marketing/Tech Support will tell you this was a datacenter problem and ask you if you saved a backup.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29720129</id>
	<title>Re:A reason why cloud computing might be hated on</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1255368480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You must be the GoTo Guy  at your office.<br>Something went wrong?  Blame AC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You must be the GoTo Guy at your office.Something went wrong ?
Blame AC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must be the GoTo Guy  at your office.Something went wrong?
Blame AC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719793</id>
	<title>Re:No true scotsman</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255366740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That depends on how big a failure was required to lose everyone's data.  If failure in a single geographic location loses any more than an hour or so (frequency of geographic duplication can be a contract-specified item, of course), then it's not a cloud.  It's an organization of data centers all under the same billing company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That depends on how big a failure was required to lose everyone 's data .
If failure in a single geographic location loses any more than an hour or so ( frequency of geographic duplication can be a contract-specified item , of course ) , then it 's not a cloud .
It 's an organization of data centers all under the same billing company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That depends on how big a failure was required to lose everyone's data.
If failure in a single geographic location loses any more than an hour or so (frequency of geographic duplication can be a contract-specified item, of course), then it's not a cloud.
It's an organization of data centers all under the same billing company.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29722271</id>
	<title>Re:Has there never been a non-cloud data loss?</title>
	<author>John Whitley</author>
	<datestamp>1255376640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Heck, I know folks who've lost entire well-known (hobbyist) web-portals some years back due to provider server failures.  It was a harsh lesson for those involved.  So much for the provider's backup policies.  The real solution is to have multiple copies of the data, ideally in different formats.  For example, when I was in grad school the University had (for the time) a huge email installation, basically full email hosting for the entire institution.  The server and storage spec was excellent -- a big SAN-like dual storage array that could handle failures at multiple levels, including one entire half of the storage system.  Turns out they got hit by a nasty filesystem corruption bug, which nuked the whole array.  Oops.  Their bacon was saved because they also had regular verified tape backups (IIRC, it took many, many weeks to fully restore archived mail to the cluster).</p><p>These problems  really have little to do with the computing models involved.  There's a misperception that the "cloud" provides some sort of data robustness beyond what mere mortals can accomplish, but the reality is that valuable data just needs more copies.  Perhaps their backup strategies are layered and awesome, but you never really know where the weak links are.  One remote service provider really only ever counts as one copy.  And so it's useful to consider a service like <a href="http://github.com/" title="github.com">GitHub</a> [github.com].  The fundamental model of the service is to encourage folks to share and copy their data around, because that's a prime goal of the supporting software: <a href="http://git-scm.com/" title="git-scm.com">git</a> [git-scm.com].  If a git-based service goes down, there should be many copies of the repository data, and the various users will regroup, republish, and move on.  No single user has to be overly conscious of maintaining lots of backups, because copying is the basic working model.</p><p>There's a lesson there for those of us working in software: design for <em>subversive backup</em>, where critical data is backed up/synced/secured as a normal part of day-to-day workflow.  Make sure that failure in any one point doesn't induce the others to similarly fail or become corrupt.  Think through and verify the recovery schemes.  Imagine that it's your data going down the tubes...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Heck , I know folks who 've lost entire well-known ( hobbyist ) web-portals some years back due to provider server failures .
It was a harsh lesson for those involved .
So much for the provider 's backup policies .
The real solution is to have multiple copies of the data , ideally in different formats .
For example , when I was in grad school the University had ( for the time ) a huge email installation , basically full email hosting for the entire institution .
The server and storage spec was excellent -- a big SAN-like dual storage array that could handle failures at multiple levels , including one entire half of the storage system .
Turns out they got hit by a nasty filesystem corruption bug , which nuked the whole array .
Oops. Their bacon was saved because they also had regular verified tape backups ( IIRC , it took many , many weeks to fully restore archived mail to the cluster ) .These problems really have little to do with the computing models involved .
There 's a misperception that the " cloud " provides some sort of data robustness beyond what mere mortals can accomplish , but the reality is that valuable data just needs more copies .
Perhaps their backup strategies are layered and awesome , but you never really know where the weak links are .
One remote service provider really only ever counts as one copy .
And so it 's useful to consider a service like GitHub [ github.com ] .
The fundamental model of the service is to encourage folks to share and copy their data around , because that 's a prime goal of the supporting software : git [ git-scm.com ] .
If a git-based service goes down , there should be many copies of the repository data , and the various users will regroup , republish , and move on .
No single user has to be overly conscious of maintaining lots of backups , because copying is the basic working model.There 's a lesson there for those of us working in software : design for subversive backup , where critical data is backed up/synced/secured as a normal part of day-to-day workflow .
Make sure that failure in any one point does n't induce the others to similarly fail or become corrupt .
Think through and verify the recovery schemes .
Imagine that it 's your data going down the tubes.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heck, I know folks who've lost entire well-known (hobbyist) web-portals some years back due to provider server failures.
It was a harsh lesson for those involved.
So much for the provider's backup policies.
The real solution is to have multiple copies of the data, ideally in different formats.
For example, when I was in grad school the University had (for the time) a huge email installation, basically full email hosting for the entire institution.
The server and storage spec was excellent -- a big SAN-like dual storage array that could handle failures at multiple levels, including one entire half of the storage system.
Turns out they got hit by a nasty filesystem corruption bug, which nuked the whole array.
Oops.  Their bacon was saved because they also had regular verified tape backups (IIRC, it took many, many weeks to fully restore archived mail to the cluster).These problems  really have little to do with the computing models involved.
There's a misperception that the "cloud" provides some sort of data robustness beyond what mere mortals can accomplish, but the reality is that valuable data just needs more copies.
Perhaps their backup strategies are layered and awesome, but you never really know where the weak links are.
One remote service provider really only ever counts as one copy.
And so it's useful to consider a service like GitHub [github.com].
The fundamental model of the service is to encourage folks to share and copy their data around, because that's a prime goal of the supporting software: git [git-scm.com].
If a git-based service goes down, there should be many copies of the repository data, and the various users will regroup, republish, and move on.
No single user has to be overly conscious of maintaining lots of backups, because copying is the basic working model.There's a lesson there for those of us working in software: design for subversive backup, where critical data is backed up/synced/secured as a normal part of day-to-day workflow.
Make sure that failure in any one point doesn't induce the others to similarly fail or become corrupt.
Think through and verify the recovery schemes.
Imagine that it's your data going down the tubes...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718997</id>
	<title>It all depends on the meaning of 'failure'?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255363020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems like we've heard that sort of thing before and look how that turned out</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems like we 've heard that sort of thing before and look how that turned out</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems like we've heard that sort of thing before and look how that turned out</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29720265</id>
	<title>I'm officially lost.</title>
	<author>MrCrassic</author>
	<datestamp>1255369080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What exactly is the difference between today's "cloud computing" and yesterday's "internet-based services?" <br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; I'm sure this question is often asked, considering that every single web site is a file stored on a remote computer which by way of internet services is displayed on computer screens everywhere. Additionally, people have been uploading data to remote storage services since the late 90's with XDrive and its precedessors, but these were never known as "cloud computing" then...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What exactly is the difference between today 's " cloud computing " and yesterday 's " internet-based services ?
"     I 'm sure this question is often asked , considering that every single web site is a file stored on a remote computer which by way of internet services is displayed on computer screens everywhere .
Additionally , people have been uploading data to remote storage services since the late 90 's with XDrive and its precedessors , but these were never known as " cloud computing " then.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What exactly is the difference between today's "cloud computing" and yesterday's "internet-based services?
" 
  
