So all those folks who always say "memory is cheap" and who make fun of others who write small conservative programs might not be so smart after all.
Because they can't run their "feature-rich" unconstrained applications on wimpy nodes. And thus they can't cut their employer's energy and real estate costs.
Why did Google abandon its plans to supply its own energy?
> So all those folks who always say "memory is cheap" and who make fun of others who write small conservative programs might not be so smart after all.
Your first hint that an opinion comes from a neophyte is that they make fun of others. Your second hint is that they have an un-nuanced worldview.
> Why did Google abandon its plans to supply its own energy?
They didn't. They shut down part of their alternative energy R&D efforts, then turned around and dumped about $100 million into new solar projects. And they've never stopped putting PV panels on their datacenters. Mass media somehow misinterpreted this as an abandonment of some grand strategy by Google.
My prediction: Client-side encryption is going to become more popular. All users encrypt files before sending to cloud. Then users decide who gets access to their information. This is just common sense. It might help in areas like medical records (HIPAA) as well.
If you give Dropbox write-access to your Desktop and all your unencrypted original files, you are 0wned.
This is already common with Megaupload/Rapidshare piracy. People upload password-protected RARs to prevent the files from getting pulled via hashes or manual inspection.
Megaupload had servers in the USA with Carpathia Hosting.
That makes them subject to US law.
SOPA/PIPA are aimed at situations where the servers are all offshore and the business has no connection to the US.
Megaupload used servers in the USA at Carpathia Hosting.
That makes them subject to US law.
SOPA/PIPA was for foreign sites that have no servers in the USA.
If you host server in the US, you are not a foreign website. You are a local one. In that situation, a SOPA/PIPA makes little difference. They can shut you down easily with existing laws. Do you understand?
If you host server in the US, you are not a foreign website.
You left out an article there which is significant in this case "a server" or "the server".
If I were a "rogue website", could I host 99 servers in Bananastan and 1 server in the US and gain the benefits of complete SOPA exemption without significant risk to my availability?
I don't really know that this is worth discussing that much now that this particular flavor (SOPA) is off the table. But it may come up again just what the working definition of a "foreign website" is for any given set of considerations.
Usually just accepting payment from someone in the US is enough to bring US laws into it.
A "SOPA exemption" isn't going to protect you if you are hosting in the US. You need a DMCA exemption. And if you're reaching audiences the size of YouTube's or Megaupload's, Vivendi will see you in court.
If you have no US-based servers, and if Bananastan has no treaty cooperation with the US on IP infringement and extradition, then shutting you down is not so easy for Vivendi (FBI/DOJ) to accomplish.
For that they need more than what they have now (DMCA) to work with.
These cases are not all the same. Different criminal laws are being violated, by people in different places, involving different US-based businesses.