What is your viewpoint of the "The Cloud"?

We've had radios and emissions for about 150 years. I'm sure someone, in all that time, has done plenty of studying on the subject.
I'm fairly certain there has been.

To be honest I don't want to stand right next to an active 500W radio antenna, I'm fairly certain my insides would get cooked. From a few hundred meters however, not so much. The power of electromagnetic waves diminishes quite quickly over distance.

 
Says who? How did they know there's no clear evidence if they have not done the tests in real environment with all kinds of radiation bouncing around vs the lab controlled settings? They may say 5G is safe but have they actually done testings with 2G/3G/4G, other radiations, radios and microwaves in our environment. What about 50 people in the metro car with all active cellphones? I'm saying it's a matter of time before we start seeing such an increase in cancer cases. The more exposures we receive the higher chances of cancer occurring.

So, then, it is faking results.

The first phones had limited range. Let's phone with the smartphone your friends during their Virgin Galactic flight. ;)
 
rastically changes their properties (...) everyone uses table salt.
I remember how amazed I was when I first saw the reaction between sodium and water. And yet, as you said, I put table salt in my water to cook pasta.
 
I remember how amazed I was when I first saw the reaction between sodium and water. And yet, as you said, I put table salt in my water to cook pasta.
ever tried to get a crystal of NaCl out of liquid solution, saturated?
6553
 
What you said is definitely not a legend or rumors, it is actually huge. Thyroid cancer or skin changes are very much, very often observed within the population few kms around this nuclear disaster, but also with much larger distance. Sad but true, and easy to see it.
It happens on time span of about 10-25 years. You did not mention skin cancer as well. Very sad.
However, ... that's why people vote green?

Once there are available stats, which are stating, that might be bad, you'll be at 6G or 7G or 10G.
This is of course now hopelessly off topic, but sadly I do know a little bit about this. I knew a russian lady many years ago who did volunteer work with some of the poor kids from belorus, for a 'chernobyl kids' charity. They were flying them over to london for a month, gave them lots of good food and generally look after them, and try to give them a good time. And she told me a lot of the kids had had their thyroids removed. Some had other radiation-related problems. We don't hear much about it in the mainstream western press. The important point here is that at least in the case of radioactive contamination, the rise in the number of cancer cases occurs slowly over decades.

Being bathed in microwave frequency RF is rather different to ingesting radioactive cesium in your food. So the pattern of cancer, its type and rate of development might be expected to be somewhat different. From what I've read today, the people working on this are still essentially doing basic science to find out what happens.

I found this link, which might be of interest:-
https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-cellphone-5g-health-20160808-snap-story.html
That was published three years ago. I'm sure there is a lot of work going on in this area.
 
Also possible. It probably depends on how much water over what period. Taking in a lot of water in a short time can definitely kill you by drowning. It happened a few times in my teens, when electronic dance music and XTC (MDMA) were pretty much synonymous. Lots of kids died, not because of bad or too much drugs, but due to the copious amounts of water they drank.


"All things are poison, and nothing is without poison, the dosage alone makes it so a thing is not a poison." - Paracelsus :D
hahaha great quote :)
 
Water? Harmless stuff.

You should read the information about DHMO, or di-hydrogen monoxide. It has killed more people than any other chemical! Yet, it hasn't been banned yet. Recently, I saw new information that it is involved in gun violence: most people who use guns to kill others have recently consumed DHMO.

Just search the web for it ... true evil.
 
This is of course now hopelessly off topic, but sadly I do know a little bit about this. I knew a russian lady many years ago who did volunteer work with some of the poor kids from belorus, for a 'chernobyl kids' charity. They were flying them over to london for a month, gave them lots of good food and generally look after them, and try to give them a good time. And she told me a lot of the kids had had their thyroids removed. Some had other radiation-related problems. We don't hear much about it in the mainstream western press. The important point here is that at least in the case of radioactive contamination, the rise in the number of cancer cases occurs slowly over decades.

Being bathed in microwave frequency RF is rather different to ingesting radioactive cesium in your food. So the pattern of cancer, its type and rate of development might be expected to be somewhat different. From what I've read today, the people working on this are still essentially doing basic science to find out what happens.

I found this link, which might be of interest:-
https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-cellphone-5g-health-20160808-snap-story.html
That was published three years ago. I'm sure there is a lot of work going on in this area.
So, why in Europe, we still keep using nuclear energy, for making electricity, at larger scale? It is not coherent, large risks. Same for clouds and 5G, 6G, or 7G,...

who care that's dangerous, the one that will make those cluster antennas happen, are the same that make the laws in given state/country.
 