  I'm sure this question is often asked, considering that every single web site is a file stored on a remote computer which by way of internet services is displayed on computer screens everywhere.
Additionally, people have been uploading data to remote storage services since the late 90's with XDrive and its precedessors, but these were never known as "cloud computing" then...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718681</id>
	<title>A reason why cloud computing might be hated on SD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255361640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With Cloud Computing, those who modify FOSS software do not have to redistribute the code, because they are only providing a service and not a functional program.</p><p>This is an unforeseen hole in the bulletproof Gandhi mechanism, so I foresee a quick "GPL V3.1" to close this. And then all is well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With Cloud Computing , those who modify FOSS software do not have to redistribute the code , because they are only providing a service and not a functional program.This is an unforeseen hole in the bulletproof Gandhi mechanism , so I foresee a quick " GPL V3.1 " to close this .
And then all is well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With Cloud Computing, those who modify FOSS software do not have to redistribute the code, because they are only providing a service and not a functional program.This is an unforeseen hole in the bulletproof Gandhi mechanism, so I foresee a quick "GPL V3.1" to close this.
And then all is well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29720841</id>
	<title>Re:Management</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255371660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps it is time for two things:</p><p>1) An inspection / certification system to ensure data centers are following best practices in the protection of customers data. (probably expensive but good PR)</p><p>2) An option to email customer data to the customer on demand or on a customer selected schedule. (feasability would depend on nature of data)</p><p>Certainly the iPhone model where the customers data resides on his / her Mac or PC. (it just works, does depend on having an app on customers computer)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps it is time for two things : 1 ) An inspection / certification system to ensure data centers are following best practices in the protection of customers data .
( probably expensive but good PR ) 2 ) An option to email customer data to the customer on demand or on a customer selected schedule .
( feasability would depend on nature of data ) Certainly the iPhone model where the customers data resides on his / her Mac or PC .
( it just works , does depend on having an app on customers computer )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps it is time for two things:1) An inspection / certification system to ensure data centers are following best practices in the protection of customers data.
(probably expensive but good PR)2) An option to email customer data to the customer on demand or on a customer selected schedule.
(feasability would depend on nature of data)Certainly the iPhone model where the customers data resides on his / her Mac or PC.
(it just works, does depend on having an app on customers computer)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29729863</id>
	<title>Re:The Cloud is Just a Big Mainframe</title>
	<author>Salamander</author>
	<datestamp>1255432020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, except for the part where you get to run your own OS.  And the part where it often costs *less* than running your own servers.  And the part where it's composed of multiple machines and can be scaled incrementally.  And the part where you can integrate functionality between multiple clouds including those you run privately.  And the part where you and everyone else access it through a network that hadn't even been imagined in the old mainframe days.  Except for just about everything, you're right.  Very insightful.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , except for the part where you get to run your own OS .
And the part where it often costs * less * than running your own servers .
And the part where it 's composed of multiple machines and can be scaled incrementally .
And the part where you can integrate functionality between multiple clouds including those you run privately .
And the part where you and everyone else access it through a network that had n't even been imagined in the old mainframe days .
Except for just about everything , you 're right .
Very insightful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, except for the part where you get to run your own OS.
And the part where it often costs *less* than running your own servers.
And the part where it's composed of multiple machines and can be scaled incrementally.
And the part where you can integrate functionality between multiple clouds including those you run privately.
And the part where you and everyone else access it through a network that hadn't even been imagined in the old mainframe days.
Except for just about everything, you're right.
Very insightful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718987</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719537</id>
	<title>Cloud Computing</title>
	<author>snspdaarf</author>
	<datestamp>1255365720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The best part of TFA is the comment below from their version of an A/C:  <p><div class="quote"><p>Cloud architecture shards data</p></div><p>
In this case it certainly did.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The best part of TFA is the comment below from their version of an A/C : Cloud architecture shards data In this case it certainly did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best part of TFA is the comment below from their version of an A/C:  Cloud architecture shards data
In this case it certainly did.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719509</id>
	<title>Re:The problems with outsourcing</title>
	<author>vertinox</author>
	<datestamp>1255365600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If you can't trust your outsourcing partner, replace them or bring the work in-house.</i></p><p>Trust? I don't think the upper management trusts local IT either.</p><p>Really, I don't think it matters who runs the servers or what they call them as long as it is run well.</p><p>Just because its outsourced  or inhouse or its gold big iron or cloud computinhg doesn't make it good or bad because either way can be run poorly with the wrong administration.</p><p>Personally I think things should be done in house merely for moral issues bit business speaking an incompetent admin is going to mess up things whether he works for the outsource company or directly for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you ca n't trust your outsourcing partner , replace them or bring the work in-house.Trust ?
I do n't think the upper management trusts local IT either.Really , I do n't think it matters who runs the servers or what they call them as long as it is run well.Just because its outsourced or inhouse or its gold big iron or cloud computinhg does n't make it good or bad because either way can be run poorly with the wrong administration.Personally I think things should be done in house merely for moral issues bit business speaking an incompetent admin is going to mess up things whether he works for the outsource company or directly for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can't trust your outsourcing partner, replace them or bring the work in-house.Trust?
I don't think the upper management trusts local IT either.Really, I don't think it matters who runs the servers or what they call them as long as it is run well.Just because its outsourced  or inhouse or its gold big iron or cloud computinhg doesn't make it good or bad because either way can be run poorly with the wrong administration.Personally I think things should be done in house merely for moral issues bit business speaking an incompetent admin is going to mess up things whether he works for the outsource company or directly for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718717</id>
	<title>The problems with outsourcing</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1255361820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you can't trust your outsourcing partner, replace them or bring the work in-house.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you ca n't trust your outsourcing partner , replace them or bring the work in-house .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can't trust your outsourcing partner, replace them or bring the work in-house.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719681</id>
	<title>Re:The Cloud is Just a Big Mainframe</title>
	<author>natoochtoniket</author>
	<datestamp>1255366260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is one difference.</p><p>In previous decades, for the most part, the company that operated the computing center considered the data to be valuable, and took great care to prevent data loss.  They knew that the hardware could fail, and so they made multiple copies of each data file.  They did backups, and they checked and tested the backups.  Most even stored some copies off-site to hedge against the possibility of catastrophic loss of the entire data center.</p><p>At present time, many young people have never seen data loss.  Many people do not realize that hardware failure is even possible.  If they make backups, they rarely check or test the fidelity or reliability of those backups.  Those same people are administering the data center operations.  Managing the disk farm, replacing failed mirrors, and making backups of customers data, are all activities that are part of the service.  As far as many of the MBA types are concerned, all of those are just costs to be minimized.</p><p>A single disk might have a MTBF of 30 years.  But a system that uses ten thousand disks will have a MTBF of about a day.  (On average, a disk will fail somewhere in the system, every day.)  RAID systems do not eliminate the issue, because simultaneous disk failure is possible.  And a power-supply failure, fire, explosion, software failure, or employee can kill a whole bunch of disks all at once.</p><p>In my own organization, I want to know where my data is.  I want mirrored disks to minimize the operational effects of common hardware failure, and off-line/off-site backups so we can stay in business after an uncommon failure.  I want to review the backup schedule.  I want regular verification of backup status.  I want periodic audits of the backups, to be sure they really exist and that they can really be read.  And, when the data is vital to the continuance of my business, that verification and auditing must not be outsourced.</p><p>Whenever your MBAs want to cut the cost of doing backups, you really should check with the underwriter of your business-continuation insurance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is one difference.In previous decades , for the most part , the company that operated the computing center considered the data to be valuable , and took great care to prevent data loss .
They knew that the hardware could fail , and so they made multiple copies of each data file .
They did backups , and they checked and tested the backups .
Most even stored some copies off-site to hedge against the possibility of catastrophic loss of the entire data center.At present time , many young people have never seen data loss .
Many people do not realize that hardware failure is even possible .
If they make backups , they rarely check or test the fidelity or reliability of those backups .
Those same people are administering the data center operations .
Managing the disk farm , replacing failed mirrors , and making backups of customers data , are all activities that are part of the service .
As far as many of the MBA types are concerned , all of those are just costs to be minimized.A single disk might have a MTBF of 30 years .
But a system that uses ten thousand disks will have a MTBF of about a day .
( On average , a disk will fail somewhere in the system , every day .
) RAID systems do not eliminate the issue , because simultaneous disk failure is possible .
And a power-supply failure , fire , explosion , software failure , or employee can kill a whole bunch of disks all at once.In my own organization , I want to know where my data is .
I want mirrored disks to minimize the operational effects of common hardware failure , and off-line/off-site backups so we can stay in business after an uncommon failure .
I want to review the backup schedule .
I want regular verification of backup status .
I want periodic audits of the backups , to be sure they really exist and that they can really be read .
And , when the data is vital to the continuance of my business , that verification and auditing must not be outsourced.Whenever your MBAs want to cut the cost of doing backups , you really should check with the underwriter of your business-continuation insurance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is one difference.In previous decades, for the most part, the company that operated the computing center considered the data to be valuable, and took great care to prevent data loss.
They knew that the hardware could fail, and so they made multiple copies of each data file.
They did backups, and they checked and tested the backups.
Most even stored some copies off-site to hedge against the possibility of catastrophic loss of the entire data center.At present time, many young people have never seen data loss.
Many people do not realize that hardware failure is even possible.
If they make backups, they rarely check or test the fidelity or reliability of those backups.
Those same people are administering the data center operations.
Managing the disk farm, replacing failed mirrors, and making backups of customers data, are all activities that are part of the service.
As far as many of the MBA types are concerned, all of those are just costs to be minimized.A single disk might have a MTBF of 30 years.
But a system that uses ten thousand disks will have a MTBF of about a day.
(On average, a disk will fail somewhere in the system, every day.
)  RAID systems do not eliminate the issue, because simultaneous disk failure is possible.
And a power-supply failure, fire, explosion, software failure, or employee can kill a whole bunch of disks all at once.In my own organization, I want to know where my data is.
I want mirrored disks to minimize the operational effects of common hardware failure, and off-line/off-site backups so we can stay in business after an uncommon failure.
I want to review the backup schedule.
I want regular verification of backup status.
I want periodic audits of the backups, to be sure they really exist and that they can really be read.
And, when the data is vital to the continuance of my business, that verification and auditing must not be outsourced.Whenever your MBAs want to cut the cost of doing backups, you really should check with the underwriter of your business-continuation insurance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718987</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29725255</id>
	<title>WTF ?</title>
	<author>smoker2</author>
	<datestamp>1255346220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Or does the cloud movement bear the burden of fuzzy definitions in assessing its shortcomings as well as its promise?"</p></div></blockquote><p>FUCK OFF !</p><p>Anybody with a brain does not use the cloud for anything important. This necessarily leads to the phrase, "don't trust the cloud". Which historically refers to "Don't leave your eggs in one basket", which means " look after your own". You  can make the question as "fuzzy" as you like but the answer is still NO !</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or does the cloud movement bear the burden of fuzzy definitions in assessing its shortcomings as well as its promise ?
" FUCK OFF ! Anybody with a brain does not use the cloud for anything important .
This necessarily leads to the phrase , " do n't trust the cloud " .
Which historically refers to " Do n't leave your eggs in one basket " , which means " look after your own " .
You can make the question as " fuzzy " as you like but the answer is still NO !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or does the cloud movement bear the burden of fuzzy definitions in assessing its shortcomings as well as its promise?
"FUCK OFF !Anybody with a brain does not use the cloud for anything important.
This necessarily leads to the phrase, "don't trust the cloud".
Which historically refers to "Don't leave your eggs in one basket", which means " look after your own".
You  can make the question as "fuzzy" as you like but the answer is still NO !
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718987</id>
	<title>The Cloud is Just a Big Mainframe</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1255363020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you cut through the "cloud", if you look into the center of things, you see that the so-called modern "cloud" computing environment is a giant computer(s), surrounded by high powered priestly geeks, doling out resources to everyone, completely centralized.  The priests have some new tricks to entertain the masses with, but there's nothing fundamentally different between cloud computing and IBM's vision of computing in the 1960s.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you cut through the " cloud " , if you look into the center of things , you see that the so-called modern " cloud " computing environment is a giant computer ( s ) , surrounded by high powered priestly geeks , doling out resources to everyone , completely centralized .
The priests have some new tricks to entertain the masses with , but there 's nothing fundamentally different between cloud computing and IBM 's vision of computing in the 1960s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you cut through the "cloud", if you look into the center of things, you see that the so-called modern "cloud" computing environment is a giant computer(s), surrounded by high powered priestly geeks, doling out resources to everyone, completely centralized.
The priests have some new tricks to entertain the masses with, but there's nothing fundamentally different between cloud computing and IBM's vision of computing in the 1960s.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29721115</id>
	<title>Palm Pre FTW  :-)</title>
	<author>Slashdot Parent</author>
	<datestamp>1255372620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Pre syncs contact/calendar/etc. data with several popular online services (and Microsoft Exchange).  It also performs an automatic daily backup (turned on by default) to Palm's servers.  All of your important data is stored in 3 places.  On the device, on the service provider, and on Palm's servers.  (As an added precaution, I like to backup my Google contacts directly from Google on a monthly basis).</p><p>All this makes is extremely unlikely that a Palm Pre user will ever suffer an unintentional data loss.</p><p>Hope your sister gets her data back, but if she doesn't, she should upgrade to a Pre.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Pre syncs contact/calendar/etc .
data with several popular online services ( and Microsoft Exchange ) .
It also performs an automatic daily backup ( turned on by default ) to Palm 's servers .
All of your important data is stored in 3 places .
On the device , on the service provider , and on Palm 's servers .
( As an added precaution , I like to backup my Google contacts directly from Google on a monthly basis ) .All this makes is extremely unlikely that a Palm Pre user will ever suffer an unintentional data loss.Hope your sister gets her data back , but if she does n't , she should upgrade to a Pre .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Pre syncs contact/calendar/etc.
data with several popular online services (and Microsoft Exchange).
It also performs an automatic daily backup (turned on by default) to Palm's servers.
All of your important data is stored in 3 places.
On the device, on the service provider, and on Palm's servers.
(As an added precaution, I like to backup my Google contacts directly from Google on a monthly basis).All this makes is extremely unlikely that a Palm Pre user will ever suffer an unintentional data loss.Hope your sister gets her data back, but if she doesn't, she should upgrade to a Pre.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719731</id>
	<title>The cloud is irrelevant to this problem.</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1255366440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But some cloud technologists insist data center failures are not cloud failures. Is this distinction meaningful?</p></div></blockquote><p>Of course its meaningful. If you have a local server that you own, and you choose not to back it up, and it fails with a complete loss of data, that isn't primarily a problem with owning a local server, or with the particular server operating system (though there may be factors associated with either of those that contribute to the crash), its a problem with you choosing not to back up data.</p><p>If you have a single traditional server that you pay for access to, but is owned and managed by someone else with your data, and the same thing happens because you didn't assure (e.g., via contract) that the server would be backed up, again, the problem is with your failure.</p><p>If you have a cloud using one or more local physical servers that you manjage (e.g., using the cloud software included with Ubuntu Server), and the same thing happens, its not a problem with either cloud technology in general or the particular cloud technology you used, again, its a problem with your choice not to back it up.</p><p>If you instead pay for the use of someone else's cloud to host your virtual server instances than either you should be backing them up (if you manage the virtual servers, even though the vendor will be managing the physical servers and the cloud software) or you should assure that the vendor managing the virtual servers is backing them up (if a vendor, either the cloud vendor or someone else, is doing that for you.) If the servers aren't backed up, its your fault, and not the (general or specific) cloud technologies fault.</p><blockquote><div><p>Or does the cloud movement bear the burden of fuzzy definitions in assessing its shortcomings as well as its promise?</p></div></blockquote><p>There's no fuzzy definition involved here. The problem is quite simply one of failing to plan for recovery in the case of failure. This is a need that is independent of whether your logical servers are identical to your physical servers or whether they are decoupled as is the case in cloud technology, and likewise independent of whether your physical servers are owned by you and located in your data center or owned by someoneone else and located in their data center (or any mix and match of ownership and location), and further independent of whether you manage your logical servers personally (or with your regular employees) or contract out for the management of them.</p><p>This is not a failure of cloud technology, it is a failure of the particular parties managing this particular implementation to do something to which the the use or not of cloud technologies is completely irrelevant.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But some cloud technologists insist data center failures are not cloud failures .
Is this distinction meaningful ? Of course its meaningful .
If you have a local server that you own , and you choose not to back it up , and it fails with a complete loss of data , that is n't primarily a problem with owning a local server , or with the particular server operating system ( though there may be factors associated with either of those that contribute to the crash ) , its a problem with you choosing not to back up data.If you have a single traditional server that you pay for access to , but is owned and managed by someone else with your data , and the same thing happens because you did n't assure ( e.g. , via contract ) that the server would be backed up , again , the problem is with your failure.If you have a cloud using one or more local physical servers that you manjage ( e.g. , using the cloud software included with Ubuntu Server ) , and the same thing happens , its not a problem with either cloud technology in general or the particular cloud technology you used , again , its a problem with your choice not to back it up.If you instead pay for the use of someone else 's cloud to host your virtual server instances than either you should be backing them up ( if you manage the virtual servers , even though the vendor will be managing the physical servers and the cloud software ) or you should assure that the vendor managing the virtual servers is backing them up ( if a vendor , either the cloud vendor or someone else , is doing that for you .
) If the servers are n't backed up , its your fault , and not the ( general or specific ) cloud technologies fault.Or does the cloud movement bear the burden of fuzzy definitions in assessing its shortcomings as well as its promise ? There 's no fuzzy definition involved here .
The problem is quite simply one of failing to plan for recovery in the case of failure .
This is a need that is independent of whether your logical servers are identical to your physical servers or whether they are decoupled as is the case in cloud technology , and likewise independent of whether your physical servers are owned by you and located in your data center or owned by someoneone else and located in their data center ( or any mix and match of ownership and location ) , and further independent of whether you manage your logical servers personally ( or with your regular employees ) or contract out for the management of them.This is not a failure of cloud technology , it is a failure of the particular parties managing this particular implementation to do something to which the the use or not of cloud technologies is completely irrelevant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But some cloud technologists insist data center failures are not cloud failures.
Is this distinction meaningful?Of course its meaningful.
If you have a local server that you own, and you choose not to back it up, and it fails with a complete loss of data, that isn't primarily a problem with owning a local server, or with the particular server operating system (though there may be factors associated with either of those that contribute to the crash), its a problem with you choosing not to back up data.If you have a single traditional server that you pay for access to, but is owned and managed by someone else with your data, and the same thing happens because you didn't assure (e.g., via contract) that the server would be backed up, again, the problem is with your failure.If you have a cloud using one or more local physical servers that you manjage (e.g., using the cloud software included with Ubuntu Server), and the same thing happens, its not a problem with either cloud technology in general or the particular cloud technology you used, again, its a problem with your choice not to back it up.If you instead pay for the use of someone else's cloud to host your virtual server instances than either you should be backing them up (if you manage the virtual servers, even though the vendor will be managing the physical servers and the cloud software) or you should assure that the vendor managing the virtual servers is backing them up (if a vendor, either the cloud vendor or someone else, is doing that for you.
) If the servers aren't backed up, its your fault, and not the (general or specific) cloud technologies fault.Or does the cloud movement bear the burden of fuzzy definitions in assessing its shortcomings as well as its promise?There's no fuzzy definition involved here.
The problem is quite simply one of failing to plan for recovery in the case of failure.
This is a need that is independent of whether your logical servers are identical to your physical servers or whether they are decoupled as is the case in cloud technology, and likewise independent of whether your physical servers are owned by you and located in your data center or owned by someoneone else and located in their data center (or any mix and match of ownership and location), and further independent of whether you manage your logical servers personally (or with your regular employees) or contract out for the management of them.This is not a failure of cloud technology, it is a failure of the particular parties managing this particular implementation to do something to which the the use or not of cloud technologies is completely irrelevant.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718671</id>
	<title>there's no debate:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255361580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>you enjoy sucking my cock, particularly after I pull out of your ass and ram my shit-coated member down your mouth and fuck your throat.</htmltext>
<tokenext>you enjoy sucking my cock , particularly after I pull out of your ass and ram my shit-coated member down your mouth and fuck your throat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you enjoy sucking my cock, particularly after I pull out of your ass and ram my shit-coated member down your mouth and fuck your throat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29722355</id>
	<title>Re:Management</title>
	<author>coaxial</author>
	<datestamp>1255377000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There's nothing wrong with the technology, just the greedy bastards using it.</p></div><p>Well that's a ringing endorsement of cloud computing if I've ever heard one.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's nothing wrong with the technology , just the greedy bastards using it.Well that 's a ringing endorsement of cloud computing if I 've ever heard one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's nothing wrong with the technology, just the greedy bastards using it.Well that's a ringing endorsement of cloud computing if I've ever heard one.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718939</id>
	<title>Not a cloud disaster, not a "data center" disaster</title>
	<author>TheLoneGundam</author>
	<datestamp>1255362780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Leaving aside the fact that a "data center" could consist of two servers under Mabel's desk, this is not a "data center" disaster, nor is it a cloud catastrophe.</p><p>
This a contract and contract management failure:  the contract with the outsource was probably written without specifying that they must do the backups, AND no one established any sort of audit (formal or informal) test to ensure that there \_were\_ backups being taken and that the outsourcer was performing according to the contract.</p><p>
Too often, the MBA doing the contract thinks "there, that's handled" once they've gotten all the signatures on the dotted line.  "There, backups are handled now" he thinks, because many business folk (not ALL, I don't think it's fair to generalize that far) see these kinds of things as milestones, rather than ongoing processes to be managed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Leaving aside the fact that a " data center " could consist of two servers under Mabel 's desk , this is not a " data center " disaster , nor is it a cloud catastrophe .
This a contract and contract management failure : the contract with the outsource was probably written without specifying that they must do the backups , AND no one established any sort of audit ( formal or informal ) test to ensure that there \ _were \ _ backups being taken and that the outsourcer was performing according to the contract .
Too often , the MBA doing the contract thinks " there , that 's handled " once they 've gotten all the signatures on the dotted line .
" There , backups are handled now " he thinks , because many business folk ( not ALL , I do n't think it 's fair to generalize that far ) see these kinds of things as milestones , rather than ongoing processes to be managed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Leaving aside the fact that a "data center" could consist of two servers under Mabel's desk, this is not a "data center" disaster, nor is it a cloud catastrophe.
This a contract and contract management failure:  the contract with the outsource was probably written without specifying that they must do the backups, AND no one established any sort of audit (formal or informal) test to ensure that there \_were\_ backups being taken and that the outsourcer was performing according to the contract.
Too often, the MBA doing the contract thinks "there, that's handled" once they've gotten all the signatures on the dotted line.
"There, backups are handled now" he thinks, because many business folk (not ALL, I don't think it's fair to generalize that far) see these kinds of things as milestones, rather than ongoing processes to be managed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719129</id>
	<title>Unauthorized backup</title>
	<author>thijsh</author>
	<datestamp>1255363800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't Paris Hilton already find a backup solution for this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't Paris Hilton already find a backup solution for this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't Paris Hilton already find a backup solution for this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29725749</id>
	<title>sidekicks have been around BEFORE the cloud.</title>
	<author>recharged95</author>
	<datestamp>1255348680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hence, they likely never followed the practices of cloud companies and elsson learned when the cloud started.
<br>
<br>
That's why the sidekick ecosystem failed. Bad design from the beginning (put users' data on the network with no real management/backup, outsource the heck out of it since they <b>can't</b> compete with cloud services and of course, do it the Microsoft way: servers and standalone networked computers), and piss poor management to modernize the system as new tech (i.e. cloud services like S3, GDrive, etc..) was available.
<br>
<br>
Conclusion: Management WTL! (not T-mobile as they we're the customer!)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hence , they likely never followed the practices of cloud companies and elsson learned when the cloud started .
That 's why the sidekick ecosystem failed .
Bad design from the beginning ( put users ' data on the network with no real management/backup , outsource the heck out of it since they ca n't compete with cloud services and of course , do it the Microsoft way : servers and standalone networked computers ) , and piss poor management to modernize the system as new tech ( i.e .
cloud services like S3 , GDrive , etc.. ) was available .
Conclusion : Management WTL !
( not T-mobile as they we 're the customer !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hence, they likely never followed the practices of cloud companies and elsson learned when the cloud started.
That's why the sidekick ecosystem failed.
Bad design from the beginning (put users' data on the network with no real management/backup, outsource the heck out of it since they can't compete with cloud services and of course, do it the Microsoft way: servers and standalone networked computers), and piss poor management to modernize the system as new tech (i.e.
cloud services like S3, GDrive, etc..) was available.
Conclusion: Management WTL!
(not T-mobile as they we're the customer!
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718805</id>
	<title>Re:Cloud Failure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255362180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also with ISPs like Comcast imposing 250 gig limits, why on earth would I want to offload my information across the net?  It makes more sense to *minimize* the data transfer to avoid overage fees, not increase it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also with ISPs like Comcast imposing 250 gig limits , why on earth would I want to offload my information across the net ?
It makes more sense to * minimize * the data transfer to avoid overage fees , not increase it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also with ISPs like Comcast imposing 250 gig limits, why on earth would I want to offload my information across the net?
It makes more sense to *minimize* the data transfer to avoid overage fees, not increase it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718739</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29722539</id>
	<title>Re:Your data is your responsibility.</title>
	<author>coaxial</author>
	<datestamp>1255377720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There's nothing wrong with the technology, just the greedy bastards using it.</p></div><p>That's interesting, because all you need to show to defend yourself in a lawsuit is due diligence.  "We backed up our stuff off site with Microsoft/Google/Amazon, and they dropped the ball," is a perfectly defensible position.</p><p>I know a prominent researcher in storage security, including hard drive forensics.  (FYI: That whole "wipe your data 7 times with ones and zeros," has been pointless for at least a decade.  With today's servos and magnetic domain sizes, one wipe and it's gone.)  He pointed out that many times companies that suffer some hard drive crash and want the whole clean room recovery, actually don't want the recovery to succeed.  They just want to be able to say, that they tried.  (They law says, you don't have to succeed, you just have to try.)  Same thing with backups from seven years ago.  The only reason why you have them is in case of a lawsuit, and anyone who has been sued knows, the less records you have the better.  If you have the backups, but they've become unreadable in the years hence, it's not destruction of evidence.  It's just a loss.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's nothing wrong with the technology , just the greedy bastards using it.That 's interesting , because all you need to show to defend yourself in a lawsuit is due diligence .
" We backed up our stuff off site with Microsoft/Google/Amazon , and they dropped the ball , " is a perfectly defensible position.I know a prominent researcher in storage security , including hard drive forensics .
( FYI : That whole " wipe your data 7 times with ones and zeros , " has been pointless for at least a decade .
With today 's servos and magnetic domain sizes , one wipe and it 's gone .
) He pointed out that many times companies that suffer some hard drive crash and want the whole clean room recovery , actually do n't want the recovery to succeed .
They just want to be able to say , that they tried .
( They law says , you do n't have to succeed , you just have to try .
) Same thing with backups from seven years ago .
The only reason why you have them is in case of a lawsuit , and anyone who has been sued knows , the less records you have the better .
If you have the backups , but they 've become unreadable in the years hence , it 's not destruction of evidence .
It 's just a loss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's nothing wrong with the technology, just the greedy bastards using it.That's interesting, because all you need to show to defend yourself in a lawsuit is due diligence.
"We backed up our stuff off site with Microsoft/Google/Amazon, and they dropped the ball," is a perfectly defensible position.I know a prominent researcher in storage security, including hard drive forensics.
(FYI: That whole "wipe your data 7 times with ones and zeros," has been pointless for at least a decade.
With today's servos and magnetic domain sizes, one wipe and it's gone.
)  He pointed out that many times companies that suffer some hard drive crash and want the whole clean room recovery, actually don't want the recovery to succeed.
They just want to be able to say, that they tried.
(They law says, you don't have to succeed, you just have to try.
)  Same thing with backups from seven years ago.
The only reason why you have them is in case of a lawsuit, and anyone who has been sued knows, the less records you have the better.
If you have the backups, but they've become unreadable in the years hence, it's not destruction of evidence.
It's just a loss.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29726141</id>
	<title>Re:Has there never been a non-cloud data loss?</title>
	<author>Anonymous McCartneyf</author>
	<datestamp>1255350720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Problem for T-Mobile Sidekick users -- the computer they synched with was the one that crashed and took everything with it.  Sidekicks weren't designed to sync with the <em>user's</em> computer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Problem for T-Mobile Sidekick users -- the computer they synched with was the one that crashed and took everything with it .
Sidekicks were n't designed to sync with the user 's computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Problem for T-Mobile Sidekick users -- the computer they synched with was the one that crashed and took everything with it.
Sidekicks weren't designed to sync with the user's computer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29722437</id>
	<title>Five 9's?</title>
	<author>mbone</author>
	<datestamp>1255377300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>But some cloud technologists insist data center failures are not cloud failures.</i></p><p>I have heard this before. Back when the phone company touted four or five nines reliability, and my office phone service died, I was always told that the reason for the failure meant it didn't counr against 5 nines. (For example, if you can call out, but no one can call in, it doesn't count, apparently. You can, after all, still reach 911.)</p><p>So, I always take claims of near perfection with a large grain of salt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But some cloud technologists insist data center failures are not cloud failures.I have heard this before .
Back when the phone company touted four or five nines reliability , and my office phone service died , I was always told that the reason for the failure meant it did n't counr against 5 nines .
( For example , if you can call out , but no one can call in , it does n't count , apparently .
You can , after all , still reach 911 .
) So , I always take claims of near perfection with a large grain of salt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But some cloud technologists insist data center failures are not cloud failures.I have heard this before.
Back when the phone company touted four or five nines reliability, and my office phone service died, I was always told that the reason for the failure meant it didn't counr against 5 nines.
(For example, if you can call out, but no one can call in, it doesn't count, apparently.
You can, after all, still reach 911.
)So, I always take claims of near perfection with a large grain of salt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29722075</id>
	<title>Re:A reason why cloud computing might be hated on</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1255375800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>With Cloud Computing, those who modify FOSS software do not have to redistribute the code, because they are only providing a service and not a functional program.</p></div></blockquote><p>There is no general requirement to redistribute code with modified FOSS software anyway. That's a feature specific to particular licenses (particularly, the GPL.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>With Cloud Computing , those who modify FOSS software do not have to redistribute the code , because they are only providing a service and not a functional program.There is no general requirement to redistribute code with modified FOSS software anyway .
That 's a feature specific to particular licenses ( particularly , the GPL .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With Cloud Computing, those who modify FOSS software do not have to redistribute the code, because they are only providing a service and not a functional program.There is no general requirement to redistribute code with modified FOSS software anyway.
That's a feature specific to particular licenses (particularly, the GPL.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718831</id>
	<title>Has there never been a non-cloud data loss?</title>
	<author>iamacat</author>
	<datestamp>1255362300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just like people lose their stuff on personal hard drives when not backed up, they will lose cloud data when not backed up. Both kinds of computing have merits, and long term persistence of data is not automatic with either. Most people do not place THAT hard a value on backups of their cell phones. They typically sync with a PC anyway. But any business that doesn't have weekly reliable offsite backups of their fundamental assets should be sued by shareholders/customers for irresponsibility weather they use cloud or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like people lose their stuff on personal hard drives when not backed up , they will lose cloud data when not backed up .
Both kinds of computing have merits , and long term persistence of data is not automatic with either .
Most people do not place THAT hard a value on backups of their cell phones .
They typically sync with a PC anyway .
But any business that does n't have weekly reliable offsite backups of their fundamental assets should be sued by shareholders/customers for irresponsibility weather they use cloud or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like people lose their stuff on personal hard drives when not backed up, they will lose cloud data when not backed up.
Both kinds of computing have merits, and long term persistence of data is not automatic with either.
Most people do not place THAT hard a value on backups of their cell phones.
They typically sync with a PC anyway.
But any business that doesn't have weekly reliable offsite backups of their fundamental assets should be sued by shareholders/customers for irresponsibility weather they use cloud or not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29722773</id>
	<title>Re:An epic fail, and missed lessons (so far)</title>
	<author>Chuckstar</author>
	<datestamp>1255378800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Blackberry data flows through RIM servers, but does not reside there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Blackberry data flows through RIM servers , but does not reside there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blackberry data flows through RIM servers, but does not reside there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718739</id>
	<title>Cloud Failure</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1255361940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know my songs, videos, and other important files are backed-up across triple drives.  I don't know if the same is true if I stored them online, and this major failure of Sidekick demonstrates I'm right not to trust them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know my songs , videos , and other important files are backed-up across triple drives .
I do n't know if the same is true if I stored them online , and this major failure of Sidekick demonstrates I 'm right not to trust them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know my songs, videos, and other important files are backed-up across triple drives.
I don't know if the same is true if I stored them online, and this major failure of Sidekick demonstrates I'm right not to trust them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719559</id>
	<title>TOS</title>
	<author>ei4anb</author>
	<datestamp>1255365780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The TOS probably made the users aware that "your data is in Danger" so they can't complain now<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>The TOS probably made the users aware that " your data is in Danger " so they ca n't complain now : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The TOS probably made the users aware that "your data is in Danger" so they can't complain now :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29725703</id>
	<title>Re:Your data is your responsibility.</title>
	<author>symes</author>
	<datestamp>1255348320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You can outsource the work, but you can not outsource the responsibility</p></div><p>Spot on. And that is so true in so many walks of life. But I think the deal with the Sidekick  was that there was no easy way for users to backup their data...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can outsource the work , but you can not outsource the responsibilitySpot on .
And that is so true in so many walks of life .
But I think the deal with the Sidekick was that there was no easy way for users to backup their data.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can outsource the work, but you can not outsource the responsibilitySpot on.
And that is so true in so many walks of life.
But I think the deal with the Sidekick  was that there was no easy way for users to backup their data...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719193</id>
	<title>If You Want Something Done Right!</title>
	<author>Prototerm</author>
	<datestamp>1255364160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why on Earth would you trust your valuable data (and if it wasn't valuable to you, why keep it in the first place?) to someone else, someone who doesn't answer to the same people you do? I have always thought that "the cloud" is an epic fail waiting to happen. As a concept, it makes no sense. It's a scheme worthy of Professor Harold Hill himself.</p><p>You want your data safe? You want it backed up properly? Don't want to lose it? Then put it on your own hardware and take care of it yourself. Don't leave it to someone else to save your bacon when something goes wrong. Because, in the end, they don't care about you. You're just a monthly fee to them, and the agreement/contract/whatever you signed with them absolves them of all responsibility.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why on Earth would you trust your valuable data ( and if it was n't valuable to you , why keep it in the first place ?
) to someone else , someone who does n't answer to the same people you do ?
I have always thought that " the cloud " is an epic fail waiting to happen .
As a concept , it makes no sense .
It 's a scheme worthy of Professor Harold Hill himself.You want your data safe ?
You want it backed up properly ?
Do n't want to lose it ?
Then put it on your own hardware and take care of it yourself .
Do n't leave it to someone else to save your bacon when something goes wrong .
Because , in the end , they do n't care about you .
You 're just a monthly fee to them , and the agreement/contract/whatever you signed with them absolves them of all responsibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why on Earth would you trust your valuable data (and if it wasn't valuable to you, why keep it in the first place?
) to someone else, someone who doesn't answer to the same people you do?
I have always thought that "the cloud" is an epic fail waiting to happen.
As a concept, it makes no sense.
It's a scheme worthy of Professor Harold Hill himself.You want your data safe?
You want it backed up properly?
Don't want to lose it?
Then put it on your own hardware and take care of it yourself.
Don't leave it to someone else to save your bacon when something goes wrong.
Because, in the end, they don't care about you.
You're just a monthly fee to them, and the agreement/contract/whatever you signed with them absolves them of all responsibility.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29720117</id>
	<title>Microsoft renders Sidekick data completely secure</title>
	<author>David Gerard</author>
	<datestamp>1255368360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft today implemented its 100\% Data Confidentiality package for T-Mobile Sidekick, comprehensively protecting users' contacts, email and messages from any possible attacker.

