The History Of Cloud Computing

When looking and researching into the history of Cloud Computing, the aspect that is most clear is that the cloud computing is certainly in its early stages. We as a society are just getting accustomed to the power of cloud computing, and its technology and capacities are capable of being developed far into the distant future.

Although many people have heard of and use the cloud today, its precise definition isn’t as universally identifiable. Essentially, cloud computing is the use of technological data processing, internet, and remote servers to provide computing resources, data, storage, and various applications to their users. It allows for individual and business consumers to access and use a variety of data and applications without needing the knowledge behind the software or Infrastructure.

The initial origins of cloud computing can be traced back to the 1960s, where J.C.R. Licklider and the U.S. government looked to become a pioneer in the field of what is now known as cloud computing with the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET). This project was designed to help scientific users share and spread resources via linking computers. However, ARPANET also played the role to jump start Licklider’s idea of an “intergalactic computer network”, where many people from around the world would be able to access the same data processing server at any time. This also played into the fundamental cloud computing concept of “time-sharing”, where multiple people could access the same networks at once.

From the creation of super computing in the 80s, to the mainstream implementation of the world wide web in the early 90s, the first major breakthrough in cloud computing didn’t arrive until 1999, with the introduction of Salesforce.com. Salesforce designed the first functioning software-as-a-service by using the cloud to send applications for use for a large consumer base for cheap. This is seen today with applications like Gmail.

Cloud computing really started to advance, however, once Amazon launched their two cloud services of Amazon Web Services (2002) and Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud (2006). Amazon web services was a platform filled with cloud computing services that could be paid for individually. It looked into the commonly used 10% capacity of its infrastructure and was able to configure it to the point where it functioned with astounding efficiency. With it came the Elastic Compute Cloud, which rented out computers to customers to run their various applications on. This allowed the cloud compute complete control over the resources for the first time. This combination of services became the mega giant that is the bulk of Amazon’s business today.

Next came the Google App Engine in 2008, where web applications could run on a variety of servers to redistribute the flow of traffic. This allowed for the use of apps on Google apps to be run on mobile phones and web browsers.

Around this time is when cloud computing became known in the mainstream. The Microsoft Azure platform (2010) could handle the development of applications over mobile and the web. The IBM SmartCloud (2011) could build a variety of public, private, and hybrid clouds. NASA and Rackspace’s OpenStack (2010) aided cloud computing for organizations that used more traditional hardware.

Although there are many benefits that come with cloud-based computing (cheap, efficient, easily accessible large amount of storage space), there are some drawbacks that make some people, especially big businesses, hesitant in getting on board. The largest issue is security, as the absolute protection and safety of personal data isn’t ensured with cloud-based systems, as a hack or a malfunction could leave people’s personal data quite vulnerable to online thieves. Also, clouds require internet connection. So, if there is no internet, clouds are practically useless, and they’re extremely difficult with poor internet.

In the future, these big companies might have no choice to put their faith into cloud computing services if the cloud computing industry continues to develop the way it has been. At some point in the future, cloud computing could easily be most prominent option for data processing and storage, especially if its largest issues are fixed. If this becomes the case, cloud computing could make other options obsolete, leaving the big companies with no choice but to trust them. All in all, cloud computing has a bright future, and its developments in the upcoming decades will be interesting and important to watch in terms of how big businesses approach it.

https://www.dataversity.net/brief-history-cloud-computing/#

https://www.computerworld.com/article/3412271/the-history-of-cloud-computing--a-timeline-of-key-moments-from-the-1960s-to-now.html

https://search.proquest.com/central/docview/1767371597/5E5B5BC99F0F4F8DPQ/7?accountid=11411

https://search.proquest.com/central/docview/2018704829/51923532549E456EPQ/11?accountid=11411

https://search.proquest.com/central/docview/2306304522/B6C11E2DA3EB4580PQ/1?accountid=11411

Why Are There Less Anti-War Voices In Mainstream Media?

Blogs and websites that are predominately antiwar aren’t as prominent in the mainstream media circuit because the government doesn’t amplify or promote anti-war to begin with. The federal government has spent an absurd amount of money, resources, and American lives towards wars and causes circulating in the Middle East that they’d feel hypocritical supporting anything to do with anti-war beliefs. They simply don’t want to look wrong, and they also want the American people to keep their eyes off of any anti-war beliefs. It wouldn’t shock me that a big reason why websites such as ANTIWAR.COM and The American Conservative is because of pro-war political figures and parties that have that political pull to reduce the anti-war voices online while amplifying pro-war media.