Water? Harmless stuff.

You should read the information about DHMO, or di-hydrogen monoxide. It has killed more people than any other chemical! Yet, it hasn't been banned yet. Recently, I saw new information that it is involved in gun violence: most people who use guns to kill others have recently consumed DHMO.

Just search the web for it ... true evil.
Some time ago, they spoke about the danger of this substance on French television (in French...) :

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS-CJSlwpGM

Very scary indeed.
Now let's see how people can negate that there are lobbies, hidden interests and plots against us by governments!!!:eek::D
 
Can we get back on topic?

Stepping us back, water falls as rain, rain comes from clouds. Clouds!

Talking with some of our platform team, the cloud looks useful from a scalability point of view. Customers of our customers might want to suddenly stream a live event and being able to scale in seconds to accommodate more requests is a great boon. The scalability could be done in house, but there would probably be large portions of time where a lot of your infrastructure is underutilsied.

The restrictive nature of the cloud has brought in (brought back?) some interesting concepts (note, I don't say anything about the quality of said concepts!). The AWS Lambda service for running bits of code and not standing up a server is kind of cool. The eyespinningly fast release rate of products is an interesting benefit that has fostered more CI/CD type activities which I find interesting.
In a few places I've worked the infrastructure has grown *uh-hem* "organically", whereas that seems more difficult in the cloud, and more routine to define infrastructure as code such that it can be easily replicated.

I've yet to actually work "in the cloud" myself, and I worry less about "proper" computers being taken away and a little more about those administering systems understanding less about the underlying gubbins and likely reinventing things higher up the stack - but this is likely folly on my part, in the end.
 
Doc - OK. I think the cloud is a much bigger deal than anyone thinks. It's not "just computers on a network". The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. A convergence of technologies that have been evolving over the last several decades and which are still evolving at an accelerating pace. We hit moores law in silicon, but mastered the technology of mass deployment and spread it out across the world;
- data centres are pushing down the cost of compute cycles and storage to effectively free levels from the perspective of consumers; the costs to consumers will eventually be so cheap that it will be like background noise to us
- the leaf nodes are also becoming increasingly powerful and cheaper to manufacture, another trend that will continue to accelerate; how long will it be before people start being given free leaf node devices? When will we see the first single-chip smartphone - everything in the phone pcb integrated into one device? It's bound to come, and when it does it will cost just a few dollars to buy;
- a ubiquitous high-bandwidth wifi network that is global in scope, connecting you personally everywhere in the developed world and much of the undeveloped world; 5G is like having a gigabit ethernet with you all the time, 6G and beyond even faster
- image sensors and audio recording can capture every aspect of our world and make it available to us wherever we are; google streetview is a very early prototype; how long before immersive VR lets you travel virtually in a way that is just like being there;
- the massive deployment of billions of microprocessors into every conceivable area of our lives; and processors being implemented in new technologies like plastic, even more cheaply than silicon, still connected to the cloud; people are already working on this stuff
- cloud is an enabler for whole new industries, like autonomous transport, always-on ever-present personal AI assistants, Bill Gates "information at your fingertips" vision on steroids
- the scope for potential new applications is astonishing; I think we have only just begun to scratch the surface in tems of thinking about the types of things that can be done with this new infrastructure
- possibly dystopian nightmares like recording every moment of our life experience, mass surveillance, already we see China deploying a social credit system; let's hope it doesn't come to that :)
- if the internet was a second industrial revolution, this might be the third industrial revolution
- as with all technological developments, the outcome could be heaven or it could be hell; that's been true since we started making stone tools
- is the singularity a real thing? Or human augmentation? I don't know, but it seems we're getting closer to a place where these kinds of things might be possible;
- and from a longer term perspective, will this technology help humans to survive on this little ball of rock where we appear to be engaged in the headlong wholesale destruction of the host ecosystem? The anthropocine mass extinction is taking place during our lifetimes.

We are in the middle of a decades-long process that started arguably with the invention of the transistor. Have a listen some time to what people like Bill Joy and Ray Kurzweil have been saying for years. And on a somewhat darker note, check out Zbigniew Brzesinski's ideas about the technotronic era. When you're busy working in the field, sometimes it's interesting to look up from the screen and look around. We live in interesting times :)
 
Some time ago, they spoke about the danger of this substance on French television (in French...) :

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS-CJSlwpGM

Very scary indeed.
Note: actually, they blame everything on french tv channels, maybe that's why they go in street, who really knows. Despite this, they look not to complain that much about their energy power, kinda nuclear at 80 pct. If they would, they could not, because there are strong lobbies and French medias.