</p><p>"Our data security is impenetrable," said Steve Ballmer, "and will reassure everyone of the data integrity of our Windows Azure Screen Of Death cloud computing and Windows Mobile initiatives."

</p><p>Microsoft plans to leverage the new confidentiality mechanism to finally purge the horror of Vista from the face of the earth, in the same manner as firing all the contractors who knew how to build Windows 2000 and having to reconstruct Windows XP from bits of NT 4.

</p><p>Microsoft Sharepoint users looked forward to a similar denouement as the only safe way to scour their hopelessly incompetent organisations from the world in a manner that would not infect successor organisations.

</p><p>Microsoft is putting together an outsourcing proposal to the UK government for data protection.

</p><p> <i>Illustration:</i> <a href="http://notnews.today.com/2009/10/11/microsoft-renders-sidekick-data-completely-secure/sad-windows-toilet-in-snow/" title="today.com">Secure Windows data storage mechanism</a> [today.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft today implemented its 100 \ % Data Confidentiality package for T-Mobile Sidekick , comprehensively protecting users ' contacts , email and messages from any possible attacker .
" Our data security is impenetrable , " said Steve Ballmer , " and will reassure everyone of the data integrity of our Windows Azure Screen Of Death cloud computing and Windows Mobile initiatives .
" Microsoft plans to leverage the new confidentiality mechanism to finally purge the horror of Vista from the face of the earth , in the same manner as firing all the contractors who knew how to build Windows 2000 and having to reconstruct Windows XP from bits of NT 4 .
Microsoft Sharepoint users looked forward to a similar denouement as the only safe way to scour their hopelessly incompetent organisations from the world in a manner that would not infect successor organisations .
Microsoft is putting together an outsourcing proposal to the UK government for data protection .
Illustration : Secure Windows data storage mechanism [ today.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft today implemented its 100\% Data Confidentiality package for T-Mobile Sidekick, comprehensively protecting users' contacts, email and messages from any possible attacker.
"Our data security is impenetrable," said Steve Ballmer, "and will reassure everyone of the data integrity of our Windows Azure Screen Of Death cloud computing and Windows Mobile initiatives.
"

Microsoft plans to leverage the new confidentiality mechanism to finally purge the horror of Vista from the face of the earth, in the same manner as firing all the contractors who knew how to build Windows 2000 and having to reconstruct Windows XP from bits of NT 4.
Microsoft Sharepoint users looked forward to a similar denouement as the only safe way to scour their hopelessly incompetent organisations from the world in a manner that would not infect successor organisations.
Microsoft is putting together an outsourcing proposal to the UK government for data protection.
Illustration: Secure Windows data storage mechanism [today.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719647</id>
	<title>Tinfoil Hat Time</title>
	<author>nick357</author>
	<datestamp>1255366140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This seems fishy to me.</p><p>Microsoft wants you to use your own copies of Word, Excel, Exchange server and the rest, so that you do not have to trust in cloud computing.  They want to sell you (or rent to you) software that allows you control your own data.  They may be hedging their bets with some of their latest cloud offerings... but really - they'd prefer to rent you software that allows you to save your data on your own network and your own hard disk.</p><p>"Before finalizing your decision to move away from MS Office to an online service, perhaps you should review some of the hazards of trusting your data to others.  There has been some recent events that might cause you to want to hold onto your own data"</p><p>Hehehe... just kidding -  I am sure there is nothing underhanded about the whole thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This seems fishy to me.Microsoft wants you to use your own copies of Word , Excel , Exchange server and the rest , so that you do not have to trust in cloud computing .
They want to sell you ( or rent to you ) software that allows you control your own data .
They may be hedging their bets with some of their latest cloud offerings... but really - they 'd prefer to rent you software that allows you to save your data on your own network and your own hard disk .
" Before finalizing your decision to move away from MS Office to an online service , perhaps you should review some of the hazards of trusting your data to others .
There has been some recent events that might cause you to want to hold onto your own data " Hehehe... just kidding - I am sure there is nothing underhanded about the whole thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This seems fishy to me.Microsoft wants you to use your own copies of Word, Excel, Exchange server and the rest, so that you do not have to trust in cloud computing.
They want to sell you (or rent to you) software that allows you control your own data.
They may be hedging their bets with some of their latest cloud offerings... but really - they'd prefer to rent you software that allows you to save your data on your own network and your own hard disk.
"Before finalizing your decision to move away from MS Office to an online service, perhaps you should review some of the hazards of trusting your data to others.
There has been some recent events that might cause you to want to hold onto your own data"Hehehe... just kidding -  I am sure there is nothing underhanded about the whole thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719913</id>
	<title>Too cloudy</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1255367280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't know why there's no sun up in the sky<br>Stormy weather<br>Since my data and I ain't together,<br>Keeps deletin' all the time</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't know why there 's no sun up in the skyStormy weatherSince my data and I ai n't together,Keeps deletin ' all the time</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't know why there's no sun up in the skyStormy weatherSince my data and I ain't together,Keeps deletin' all the time</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719787</id>
	<title>Dan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255366680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This brings up an interesting question on Cloud Computing.   How does the Cloud know what to backup?  And how does the system check the distributed backups are OK?  Probably a thorny problem depending upon the Application Service.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This brings up an interesting question on Cloud Computing .
How does the Cloud know what to backup ?
And how does the system check the distributed backups are OK ?
Probably a thorny problem depending upon the Application Service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This brings up an interesting question on Cloud Computing.
How does the Cloud know what to backup?
And how does the system check the distributed backups are OK?
Probably a thorny problem depending upon the Application Service.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29720945</id>
	<title>Re:An epic fail, and missed lessons (so far)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255372080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have had a G1 since February 2009, and I have NEVER had to wipe my G1.  I've been through 2 or 3 updates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have had a G1 since February 2009 , and I have NEVER had to wipe my G1 .
I 've been through 2 or 3 updates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have had a G1 since February 2009, and I have NEVER had to wipe my G1.
I've been through 2 or 3 updates.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719103</id>
	<title>An epic fail, and missed lessons (so far)</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1255363680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a TMO subscriber, and I love them, so this is painful.  And my sister-in-law is a longtime Sidekick user, so she's in a special agony.</p><p>But T-Mobile is in a potentially no-win situation.  They obviously have to believe Danger/Microsoft that they have good processes to avoid and recover from such failures.  They didn't, and now TMO is probably going to take the hit.  On one hand, they should - if the service is important, take responsibility and ensure management.  On the other hand, they have good assurances, so hey, how much is enough?</p><p>BlackBerry users, you should take note.  Rim differs only in scale.  Ahd, you hope, depth of resilience.  Not that RIM hasn't had outages, though not total failure yet.</p><p>TMO may have to tell their Sidekick users to be prepared for the inevitable restore, and of course, work with Danger/Microsoft to re-establish service (even though they don't provide service, D/M does), and of course some money compensation no matter how inadequate.</p><p>And maybe offer them shiny new myTouch3Gs to give the disillusioned Sidekick users an option with a marginally better track record.</p><p>No, wait, that isn't right.  I've had to wipe my G1 every update, and some apps don't have a way to save data. They just don't.</p><p>I'm glad I never got on the Sidekick train, but I have no hope that this won't some day hit me.  Do you suppose the next major Sidekick update will include data backup?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a TMO subscriber , and I love them , so this is painful .
And my sister-in-law is a longtime Sidekick user , so she 's in a special agony.But T-Mobile is in a potentially no-win situation .
They obviously have to believe Danger/Microsoft that they have good processes to avoid and recover from such failures .
They did n't , and now TMO is probably going to take the hit .
On one hand , they should - if the service is important , take responsibility and ensure management .
On the other hand , they have good assurances , so hey , how much is enough ? BlackBerry users , you should take note .
Rim differs only in scale .
Ahd , you hope , depth of resilience .
Not that RIM has n't had outages , though not total failure yet.TMO may have to tell their Sidekick users to be prepared for the inevitable restore , and of course , work with Danger/Microsoft to re-establish service ( even though they do n't provide service , D/M does ) , and of course some money compensation no matter how inadequate.And maybe offer them shiny new myTouch3Gs to give the disillusioned Sidekick users an option with a marginally better track record.No , wait , that is n't right .
I 've had to wipe my G1 every update , and some apps do n't have a way to save data .
They just do n't.I 'm glad I never got on the Sidekick train , but I have no hope that this wo n't some day hit me .
Do you suppose the next major Sidekick update will include data backup ?
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a TMO subscriber, and I love them, so this is painful.
And my sister-in-law is a longtime Sidekick user, so she's in a special agony.But T-Mobile is in a potentially no-win situation.
They obviously have to believe Danger/Microsoft that they have good processes to avoid and recover from such failures.
They didn't, and now TMO is probably going to take the hit.
On one hand, they should - if the service is important, take responsibility and ensure management.
On the other hand, they have good assurances, so hey, how much is enough?BlackBerry users, you should take note.
Rim differs only in scale.
Ahd, you hope, depth of resilience.
Not that RIM hasn't had outages, though not total failure yet.TMO may have to tell their Sidekick users to be prepared for the inevitable restore, and of course, work with Danger/Microsoft to re-establish service (even though they don't provide service, D/M does), and of course some money compensation no matter how inadequate.And maybe offer them shiny new myTouch3Gs to give the disillusioned Sidekick users an option with a marginally better track record.No, wait, that isn't right.
I've had to wipe my G1 every update, and some apps don't have a way to save data.
They just don't.I'm glad I never got on the Sidekick train, but I have no hope that this won't some day hit me.
Do you suppose the next major Sidekick update will include data backup?
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719815</id>
	<title>Re:The problems with outsourcing</title>
	<author>jeffasselin</author>
	<datestamp>1255366800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How CAN you trust them? Any big corporation offering those services are after only one thing: profit. And to get it, they WILL cut corners. Doesn't everyone? But in this case you'll have no idea where they cut short, and no idea where you're unsafe, and how much downtime you might have if something goes wrong.</p><p>I'm sorry, but the main issues with Cloud Computing aren't technological, they're issues of trust and reliability of the human, financial and legal factors at work. And when it's you vs Big Corp, you'll lose every single time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How CAN you trust them ?
Any big corporation offering those services are after only one thing : profit .
And to get it , they WILL cut corners .
Does n't everyone ?
But in this case you 'll have no idea where they cut short , and no idea where you 're unsafe , and how much downtime you might have if something goes wrong.I 'm sorry , but the main issues with Cloud Computing are n't technological , they 're issues of trust and reliability of the human , financial and legal factors at work .
And when it 's you vs Big Corp , you 'll lose every single time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How CAN you trust them?
Any big corporation offering those services are after only one thing: profit.
And to get it, they WILL cut corners.
Doesn't everyone?
But in this case you'll have no idea where they cut short, and no idea where you're unsafe, and how much downtime you might have if something goes wrong.I'm sorry, but the main issues with Cloud Computing aren't technological, they're issues of trust and reliability of the human, financial and legal factors at work.
And when it's you vs Big Corp, you'll lose every single time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718853</id>
	<title>Re:For the love of God the company is called "Dang</title>
	<author>garcia</author>
	<datestamp>1255362420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Didn't that throw up any red flags for ANYONE?</i></p><p>I was a Sidekick user from 4/2004 until 10/2008. There had been only one 'catastrophic' failure in that time that left Sidekick users without data service for an extended period. Danger produced one of the best mobile devices, which in many ways is still better than anything out there even though the OS and devices that utilize it (the various Sidekick models that exist these days) is quite a bit outdated compared to devices like the iPhone.</p><p>I miss my Sidekick immensely. I loved true multitasking, a fully capable QWERTY keyboard, and incredible battery life. Unfortunately it didn't sync well with calendaring software, didn't keep up with music playing, and is now partially controlled by Microsoft. There have been immense trade offs with moving to the iPhone but based on my main reason for owning an iPhone (I ride the bus and enjoy the music/video player and screen size) it was the right choice for me.</p><p>That said, "cloud computing" is something which usually works (and did, in the case of the Sidekick since 2002). I don't think that this is a proven warning sign that "cloud computing" isn't as reliable as everyone believes, I just think it's proof that companies need to do a much better job of ensuring data integrity than they could have ever imagined before.</p><p>Will I stop using Flickr, Google products, and other future "cloud" devices/software because of this? No. I am smart enough, as a computer savvy end-user, to keep my own backups of my data but I do believe people need to become better educated in what can and will happen as we move to the model we have slowly done in the last 10 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't that throw up any red flags for ANYONE ? I was a Sidekick user from 4/2004 until 10/2008 .
There had been only one 'catastrophic ' failure in that time that left Sidekick users without data service for an extended period .
Danger produced one of the best mobile devices , which in many ways is still better than anything out there even though the OS and devices that utilize it ( the various Sidekick models that exist these days ) is quite a bit outdated compared to devices like the iPhone.I miss my Sidekick immensely .
I loved true multitasking , a fully capable QWERTY keyboard , and incredible battery life .
Unfortunately it did n't sync well with calendaring software , did n't keep up with music playing , and is now partially controlled by Microsoft .
There have been immense trade offs with moving to the iPhone but based on my main reason for owning an iPhone ( I ride the bus and enjoy the music/video player and screen size ) it was the right choice for me.That said , " cloud computing " is something which usually works ( and did , in the case of the Sidekick since 2002 ) .
I do n't think that this is a proven warning sign that " cloud computing " is n't as reliable as everyone believes , I just think it 's proof that companies need to do a much better job of ensuring data integrity than they could have ever imagined before.Will I stop using Flickr , Google products , and other future " cloud " devices/software because of this ?
No. I am smart enough , as a computer savvy end-user , to keep my own backups of my data but I do believe people need to become better educated in what can and will happen as we move to the model we have slowly done in the last 10 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't that throw up any red flags for ANYONE?I was a Sidekick user from 4/2004 until 10/2008.
There had been only one 'catastrophic' failure in that time that left Sidekick users without data service for an extended period.
Danger produced one of the best mobile devices, which in many ways is still better than anything out there even though the OS and devices that utilize it (the various Sidekick models that exist these days) is quite a bit outdated compared to devices like the iPhone.I miss my Sidekick immensely.
I loved true multitasking, a fully capable QWERTY keyboard, and incredible battery life.
Unfortunately it didn't sync well with calendaring software, didn't keep up with music playing, and is now partially controlled by Microsoft.
There have been immense trade offs with moving to the iPhone but based on my main reason for owning an iPhone (I ride the bus and enjoy the music/video player and screen size) it was the right choice for me.That said, "cloud computing" is something which usually works (and did, in the case of the Sidekick since 2002).
I don't think that this is a proven warning sign that "cloud computing" isn't as reliable as everyone believes, I just think it's proof that companies need to do a much better job of ensuring data integrity than they could have ever imagined before.Will I stop using Flickr, Google products, and other future "cloud" devices/software because of this?
No. I am smart enough, as a computer savvy end-user, to keep my own backups of my data but I do believe people need to become better educated in what can and will happen as we move to the model we have slowly done in the last 10 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719887</id>
	<title>causes of the meltdown</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255367160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>"<i>According to some reports, the failure was due to a SAN (<a href="http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/10/12/t-mobile-and-microsoft-danger-sidekick-outage-lost-data" title="neowin.net">Storage Area Network</a> [neowin.net]) gone wrong at Microsoft's end. It is claimed that Microsoft does not have a working backup of some of the data that has gone missing from customers devices. The SAN upgrade is rumoured to have been outsourced to Hitachi to complete"<br> <br>

