RE: [agi] Cloud Intelligence
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] True, we can't explain why the human brain needs 10^15 synapses to store 10^9 bits of long term memory (Landauer's estimate). Typical neural networks store 0.15 to 0.25 bits per synapse. This study - http://www.cogsci.rpi.edu/CSJarchive/1986v10/i04/p0477p0493/MAIN.PDF is just throwing a dart at the wall. You'd need something more real life instead of word and picture recall calculations to arrive at a number even close to actual. I estimate a language model with 10^9 bits of complexity could be implemented using 10^9 to 10^10 synapses. However, time complexity is hard to estimate. A naive implementation would need around 10^18 to 10^19 operations to train on 1 GB of text. However this could be sped up significantly if only a small fraction of neurons are active at any time. Just looking at the speed/memory/accuracy tradeoffs of various models at http://cs.fit.edu/~mmahoney/compression/text.html (the 2 graphs below the main table), it seems that memory is more of a limitation than CPU speed. A real time language model would be allowed 10-20 years. I'm sorry, what are those 2 graphs indicating? To get a smaller compressed size more running memory is needed? That y-axis is a compressor runtime memory limit specified by a command line switch or is it just what the compressor consumes for the data to be compressed? John --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Cloud Intelligence
--- On Mon, 11/3/08, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This study - http://www.cogsci.rpi.edu/CSJarchive/1986v10/i04/p0477p0493/MAIN.PDF is just throwing a dart at the wall. You'd need something more real life instead of word and picture recall calculations to arrive at a number even close to actual. It is the best estimate we have today. However you are right that there is more to memory than words and pictures. How do you measure the memory that we used to learn to see and to walk? Anyway, thanks for the link. I had not been able to find it online. Just looking at the speed/memory/accuracy tradeoffs of various models at http://cs.fit.edu/~mmahoney/compression/text.html (the 2 graphs below the main table), it seems that memory is more of a limitation than CPU speed. A real time language model would be allowed 10-20 years. I'm sorry, what are those 2 graphs indicating? To get a smaller compressed size more running memory is needed? That y-axis is a compressor runtime memory limit specified by a command line switch or is it just what the compressor consumes for the data to be compressed? The compressed size vs. memory chart shows how much memory the compressor requires. In theory, a model with 10^9 bits could be represented in 128 MB of memory. But in practice we need much more to achieve any kind of efficiency, at least 4 GB it seems. The graph doesn't show any hint of leveling off. Both graphs show only the compressors on the Pareto frontier, which means no better compressor uses less memory or is faster. For each compressor, I tested only using the options for maximum compression. Many compressors allow other options for greater speed or less memory, so it could result in additional data points. However these points tend to trend along the same line as the overall graph. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Cloud Intelligence
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- On Thu, 10/30/08, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Cloud computing is compatible with my proposal for distributed AGI. It's just not big enough. I would need 10^10 processors, each 10^3 to 10^6 times more powerful than a PC. The only thing we have that come close to those numbers are insect brains. Maybe something can be biogenetically engineered :) Somehow wire billions of insect brains together modified in such a way that they are peer 2 peer and emerge a greater intelligence :) Or molecular computing. The Earth has about 10^37 bits of data encoded in DNA*. Evolution executes a parallel algorithm that runs at 10^33 operations per second**. This far exceeds the 10^25 bits of memory and 10^27 OPS needed to simulate all the human brains on Earth as neural networks***. *Human DNA has 6 x 10^9 base pairs (diploid count) at 2 bits each ~ 10^10 bits. The human body has ~ 10^14 cells = 10^24 bits. There are ~ 10^10 humans ~ 10^34 bits. Humans make up 0.1% of the biomass ~ 10^37 bits. **Cell replication ranges from 20 minutes in bacteria to ~ 1 year in human tissue. Assume 10^-4 replications per second on average ~ 10^33 OPS. The figure would be much higher if you include RNA and protein synthesis. ***Assume 10^15 synapses per brain at 1 bit each and 10 ms resolution times 10^10 humans. I agree on the molecular computing. The resources are there. Not sure though how one would go about calculating the evolution parallel algorithm OPS, it would be different than just cell reproduction magnitude. Still though I don't agree on your initial numbers estimate for AGI. A bit high perhaps? Your numbers may be able to be trimmed down based on refined assumptions. John --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Cloud Intelligence
--- On Sun, 11/2/08, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Still though I don't agree on your initial numbers estimate for AGI. A bit high perhaps? Your numbers may be able to be trimmed down based on refined assumptions. True, we can't explain why the human brain needs 10^15 synapses to store 10^9 bits of long term memory (Landauer's estimate). Typical neural networks store 0.15 to 0.25 bits per synapse. I estimate a language model with 10^9 bits of complexity could be implemented using 10^9 to 10^10 synapses. However, time complexity is hard to estimate. A naive implementation would need around 10^18 to 10^19 operations to train on 1 GB of text. However this could be sped up significantly if only a small fraction of neurons are active at any time. Just looking at the speed/memory/accuracy tradeoffs of various models at http://cs.fit.edu/~mmahoney/compression/text.html (the 2 graphs below the main table), it seems that memory is more of a limitation than CPU speed. A real time language model would be allowed 10-20 years. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Cloud Intelligence