In my belief, it seems that the majority of mainstream online media seems to have an absence of anti-war voices because they tend to go by the lead of the republican congress and administration. This isn’t meant to say that all republicans are pro-war, or that all news outlets are either, but rather, the tendency for the media is to promote (whether it be directly or indirectly) a pro war voice while silencing and criticizing those anti-war pundits based on the administration. Although the federal government is past the days of the Sedition Act during the first world war, they still don’t want to hear from others who disagree with their decisions, especially when it surrounds war. So, when antiwar writer John Nichols writes about The senate checking and balancing the war powers of President Donald Trump, his work is most likely going to be seen by less people because it doesn’t coincide with the administration, and it thereby won’t be on mainstream outlets.  

I also believe this silencing by the media has to do with the American History in wars. America has a strong history of being successful in warfare and tends to take great pride in being the nation with the capacity to step in and be the world’s powerful protector. This history has led some people to believe that America is simply built to be successful in wars. There’s this ideology that’s been created that simply being an antiwar voice means you don’t have true faith in America and the military at large, so you’re shunned from being taken seriously and being thrusted into the mainstream news.

https://outline.com/F2Reep

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/blogs/

https://www.antiwar.com/

The Absence of Consumer Power: Facebook and Google Anti-Trust Investigations

Ever since the news broke in 2018 about the Cambridge Analytical Scandal, in which Facebook allowed the personal data of millions of users to be shared (without their consent) with the Cambridge Analytica firm, the world has been forced to question just how safe our personal data is online. This resulted in a paradigm shift in how we, as online media consumers, consider the trust we have in companies maintaining the security of our online identities.

Although that scandal has come and gone, the online media giants are facing more backlash and investigations over their advertising process. Major companies such as Facebook, Amazon, and Google have recently been hit with federal anti-trust investigations, with the intention of looking into the process behind their advertising dominance, as well as their data security.

The idea is that these major companies have such large control over advertisement publishing that they force advertisers into tough positions where they are unable to choose other platforms. The federal government fears that these companies can use this power to ruin any semblance of competition between online advertisers. This would mean the most prominent advertisers would be those with the most money to spend, and the highest willingness to pay companies like Facebook and Google the boatloads of money they charge to advertise over their competitors. This can have a sort of trickle down effect to the everyday consumer, as Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton puts it, “If advertising costs are higher, advertisers pay more, and ultimately that’s passed on to consumers.” 

From what I gathered; these anti-trust investigations serve as a model of the larger issues that stem from our interactions with these mega companies as consumers. The main issue simply being control. Companies like Facebook, Amazon, and Google have so much of it while we have so little as consumers. What’s so frustrating about this to me is the lack of awareness we have to the extent of these companies’ control. They can do and get away with so much, and we have very little accessible tools to know that it’s even going on. Plus, even if we could be fully aware, they have such a large online traffic flow that I don’t think anything extreme would come out of it.

These antitrust investigations could definitely change the landscape of online security and advertising, but it would probably be years down the road, and it’s difficult to estimate just how noticeable those changes would be. All in all, as a user of these brands, I just don’t see how these investigations will leave an impact where people will stop putting their trust in these companies to treat them fairly. The amount of dominance they have online leaves the average day consumer in a deep hole of ignorance.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/06/tech/facebook-antitrust-investigation/index.html

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/23/17151916/facebook-cambridge-analytica-trump-diagram

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/google-antitrust-probe-48-u-s-states-launch-antitrust-investigation-of-google-dominance-in-search-ads-and-data/

The History And Workings Of The U.S. Supreme Court

The video on the history of the supreme court as well as what goes on behind the process of determining its rulings was enlightening. It showcased not only the workings behind the most powerful judicial court the world has ever seen, but what the personal experiences are like for those prestigious justices.

The supreme court itself is the ultimate judiciary court of the United States, tasked with determining federal court cases based on the writing of the constitution. The nine supreme court justices are the impartial body that makes up the overarching court in the judiciary branch, who hold the final decision over any case from a lower court that would happen to reach them. The leader of the supreme court is the supreme court justice, who as the overarching justice leads the court’s conference meetings each week.

