I think I hear the voice of an environmentalist. Why stop with Alaska, however. Why don't we depopulate Montana, Idaho, Washington, Colorado the California and turn them back into pristine land masses as well. You can't have enough pristine land masses - that's my view.

If what you paid for an engine that could go 120 is significantly higher than the cost of an engine that would get you to 90, then you are "wasting" capacity. Its probably not a big deal in the case of your car. But it may be a big deal to a company when it comes to its computer system's capacity.

Obviously, you can't operate a system at 100 percent capacity. You need room for growth. And because there are peak times, you need surge capacity. But it is easier to reduce and manage excess capacity in larger units than smaller, especially when you have a diversity of users who have different peak periods and different growth rates. That's why the utility model is intriguing.

I think we should be clear: Companies will still need software that furthers their corporate goals and even gives them competitive advantage. That would be purchased and developed, if necessary, in house, or on a proprietary basis. But it needs to run on the company's computer system eventually, and its perfectly possible that system/network can be "rented out" from a utility.

No outsourcing the "soul" of the company - let's all agree to that. But most companies are more body than soul.

It is possible in theory and I think true in practice that centralization could have been the optimal solution at the beginning of the computer era and now, but not in between. And it may change back again with some other technological development. Some things move in a straight line. Others move like a pendulum.

I think I hear the voice of an environmentalist. Why stop with Alaska, however. Why don't we depopulate Montana, Idaho, Washington, Colorado the California and turn them back into pristine land masses as well. You can't have enough pristine land masses - that's my view.