"<i>Microsoft, possibly trying to compensate for lost and / or laid-off Danger employees, <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/11/sidekick-failure-rumors-point-fingers-at-outsourcing-lack-of-ba/" title="engadget.com">outsources</a> [engadget.com] an upgrade of its Sidekick SAN to Hitachi, which -- for reasons unknown -- fails to make a backup before starting</i>"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>" According to some reports , the failure was due to a SAN ( Storage Area Network [ neowin.net ] ) gone wrong at Microsoft 's end .
It is claimed that Microsoft does not have a working backup of some of the data that has gone missing from customers devices .
The SAN upgrade is rumoured to have been outsourced to Hitachi to complete " " Microsoft , possibly trying to compensate for lost and / or laid-off Danger employees , outsources [ engadget.com ] an upgrade of its Sidekick SAN to Hitachi , which -- for reasons unknown -- fails to make a backup before starting "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"According to some reports, the failure was due to a SAN (Storage Area Network [neowin.net]) gone wrong at Microsoft's end.
It is claimed that Microsoft does not have a working backup of some of the data that has gone missing from customers devices.
The SAN upgrade is rumoured to have been outsourced to Hitachi to complete" 

"Microsoft, possibly trying to compensate for lost and / or laid-off Danger employees, outsources [engadget.com] an upgrade of its Sidekick SAN to Hitachi, which -- for reasons unknown -- fails to make a backup before starting"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718933</id>
	<title>It's the backup stupid</title>
	<author>trybywrench</author>
	<datestamp>1255362780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the key here is was it only T-Mobile's data that was lost or was every customer of the "cloud" affected. If it was only T-Mobile's data than the issue is T-Mobile's backup policy, if it was "cloud"-wide than it's an issue with the "cloud" provider. In either case, I don't think you can paint the entire "cloud" concept as unstable. Cloud computing is really just a dynamic datacenter with all the usual weak links and issues present in a traditional metal datacenter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the key here is was it only T-Mobile 's data that was lost or was every customer of the " cloud " affected .
If it was only T-Mobile 's data than the issue is T-Mobile 's backup policy , if it was " cloud " -wide than it 's an issue with the " cloud " provider .
In either case , I do n't think you can paint the entire " cloud " concept as unstable .
Cloud computing is really just a dynamic datacenter with all the usual weak links and issues present in a traditional metal datacenter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the key here is was it only T-Mobile's data that was lost or was every customer of the "cloud" affected.
If it was only T-Mobile's data than the issue is T-Mobile's backup policy, if it was "cloud"-wide than it's an issue with the "cloud" provider.
In either case, I don't think you can paint the entire "cloud" concept as unstable.
Cloud computing is really just a dynamic datacenter with all the usual weak links and issues present in a traditional metal datacenter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29731773</id>
	<title>Re:Sort of</title>
	<author>natoochtoniket</author>
	<datestamp>1255448460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are two conceptual problems here:<br>One is storing all of that data in a single server, which could possibly fail and destroy all of the data;<br>The second is storing all of that data under the management control of a single MBA, who could possibly make a very dumb decision and destroy all of the data.</p><p>It appears that the second of those actually occurred.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are two conceptual problems here : One is storing all of that data in a single server , which could possibly fail and destroy all of the data ; The second is storing all of that data under the management control of a single MBA , who could possibly make a very dumb decision and destroy all of the data.It appears that the second of those actually occurred .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are two conceptual problems here:One is storing all of that data in a single server, which could possibly fail and destroy all of the data;The second is storing all of that data under the management control of a single MBA, who could possibly make a very dumb decision and destroy all of the data.It appears that the second of those actually occurred.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719191</id>
	<title>"if it loses your data - it's not a cloud".</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1255364160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just define away your problems.  ROFL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just define away your problems .
ROFL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just define away your problems.
ROFL.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719967</id>
	<title>Google Gears, is it a solution?</title>
	<author>InterGuru</author>
	<datestamp>1255367580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had installed Google Gears as a precaution against Google losing my email.  Does this work.  Gears does have a copy on your local computer.  Is this sufficient?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had installed Google Gears as a precaution against Google losing my email .
Does this work .
Gears does have a copy on your local computer .
Is this sufficient ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had installed Google Gears as a precaution against Google losing my email.
Does this work.
Gears does have a copy on your local computer.
Is this sufficient?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719935</id>
	<title>Re:The Cloud is Just a Big Mainframe</title>
	<author>MosesJones</author>
	<datestamp>1255367400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Straight from the big blue school of "please buy our cloud".  Some pretty significant differences using Amazon as an example</p><p>1) Self-provisioning - ever tried to get an LPAR commissioned on a a mainframe yourself?<br>2) Multi-domain failover - want an EU and a US instance?  Want to manage failover between them?  Yup you can<br>3) Speed of expansion - The number of LPARs and MIPS isn't fixed you don't have to fight to the death for another 1 hour slice<br>4) Separation of Storage and compute - You've got you on-compute disk and your off compute disk (S3) and you can scale them independently and without requiring IT support<br>5) Low lock-in.  Yup the AMI is an Amazon thing but Linux and Windows aren't.  You don't get locked into a single vendor like with big blue</p><p>I could go on.  I speak as someone who has had to work in Mainframe environments and while there are similarities there are massive differences.  Its like the difference between Green Screen and VDI, yup they are both "remote terminals" served from a central infrastructure but the operational differences are huge.</p><p>Now the question is whether a website that backs up your data (which is all Danger/Sidekick was) counts as a cloud.  Of course it isn't, its just a website that does backups like we've had for years.  What sort of redundancy was built in ? (answer: nothing) what sort of distribution and federation was built in? (answer: nothing)</p><p>The problem is that like lots of things people are just slapping a "cloud" sticker on a website just because it allows lots of people to do something.  Danger/Sidekick/Microsoft had a WEBSITE which had a big old SINGLE disk with NO backups.  People could sync their data with this SINGLE disk.  The disk failed, it all failed.</p><p>Danger/Sidekick was as much of a cloud as a single Mainframe connected to a single SAN.  Only in marketing world would it count.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Straight from the big blue school of " please buy our cloud " .
Some pretty significant differences using Amazon as an example1 ) Self-provisioning - ever tried to get an LPAR commissioned on a a mainframe yourself ? 2 ) Multi-domain failover - want an EU and a US instance ?
Want to manage failover between them ?
Yup you can3 ) Speed of expansion - The number of LPARs and MIPS is n't fixed you do n't have to fight to the death for another 1 hour slice4 ) Separation of Storage and compute - You 've got you on-compute disk and your off compute disk ( S3 ) and you can scale them independently and without requiring IT support5 ) Low lock-in .
Yup the AMI is an Amazon thing but Linux and Windows are n't .
You do n't get locked into a single vendor like with big blueI could go on .
I speak as someone who has had to work in Mainframe environments and while there are similarities there are massive differences .
Its like the difference between Green Screen and VDI , yup they are both " remote terminals " served from a central infrastructure but the operational differences are huge.Now the question is whether a website that backs up your data ( which is all Danger/Sidekick was ) counts as a cloud .
Of course it is n't , its just a website that does backups like we 've had for years .
What sort of redundancy was built in ?
( answer : nothing ) what sort of distribution and federation was built in ?
( answer : nothing ) The problem is that like lots of things people are just slapping a " cloud " sticker on a website just because it allows lots of people to do something .
Danger/Sidekick/Microsoft had a WEBSITE which had a big old SINGLE disk with NO backups .
People could sync their data with this SINGLE disk .
The disk failed , it all failed.Danger/Sidekick was as much of a cloud as a single Mainframe connected to a single SAN .
Only in marketing world would it count .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Straight from the big blue school of "please buy our cloud".
Some pretty significant differences using Amazon as an example1) Self-provisioning - ever tried to get an LPAR commissioned on a a mainframe yourself?2) Multi-domain failover - want an EU and a US instance?
Want to manage failover between them?
Yup you can3) Speed of expansion - The number of LPARs and MIPS isn't fixed you don't have to fight to the death for another 1 hour slice4) Separation of Storage and compute - You've got you on-compute disk and your off compute disk (S3) and you can scale them independently and without requiring IT support5) Low lock-in.
Yup the AMI is an Amazon thing but Linux and Windows aren't.
You don't get locked into a single vendor like with big blueI could go on.
I speak as someone who has had to work in Mainframe environments and while there are similarities there are massive differences.
Its like the difference between Green Screen and VDI, yup they are both "remote terminals" served from a central infrastructure but the operational differences are huge.Now the question is whether a website that backs up your data (which is all Danger/Sidekick was) counts as a cloud.
Of course it isn't, its just a website that does backups like we've had for years.
What sort of redundancy was built in ?
(answer: nothing) what sort of distribution and federation was built in?
(answer: nothing)The problem is that like lots of things people are just slapping a "cloud" sticker on a website just because it allows lots of people to do something.
Danger/Sidekick/Microsoft had a WEBSITE which had a big old SINGLE disk with NO backups.
People could sync their data with this SINGLE disk.
The disk failed, it all failed.Danger/Sidekick was as much of a cloud as a single Mainframe connected to a single SAN.
Only in marketing world would it count.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718987</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718913</id>
	<title>Re:A reason why cloud computing might be hated on</title>
	<author>vagabond\_gr</author>
	<datestamp>1255362660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero\_General\_Public\_License" title="wikipedia.org">Affero GPL</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's called Affero GPL [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's called Affero GPL [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29722229</id>
	<title>Re:I'm officially lost.</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1255376460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What exactly is the difference between today's "cloud computing" and yesterday's "internet-based services?"</p></div></blockquote><p>"Cloud computing" is a catch-all name for technologies for building systems where the underlying physical servers are abstracted and compute resources can be dynamically provisioned.</p><p>One common application of this technology is providing hosting for internet-based services.</p><p>The relation between the two is about the same as the relation between, say, "internal combustion engines" and "mail delivery services".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What exactly is the difference between today 's " cloud computing " and yesterday 's " internet-based services ?
" " Cloud computing " is a catch-all name for technologies for building systems where the underlying physical servers are abstracted and compute resources can be dynamically provisioned.One common application of this technology is providing hosting for internet-based services.The relation between the two is about the same as the relation between , say , " internal combustion engines " and " mail delivery services " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What exactly is the difference between today's "cloud computing" and yesterday's "internet-based services?
""Cloud computing" is a catch-all name for technologies for building systems where the underlying physical servers are abstracted and compute resources can be dynamically provisioned.One common application of this technology is providing hosting for internet-based services.The relation between the two is about the same as the relation between, say, "internal combustion engines" and "mail delivery services".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29720265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719233</id>
	<title>Definition of terms</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255364400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>AC'ing due to rumor and innuendo, and completely unconfirmed insider info:

<p>There's 3 terms being interchangably thrown around as "Cloud" here, so let's back up and make sure we're all talking about the same thing.</p><ol>
<li>Managed hosting - Traditional "the hosting provider owns the box and runs your code on it" outsourcing.</li>
<li>Cloud hosting - A large cluster of virtual machines running on a platform that 100\% abstracts hardware, such as vmotion, combined with per-minute billing and web-based provisioning. A marketing term coined by Amazon for their hosting service. This is insanely lucrative, by the way.</li>
<li>Offsite storage managed for you by a service provider, typically built on resold managed hosting or cloud hosting.</li></ol><p>This is clearly a failure of cloud definition 3. So the question here is: Should you ever trust your data to a single outside provider? Of course not. Putting all your eggs in one basket has been a bad idea re: storage for as long as we've had computers. The first rule is always MAKE BACKUPS. You don't trust your disk, you don't trust your backup disk, you don't trust your live data, you don't trust someone else to back up your live data. The pitch for cloud has never been "We'll keep your data safe." It's been "We'll make your data available."

</p><p>I'm going to come down on the side of two bad practices: First, T-Mobile made it very, very difficult to get your personal data off of a SK. It was a conscious business decision, designed to keep the barrier to migration onto other platforms / carriers high enough that the average celebrity SK owner wouldn't bother. Second, scuttlebutt is that T-Mob/Danger/MS lost all of this data because they brought in an outside consultant to upgrade the microcode on a SAN controller, which went wrong, leadingto a cascade failure.

</p><p>If true, this means that a national carrier with hundreds of thousands of users' worth of data, if not millions, did not have a DR site available. If all the information was on a single storage array, then they didn't even have segregated databases on physically independent storage hardware.
</p><p>That's a failure of architecture, a failure of engineering, and a failure of management. There are known best practices here when dealing with customer data, and a failure of this scale indicates that T-Mobile/Danger followed none of them. I simply can't think of a single reason as to why they're unable to restore from an offsite backup, unless those backups <em>doesn't exist</em>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AC'ing due to rumor and innuendo , and completely unconfirmed insider info : There 's 3 terms being interchangably thrown around as " Cloud " here , so let 's back up and make sure we 're all talking about the same thing .
Managed hosting - Traditional " the hosting provider owns the box and runs your code on it " outsourcing .
Cloud hosting - A large cluster of virtual machines running on a platform that 100 \ % abstracts hardware , such as vmotion , combined with per-minute billing and web-based provisioning .
A marketing term coined by Amazon for their hosting service .
This is insanely lucrative , by the way .
Offsite storage managed for you by a service provider , typically built on resold managed hosting or cloud hosting.This is clearly a failure of cloud definition 3 .
So the question here is : Should you ever trust your data to a single outside provider ?
Of course not .
Putting all your eggs in one basket has been a bad idea re : storage for as long as we 've had computers .
The first rule is always MAKE BACKUPS .
You do n't trust your disk , you do n't trust your backup disk , you do n't trust your live data , you do n't trust someone else to back up your live data .
The pitch for cloud has never been " We 'll keep your data safe .
" It 's been " We 'll make your data available .
" I 'm going to come down on the side of two bad practices : First , T-Mobile made it very , very difficult to get your personal data off of a SK .
It was a conscious business decision , designed to keep the barrier to migration onto other platforms / carriers high enough that the average celebrity SK owner would n't bother .
Second , scuttlebutt is that T-Mob/Danger/MS lost all of this data because they brought in an outside consultant to upgrade the microcode on a SAN controller , which went wrong , leadingto a cascade failure .
If true , this means that a national carrier with hundreds of thousands of users ' worth of data , if not millions , did not have a DR site available .
If all the information was on a single storage array , then they did n't even have segregated databases on physically independent storage hardware .
That 's a failure of architecture , a failure of engineering , and a failure of management .
There are known best practices here when dealing with customer data , and a failure of this scale indicates that T-Mobile/Danger followed none of them .
I simply ca n't think of a single reason as to why they 're unable to restore from an offsite backup , unless those backups does n't exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AC'ing due to rumor and innuendo, and completely unconfirmed insider info:

There's 3 terms being interchangably thrown around as "Cloud" here, so let's back up and make sure we're all talking about the same thing.
Managed hosting - Traditional "the hosting provider owns the box and runs your code on it" outsourcing.
Cloud hosting - A large cluster of virtual machines running on a platform that 100\% abstracts hardware, such as vmotion, combined with per-minute billing and web-based provisioning.
A marketing term coined by Amazon for their hosting service.
This is insanely lucrative, by the way.
Offsite storage managed for you by a service provider, typically built on resold managed hosting or cloud hosting.This is clearly a failure of cloud definition 3.
So the question here is: Should you ever trust your data to a single outside provider?
Of course not.
Putting all your eggs in one basket has been a bad idea re: storage for as long as we've had computers.
The first rule is always MAKE BACKUPS.
You don't trust your disk, you don't trust your backup disk, you don't trust your live data, you don't trust someone else to back up your live data.
The pitch for cloud has never been "We'll keep your data safe.
" It's been "We'll make your data available.
"