It sure seems to me that the availability of cloud computing is valuable to the AGI project. There are some claims that maybe intelligent programs are still waiting on sufficient computer power, but with something like this, anybody who really thinks that and has some real software in mind has no excuse. They can get whatever cpu horsepower they need, I'm pretty sure even to the theoretical levels predicted by, say, Moravec and Kurzweil. It takes away that particular excuse. So nowadays, about the only excuse left is that people don't have enough top-level research programmers working for them. And in saying that, I do mean that AGI programs now generally recognize that there are some significant unsolved programming challenges, even if they believe they have most of the framework of an intelligent system. andi From: Mike Archbold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I guess I don't see how cloud computing is materially different from open source in so much as we see the sharing of resources and also now increased availability, no need to buy so much hardware at the outset. But it seems more a case of convenience. The cloud is the host. It's hardware virtualized with open ended resources on demand. Open source resources usually don't include the hardware. And open source software can be copied ad infinitum. Shared hardware is a finite resource. And there is a huge surplus of it underutilized. So what does that have to do with AGI? I can see the advantage that if you wanted your executable code to remain hidden in a cloud so nobody can get a hold of it to decompile and figure it out, however. Some AGI experiments can require multiple servers. There may be some test runs that require dozens or hundreds of servers. So instead of having a data center you rent one on demand. Then there's the general trend on what is going on with that technology. It's another form of distributed computing but with a more assertive and practical flavor. John --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Cloud Intelligence
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 6:45 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It sure seems to me that the availability of cloud computing is valuable to the AGI project. There are some claims that maybe intelligent programs are still waiting on sufficient computer power, but with something like this, anybody who really thinks that and has some real software in mind has no excuse. They can get whatever cpu horsepower they need, I'm pretty sure even to the theoretical levels predicted by, say, Moravec and Kurzweil. It takes away that particular excuse. Indeed, that's been the most important effect of computing power limitations. It's not that we've ever been able to say this program would do great things, if only we had the hardware to run it. It's that we learn to flinch away from the good designs, the workable approaches, because they won't fit on the single cheap beige box we have on our desks. The key benefit of cloud computing is one that can be had before the first line of code is written: don't think in terms of how your design will run on one box, think in terms of how it will run on 10,000. --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Cloud Intelligence
From: Russell Wallace [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 6:45 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It sure seems to me that the availability of cloud computing is valuable to the AGI project. There are some claims that maybe intelligent programs are still waiting on sufficient computer power, but with something like this, anybody who really thinks that and has some real software in mind has no excuse. They can get whatever cpu horsepower they need, I'm pretty sure even to the theoretical levels predicted by, say, Moravec and Kurzweil. It takes away that particular excuse. Indeed, that's been the most important effect of computing power limitations. It's not that we've ever been able to say this program would do great things, if only we had the hardware to run it. It's that we learn to flinch away from the good designs, the workable approaches, because they won't fit on the single cheap beige box we have on our desks. The key benefit of cloud computing is one that can be had before the first line of code is written: don't think in terms of how your design will run on one box, think in terms of how it will run on 10,000. My suspicion though is that say you had 100 physical servers and then 100 physical cloud servers. You could hand tailor your distributed application so that it is extremely more efficient not running on the cloud substrate. Even if you took the grid substrate that the cloud is running on and hand tweaked your app to utilize that I suspect that it would still be way less efficient than a 100% native written. The advantage of using cloud or grid substrate is that it makes writing the application much easier. Hand coded distributed applications take a particular expertise to develop. Eliminating that helps from a bootstrap perspective. Also when you have control over your server you can manipulate topology. It is possible to enhance inter-server communication by creating custom physical and virtual network topology. I assume as grid and cloud computing matures the software substrate will become more efficient and adaptable to the application. To be sure though on the efficiencies, some tests would need to be run. Unless someone here understands cloud/grid enough to know what the deal is or has already run tests. John --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Cloud Intelligence
