Slashdot Mirror


Intel Predicts Death Of WWW

LostCluster writes "Forbes is running a report saying that Intel's CTO claims that the WWW is 'running up on some architectural limitations' that will eventually cause its downfall. He's pushing a project called PlanetLab that has Princeton, Cambridge, Hewlett-Packard and AT&T on board, but Cisco is notably absent from that team."

300 comments

  1. Buy more chips by otisg · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is he also, by any chance, suggesting a solution: buy more, newever, faster Intel chips!?

    --
    Simpy
    1. Re:Buy more chips by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No not at all. You obviously need the NetBurst architecture, idiot.

    2. Re:Buy more chips by Kusanagi · · Score: 0, Redundant

      No, I think they're saying that we need to buy intel's networking products.. they're obviously better than cisco's stuff, because that evil cisco "may have other ideas"!!

      --
      -Major Kusanagi, Section 9
    3. Re:Buy more chips by rylin · · Score: 0, Funny

      But see, if we buy newer/faster intel chips, the temperature on the surface of this planet will triple, and "Waterworld" will come to be.

    4. Re:Buy more chips by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1, Funny

      I never did figure out how to insert a CD-ROM or an internet connection directly into a pentium chip like on the adverts...

    5. Re:Buy more chips by Mr2cents · · Score: 1

      Is he also, by any chance, suggesting a solution

      Here's the part of the article that states the problem:

      At Intel's technical conference, CTO Patrick Gelsinger said the Internet will begin to collapse as millions of new computer users from developing nations begin to sign on."We're running up on some architectural limitations," Gelsinger was quoted as saying.

      And the solution:

      Gelsinger's solution is to build a new network over the current Internet, that would monitor and direct traffic and better fight security threats or traffic surges.

      the rest is just blahblahblah. As you can see, a very thorough article.

      --
      "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
    6. Re:Buy more chips by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No but he was a Ceo of NetCraft...

    7. Re:Buy more chips by ahdeoz · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure this was meant to be a "there are more than 5 billion people in the world, and fewer than 5 billion addresses in IPv4."

    8. Re:Buy more chips by tommywho70x · · Score: 1

      Byte your tongue! Do you think Intel wants to give away their MSFT-i386 Auto-Free-BOOT-Me corner of the market PING?(Off-the-Wallpaper: BUBBLES.GIF PC/TV Adapter#8085 error#8086 of 10,000 Maniacs) Come on, even the freenet/osdn-nerd-niks want a little piece of the (~$~)Flying Dollar BillG. Wiz digital funny money to land in their C++mE-Bank Accounts. (D.O.A. by B.O.A.B0B0.index.x32 K.I.A. by YHOO-NASDAQ-NEWS_WEBSITES xml*rss feed me the head of Alan Greenspan on an SBC PLATTER NUM ROI)

    9. Re:Buy more chips by zuesse · · Score: 1

      Kinda looks like someone forgot ipv6.

      *ixs doit. Switches doit. Even the one with the blue screens can doit.

      What's the problem?

      --


      What great fortune for rulers that men do not think.
  2. Right up there with Gates by RedShoeRider · · Score: 4, Insightful
    .....WWW is going to die, DVD's are a thing of the past....blah blah blah.

    Yeah, and Beta's been "dead" for 20 years. But I still can go buy tapes for it.

    --

    Chris Knight is my hero.

    1. Re:Right up there with Gates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Err, I hate to break it to you but Beta really has been dead for many years. DVDs and the Internet actually aren't dead.

    2. Re:Right up there with Gates by binaryDigit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      .....WWW is going to die, DVD's are a thing of the past....blah blah blah. Yeah, and Beta's been "dead" for 20 years. But I still can go buy tapes for it.

      Actually the fact that you can still get your hands on Beta tapes is not relevant, heck, I can still get my hands on new 8" floppies. And actually, once hi-def dvd's start showing up, today's dvd's will be a thing of the past.

      Better analogies would be doomsayers talk about "we need to develop optical technologies because magnetic media will hit a stone wall at 1GB", or "cpu's will max out about 500mhz, better use optical computing" or "ipv6 needs to be adopted to deal with the shrinking ip address pool".

    3. Re:Right up there with Gates by rseuhs · · Score: 1
      And actually, once hi-def dvd's start showing up, today's dvd's will be a thing of the past.

      I don't think so. The DVD is certainly "good enough" for movies. It's a major step compared to VHS (much better quality, but more important: no more rewinding, better scene selection, multiple language tracks, extras and better archievability) but a hi-def dvd is just "like DVD, only better" which is not really going to fly.