I'm going to come down on the side of two bad practices: First, T-Mobile made it very, very difficult to get your personal data off of a SK.
It was a conscious business decision, designed to keep the barrier to migration onto other platforms / carriers high enough that the average celebrity SK owner wouldn't bother.
Second, scuttlebutt is that T-Mob/Danger/MS lost all of this data because they brought in an outside consultant to upgrade the microcode on a SAN controller, which went wrong, leadingto a cascade failure.
If true, this means that a national carrier with hundreds of thousands of users' worth of data, if not millions, did not have a DR site available.
If all the information was on a single storage array, then they didn't even have segregated databases on physically independent storage hardware.
That's a failure of architecture, a failure of engineering, and a failure of management.
There are known best practices here when dealing with customer data, and a failure of this scale indicates that T-Mobile/Danger followed none of them.
I simply can't think of a single reason as to why they're unable to restore from an offsite backup, unless those backups doesn't exist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29725831</id>
	<title>Re:Not a cloud disaster, not a "data center" disas</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1255349040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"many business folk (not ALL, I don't think it's fair to generalize that far) see these kinds of things as milestones, rather than ongoing processes to be managed."</p><p>This is something which subtly nags at me.</p><p>We have this assumption in Western technological society that ultimately, we can break stuff down into linear-composable processes: things like milestones. We tick one box (acquire a piece of technology, install a system, research a subject, , that's done, we go on to tick another, and we just tacitly assume that ticking box 2 does not untick box 1. Our row of boxes grows in a straight line. Simple and manageable. That's what Management Science is founded on.</p><p>However, more and more, the realisation is growing on me that Life Does Not Work Like That At All, and that Reality(tm) has signed no contract which requires it to be linear. And in fact it's never been like that except in some very extreme special cases - which we've unfortunately seized on, because they're so nice to think about, as being The Way Things Are.</p><p>What actually happens, I suspect, is that each piece of technology we acquire, each piece of knowledge, doesn't simply ADD to the rest but at the very least MULTIPLIES - possibly even worse. So as we keep adding entities to our organisations or programs or social lives, we get an exponential explosion of potential interactions. And each of these interactions is a process which can potentially feed back into every other one. It's all a big messy chaotic graph which only (deceptively) LOOKS linear in places. And then suddenly, wham, an earthquake or a data loss event reminds us that actually, what we thought was a solved problem was in fact just a temporary straight line in a very kinky process. And we don't ultimately understand the systems we're creating - let alone the systems we didn't create, like the biosphere and our bodies and minds, which we inhabit and depend on for life.</p><p>I don't think this realisation has yet sunk in, even now. I don't know what will happen to our psyche when it does. Robert Persig in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance points to the 'explosion of hypotheses' problem in science, where Popper falsifiability doesn't guarantee convergence towards 'truth' or that scientific revolutions will always be about smaller or smaller disagreements, but that we might get a divergent cascade of increasingly contradictory and not-yet-falsified ideas. This might be arguable, but I think we're now seeing a similar problem in systems administration. The Internet is increasing mutual connectivity between otherwise partitioned social and computational systems; we fundamentally do not know and can't predict how these systems will fail.</p><p>We can't even be sure that currently shipping software is free from major security holes; in fact, about all we can predict is that all our software doe have deeply dangerous flaws. Not just small, linear, flaws. Big nonlinear ones which can hit us like a data crash, or a financial crash, or getting pwned by a botnet, on a global scale. And yet we use it, because it's there. We think we can trust our systems because other people are. But that's not true at all.</p><p>A big rethink for management techniques is ahead of us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" many business folk ( not ALL , I do n't think it 's fair to generalize that far ) see these kinds of things as milestones , rather than ongoing processes to be managed .
" This is something which subtly nags at me.We have this assumption in Western technological society that ultimately , we can break stuff down into linear-composable processes : things like milestones .
We tick one box ( acquire a piece of technology , install a system , research a subject , , that 's done , we go on to tick another , and we just tacitly assume that ticking box 2 does not untick box 1 .
Our row of boxes grows in a straight line .
Simple and manageable .
That 's what Management Science is founded on.However , more and more , the realisation is growing on me that Life Does Not Work Like That At All , and that Reality ( tm ) has signed no contract which requires it to be linear .
And in fact it 's never been like that except in some very extreme special cases - which we 've unfortunately seized on , because they 're so nice to think about , as being The Way Things Are.What actually happens , I suspect , is that each piece of technology we acquire , each piece of knowledge , does n't simply ADD to the rest but at the very least MULTIPLIES - possibly even worse .
So as we keep adding entities to our organisations or programs or social lives , we get an exponential explosion of potential interactions .
And each of these interactions is a process which can potentially feed back into every other one .
It 's all a big messy chaotic graph which only ( deceptively ) LOOKS linear in places .
And then suddenly , wham , an earthquake or a data loss event reminds us that actually , what we thought was a solved problem was in fact just a temporary straight line in a very kinky process .
And we do n't ultimately understand the systems we 're creating - let alone the systems we did n't create , like the biosphere and our bodies and minds , which we inhabit and depend on for life.I do n't think this realisation has yet sunk in , even now .
I do n't know what will happen to our psyche when it does .
Robert Persig in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance points to the 'explosion of hypotheses ' problem in science , where Popper falsifiability does n't guarantee convergence towards 'truth ' or that scientific revolutions will always be about smaller or smaller disagreements , but that we might get a divergent cascade of increasingly contradictory and not-yet-falsified ideas .
This might be arguable , but I think we 're now seeing a similar problem in systems administration .
The Internet is increasing mutual connectivity between otherwise partitioned social and computational systems ; we fundamentally do not know and ca n't predict how these systems will fail.We ca n't even be sure that currently shipping software is free from major security holes ; in fact , about all we can predict is that all our software doe have deeply dangerous flaws .
Not just small , linear , flaws .
Big nonlinear ones which can hit us like a data crash , or a financial crash , or getting pwned by a botnet , on a global scale .
And yet we use it , because it 's there .
We think we can trust our systems because other people are .
But that 's not true at all.A big rethink for management techniques is ahead of us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"many business folk (not ALL, I don't think it's fair to generalize that far) see these kinds of things as milestones, rather than ongoing processes to be managed.
"This is something which subtly nags at me.We have this assumption in Western technological society that ultimately, we can break stuff down into linear-composable processes: things like milestones.
We tick one box (acquire a piece of technology, install a system, research a subject, , that's done, we go on to tick another, and we just tacitly assume that ticking box 2 does not untick box 1.
Our row of boxes grows in a straight line.
Simple and manageable.
That's what Management Science is founded on.However, more and more, the realisation is growing on me that Life Does Not Work Like That At All, and that Reality(tm) has signed no contract which requires it to be linear.
And in fact it's never been like that except in some very extreme special cases - which we've unfortunately seized on, because they're so nice to think about, as being The Way Things Are.What actually happens, I suspect, is that each piece of technology we acquire, each piece of knowledge, doesn't simply ADD to the rest but at the very least MULTIPLIES - possibly even worse.
So as we keep adding entities to our organisations or programs or social lives, we get an exponential explosion of potential interactions.
And each of these interactions is a process which can potentially feed back into every other one.
It's all a big messy chaotic graph which only (deceptively) LOOKS linear in places.
And then suddenly, wham, an earthquake or a data loss event reminds us that actually, what we thought was a solved problem was in fact just a temporary straight line in a very kinky process.
And we don't ultimately understand the systems we're creating - let alone the systems we didn't create, like the biosphere and our bodies and minds, which we inhabit and depend on for life.I don't think this realisation has yet sunk in, even now.
I don't know what will happen to our psyche when it does.
Robert Persig in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance points to the 'explosion of hypotheses' problem in science, where Popper falsifiability doesn't guarantee convergence towards 'truth' or that scientific revolutions will always be about smaller or smaller disagreements, but that we might get a divergent cascade of increasingly contradictory and not-yet-falsified ideas.
This might be arguable, but I think we're now seeing a similar problem in systems administration.
The Internet is increasing mutual connectivity between otherwise partitioned social and computational systems; we fundamentally do not know and can't predict how these systems will fail.We can't even be sure that currently shipping software is free from major security holes; in fact, about all we can predict is that all our software doe have deeply dangerous flaws.
Not just small, linear, flaws.
Big nonlinear ones which can hit us like a data crash, or a financial crash, or getting pwned by a botnet, on a global scale.
And yet we use it, because it's there.
We think we can trust our systems because other people are.
But that's not true at all.A big rethink for management techniques is ahead of us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29728483</id>
	<title>Re:Management</title>
	<author>Mista2</author>
	<datestamp>1255368120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Issue with the cloud is if it is just personal or worth money to you.<br>My Calendar and contacts are very important to me. If I am on call I need access to this information in a hurry. If I had lost them due to a failure like this then I would be severly hamperd in my ability to do my job.<br>To counter this, I store critical stuff in multiple places and I make sure my phone is backed up every time it syncs at home.</p><p>I use the cloud, but I dont trust it 110\% just yet 8)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Issue with the cloud is if it is just personal or worth money to you.My Calendar and contacts are very important to me .
If I am on call I need access to this information in a hurry .
If I had lost them due to a failure like this then I would be severly hamperd in my ability to do my job.To counter this , I store critical stuff in multiple places and I make sure my phone is backed up every time it syncs at home.I use the cloud , but I dont trust it 110 \ % just yet 8 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Issue with the cloud is if it is just personal or worth money to you.My Calendar and contacts are very important to me.
If I am on call I need access to this information in a hurry.
If I had lost them due to a failure like this then I would be severly hamperd in my ability to do my job.To counter this, I store critical stuff in multiple places and I make sure my phone is backed up every time it syncs at home.I use the cloud, but I dont trust it 110\% just yet 8)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719283</id>
	<title>Re:Cloud Failure</title>
	<author>slim</author>
	<datestamp>1255364640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I know my songs, videos, and other important files are backed-up across triple drives.  I don't know if the same is true if I stored them online, and this major failure of Sidekick demonstrates I'm right not to trust them.</p></div><p>That depends entirely on the online storage service you use. If your contract says the files are backed up across triple drives, then you've a right to expect that they are. If your contract doesn't say that, then you shouldn't expect it. Simple.</p><p>Now, I'd argue that any cloud service worthy of the name ought to have very robust mirrored storage. But since there's no legal definition of the word, you'd better read the contract.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know my songs , videos , and other important files are backed-up across triple drives .
I do n't know if the same is true if I stored them online , and this major failure of Sidekick demonstrates I 'm right not to trust them.That depends entirely on the online storage service you use .
If your contract says the files are backed up across triple drives , then you 've a right to expect that they are .
If your contract does n't say that , then you should n't expect it .
Simple.Now , I 'd argue that any cloud service worthy of the name ought to have very robust mirrored storage .
But since there 's no legal definition of the word , you 'd better read the contract .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know my songs, videos, and other important files are backed-up across triple drives.
I don't know if the same is true if I stored them online, and this major failure of Sidekick demonstrates I'm right not to trust them.That depends entirely on the online storage service you use.
If your contract says the files are backed up across triple drives, then you've a right to expect that they are.
If your contract doesn't say that, then you shouldn't expect it.
Simple.Now, I'd argue that any cloud service worthy of the name ought to have very robust mirrored storage.
But since there's no legal definition of the word, you'd better read the contract.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718739</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29732047</id>
	<title>ED Handbags,Armani jacket for sale cheap now go</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255449540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Welcome TO Our Website:  Http://www.tntshoes.com</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; we are a prefession online store, you can see more photos and price in our website which is show in the photos.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; pls find the more photos and the price for our product in our website,hellow see our website in the photos attached, on line shipping sotre, selling all kinds of brand new shoes,clothing, handbag,sunglasses,hats etc, if interested please email me by we are selling all brand new handbag, we take paypal as payment, . shoes Nike jordan1-23 $23-$28 free shiping.</p><p>
&nbsp; OUR WEBSITE:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; YAHOO:shoppertrade@yahoo.com.cn</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; MSN:shoppertrade@hotmail.com</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Http://www.tntshoes.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>            Welcome TO Our Website : Http : //www.tntshoes.com         we are a prefession online store , you can see more photos and price in our website which is show in the photos .
          pls find the more photos and the price for our product in our website,hellow see our website in the photos attached , on line shipping sotre , selling all kinds of brand new shoes,clothing , handbag,sunglasses,hats etc , if interested please email me by we are selling all brand new handbag , we take paypal as payment , .
shoes Nike jordan1-23 $ 23- $ 28 free shiping .
  OUR WEBSITE :                                                         YAHOO : shoppertrade @ yahoo.com.cn                                                                 MSN : shoppertrade @ hotmail.com                                                                     Http : //www.tntshoes.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
            Welcome TO Our Website:  Http://www.tntshoes.com
        we are a prefession online store, you can see more photos and price in our website which is show in the photos.
          pls find the more photos and the price for our product in our website,hellow see our website in the photos attached, on line shipping sotre, selling all kinds of brand new shoes,clothing, handbag,sunglasses,hats etc, if interested please email me by we are selling all brand new handbag, we take paypal as payment, .
shoes Nike jordan1-23 $23-$28 free shiping.
  OUR WEBSITE:
                                                        YAHOO:shoppertrade@yahoo.com.cn
                                                                MSN:shoppertrade@hotmail.com
                                                                    Http://www.tntshoes.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719237</id>
	<title>Re:What IS cloud computing?</title>
	<author>plague3106</author>
	<datestamp>1255364460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cloud computing is just what it sounds like; something meant to obscure whats really going on.  Nobody seems to know if it was a single server or the data center.  And thats the risk of the cloud... you won't really know whats going on at the other end.</p><p>So while they'll say "let us manage it" they'll really do that same things you did anyway; keep only as many servers as you need, and they may more may  not be backing up your data.  Oh, and your data doesn't even need to be lost, just unavailable because the internet isn't as reliable as everyone would like you to think.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cloud computing is just what it sounds like ; something meant to obscure whats really going on .
Nobody seems to know if it was a single server or the data center .
And thats the risk of the cloud... you wo n't really know whats going on at the other end.So while they 'll say " let us manage it " they 'll really do that same things you did anyway ; keep only as many servers as you need , and they may more may not be backing up your data .
Oh , and your data does n't even need to be lost , just unavailable because the internet is n't as reliable as everyone would like you to think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cloud computing is just what it sounds like; something meant to obscure whats really going on.
Nobody seems to know if it was a single server or the data center.
And thats the risk of the cloud... you won't really know whats going on at the other end.So while they'll say "let us manage it" they'll really do that same things you did anyway; keep only as many servers as you need, and they may more may  not be backing up your data.
Oh, and your data doesn't even need to be lost, just unavailable because the internet isn't as reliable as everyone would like you to think.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718883</id>
	<title>Re:Cloud Failure</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1255362540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I know my songs, videos, and other important files are backed-up across triple drives.</p></div><p>Dude. Now close your torrent client and go out.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know my songs , videos , and other important files are backed-up across triple drives.Dude .
Now close your torrent client and go out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know my songs, videos, and other important files are backed-up across triple drives.Dude.
Now close your torrent client and go out.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718739</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29723677</id>
	<title>Re:For the love of God the company is called "Dang</title>
	<author>Pascal Sartoretti</author>
	<datestamp>1255339500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I was a Sidekick user from 4/2004 until 10/2008. There had been only one 'catastrophic' failure in that time that left Sidekick users without data service for an extended period.</p></div><p>In other words, they already had one opportunity to question their reliance on this service. Lesson learned ?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was a Sidekick user from 4/2004 until 10/2008 .
There had been only one 'catastrophic ' failure in that time that left Sidekick users without data service for an extended period.In other words , they already had one opportunity to question their reliance on this service .
Lesson learned ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was a Sidekick user from 4/2004 until 10/2008.
There had been only one 'catastrophic' failure in that time that left Sidekick users without data service for an extended period.In other words, they already had one opportunity to question their reliance on this service.
Lesson learned ?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718853</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29725897</id>
	<title>Re:No true scotsman</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1255349400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>""if it loses your data - it's not a cloud"."</p><p>Which is quite a good way of putting it. We could say much the same about markets.</p><p>"If it loses your money - it's not a financial market."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" " if it loses your data - it 's not a cloud " .
" Which is quite a good way of putting it .
We could say much the same about markets .
" If it loses your money - it 's not a financial market .
" : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>""if it loses your data - it's not a cloud".
"Which is quite a good way of putting it.
We could say much the same about markets.
"If it loses your money - it's not a financial market.
" :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29725747</id>
	<title>Billing</title>
	<author>symes</author>
	<datestamp>1255348680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you can't trust your outsourcing partner, replace them or bring the work in-house</p></div><p>At this point it would be informative to know how T-Mobile backup their billing data...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you ca n't trust your outsourcing partner , replace them or bring the work in-houseAt this point it would be informative to know how T-Mobile backup their billing data.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can't trust your outsourcing partner, replace them or bring the work in-houseAt this point it would be informative to know how T-Mobile backup their billing data...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719835</id>
	<title>Void Based Computing</title>
	<author>j33px0r</author>
	<datestamp>1255366920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe I'm a bit old school but "the cloud" was a term for the inconsistent path that data would follow as it traveled from one point on the net to another.  We already have terms such as remote, off-site, WAN, out sourced, etc. to describe such an environment, each of which is more accurate for any particular situation. When I hear someone state "we are implementing a cloud based solution" I inwardly laugh because I'm applying the old definition.  What we have is a lame advertising buzzword that has gone mainstream.  I patiently await for the term cloud to follow the word bling into the...well, I can't say cloud, into the void.