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 3:07 PM, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My suspicion though is that say you had 100 physical servers and then 100 physical cloud servers. You could hand tailor your distributed application so that it is extremely more efficient not running on the cloud substrate. Why would you suspect that? My understanding of cloud computing is that the servers are perfectly ordinary Linux boxes, with perfectly ordinary network connections, it's just that you rent them instead of buying them. --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Cloud Intelligence
Unless you are going to hand-wire some special processor-to-processor interconnect fabric, this seems probably not to be true... ben g On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Russell Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 3:07 PM, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My suspicion though is that say you had 100 physical servers and then 100 physical cloud servers. You could hand tailor your distributed application so that it is extremely more efficient not running on the cloud substrate. Why would you suspect that? My understanding of cloud computing is that the servers are perfectly ordinary Linux boxes, with perfectly ordinary network connections, it's just that you rent them instead of buying them. --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. -- Robert Heinlein --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Cloud Intelligence
From: Ben Goertzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 9:18 AM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [agi] Cloud Intelligence Unless you are going to hand-wire some special processor-to-processor interconnect fabric, this seems probably not to be true... ben g On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Russell Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 3:07 PM, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My suspicion though is that say you had 100 physical servers and then 100 physical cloud servers. You could hand tailor your distributed application so that it is extremely more efficient not running on the cloud substrate. Why would you suspect that? My understanding of cloud computing is that the servers are perfectly ordinary Linux boxes, with perfectly ordinary network connections, it's just that you rent them instead of buying them. Not talking custom hardware, when you take your existing app and apply it to the distributed resource and network topology (your 100 servers) you can structure it to maximize its execution reward. And the design of the app should take the topology into account. Just creating an app and uploading it to a cloud and assuming the cloud will be smart enough to figure it out? There's gonna be layers there man and resource task switching with other customers. Cloud substrate software is probably good but not that good. You could understand how the cloud processes and structure your app towards that. I have no idea how these clouds are implemented. John --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Cloud Intelligence
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 3:42 PM, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not talking custom hardware, when you take your existing app and apply it to the distributed resource and network topology (your 100 servers) you can structure it to maximize its execution reward. And the design of the app should take the topology into account. That would be a very bad idea, even if there were no such thing as cloud computing. Even if there was a significant efficiency gain to be had that way (which there isn't, in the usual scenario where you're talking about ethernet not some custom grid fabric), as soon as the next hardware purchase comes along, the design over which you sweated so hard is now useless or worse than useless. --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Cloud Intelligence
From: Russell Wallace [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 3:42 PM, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not talking custom hardware, when you take your existing app and apply it to the distributed resource and network topology (your 100 servers) you can structure it to maximize its execution reward. And the design of the app should take the topology into account. That would be a very bad idea, even if there were no such thing as cloud computing. Even if there was a significant efficiency gain to be had that way (which there isn't, in the usual scenario where you're talking about ethernet not some custom grid fabric), as soon as the next hardware purchase comes along, the design over which you sweated so hard is now useless or worse than useless. No, you don't lock it into an instance in time. You make it selectively scalable. When your app or your application's resources span more than one machine you need to organize that. The choice on how you do so effects execution efficiency. You could have an app now that needs 10 machines to run and 5 years from now will run on one machine yes. That is true. John --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Cloud Intelligence
Cloud computing is compatible with my proposal for distributed AGI. It's just not big enough. I would need 10^10 processors, each 10^3 to 10^6 times more powerful than a PC. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Cloud Intelligence
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Cloud computing is compatible with my proposal for distributed AGI. It's just not big enough. I would need 10^10 processors, each 10^3 to 10^6 times more powerful than a PC. The only thing we have that come close to those numbers are insect brains. Maybe something can be biogenetically engineered :) Somehow wire billions of insect brains together modified in such a way that they are peer 2 peer and emerge a greater intelligence :) John --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Cloud Intelligence