      There are just too many DVD-players out there, it will take at least 10 years, probably more like 20 of selling backwards-compatible hi-def players until conventional DVDs will disappear.

    4. Re:Right up there with Gates by Cylix · · Score: 1

      I work in the broadcast television industry now. It's a bit different then systems administration at an ISP.

      Getting beta decks is getting tougher and tougher. It's still highly used in the distribution industry as well.

      There is a analogue/digital hybrid deck that is new and I believe around 5000. There are a surprising number of shops that specialize in rebuilding, parts and supplying rebuilt decks. 3/4 has mostly been phased out and I've seen piles of 3/4 decks piled up anytime I go to a broadcast shop. We even have a small pile of 12 or so decks sitting.

      Distribution is starting to take a technological leap as well. DGsystems has a very nice linux (slackware) setup that uses a DVB satelite card and modem uplink (transport verification). It's a solid system built on very humble parts.

      A newcomer, fast channel, has an all windows setup that uses a broadband connection for pushing down content.

      Finally, my other distribution box is made by pathfire which is a bit of a hybrid in the sense its a windows system with a large chunk of open source software. Apache, tomcat, mysql, Cygwin(the unix api dll... I think I got the name right), and various other apps with a strong set of java tools and GUI controls. Pathfire also uses satelite transmission and can use modem uplink or broadband for verification. They did include all the license information for each product too.

      It's interesting to see all of these products come around, but sadly maybe only 10% of our distibution is through these electronic systems.

      --
      "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
    5. Re:Right up there with Gates by DarkMantle · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Just Remember

      "640K ought to be enough for anybody."
      -- Bill Gates circa 1981

      RIIGGHHHTTTT!!!!

      --
      DarkMantle I been bored, so I started a blog.
    6. Re:Right up there with Gates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "640K ought to be enough for anybody."

      What burns me about people who routinely bring this up is that no one looks at it in context. At the time, 640k WAS more than enough for most people. Just like 512MB is currently enough for most folk.

    7. Re:Right up there with Gates by pdp0x14 · · Score: 1
      ...or we're going to x-ray lithography immediately if not sooner to stay on the IC shrinkage curve ... or we're going to need GaAs to meet IC speed requirements across the board.

      I'm sure there will come a day when there will be large applications that need a different infrastructure from the Web, but why will the Web go away as opposed to co-exit?

      Now if Microsoft controlled the Web, then we could look forward to being pushed into more capability than we need as soon as possible.

    8. Re:Right up there with Gates by slashbart · · Score: 1

      Yeah right! At the time, forward looking companies such as Apple and Motorola were putting together real processors (68k) and real operating systems, that offered far more legroom. The same can be seen with ide vs scsi. Ide is a hopelessly complicated format where every few years they reorganized the meaning of heads/sectors/tracks to get another doubling of storage. In the meantime the clean scsi protocol was fine, and worked out of the box, ALWAYS.

      Mister Gates (although I think it was IBM actually) made a shortsighted decision, that has hindered pc software development tremendously in its early years.

    9. Re:Right up there with Gates by mattkime · · Score: 1

      Where can I buy a new 8" floppy?

      --
      Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
    10. Re:Right up there with Gates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Artifacting? Sounds like you got a shitty dvd player and/or tv.

    11. Re:Right up there with Gates by ZeroZen · · Score: 0

      8" floppy?

      Imagine that thing erect!

    12. Re:Right up there with Gates by ahdeoz · · Score: 1

      rewinding (and fastforwarding) is a FEATURE, not a defect.

    13. Re:Right up there with Gates by tommywho70x · · Score: 1

      Ole! DirectX 9.0 hit on WHG III DB1's pointy little head. you might need to pump some chlorine gas into the ventilators at you know where for a reel EE [QTW] effective solution for dimm-witted-ness,elliot(1) in software engineering. (FBI.GOV: WARNING - Top 10 Most Wanted Outlook Express Hacks And Cracks - CARNIVORE of Web-based E-Mail mailto: my slashdot@slashdot.org VIA my Yahoo!SBC2IT.COM+>) You may enjoy "Swimming In the Bottom of the Gene Pool" by "The Austin Lounge Lizards" on Audio CD Title: "Never An Adult Moment" The Lounge Lizards are a popular austtx.net club band and are often featured on KUT.ORG - Listener-supported public radio from UT-Austin (CONVIO.NET)

  3. Intel Nothing better to do by John_Allen_Mohammed · · Score: 0, Troll

    than spread FUD. They're losing the CPU battle with AMD and they know it. So they try to scare people about the imminent death of the internet so they're solution products start selling... I say fuck them. I haven't been satisfied with an Intel product since the pentium 200 mmx... One can only hope they bankrupt themselves on their gargantuan inadequacy. Fuck them.