I vote we call it the void instead of the cloud.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe I 'm a bit old school but " the cloud " was a term for the inconsistent path that data would follow as it traveled from one point on the net to another .
We already have terms such as remote , off-site , WAN , out sourced , etc .
to describe such an environment , each of which is more accurate for any particular situation .
When I hear someone state " we are implementing a cloud based solution " I inwardly laugh because I 'm applying the old definition .
What we have is a lame advertising buzzword that has gone mainstream .
I patiently await for the term cloud to follow the word bling into the...well , I ca n't say cloud , into the void .
I vote we call it the void instead of the cloud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe I'm a bit old school but "the cloud" was a term for the inconsistent path that data would follow as it traveled from one point on the net to another.
We already have terms such as remote, off-site, WAN, out sourced, etc.
to describe such an environment, each of which is more accurate for any particular situation.
When I hear someone state "we are implementing a cloud based solution" I inwardly laugh because I'm applying the old definition.
What we have is a lame advertising buzzword that has gone mainstream.
I patiently await for the term cloud to follow the word bling into the...well, I can't say cloud, into the void.
I vote we call it the void instead of the cloud.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719299</id>
	<title>Re:What IS cloud computing?</title>
	<author>mick88</author>
	<datestamp>1255364700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>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.</p><p>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 &amp; how it's being backed up / secured. The term "cloud" implies it, but doesn't ensure it.</p><p>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 &amp; run services. just like AOL != the internet, geocities != the cloud. But there is a relationship there.</p><p>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.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>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 &amp; how it 's being backed up / secured .
The term " cloud " implies it , but does n'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 &amp; 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 is n't reliable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719331</id>
	<title>Sidekicks lack non-volatile storage</title>
	<author>James McP</author>
	<datestamp>1255364880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's the real killer. Even if you had all your data loaded on the phone, lose power and poof!  With no mechanism to make local backups, you're utterly at the mercy of the cloud.</p><p>I've got a Pre, which is a cloud device, but if my battery dies the same time as the remote servers my data's safe for quite a while. Once the battery recharges I can get one of the sync apps to offload my data.  If I were more paranoid I'd get one now but I try to make my own archives straight from Google, webmail, et al.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the real killer .
Even if you had all your data loaded on the phone , lose power and poof !
With no mechanism to make local backups , you 're utterly at the mercy of the cloud.I 've got a Pre , which is a cloud device , but if my battery dies the same time as the remote servers my data 's safe for quite a while .
Once the battery recharges I can get one of the sync apps to offload my data .
If I were more paranoid I 'd get one now but I try to make my own archives straight from Google , webmail , et al .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the real killer.
Even if you had all your data loaded on the phone, lose power and poof!
With no mechanism to make local backups, you're utterly at the mercy of the cloud.I've got a Pre, which is a cloud device, but if my battery dies the same time as the remote servers my data's safe for quite a while.
Once the battery recharges I can get one of the sync apps to offload my data.
If I were more paranoid I'd get one now but I try to make my own archives straight from Google, webmail, et al.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29720259</id>
	<title>Re:The Cloud is Just a Big Mainframe</title>
	<author>ducomputergeek</author>
	<datestamp>1255369020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In other works, Timeshare 2.0.  Funny is I remember the old timers talking about that when I started in IT 15 years ago and exactly how well it worked then....and I've come to the conclusion it work just about as well now.  The Cloud sounds like a great idea.  I have friends who work at a company that switched to a thin-client/cloud system.  It's great, until the network switch or router for a floor goes wonky.  Then all of a sudden you have 200 employees dead in the water unable to do anything productive.  At least before when the nets went down, they had local installs of the applications and usually could do SOMETHING productive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other works , Timeshare 2.0 .
Funny is I remember the old timers talking about that when I started in IT 15 years ago and exactly how well it worked then....and I 've come to the conclusion it work just about as well now .
The Cloud sounds like a great idea .
I have friends who work at a company that switched to a thin-client/cloud system .
It 's great , until the network switch or router for a floor goes wonky .
Then all of a sudden you have 200 employees dead in the water unable to do anything productive .
At least before when the nets went down , they had local installs of the applications and usually could do SOMETHING productive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other works, Timeshare 2.0.
Funny is I remember the old timers talking about that when I started in IT 15 years ago and exactly how well it worked then....and I've come to the conclusion it work just about as well now.
The Cloud sounds like a great idea.
I have friends who work at a company that switched to a thin-client/cloud system.
It's great, until the network switch or router for a floor goes wonky.
Then all of a sudden you have 200 employees dead in the water unable to do anything productive.
At least before when the nets went down, they had local installs of the applications and usually could do SOMETHING productive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718987</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29725873</id>
	<title>Re:The Cloud is Just a Big Mainframe</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1255349280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"but there's nothing fundamentally different between cloud computing and IBM's vision of computing in the 1960s."</p><p>Yeah, there is.</p><p>The Cloud(tm) is now built by the lowest bidder instead of a single big company known for its boring reliability. You still can't see inside, you still can't get your data out, and it's still expensive, but now we've done away with all that needless safety and redundancy.</p><p>That's progress!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" but there 's nothing fundamentally different between cloud computing and IBM 's vision of computing in the 1960s .
" Yeah , there is.The Cloud ( tm ) is now built by the lowest bidder instead of a single big company known for its boring reliability .
You still ca n't see inside , you still ca n't get your data out , and it 's still expensive , but now we 've done away with all that needless safety and redundancy.That 's progress !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"but there's nothing fundamentally different between cloud computing and IBM's vision of computing in the 1960s.
"Yeah, there is.The Cloud(tm) is now built by the lowest bidder instead of a single big company known for its boring reliability.
You still can't see inside, you still can't get your data out, and it's still expensive, but now we've done away with all that needless safety and redundancy.That's progress!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718987</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719203</id>
	<title>Re:What IS cloud computing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255364220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cloud computing is where your data goes up in smoke.<br> <br>AC for a reason.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cloud computing is where your data goes up in smoke .
AC for a reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cloud computing is where your data goes up in smoke.
AC for a reason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29720159</id>
	<title>Cloud had little to do with it.</title>
	<author>MrCrassic</author>
	<datestamp>1255368600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As I'm sure somebody pointed out here, the Sidekick data loss fiasco occurred largely because <b>nobody had off-site tape backups on hand</b> and <b>nobody wanted to do a backup BEFORE performing their big upgrades.</b></p><p>It's that simple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As I 'm sure somebody pointed out here , the Sidekick data loss fiasco occurred largely because nobody had off-site tape backups on hand and nobody wanted to do a backup BEFORE performing their big upgrades.It 's that simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I'm sure somebody pointed out here, the Sidekick data loss fiasco occurred largely because nobody had off-site tape backups on hand and nobody wanted to do a backup BEFORE performing their big upgrades.It's that simple.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719499</id>
	<title>Re:Has there never been a non-cloud data loss?</title>
	<author>alen</author>
	<datestamp>1255365540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the hype about "cloud computing" is that there are never any failures and all your data is always going to be safe. at least that's the way the tech rags hype it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the hype about " cloud computing " is that there are never any failures and all your data is always going to be safe .
at least that 's the way the tech rags hype it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the hype about "cloud computing" is that there are never any failures and all your data is always going to be safe.
at least that's the way the tech rags hype it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29723451</id>
	<title>Not the "Cloud...."</title>
	<author>Hasai</author>
	<datestamp>1255338720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>....Though I think it is a ridiculously over-hyped term for something that has been around since 60s-70s (think "time-sharing").</p><p>The <b>problem </b>was the consumers' assumption they could safely consign their info to a data-store operated by <b>Microsoft.</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>....Though I think it is a ridiculously over-hyped term for something that has been around since 60s-70s ( think " time-sharing " ) .The problem was the consumers ' assumption they could safely consign their info to a data-store operated by Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....Though I think it is a ridiculously over-hyped term for something that has been around since 60s-70s (think "time-sharing").The problem was the consumers' assumption they could safely consign their info to a data-store operated by Microsoft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719653</id>
	<title>Lightning bolt: Microsoft's gutting of Danger</title>
	<author>Locutus</author>
	<datestamp>1255366140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft gutted Danger and left it on life support but all the while they lead their customers( T-Mobile and users ) to believe Danger was thriving and doing fine. Wow, doesn't that sound like Paulson in early 2007 having stated that the banking system was just fine?  The difference, Paulson really was clueless while Microsoft knew darn well they'd pulled most of Dangers developers over to their project Pink.<br><br>This is what should be up in lights with flares and fireworks and not anything about how bad/good cloud computing is. But once again, there is Microsoft at the wheel and yet the press is saying "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain".<br><br>And this interesting in tying this to cloud computing sounds eerily familiar since I just read how Steve Ballmer was bashing IBM for not running their business correctly. Basically, paying too much attention to software and cloud computing and he's all amped about this right when yet another Microsoft failure proves how bad they are at this. Could be spin control so watch for more of the same if it is.<br><br>LoB</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft gutted Danger and left it on life support but all the while they lead their customers ( T-Mobile and users ) to believe Danger was thriving and doing fine .
Wow , does n't that sound like Paulson in early 2007 having stated that the banking system was just fine ?
The difference , Paulson really was clueless while Microsoft knew darn well they 'd pulled most of Dangers developers over to their project Pink.This is what should be up in lights with flares and fireworks and not anything about how bad/good cloud computing is .
But once again , there is Microsoft at the wheel and yet the press is saying " pay no attention to that man behind the curtain " .And this interesting in tying this to cloud computing sounds eerily familiar since I just read how Steve Ballmer was bashing IBM for not running their business correctly .
Basically , paying too much attention to software and cloud computing and he 's all amped about this right when yet another Microsoft failure proves how bad they are at this .
Could be spin control so watch for more of the same if it is.LoB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft gutted Danger and left it on life support but all the while they lead their customers( T-Mobile and users ) to believe Danger was thriving and doing fine.
Wow, doesn't that sound like Paulson in early 2007 having stated that the banking system was just fine?
The difference, Paulson really was clueless while Microsoft knew darn well they'd pulled most of Dangers developers over to their project Pink.This is what should be up in lights with flares and fireworks and not anything about how bad/good cloud computing is.
But once again, there is Microsoft at the wheel and yet the press is saying "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain".And this interesting in tying this to cloud computing sounds eerily familiar since I just read how Steve Ballmer was bashing IBM for not running their business correctly.
Basically, paying too much attention to software and cloud computing and he's all amped about this right when yet another Microsoft failure proves how bad they are at this.
Could be spin control so watch for more of the same if it is.LoB</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719079</id>
	<title>Re:A reason why cloud computing might be hated on</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255363500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think that has anything to do with it; at least not for me.  My main concern with cloud computing is trust.  Do I trust someone other than myself to not fuck up and lose all my data?  For critical data, the answer is no.  If somebody is going to fuck up and lose all my data, it's going to be me.  I don't know if all the data on a Sidekick would qualify as critical, but it would certainly be annoying as fuck to lose it all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think that has anything to do with it ; at least not for me .
My main concern with cloud computing is trust .
Do I trust someone other than myself to not fuck up and lose all my data ?
For critical data , the answer is no .
If somebody is going to fuck up and lose all my data , it 's going to be me .
I do n't know if all the data on a Sidekick would qualify as critical , but it would certainly be annoying as fuck to lose it all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think that has anything to do with it; at least not for me.
My main concern with cloud computing is trust.
Do I trust someone other than myself to not fuck up and lose all my data?
For critical data, the answer is no.
If somebody is going to fuck up and lose all my data, it's going to be me.
I don't know if all the data on a Sidekick would qualify as critical, but it would certainly be annoying as fuck to lose it all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719007</id>
	<title>No true scotsman</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255363140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is awfully convenient. Something that at least to my eyes looks a lot like a cloud crashes. Cloud pundits announce:</p><p>"if it loses your data - it's not a cloud".</p><p>So if Amazon's S3 ever fails horribly and loses everybody's data, then it wasn't a cloud either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is awfully convenient .
Something that at least to my eyes looks a lot like a cloud crashes .
Cloud pundits announce : " if it loses your data - it 's not a cloud " .So if Amazon 's S3 ever fails horribly and loses everybody 's data , then it was n't a cloud either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is awfully convenient.
Something that at least to my eyes looks a lot like a cloud crashes.
Cloud pundits announce:"if it loses your data - it's not a cloud".So if Amazon's S3 ever fails horribly and loses everybody's data, then it wasn't a cloud either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719457</id>
	<title>Clouds are unaccontable, and that's their weakness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255365420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"No, I'm saying that cloud storage services are engineered to tolerate failure."</p><p>Oh, really? Take a completely new, mostly proprietary set of code managing a huge datacenter, and I'm supposed to -assume- these clouds are engineered to tolerate failure?</p><p>The lesson of the Sidekick failure isn't a failure of "cloud computing", or of "bad backups", or of "old datacenters". As usual, everybody misses the real problem here. It's a disturbing reminder that reliability is completely dependent on people that you are hoping are running these networks correctly.</p><p>That's where the Cloud services fail. The difference between a cloud and running my own server is that I know when my own server is being run correctly, because I can check everything on it and physically inspect and audit the datacenter it's placed in. The Cloud services promise that they do the same, but all I can do is trust them, because their process is completely transparent to me.</p><p>People need to start demanding proof that these "Clouds" are being run correctly, and that's the hallmark difference between good engineers that know how servers work and fat nerds that jump on the hype bandwagon, becoming apologists for big companies that I hope are receiving bribes for their blind and unquestioning loyalty.</p><p>As for your comment on "occasional blackouts", we run millions of dollars through our company. Our servers should have NO blackouts, at all. With a good server cluster and a real datacenter with generators and redundant internet connections, this is a very achievable goal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" No , I 'm saying that cloud storage services are engineered to tolerate failure .
" Oh , really ?
Take a completely new , mostly proprietary set of code managing a huge datacenter , and I 'm supposed to -assume- these clouds are engineered to tolerate failure ? The lesson of the Sidekick failure is n't a failure of " cloud computing " , or of " bad backups " , or of " old datacenters " .
As usual , everybody misses the real problem here .
It 's a disturbing reminder that reliability is completely dependent on people that you are hoping are running these networks correctly.That 's where the Cloud services fail .
The difference between a cloud and running my own server is that I know when my own server is being run correctly , because I can check everything on it and physically inspect and audit the datacenter it 's placed in .
The Cloud services promise that they do the same , but all I can do is trust them , because their process is completely transparent to me.People need to start demanding proof that these " Clouds " are being run correctly , and that 's the hallmark difference between good engineers that know how servers work and fat nerds that jump on the hype bandwagon , becoming apologists for big companies that I hope are receiving bribes for their blind and unquestioning loyalty.As for your comment on " occasional blackouts " , we run millions of dollars through our company .
Our servers should have NO blackouts , at all .
With a good server cluster and a real datacenter with generators and redundant internet connections , this is a very achievable goal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"No, I'm saying that cloud storage services are engineered to tolerate failure.
"Oh, really?
Take a completely new, mostly proprietary set of code managing a huge datacenter, and I'm supposed to -assume- these clouds are engineered to tolerate failure?The lesson of the Sidekick failure isn't a failure of "cloud computing", or of "bad backups", or of "old datacenters".
As usual, everybody misses the real problem here.
It's a disturbing reminder that reliability is completely dependent on people that you are hoping are running these networks correctly.That's where the Cloud services fail.
The difference between a cloud and running my own server is that I know when my own server is being run correctly, because I can check everything on it and physically inspect and audit the datacenter it's placed in.
The Cloud services promise that they do the same, but all I can do is trust them, because their process is completely transparent to me.People need to start demanding proof that these "Clouds" are being run correctly, and that's the hallmark difference between good engineers that know how servers work and fat nerds that jump on the hype bandwagon, becoming apologists for big companies that I hope are receiving bribes for their blind and unquestioning loyalty.As for your comment on "occasional blackouts", we run millions of dollars through our company.
Our servers should have NO blackouts, at all.
With a good server cluster and a real datacenter with generators and redundant internet connections, this is a very achievable goal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29723171</id>
	<title>Re:causes of the meltdown</title>
	<author>MrLogic17</author>
	<datestamp>1255380600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Outsourcing had nothing to do with it.<br>Regardless of who did the upgrade- Microsoft owned the servers, and didn't have usable backups in place.  It's the owner of the server that's responsible for backups.</p><p>Would you give your PC to Best Buy's service dept without a backup?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Outsourcing had nothing to do with it.Regardless of who did the upgrade- Microsoft owned the servers , and did n't have usable backups in place .
It 's the owner of the server that 's responsible for backups.Would you give your PC to Best Buy 's service dept without a backup ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Outsourcing had nothing to do with it.Regardless of who did the upgrade- Microsoft owned the servers, and didn't have usable backups in place.
It's the owner of the server that's responsible for backups.Would you give your PC to Best Buy's service dept without a backup?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719311</id>
	<title>Re:For the love of God the company is called "Dang</title>
	<author>NoYob</author>
	<datestamp>1255364820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Didn't that throw up any red flags for ANYONE?</p></div><p>The company was probably named after someone's middle name. Like Austin \_Danger\_ Powers.</p><p>I'm sure it's no reflection on the software.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't that throw up any red flags for ANYONE ? The company was probably named after someone 's middle name .
Like Austin \ _Danger \ _ Powers.I 'm sure it 's no reflection on the software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't that throw up any red flags for ANYONE?The company was probably named after someone's middle name.
Like Austin \_Danger\_ Powers.I'm sure it's no reflection on the software.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29723681</id>
	<title>Paying the stupidity tax</title>
	<author>gestalt\_n\_pepper</author>
	<datestamp>1255339500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bottom line: Anyone's "cloud" is inherently insecure and it's reliability is outside your control.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bottom line : Anyone 's " cloud " is inherently insecure and it 's reliability is outside your control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bottom line: Anyone's "cloud" is inherently insecure and it's reliability is outside your control.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719255</id>
	<title>Sort of</title>
	<author>Kirby</author>
	<datestamp>1255364520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, any time you're storing data in a central place, you have a greater consequence of failure.  That's a downside of "cloud computing", or any web application that stores data in a database too.</p><p>The alternative approach is everyone to have a local version of their data, which will be lost by individuals all the time but not by everyone all at once.</p><p>Obviously, if you have a server that's a single point of failure for your company, and you botch a maintenance, something went very wrong.  And not having a backup - it seems strange for a company that's been around the block a few times and has big resources behind it.  You have to write this off as more of a specific failure and not a failure of the concept of storing data on a remote server.</p><p>I do have a good friend that works for Danger - I really don't envy the week he must be having.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , any time you 're storing data in a central place , you have a greater consequence of failure .
That 's a downside of " cloud computing " , or any web application that stores data in a database too.The alternative approach is everyone to have a local version of their data , which will be lost by individuals all the time but not by everyone all at once.Obviously , if you have a server that 's a single point of failure for your company , and you botch a maintenance , something went very wrong .
And not having a backup - it seems strange for a company that 's been around the block a few times and has big resources behind it .
You have to write this off as more of a specific failure and not a failure of the concept of storing data on a remote server.I do have a good friend that works for Danger - I really do n't envy the week he must be having .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, any time you're storing data in a central place, you have a greater consequence of failure.
That's a downside of "cloud computing", or any web application that stores data in a database too.The alternative approach is everyone to have a local version of their data, which will be lost by individuals all the time but not by everyone all at once.Obviously, if you have a server that's a single point of failure for your company, and you botch a maintenance, something went very wrong.
And not having a backup - it seems strange for a company that's been around the block a few times and has big resources behind it.
You have to write this off as more of a specific failure and not a failure of the concept of storing data on a remote server.I do have a good friend that works for Danger - I really don't envy the week he must be having.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718911</id>
	<title>Meta-cloud, anyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255362660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To my mind, this failure just goes to show that what people call clouds are merely the mainframes of yesterdecades... For the cloud to become "THE" cloud, the providers need to cooperate to replicate data across their different implementations, such that when one provider suffers an unforeseen crash of unforeseen magnitudes, the data is til there in the "real" (in this definition) cloud.</p><p>Sure, it would take no small amount of convincing to get the management drones to accept this, but I should think that a cost/benefit analysis that includes catastrophic failure would be somewhat persuasive...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To my mind , this failure just goes to show that what people call clouds are merely the mainframes of yesterdecades... For the cloud to become " THE " cloud , the providers need to cooperate to replicate data across their different implementations , such that when one provider suffers an unforeseen crash of unforeseen magnitudes , the data is til there in the " real " ( in this definition ) cloud.Sure , it would take no small amount of convincing to get the management drones to accept this , but I should think that a cost/benefit analysis that includes catastrophic failure would be somewhat persuasive.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To my mind, this failure just goes to show that what people call clouds are merely the mainframes of yesterdecades... For the cloud to become "THE" cloud, the providers need to cooperate to replicate data across their different implementations, such that when one provider suffers an unforeseen crash of unforeseen magnitudes, the data is til there in the "real" (in this definition) cloud.Sure, it would take no small amount of convincing to get the management drones to accept this, but I should think that a cost/benefit analysis that includes catastrophic failure would be somewhat persuasive...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718847</id>
	<title>Need more info</title>
	<author>LS1 Brains</author>
	<datestamp>1255362420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can't form a complete picture without an inside look at what really happened.  Danger/Microsoft obviously isn't going to just come out and tell us the who or how, they have enough egg on their face as it is.
<br> <br>
We can throw hunches around all day long, but it all boils down to human error somewhere - or more likely, a series of errors.  Perhaps backups weren't properly taken.  Perhaps they were performing a platform shift to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET and something went awry.  Perhaps a dev was tapping out a query and forgot part of his where clause, irreversibly damaging an entire table.  Perhaps the cleaning crew poured milk in the disk cluster.  These are all quite valid possibilities, which singly probably wouldn't be an issue.
<br> <br>
I don't think there's any argument for instability or reliability issues with a "cloud" platform, any more than one could form an argument for a traditional arrangement.  If the system as a whole isn't managed and maintained, you are at a very high risk for disaster.  The only universal truth is things WILL fail, and you have to plan for them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't form a complete picture without an inside look at what really happened .
Danger/Microsoft obviously is n't going to just come out and tell us the who or how , they have enough egg on their face as it is .
We can throw hunches around all day long , but it all boils down to human error somewhere - or more likely , a series of errors .
Perhaps backups were n't properly taken .
Perhaps they were performing a platform shift to .NET and something went awry .
Perhaps a dev was tapping out a query and forgot part of his where clause , irreversibly damaging an entire table .
Perhaps the cleaning crew poured milk in the disk cluster .
These are all quite valid possibilities , which singly probably would n't be an issue .
I do n't think there 's any argument for instability or reliability issues with a " cloud " platform , any more than one could form an argument for a traditional arrangement .
If the system as a whole is n't managed and maintained , you are at a very high risk for disaster .
The only universal truth is things WILL fail , and you have to plan for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't form a complete picture without an inside look at what really happened.
Danger/Microsoft obviously isn't going to just come out and tell us the who or how, they have enough egg on their face as it is.
We can throw hunches around all day long, but it all boils down to human error somewhere - or more likely, a series of errors.
Perhaps backups weren't properly taken.
Perhaps they were performing a platform shift to .NET and something went awry.
Perhaps a dev was tapping out a query and forgot part of his where clause, irreversibly damaging an entire table.
Perhaps the cleaning crew poured milk in the disk cluster.
These are all quite valid possibilities, which singly probably wouldn't be an issue.
I don't think there's any argument for instability or reliability issues with a "cloud" platform, any more than one could form an argument for a traditional arrangement.
If the system as a whole isn't managed and maintained, you are at a very high risk for disaster.
The only universal truth is things WILL fail, and you have to plan for them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718925</id>
	<title>Assumptions</title>
	<author>eagl</author>
	<datestamp>1255362720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because you're paying someone to store your data doesn't mean they care about that data as much as you do...  That's one of the two big problems with cloud computing that can't be solved by technology.  First, nobody cares about your data as much as you do.  Second, nobody will protect your data (ie. control it's distribution and prevent unauthorized changes) to the level you find appropriate.</p><p>It's usually a good idea to avoid using broad generalities (like I just did), but it seems like in general it would be a bad idea to let someone else be the sole keeper of anything even remotely important or sensitive.  There are exceptions, but those seem to be internal to a company (ie. the company runs it's own cloud and has all employees use it).  Or military/government applications where centralized security and backup can keep user errors from becoming a real danger to the organization beyond "help I lost my email!".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because you 're paying someone to store your data does n't mean they care about that data as much as you do... That 's one of the two big problems with cloud computing that ca n't be solved by technology .
