Something has been gnawing at me lately.

 

In networking circles, the concept of single point-of-failure works like this:

 

If you have a network with 100 workstations, all serviced by a single centralized server, the entire network collapses if that central server experiences an outage. The looming threat of this possibility has caused network administrators to plan for it's eventuality. I say "eventuality" because Murphy's Law dictates that if something bad can happen, it will happen. That centralized server will at some point experience an outage. Because of this, critical networks now have double, triple and sometimes quadrouple redundant backups. They have colocations sometimes a thousand kilometers away from eachother.

 

So how does this relate to me? You might ask.

 

Consider the common grocery store. What if shipments to your local grocery store suddenly stopped for whatever reason? Of course there's no problem, right? Because there's another grocery store a few blocks away. The system contains redundancy, so we are safe, right?

 

Wrong.

 

When viewing food distribution systems, the grocery store is the last stop before the end-user. It's not the server, it's the terminal. In the "food network", the central distribution centres are the "servers" which form the hub of the network, and are therefore subject to single point-of-failure. There is no redundancy. If for some reason food distribution were to be interrupted at one of these regional hubs, hundreds of thousands of people would be at risk.

 

The problem isn't limited to the food industry, either. Virtually every underlying system of our society is organized along this model. Water, electricity, fuel, even the cities themselves are single points-of-failure.

 

Society has reached a point where the client-server model is no longer safe. Quite literally, our lives are frequently at the mercy of some anonymous worker drone, possibly thousands of kilometers away, who will never see first-hand the impact of his mistakes. Or worse, an attack. A single point-of-failure is also a single point of attack. A broad aim-point at which our enemies can affix their targeting.

 

We can no longer sacrifice our security for a diminishing return on efficiency. The client-server model has served us well in the past, but so did the ox-drawn plow.

 

It's time to put the ox to pasture and buy a tractor. It's time to switch to a distributed-server model.

 

It's time to localize.

So it turns out there was some truth behind the rumour that GM and Ford were discussing a merger. Well colour me shocked.

 

I guess all of those pre-1973 notions of sales models based on market share weren't such a great idea afterall, eh? How long did you honestly expect to be able to continue selling product at a lost, just for the sake of keeping the plants open?

 

The people I really feel sorry for, are all of those long-standing employees who were promised a retirement package, but will never see them. It sucks being lied to, it really does. I guess they can all go get jobs at the Toyota plant for a third of the salary though. Sorry, no unions allowed. I hope the employees remembered to get away from those adjustable rate, interest-only mortgages on their McMansions though, otherwise we're in real trouble.

 

Don't worry though, rest assured that all of those golden upper management parachutes are still good.

Now presenting, the "Gurkha".

 

You hear that, Ashton Kutcher? You need to sell that wussy mini Peterbuilt and get yourself a real man's truck! Oh, and you too Ahnold. Hummers are so last year. I predict these will be all the rage for soccer moms next summer. I wonder if they come in powder blue...

 

Of course, Blackwater and Vance Intl. have put in orders. Unfortunately, the real troops, you know, the ones who are NOT mercenaries will just have to get thier families to buy one for them. Just like thier body armor.

 

And of course, the Canadian military would love to get some, but they can't afford it. Pretty bad how we are at the forefront of yet another field, yet we cannot afford to benefit from those advancements.