    --

    Skype Me! username: john_allen_mohammed
    1. Re:Intel Nothing better to do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They are obviously doing pretty well for themselves, despite what a couple of leet overclocking weenies like yourself thinks of them.

      They are in the business of making money, not making clowns like you happy. I'm sure if anyone from Intel knew how you felt they'd just cry their little hearts out about it.

  4. Well... by spieters · · Score: 5, Informative

    Don't bother to RTFA this time, the article's about as low on info as the summary.

    --
    Instant Karma's gonna get you Gonna look you right in the face -- John Lennon
    1. Re:Well... by Threni · · Score: 1

      Yeah! "Eventually", huh? Really? As opposed to those other tech standards that will be around forever, such as floppy drives, 232 ports etc, ISA bus etc.

    2. Re:Well... by KilobyteKnight · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Don't bother to RTFA this time, the article's about as low on info as the summary.

      Complete lack of technical savvy is what I've come to expect from Forbes. They just don't get the SCO thing either. And in this article, they interchangably use the terms "World Wide Web" and "internet". Forbes is obviously the magazine for pointy haired bosses, I can't imagine anyone else taking it seriously.
      --
      When will Windows be ready for the desktop?
    3. Re:Well... by Alsee · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Last time Slashdot ran this story I did a little digging. I'm not sure of everything Intel has in mind, but part of their plan is to impose a Trusted Computing layer on top of the internet. "Security" "viruses" "authentication" blah blah blah. What it really amounts to is that if you do not "voluntarily" submit to Trusted Computing and turn over control of your computer you will be locked out.

      Slashdot ran a story quite some time ago about Cisco Working to Block Viruses at the Router. The way they really work is they first scan that you are Trusted Computing Compliant, then they can scan exactly what software you are running, for example to ensure you are running the mandated firewall or anti-virus software or whatnot.

      If you do not submit to Trusted Computing, or if you are not running the mandated software, then the router "quarantines" you until you come into compliance. In other words it denies you a network connection. Compliance is "voluntary", but you are blocked from the network until you comply.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    4. Re:Well... by gingerTabs · · Score: 1

      In other words it denies you a network connection. Compliance is "voluntary", but you are blocked from the network until you comply.

      So if you're blocked by the network until you comply, how do you upgrade your software so that you comply? Not sure that people in the "I want it now" will be happy to wait for a CD to be sent to them with installation instructions...

    5. Re:Well... by jadel · · Score: 1

      I've heard this technology described as "dirty vlans" - quarantining of suspect machines by the use of (Cisco) programmable switches and routers - but it was aimed at the business market, this would be the first time I've heard it suggested for use in the wider internet.

    6. Re:Well... by jadel · · Score: 1

      In a business environment the only server you can contact is the one containing all the patches and service packs...

    7. Re:Well... by Kaenneth · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Couldn't a Virus/Trojan Spoof the authentication?

    8. Re:Well... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      How about a regular program? ie, I don't want to feed Big Brother, so I run some program that spoofs compliance by listing completely arbitrary programs running - like BeOS and nothing else.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    9. Re:Well... by johnhennessy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree completely.

      What has been hogging IT resources for the last 2 years - viruses. So every single director of IT will definetly buy something that will instantly fix all their resourcing woes.

      Intel, Symantec, etc, etc are all picking up on this and trying to sell products based on this. Do we trust the moral fibre of all of these companies with our freedom ? I think not.

      Education is what people need, not products. I don't think people willfully leave their computers as Zombies.

      On the other hand - if they are worried about the effects of flash crowds , /. effect etc. then its a different matter. But I suspect they're just looking for more excuses to generate revenue.

      --
      [ Monday is a terrible way to spend one seventh of your life. ]
    10. Re:Well... by Ranx · · Score: 5, Informative

      Intel's press release about the same speech has a little bit more information, although nothing technical.

      http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20 040909corp.htm

      Also interesting: a link to the open platform website:

      http://www.planet-lab.org/

      Interesting quotes:

      "Applications run on PlanetLab are decentralized, with pieces running on many machines spread across the global Internet. They can also self-organize to form their own networks, and include some form of application processing inside the network (instead of at the edges), adding new intelligence and capabilities to the Internet."