First , nobody cares about your data as much as you do .
Second , nobody will protect your data ( ie .
control it 's distribution and prevent unauthorized changes ) to the level you find appropriate.It 's usually a good idea to avoid using broad generalities ( like I just did ) , but it seems like in general it would be a bad idea to let someone else be the sole keeper of anything even remotely important or sensitive .
There are exceptions , but those seem to be internal to a company ( ie .
the company runs it 's own cloud and has all employees use it ) .
Or military/government applications where centralized security and backup can keep user errors from becoming a real danger to the organization beyond " help I lost my email !
" .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because you're paying someone to store your data doesn't mean they care about that data as much as you do...  That's one of the two big problems with cloud computing that can't be solved by technology.
First, nobody cares about your data as much as you do.
Second, nobody will protect your data (ie.
control it's distribution and prevent unauthorized changes) to the level you find appropriate.It's usually a good idea to avoid using broad generalities (like I just did), but it seems like in general it would be a bad idea to let someone else be the sole keeper of anything even remotely important or sensitive.
There are exceptions, but those seem to be internal to a company (ie.
the company runs it's own cloud and has all employees use it).
Or military/government applications where centralized security and backup can keep user errors from becoming a real danger to the organization beyond "help I lost my email!
".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29721917</id>
	<title>Microsoft FAIL, not Cloud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255375320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You outsource to a company A.</p><p>Then company A gets bought by company B.  Company B has historically opposed the existence of company A's entire industry.  Company B wants the technological transition to that industry to occur as slowly as possible.  Company B made the purchase for patents and personnel, not customers.  Company B doesn't extend its own reputation to cover company A.  Company B's concern for customers is... not a pillar of it's business model.</p><p>What part of company A having a high profile failure comes as a surprise?</p><p>Reliability is HARD.  The legals say "don't blame us when we slip up".  This need not be "let's smear cloud by having a big fail".  Merely "we don't really care, some benefit, some cost, so we'll try somewhat less hard then we might if we cared".  Delinquency, rather than evil.  Though the border isn't clear cut.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You outsource to a company A.Then company A gets bought by company B. Company B has historically opposed the existence of company A 's entire industry .
Company B wants the technological transition to that industry to occur as slowly as possible .
Company B made the purchase for patents and personnel , not customers .
Company B does n't extend its own reputation to cover company A. Company B 's concern for customers is... not a pillar of it 's business model.What part of company A having a high profile failure comes as a surprise ? Reliability is HARD .
The legals say " do n't blame us when we slip up " .
This need not be " let 's smear cloud by having a big fail " .
Merely " we do n't really care , some benefit , some cost , so we 'll try somewhat less hard then we might if we cared " .
Delinquency , rather than evil .
Though the border is n't clear cut .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You outsource to a company A.Then company A gets bought by company B.  Company B has historically opposed the existence of company A's entire industry.
Company B wants the technological transition to that industry to occur as slowly as possible.
Company B made the purchase for patents and personnel, not customers.
Company B doesn't extend its own reputation to cover company A.  Company B's concern for customers is... not a pillar of it's business model.What part of company A having a high profile failure comes as a surprise?Reliability is HARD.
The legals say "don't blame us when we slip up".
This need not be "let's smear cloud by having a big fail".
Merely "we don't really care, some benefit, some cost, so we'll try somewhat less hard then we might if we cared".
Delinquency, rather than evil.
Though the border isn't clear cut.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718901</id>
	<title>What IS cloud computing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255362600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally, I always interpreted cloud computing as software that's running on a number of boxes of which the number can fluctuate without being meaningful (obviously there are performance implications depending on the overall load and number of boxes, but one box going down doesn't inherently bring down the system). One nice thing is these boxes can be geographically distributed as well - so when one data center gets nuked, the others are safe. Now, I realize geographic distribution isn't a requirement but even still, the press release says the data loss is due to a "server failure." Not a data center failure, but the apparent failure of a single server.
</p><p>So is this really even "the cloud"?  Does that mean that Geocities was "the cloud" or that every web host out there is "the cloud" because they've got my data running on a single machine? I certainly never interpreted it that way, but I'm no expert on the matter. It seems like if this data was in "the cloud" that it could have all been retrieved off of another machine somewhere. Perhaps for some customers those other machines might not yet be completely synced with very recent updates, but that would affect a small amount of data for a subset of customers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I always interpreted cloud computing as software that 's running on a number of boxes of which the number can fluctuate without being meaningful ( obviously there are performance implications depending on the overall load and number of boxes , but one box going down does n't inherently bring down the system ) .
One nice thing is these boxes can be geographically distributed as well - so when one data center gets nuked , the others are safe .
Now , I realize geographic distribution is n't a requirement but even still , the press release says the data loss is due to a " server failure .
" Not a data center failure , but the apparent failure of a single server .
So is this really even " the cloud " ?
Does that mean that Geocities was " the cloud " or that every web host out there is " the cloud " because they 've got my data running on a single machine ?
I certainly never interpreted it that way , but I 'm no expert on the matter .
It seems like if this data was in " the cloud " that it could have all been retrieved off of another machine somewhere .
Perhaps for some customers those other machines might not yet be completely synced with very recent updates , but that would affect a small amount of data for a subset of customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I always interpreted cloud computing as software that's running on a number of boxes of which the number can fluctuate without being meaningful (obviously there are performance implications depending on the overall load and number of boxes, but one box going down doesn't inherently bring down the system).
One nice thing is these boxes can be geographically distributed as well - so when one data center gets nuked, the others are safe.
Now, I realize geographic distribution isn't a requirement but even still, the press release says the data loss is due to a "server failure.
" Not a data center failure, but the apparent failure of a single server.
So is this really even "the cloud"?
Does that mean that Geocities was "the cloud" or that every web host out there is "the cloud" because they've got my data running on a single machine?
I certainly never interpreted it that way, but I'm no expert on the matter.
It seems like if this data was in "the cloud" that it could have all been retrieved off of another machine somewhere.
Perhaps for some customers those other machines might not yet be completely synced with very recent updates, but that would affect a small amount of data for a subset of customers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29726453</id>
	<title>A little off topic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255352400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I interviewed with Danger for a senior storage admin position about 2 weeks before the announcement.<br>Fortunately for me I had one of those major fail interviews. We have all had them, when asked your name you even get that wrong.<br>Anyway, this is clearly a case of poor planning and I would have to say poor management.<br>At the end of the day that (more often than not idiot) person with CIO in their title should have directed the staff away from a disaster like this.</p><p>This could have and should have been avoided.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I interviewed with Danger for a senior storage admin position about 2 weeks before the announcement.Fortunately for me I had one of those major fail interviews .
We have all had them , when asked your name you even get that wrong.Anyway , this is clearly a case of poor planning and I would have to say poor management.At the end of the day that ( more often than not idiot ) person with CIO in their title should have directed the staff away from a disaster like this.This could have and should have been avoided .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I interviewed with Danger for a senior storage admin position about 2 weeks before the announcement.Fortunately for me I had one of those major fail interviews.
We have all had them, when asked your name you even get that wrong.Anyway, this is clearly a case of poor planning and I would have to say poor management.At the end of the day that (more often than not idiot) person with CIO in their title should have directed the staff away from a disaster like this.This could have and should have been avoided.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719025</id>
	<title>There is a HUGE difference</title>
	<author>sribe</author>
	<datestamp>1255363260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That difference being that when you're doing things in your own data center, your own people can evaluate what's actually being done. With cloud computing you cannot do that. In both cases you have similar tensions between thoroughness and cost, but in the the one your company gets to make the decisions and verify that they're carried out, in the other you do not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That difference being that when you 're doing things in your own data center , your own people can evaluate what 's actually being done .
With cloud computing you can not do that .
In both cases you have similar tensions between thoroughness and cost , but in the the one your company gets to make the decisions and verify that they 're carried out , in the other you do not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That difference being that when you're doing things in your own data center, your own people can evaluate what's actually being done.
With cloud computing you cannot do that.
In both cases you have similar tensions between thoroughness and cost, but in the the one your company gets to make the decisions and verify that they're carried out, in the other you do not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718733</id>
	<title>For the love of God the company is called "Danger"</title>
	<author>syntap</author>
	<datestamp>1255361940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't that throw up any red flags for ANYONE?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't that throw up any red flags for ANYONE ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't that throw up any red flags for ANYONE?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29720555</id>
	<title>Re:A reason why cloud computing might be hated on</title>
	<author>MightyMartian</author>
	<datestamp>1255370400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And that's the side of the fence I sit on.  You really can personally guarantee nothing about something sitting on someone else's server, particularly if you're using their apps to store and alter your data.  Maybe they're backing up the data, maybe they're not, maybe the data is secure, maybe it isn't.  Sure they can hand out guarantees, but so what?</p><p>It strikes me that there is a long list of cloud companies who are waging a serious PR campaign to undermine some of the core rules of IT.  We see it a lot, with articles by industry shills declaring IT is dead, that no one needs much more than a dumb terminal capable of rendering web pages, that the age of the PC is dead, that corporations can fire most of their IT departments because Google/Microsoft/who-the-fuck-ever will look after their needs.</p><p>There are in some cases solid reasons for going with an online service rather than trying to run your own, and I won't deny that.  But before anyone embarks down that path, they need to understand the risks, and pick services that allow them to dump their data in an open and usable way (ie. GMail allowing POP3 and IMAP access).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And that 's the side of the fence I sit on .
You really can personally guarantee nothing about something sitting on someone else 's server , particularly if you 're using their apps to store and alter your data .
Maybe they 're backing up the data , maybe they 're not , maybe the data is secure , maybe it is n't .
Sure they can hand out guarantees , but so what ? It strikes me that there is a long list of cloud companies who are waging a serious PR campaign to undermine some of the core rules of IT .
We see it a lot , with articles by industry shills declaring IT is dead , that no one needs much more than a dumb terminal capable of rendering web pages , that the age of the PC is dead , that corporations can fire most of their IT departments because Google/Microsoft/who-the-fuck-ever will look after their needs.There are in some cases solid reasons for going with an online service rather than trying to run your own , and I wo n't deny that .
But before anyone embarks down that path , they need to understand the risks , and pick services that allow them to dump their data in an open and usable way ( ie .
GMail allowing POP3 and IMAP access ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that's the side of the fence I sit on.
You really can personally guarantee nothing about something sitting on someone else's server, particularly if you're using their apps to store and alter your data.
Maybe they're backing up the data, maybe they're not, maybe the data is secure, maybe it isn't.
Sure they can hand out guarantees, but so what?It strikes me that there is a long list of cloud companies who are waging a serious PR campaign to undermine some of the core rules of IT.
We see it a lot, with articles by industry shills declaring IT is dead, that no one needs much more than a dumb terminal capable of rendering web pages, that the age of the PC is dead, that corporations can fire most of their IT departments because Google/Microsoft/who-the-fuck-ever will look after their needs.There are in some cases solid reasons for going with an online service rather than trying to run your own, and I won't deny that.
But before anyone embarks down that path, they need to understand the risks, and pick services that allow them to dump their data in an open and usable way (ie.
GMail allowing POP3 and IMAP access).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719005</id>
	<title>Redundancy scales</title>
	<author>rpp3po</author>
	<datestamp>1255363080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What has this got to do with the "cloud"? If your data is critical enough, do it in house or mirror/slave/backup across two or more vendors. The probability of chain failure at one vendor's site alone is much higher than when you use several. The required isolation and separation of your components will also benefit your overall architecture.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What has this got to do with the " cloud " ?
If your data is critical enough , do it in house or mirror/slave/backup across two or more vendors .
The probability of chain failure at one vendor 's site alone is much higher than when you use several .
The required isolation and separation of your components will also benefit your overall architecture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What has this got to do with the "cloud"?
If your data is critical enough, do it in house or mirror/slave/backup across two or more vendors.
The probability of chain failure at one vendor's site alone is much higher than when you use several.
The required isolation and separation of your components will also benefit your overall architecture.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29724893</id>
	<title>Re:What IS cloud computing?</title>
	<author>KDingo</author>
	<datestamp>1255344480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Around when I first heard the term, I thought the internet <em>was</em> the cloud.  For the simple fact that I represent the internet as a cloud whenever drawing network diagrams.<br>
<br>
I saw a video from datacenterknowledge.com asking this very same question, though.  It's fourteen minutes, but it shows that there is <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okqLxzWS5R4" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">not a single definitive answer</a> [youtube.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Around when I first heard the term , I thought the internet was the cloud .
For the simple fact that I represent the internet as a cloud whenever drawing network diagrams .
I saw a video from datacenterknowledge.com asking this very same question , though .
It 's fourteen minutes , but it shows that there is not a single definitive answer [ youtube.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Around when I first heard the term, I thought the internet was the cloud.
For the simple fact that I represent the internet as a cloud whenever drawing network diagrams.
I saw a video from datacenterknowledge.com asking this very same question, though.
It's fourteen minutes, but it shows that there is not a single definitive answer [youtube.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719053</id>
	<title>Is the distinction meaningful?</title>
	<author>FauxReal</author>
	<datestamp>1255363320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But some cloud technologists insist data center failures are not cloud failures. Is this distinction meaningful?</p></div><p>Do you think the customer will want to argue semantics with you after you've lose their data?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But some cloud technologists insist data center failures are not cloud failures .
Is this distinction meaningful ? Do you think the customer will want to argue semantics with you after you 've lose their data ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But some cloud technologists insist data center failures are not cloud failures.
Is this distinction meaningful?Do you think the customer will want to argue semantics with you after you've lose their data?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719477</id>
	<title>Re:What IS cloud computing?</title>
	<author>rwa2</author>
	<datestamp>1255365480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We'll, I was hoping to just google cloud vs. grid vs. distributed vs. cluster vs. etc. computing, but there doesn't seem to be much official-sounding distinction out there.  Which means if we start our own thread here it might become definitive!</p><p>"cloud" computing:  fluffy term used by people who really don't know anything other than that they run their applications from a web page and their data appears to be stored on the web because they can access it from more than one web browser.</p><p>"hosted" / "server farm" computing: buying server resources from someone who has a real datacenter who tries to take care of your hardware.  You access all of your data over the network "cloud".  Redundancy &amp; support varies based on pricing &amp; services.</p><p>"grid" / "utility" computing:  computing infrastructure where you should be able to simply scale up CPU, data, etc. resources for your operation simply by throwing money at turning on more boxes.  You don't necessarily need to share it with others, though.</p><p>"cluster" computing:  a computing system made up of more or less independent, generally homogeneous nodes, where problems can be partitioned out.  Generally has some form of redundancy so you don't lose work when a single node dies, but probably won't survive a data center failure.</p><p>"distributed" computing:  special applications that can be farmed out to the net to break parts of computing or storage across a heterogeneous network of computers distributed over many locations.  Ideally it's written to be highly redundant and tolerate faults such as nodes joining / leaving the cluster.</p><p>As far as reliability goes, the TIA data center tiers seems to be the only common way of talking about maintaining "business continuity".  I've read through it briefly, and can somewhat paraphrase the intent (mildly inaccurately, mostly because the standard itself is kinda loose and not defined in too much detail with regards to servers) as:</p><p>Tier 1 "basic" :  You have a room for servers with a door to keep random people from tripping over the plugs.  Maybe you have a UPS on your server so it can do a graceful shutdown without data loss when the power or AC goes out.</p><p>Tier 2 : You have your stuff in racks with a raised floor for air conditioning and some wire racks hanging from the ceiling for cable management.</p><p>Tier 3 : You have redundant UPS's and RAIDs, CRACs, network links, and stuff, so you can make repairs when common things break without turning off the system (typically anything with moving parts or high currents, like power supplies, fans, disks, batteries needs to be hot-swappable).  Which means you should also have some sort of monitoring and alert system so you know when that stuff actually fails so you can replace it before the redundant components also fail.  This is intended to reach 24x7 availability with high uptimes... , maybe 3-5 nines.</p><p>Tier 4 : Like Tier 3, but certified for mission-critical / life-critical use, like in hospitals and maybe for airplanes and stuff.  It should survive prolonged power outages (so you have a diesel generator with a day or two worth of fuel.)</p><p>Unfortunately, it just covers build specs for individual data centers, so it doesn't really cover other business continuity things like maintaining offsite backups so you can somewhat easily rebuild from scratch if a natural disaster takes out one of your data centers or something.  But it's kind of different worlds of IT between designing facilities and architecting "cloud" services, which unfortunately don't seem to communicate or collaborate as much as they should to reach the kinds of "distributed grid of redundant load-sharing data centers" configurations we'd expect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 'll , I was hoping to just google cloud vs. grid vs. distributed vs. cluster vs. etc. computing , but there does n't seem to be much official-sounding distinction out there .
Which means if we start our own thread here it might become definitive !
" cloud " computing : fluffy term used by people who really do n't know anything other than that they run their applications from a web page and their data appears to be stored on the web because they can access it from more than one web browser .
" hosted " / " server farm " computing : buying server resources from someone who has a real datacenter who tries to take care of your hardware .
You access all of your data over the network " cloud " .
Redundancy &amp; support varies based on pricing &amp; services .
" grid " / " utility " computing : computing infrastructure where you should be able to simply scale up CPU , data , etc .
resources for your operation simply by throwing money at turning on more boxes .
You do n't necessarily need to share it with others , though .
" cluster " computing : a computing system made up of more or less independent , generally homogeneous nodes , where problems can be partitioned out .
Generally has some form of redundancy so you do n't lose work when a single node dies , but probably wo n't survive a data center failure .
" distributed " computing : special applications that can be farmed out to the net to break parts of computing or storage across a heterogeneous network of computers distributed over many locations .
Ideally it 's written to be highly redundant and tolerate faults such as nodes joining / leaving the cluster.As far as reliability goes , the TIA data center tiers seems to be the only common way of talking about maintaining " business continuity " .
I 've read through it briefly , and can somewhat paraphrase the intent ( mildly inaccurately , mostly because the standard itself is kinda loose and not defined in too much detail with regards to servers ) as : Tier 1 " basic " : You have a room for servers with a door to keep random people from tripping over the plugs .
Maybe you have a UPS on your server so it can do a graceful shutdown without data loss when the power or AC goes out.Tier 2 : You have your stuff in racks with a raised floor for air conditioning and some wire racks hanging from the ceiling for cable management.Tier 3 : You have redundant UPS 's and RAIDs , CRACs , network links , and stuff , so you can make repairs when common things break without turning off the system ( typically anything with moving parts or high currents , like power supplies , fans , disks , batteries needs to be hot-swappable ) .
Which means you should also have some sort of monitoring and alert system so you know when that stuff actually fails so you can replace it before the redundant components also fail .
This is intended to reach 24x7 availability with high uptimes... , maybe 3-5 nines.Tier 4 : Like Tier 3 , but certified for mission-critical / life-critical use , like in hospitals and maybe for airplanes and stuff .
It should survive prolonged power outages ( so you have a diesel generator with a day or two worth of fuel .
) Unfortunately , it just covers build specs for individual data centers , so it does n't really cover other business continuity things like maintaining offsite backups so you can somewhat easily rebuild from scratch if a natural disaster takes out one of your data centers or something .
But it 's kind of different worlds of IT between designing facilities and architecting " cloud " services , which unfortunately do n't seem to communicate or collaborate as much as they should to reach the kinds of " distributed grid of redundant load-sharing data centers " configurations we 'd expect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We'll, I was hoping to just google cloud vs. grid vs. distributed vs. cluster vs. etc. computing, but there doesn't seem to be much official-sounding distinction out there.
Which means if we start our own thread here it might become definitive!
"cloud" computing:  fluffy term used by people who really don't know anything other than that they run their applications from a web page and their data appears to be stored on the web because they can access it from more than one web browser.
"hosted" / "server farm" computing: buying server resources from someone who has a real datacenter who tries to take care of your hardware.
You access all of your data over the network "cloud".
Redundancy &amp; support varies based on pricing &amp; services.
"grid" / "utility" computing:  computing infrastructure where you should be able to simply scale up CPU, data, etc.
resources for your operation simply by throwing money at turning on more boxes.
You don't necessarily need to share it with others, though.
"cluster" computing:  a computing system made up of more or less independent, generally homogeneous nodes, where problems can be partitioned out.
Generally has some form of redundancy so you don't lose work when a single node dies, but probably won't survive a data center failure.
"distributed" computing:  special applications that can be farmed out to the net to break parts of computing or storage across a heterogeneous network of computers distributed over many locations.
Ideally it's written to be highly redundant and tolerate faults such as nodes joining / leaving the cluster.As far as reliability goes, the TIA data center tiers seems to be the only common way of talking about maintaining "business continuity".
I've read through it briefly, and can somewhat paraphrase the intent (mildly inaccurately, mostly because the standard itself is kinda loose and not defined in too much detail with regards to servers) as:Tier 1 "basic" :  You have a room for servers with a door to keep random people from tripping over the plugs.
Maybe you have a UPS on your server so it can do a graceful shutdown without data loss when the power or AC goes out.Tier 2 : You have your stuff in racks with a raised floor for air conditioning and some wire racks hanging from the ceiling for cable management.Tier 3 : You have redundant UPS's and RAIDs, CRACs, network links, and stuff, so you can make repairs when common things break without turning off the system (typically anything with moving parts or high currents, like power supplies, fans, disks, batteries needs to be hot-swappable).
Which means you should also have some sort of monitoring and alert system so you know when that stuff actually fails so you can replace it before the redundant components also fail.
This is intended to reach 24x7 availability with high uptimes... , maybe 3-5 nines.Tier 4 : Like Tier 3, but certified for mission-critical / life-critical use, like in hospitals and maybe for airplanes and stuff.
It should survive prolonged power outages (so you have a diesel generator with a day or two worth of fuel.
)Unfortunately, it just covers build specs for individual data centers, so it doesn't really cover other business continuity things like maintaining offsite backups so you can somewhat easily rebuild from scratch if a natural disaster takes out one of your data centers or something.
But it's kind of different worlds of IT between designing facilities and architecting "cloud" services, which unfortunately don't seem to communicate or collaborate as much as they should to reach the kinds of "distributed grid of redundant load-sharing data centers" configurations we'd expect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718923</id>
	<title>Your data is your responsibility.</title>
	<author>zerofoo</author>
	<datestamp>1255362720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a wise auditor once told me:</p><p>You can outsource the work, but you can not outsource the responsibility.</p><p>If your data is important to you - you must back it up, and you must test your backups.</p><p>The end.</p><p>-ted</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a wise auditor once told me : You can outsource the work , but you can not outsource the responsibility.If your data is important to you - you must back it up , and you must test your backups.The end.-ted</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a wise auditor once told me:You can outsource the work, but you can not outsource the responsibility.If your data is important to you - you must back it up, and you must test your backups.The end.-ted</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719603</id>
	<title>Bottom line, for me?</title>
	<author>FlyByPC</author>
	<datestamp>1255365960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cloud computing is trusting Someone Else to take care of your data. While there are good, trustworthy organizations out there, for me, it comes down to the old adage of "if you want to ensure something is done right, do it yourself."<br>
<br>
Networks are great for communication, collaboration, and sharing information not available locally (Wikipedia, online scholarly journals, etc) -- but for me, putting word processors online doesn't pass the laugh test. No matter how reliable your network is, if you already have a local computer (and a local computer capable of word processing is trivial these days), why would you introduce another possible point-of-failure by making everything go over the network?<br>
<br>
<br>
And also -- why name a computing company "Danger"?? That's like naming a cruise line Titanic Cruises, or naming an airline after the Tenerife disaster!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cloud computing is trusting Someone Else to take care of your data .
While there are good , trustworthy organizations out there , for me , it comes down to the old adage of " if you want to ensure something is done right , do it yourself .
" Networks are great for communication , collaboration , and sharing information not available locally ( Wikipedia , online scholarly journals , etc ) -- but for me , putting word processors online does n't pass the laugh test .
No matter how reliable your network is , if you already have a local computer ( and a local computer capable of word processing is trivial these days ) , why would you introduce another possible point-of-failure by making everything go over the network ?
And also -- why name a computing company " Danger " ? ?
That 's like naming a cruise line Titanic Cruises , or naming an airline after the Tenerife disaster !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cloud computing is trusting Someone Else to take care of your data.
While there are good, trustworthy organizations out there, for me, it comes down to the old adage of "if you want to ensure something is done right, do it yourself.
"