Maybe could it be that, we just cannot accept the higher level of toxicity of changes and modern world?
- Bio maybe, return to origin?
- We use cloud and faster internet, and we want to be living in an healthy world...
It is rather irrational. Let's think about this one. This one is excellent, and it pictures well the daily reality:
Menschen wollen gesund werden, aber nicht gesund leben.
Consequently, humans will vote yes for toxicity, pollution, and modern technologies.
 
Apologies for going a little bit offtopic but... I was playing GTAO the other day and heard this on the in-game radio and it immediately reminded me of this thread. I think R*, as always, managed to create another perfect mockery:

 
The web cloud is actually an pretty unefficient way of file transfert/sharing files, considering the CPU usage + required bandwith.

I tested google drive, and some data cannot be downloaded with chromium browser. It seems that it needs a high-end, machine to use web cloud aka google drive.
 
The web cloud is actually an pretty unefficient way of file transfert/sharing files, considering the CPU usage + required bandwidth.
Nonsense. For a secure protocol, it is actually extremely efficient. Or why do you think the largest computer companies in the world (Amazon, Google, Microsoft) would be using it? They really don't like wasting CPU, memory, networking, or storage. Do you have a proposal for an alternate protocol that would be more efficient? Do you actually understand modern networking architecture, offload engines, and protocol processing?

I tested google drive, and some data cannot be downloaded with chromium browser. It seems that it needs a high-end, machine to use web cloud aka google drive.
Google drive is not identical to the cloud. Far from it.
I can use Google drive from low-end Android phones and Chromebooks. I'm using it on the 11-year old laptop on my desk (which is a 32-bit CPU with 4gig of memory). It does definitely not need a high end machine.
 
CLOUDS (digital data communication, storage, processing and retrieval) a.k.a DPS-Data Processing Services since early 80’s. Back_then_when .. IBM had 100% monopoly in DPS industry. Now, Google, Amazon, Microsoft and few others, IBM too, offer DPS for masses.

The name of the game and its top players may change, but the game is still the same.
Back then, IBM held local and remote digital data service customers by their balls. Now, the IT monsters in so called Clouds hold their customers (users) by the balls with their fingers in customers (users) a*ss*s and wallets. Then, they were doing in Token Ring Networks, now they’re doing it over TCP/IP network a.k.a Internet in the Clouds :)

Back in early 90’s we had to develop in a shared (Cloud) computing environment with hundreds of CATIA workstations connected to IBM mainframes with support of HPC by Cray Supercomputers, because only large Corporate entities could afford it. Now, I can do the same on a single PC.
I have 2 computers with 4 CPUs x6 cores each, shitload of cheap storage, 3 operating systems, tons of apps that I don’t know what to with and enough TCP/IP servers to amuse and confuse World Wide Internouts and Hacktards. Why would I need a Cloud supported services?

LOL
 
Nonsense. For a secure protocol, it is actually extremely efficient. Or why do you think the largest computer companies in the world (Amazon, Google, Microsoft) would be using it? They really don't like wasting CPU, memory, networking, or storage. Do you have a proposal for an alternate protocol that would be more efficient? Do you actually understand modern networking architecture, offload engines, and protocol processing?
What is so much efficient with that cloud?

You may transfert with (s)ftp, you need just a small program that does the file transfert for instance.

On a PI, google drive is slow as a snail.
 
For transfer via https, you also need just a tiny program. The protocol is simple enough, you can do transfers using just telnet (for http without SSL). The size of the program has nothing to do with the efficiency of the transfer. The design and implementation of the protocol does. To begin with, today's TCP/IP hardware and protocol stacks are highly optimized for http(s), for obvious reasons.

And again, Google drive (and similar technologies like DropBox) are just only tiny and unimportant aspect of the cloud.
 
For transfer via https, you also need just a tiny program. The protocol is simple enough, you can do transfers using just telnet (for http without SSL). The size of the program has nothing to do with the efficiency of the transfer. The design and implementation of the protocol does. To begin with, today's TCP/IP hardware and protocol stacks are highly optimized for http(s), for obvious reasons.

And again, Google drive (and similar technologies like DropBox) are just only tiny and unimportant aspect of the cloud.

http should be used for web, not for all whatever file transferts. There are sufficient ports that are available. Order and coherence first.

yeah, but what about cloud google drive, do you use a tiny file to make it work properly? - Web browser, and resource and memory wasting.
SCP is far more efficient and free.
 
Back
Top