To become a justice of the supreme court, one has to be nominated by the President, and then has to be approved by a vote in the Senate. If a justice nominee is approved by the senate, they only serve one term; a lifetime term. This means they are on the supreme court until they either die, or wish to retire.

Just as the court has the right to make all final decisions on any federal court case, they also have the right to chose whichever case they feel is worthy of their deliberation. They receive over seven thousand possible cases a year, and only chose around 100 of those cases. These cases are typically brought to their attention through a petition by someone from a lower court hearing, asking for the supreme court to order a writ of certiorari, which is essentially the supreme court demanding the lower court for the case. These cases are chosen if only four out of the nine judges feel it is worthy of being deliberated upon. This is a significant representation of how selective the court is, and just what kind of case is deemed worthy of being selected. The court will choose cases based on if they are significant enough that they debate matters of the constitution, which thereby effects the large majority of the country.

A supreme court hearing appears similar to a typical court hearing. Each side in the case will provide their legal briefs and present them to the court, as well as their oral arguments, which they have exactly 30 minutes to present. The biggest difference is that you’re presenting your argument in front of a whopping nine justices, and they are all asking questions surrounding the case and their argument during this 30-minute presentation. It puts a lot of pressure on the lawyers who are typically used to a one judge (maybe a three or five judge) court session.

Once they’ve heard everything, they have to decide on the case. Once that’s done, the chief justice chooses another to write an opinion, or explanation, of why the court decided the way that they did. This takes about 4 weeks to complete.

One thing that I really took away from the video is that the supreme court has this larger than life appeal to it. They’re clearly not actually larger than life, but they hold the power of determining parts of the ways in which we are supposed to conduct ourselves every day. What they determine in their conferences and opinions affect each and every one of us, and it’s crazy to me how they are just nine people. It seems so easy to be corrupted by personal bias and outside forces in when you hold that much power, and its impressive how they still hold faith in so many people as a true impartial body.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/procedures.aspx 

Iowa Caucus Shadow Inc. App Disaster

Voting is seen as an American ideal, one of the most important representations and expressions of our citizenship and democracy. We all take pride in our right to vote, as people in various other nations aren’t afforded the same luxury that we have. However, the voting system is clearly not perfect, as the technological advancement of the last few decades have led to serious problems, such as the recent issues that struck the Democratic Iowa Caucus recently, where the use of technology being implemented into the voting process has come under questioning.

For the Iowa Caucus, the app that the democratic party chose to collect the voting data and tally the results brutally failed. As reported by the New York Times, the new app by Shadow Inc. was hastily built, which caused trouble for county officials in Iowa who were trying to report the results from their counties, and couldn’t seem to access the app. Iowa precincts found trouble with reporting the results of the caucus, and chairmen and officials looking to submit voting results were stuck mindlessly on hold for multiple hours as the democratic party rushed to fix the issues.

One of the more alarming aspect of the whole debacle was that the Democratic party didn’t announce the inclusion of the Shadow Inc.’s app in the Iowa Caucus process. The app had had trouble prior to the caucus when there were too many users, or with poor service. This It made it appear that the Democratic party hadn’t put the proper time or effort into making sure the app of quality to handle the caucus. This resulted in voters and county officials feeling blindsided by the app’s technical issues, and the democratic party was left with a black eye for its poor planning.

This online voting mishap didn’t just create criticism for the Democratic party, but it also created questions about technology being implemented into processes such as voting as well. Clearly this is an instance where the proper planning and testing weren’t utilized, but I see this misuse of technology as a way that can still leave some bad impressions in the mind of voters.

People already have strong negative views on voting, considering some believe that the process is easily manipulated by those in power, and that their votes don’t even matter. Seeing something like this, where a major political party complicates the voting process through the use of technology can turn those who are on the fence about voting off, and make it appear like more of a hassle.

We are so used to technology making it easier for all of us to communicate. However, it’s important to see its benefits as well as its detriments. This technological mishap can be a detriment to the voting process, as it can discourage possible voters. All in all, this shows how we have to be cautious with implementing technology into our electoral process, as the problems that can arise from it can be harming to various processes of communication, just as the shadow Inc. app did to Iowan voters.