Networks are great for communication, collaboration, and sharing information not available locally (Wikipedia, online scholarly journals, etc) -- but for me, putting word processors online doesn't pass the laugh test.
No matter how reliable your network is, if you already have a local computer (and a local computer capable of word processing is trivial these days), why would you introduce another possible point-of-failure by making everything go over the network?
And also -- why name a computing company "Danger"??
That's like naming a cruise line Titanic Cruises, or naming an airline after the Tenerife disaster!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718647</id>
	<title>Management</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255361460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's usually a decision on management's side to not use best practices, despite warnings from the tech dept.
<br> <br>tldr; There's nothing wrong with the technology, just the greedy bastards using it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's usually a decision on management 's side to not use best practices , despite warnings from the tech dept .
tldr ; There 's nothing wrong with the technology , just the greedy bastards using it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's usually a decision on management's side to not use best practices, despite warnings from the tech dept.
tldr; There's nothing wrong with the technology, just the greedy bastards using it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719197</id>
	<title>To the customer, it doesn't matter</title>
	<author>s.d.</author>
	<datestamp>1255364160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The people running the cloud and the data center can bicker till the cows come home, but to the customer, someone says, "trust me, I can let you run your apps and store your data better than if you did it yourself," and then *poof*, it's all gone.  Since the customer only interfaces with the company managing the cloud services, the customer sees it as a cloud services failure.</p><p>If the cloud company wants to tell all their customers, "It wasn't our fuck-up, it was this other company that we pay to store your data," that's kind of a cop-out move in my book, but ok.  However, since the customer will still see you the data center people as working for the cloud company (since it likely approached them and sold them the services as itself, not as "a team of companies X, Y, and Z working together, each doing specific tasks as defined below,"), the cloud company still screwed up and the customer is going to take their business somewhere else next time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The people running the cloud and the data center can bicker till the cows come home , but to the customer , someone says , " trust me , I can let you run your apps and store your data better than if you did it yourself , " and then * poof * , it 's all gone .
Since the customer only interfaces with the company managing the cloud services , the customer sees it as a cloud services failure.If the cloud company wants to tell all their customers , " It was n't our fuck-up , it was this other company that we pay to store your data , " that 's kind of a cop-out move in my book , but ok. However , since the customer will still see you the data center people as working for the cloud company ( since it likely approached them and sold them the services as itself , not as " a team of companies X , Y , and Z working together , each doing specific tasks as defined below , " ) , the cloud company still screwed up and the customer is going to take their business somewhere else next time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The people running the cloud and the data center can bicker till the cows come home, but to the customer, someone says, "trust me, I can let you run your apps and store your data better than if you did it yourself," and then *poof*, it's all gone.
Since the customer only interfaces with the company managing the cloud services, the customer sees it as a cloud services failure.If the cloud company wants to tell all their customers, "It wasn't our fuck-up, it was this other company that we pay to store your data," that's kind of a cop-out move in my book, but ok.  However, since the customer will still see you the data center people as working for the cloud company (since it likely approached them and sold them the services as itself, not as "a team of companies X, Y, and Z working together, each doing specific tasks as defined below,"), the cloud company still screwed up and the customer is going to take their business somewhere else next time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718829</id>
	<title>Semantics</title>
	<author>jayhawk88</author>
	<datestamp>1255362300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the end, it doesn't really matter if it's a data center failure or a "cloud" failure. It matters who the user blames. And if you trumpet yourself as "in the cloud", and then that cloud rains on your consumer, whomever is at fault, ultimately it's you, the provider, who has a problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the end , it does n't really matter if it 's a data center failure or a " cloud " failure .
It matters who the user blames .
And if you trumpet yourself as " in the cloud " , and then that cloud rains on your consumer , whomever is at fault , ultimately it 's you , the provider , who has a problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the end, it doesn't really matter if it's a data center failure or a "cloud" failure.
It matters who the user blames.
And if you trumpet yourself as "in the cloud", and then that cloud rains on your consumer, whomever is at fault, ultimately it's you, the provider, who has a problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719575</id>
	<title>Re:Has there never been a non-cloud data loss?</title>
	<author>vertinox</author>
	<datestamp>1255365840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Just like people lose their stuff on personal hard drives when not backed up, they will lose cloud data when not backed up. Both kinds of computing have merits, and long term persistence of data is not automatic with either.</i></p><p>Neither RAID or Cloud Computing is a backup solution. Its merely a way for more uptime and availability of data.</p><p>If by chance the user overwrites or deletes the data on a RAID or an online storage service... Then you've lost your data just the same as if the server crashed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like people lose their stuff on personal hard drives when not backed up , they will lose cloud data when not backed up .
Both kinds of computing have merits , and long term persistence of data is not automatic with either.Neither RAID or Cloud Computing is a backup solution .
Its merely a way for more uptime and availability of data.If by chance the user overwrites or deletes the data on a RAID or an online storage service... Then you 've lost your data just the same as if the server crashed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like people lose their stuff on personal hard drives when not backed up, they will lose cloud data when not backed up.
Both kinds of computing have merits, and long term persistence of data is not automatic with either.Neither RAID or Cloud Computing is a backup solution.
Its merely a way for more uptime and availability of data.If by chance the user overwrites or deletes the data on a RAID or an online storage service... Then you've lost your data just the same as if the server crashed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718831</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1418202_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29725897
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1418202_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29721115
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1418202_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29720061
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1418202_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719793
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1418202_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29722539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1418202_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29731025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1418202_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1418202_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718681
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718913
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1418202_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29725873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1418202_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719499
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1418202_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29723677
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1418202_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1418202_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29725831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1418202_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718883
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1418202_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1418202_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29723171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1418202_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1418202_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29725747
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1418202_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1418202_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29724893
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1418202_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29720841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1418202_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718681
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29720555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1418202_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29720281
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1418202_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29722773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1418202_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1418202_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718681
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719821
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1418202_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29720693
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1418202_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719477
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1418202_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1418202_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29726141
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1418202_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29728483
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1418202_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29720259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1418202_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718681
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29720129
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1418202_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718805
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1418202_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719311
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1418202_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29720265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29722229
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1418202_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29729863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1418202_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29722355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1418202_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1418202_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29722271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1418202_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718681
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29722075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1418202_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29720945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1418202_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29725703
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1418202_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719815
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1418202_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29731773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1418202_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29720183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1418202.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718739
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718805
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718883
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719283
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1418202.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719559
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1418202.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718681
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29722075
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718913
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719821
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719079
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29720555
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29720129
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1418202.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719191
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1418202.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719603
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1418202.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719635
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1418202.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719331
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1418202.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719103
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29721115
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29720945
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29722773
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29720693
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1418202.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719193
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29731025
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1418202.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718767
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1418202.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718831
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29726141
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29722271
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719499
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719575
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1418202.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718777
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1418202.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29720265
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29722229
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1418202.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719255
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29731773
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1418202.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719007
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29725897
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719793
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1418202.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718987
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29729863
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719681
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29720259
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29725873
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1418202.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718733
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718853
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29723677
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29720183
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719311
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1418202.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719129
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1418202.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719887
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29723171
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1418202.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718939
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29720281
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29725831
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1418202.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718647
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29722355
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29728483
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29720841
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29720061
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1418202.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718717
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29725747
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719815
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719509
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1418202.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718911
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1418202.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718901
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719299
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29724893
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719477
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719203
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1418202.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718923
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29722539
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29725703
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1418202.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29718671
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1418202.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1418202.29719053
</commentlist>
</conversation>