--- On Thu, 10/30/08, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Cloud computing is compatible with my proposal for distributed AGI. It's just not big enough. I would need 10^10 processors, each 10^3 to 10^6 times more powerful than a PC. The only thing we have that come close to those numbers are insect brains. Maybe something can be biogenetically engineered :) Somehow wire billions of insect brains together modified in such a way that they are peer 2 peer and emerge a greater intelligence :) Or molecular computing. The Earth has about 10^37 bits of data encoded in DNA*. Evolution executes a parallel algorithm that runs at 10^33 operations per second**. This far exceeds the 10^25 bits of memory and 10^27 OPS needed to simulate all the human brains on Earth as neural networks***. *Human DNA has 6 x 10^9 base pairs (diploid count) at 2 bits each ~ 10^10 bits. The human body has ~ 10^14 cells = 10^24 bits. There are ~ 10^10 humans ~ 10^34 bits. Humans make up 0.1% of the biomass ~ 10^37 bits. **Cell replication ranges from 20 minutes in bacteria to ~ 1 year in human tissue. Assume 10^-4 replications per second on average ~ 10^33 OPS. The figure would be much higher if you include RNA and protein synthesis. ***Assume 10^15 synapses per brain at 1 bit each and 10 ms resolution times 10^10 humans. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Cloud Intelligence
John G. Rose wrote: Has anyone done some analysis on cloud computing, in particular the recent trend and coming out of clouds with multiple startup efforts in this space? And their relationship to AGI type applications? Or is this phenomena just geared to web server farm resource grouping? I suppose that it is worth delving into... at least evaluating. But my first thoughts are that the hardware nodes have interrelationships that require compatibility layers for service offerings verses custom clusters hand tweaked for app specific - AGI in this case, optimizations and caterings. From playing around a little in the Amazon cloud you can do anything you can do on a standard TCP/IP network of off the shelf boxes. Granted you can't hook up a faster network as you certainly could in your own cluster. But it still seems pretty intriguing. What happens though over time is that the cloud generalization substrate made for software and competitive efficiencies eventually come close to or exceed the abilities of the hand developed and tweaked. That is the problem - determining whether to wait, pay, or to develop a custom solution. Well, most of us have no choice but do do whatever we can as soon as we can on top of free/cheap but relatively plentiful resources. Isn't software development annoying because of this? Big guys like MS have the umph to shrug off the little guys using their development resource power. Sometimes the only choice is to eat dust and like it. Suck up the dust, it's nutritional silicon value is there, feed off of it, the perpetuity of a naked quartz lunch. Actually I think software is very exciting and have for 30 years because the little guy can and often does come up with something on a relative shoestring that blows MS out of the water in some market that often didn't even see coming. - samantha --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Cloud Intelligence
2008/10/29 Samantha Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]: John G. Rose wrote: Has anyone done some analysis on cloud computing, in particular the recent trend and coming out of clouds with multiple startup efforts in this space? And their relationship to AGI type applications? Beware of putting too much stuff into the cloud. Especially in the current economic climate clouds could disappear without notice (i.e. unrecoverable data loss). Also, depending upon terms and conditions any data which you put into the cloud may not legally be owned by you, even if you created it. --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Cloud Intelligence
From: Bob Mottram [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Beware of putting too much stuff into the cloud. Especially in the current economic climate clouds could disappear without notice (i.e. unrecoverable data loss). Also, depending upon terms and conditions any data which you put into the cloud may not legally be owned by you, even if you created it. For private commercial clouds this is true. But imagine a public self-healing cloud where it is somewhat self-regulated and self-organized. Though commercial clouds could have some sort of inter-cloud virtual backbone that they subscribe to. So Company A goes bankrupt but it's cloud is offloaded into the backbone and absorbed by another cloud. Micro payments migrate with the cloud. Ya right like that could ever happen. John --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Cloud Intelligence
I guess I don't see how cloud computing is materially different from open source in so much as we see the sharing of resources and also now increased availability, no need to buy so much hardware at the outset. But it seems more a case of convenience. So what does that have to do with AGI? I can see the advantage that if you wanted your executable code to remain hidden in a cloud so nobody can get a hold of it to decompile and figure it out, however. On 10/29/08, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Bob Mottram [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Beware of putting too much stuff into the cloud. Especially in the current economic climate clouds could disappear without notice (i.e. unrecoverable data loss). Also, depending upon terms and conditions any data which you put into the cloud may not legally be owned by you, even if you created it. For private commercial clouds this is true. But imagine a public self-healing cloud where it is somewhat self-regulated and self-organized. Though commercial clouds could have some sort of inter-cloud virtual backbone that they subscribe to. So Company A goes bankrupt but it's cloud is offloaded into the backbone and absorbed by another cloud. Micro payments migrate with the cloud. Ya right like that could ever happen. John --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