      "It would provide a platform on which Web services can run and a way to connect grid computing sites and utility data centers. It sits above the new physical infrastructure supplied by Internet 2 and above the networking layer where IPv6 functions, adding a new stratum of higher-level functionality to the Internet."

      Why it has to replace the current TCP/IP-infrastructure is still unclear (apart from selling more hardware).

      --

      Me
    11. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Thanks for the link on the Bush thing, I hadn't heard of that. I've had a hard time supporting either candidate, but I felt Bush would be a good terrorist antidote, so I was leaning towards him. However, that just shows he puts himself on the same level as all the other religous fanatics who are "doing the duty of God/Allah". Why can't we have a leader who runs the country with expert guidance and reason instead of voices in his or her head?

    12. Re:Well... by nolife · · Score: 1

      If you do not submit to Trusted Computing, or if you are not running the mandated software, then the router "quarantines" you until you come into compliance.

      As much a grip as MS has on computers, I see many situations where this concept would NOT apply or be useful. What about your PS2, Xbox, your Fluke Linkrunner, various forms of Linux, various switches, Jetdirect cards, home routers, music station, airport, X10, Palm pilot, RF bar code scanners etc.. Or basically ANYTHING that get an IP address. How can these 'random' devices be certified? I do not believe you can default to no access in anything but a very tightly controlled environment like a corporate lan. Of course you can already do these things to some extent in that same corporate environment. I can not see this technology being used anywhere else but in that specific situation. Maybe I am missing something here.

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    13. Re:Well... by Noah+Adler · · Score: 1

      Actually, they interchangably use the terms "World Wide Web" and "Internet." They're not Wired.

    14. Re:Well... by Mr.+No+Skills · · Score: 1

      Thanks for those links. At least now there is something to discuss (aside from wondering of how a sketchy article like that gets posted...)

      I'm not sure this is about replacing infrastructure as much as it is about monitoring traffic and maybe routing specific protocols and services across different paths and shutting down specific types of traffic if it looks like a DoS attack or worm activity. Maybe its something expanded on the QoS concept. I think its possible that all this still runs over IP and existing hardware, but IANACNE. Maybe some of the more network engineer types could comment on the source of concern, or if this is just an excuse to propose new network switches we all need to buy.

      Anyway, I RTFA and got nothing from that, but your links at provided proof that Intel made a real comment on something here.

      --
      Sleep is for the Weak
    15. Re:Well... by Skjellifetti · · Score: 4, Informative

      Forbes once wrote an article about 64 bit computing where they defined a 64 bit machine as one that could address 64! bytes of memory. There writers and editors really don't have much of a clue about technology.

    16. Re:Well... by DrKayBee · · Score: 1

      Whatever's on the inside of your service point (like the cable modem or the gateway) should still be fine right? The router on the other side of the gateway should just be concerned about what's coming out from the gateway.

      --
      Humans have such a good sense of humor!
    17. Re:Well... by Alsee · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well first you need compliant hardware with a Trust chip that can keep secrets from you and lock you out of your own files and able to deny you control of your own machine.

      Assuming have have that chip built in, then you just turn it on and "voluntarily" give up ownership of your own computer. While Cisco's router has you "quarantined", it likely is configured to give you access to the required files and website to seize control of your machine. From there it will probably handle all of the work of bringing your machine into compliance and placing chains and handcuffs and locks on everything, prohibiting you from being able to do anything they do not want you to be able to do.

      After that you get network access. You will then find, for example, that it is impossible for you to save pictures from websites, it will be impossible for you to run a pop-up blocker or ad blocker when visting various websites.

      You are always free to turn the Trust chip back off and regain your freedom, but if you do you lose network access again. You'll also find you are locked out of all of the new files and any new software and whatnot.

      Turn on the Trust chip and you can play your music so long as you pay your $9.95 monthly fee, however you cannot copy the music files or edit them or play them in an alternate music player.

      Turn off your Trust chip and you cannot play your music files at all.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    18. Re:Well... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Couldn't a Virus/Trojan Spoof the authentication?

      In general, no.
      Authentication is based on a random key locked inside each chip which you are forbidden to see. Every chip has a different key. That random key is signed by the manufacturer, and it is effectively impossible for you to forge that signature.

      The only way to pass authentication is either to be a genuine and secure chip, or to physically dig that key value out of a tamper-resistant and self-destructing microchip. Not impossible, but you'd need a sophisticated lab, signifigant expertise, and quite a few chips to destroy in trial-and-error attempts.

      If you did all that and sucessfully extracted a key, then yes you could put that key in a virus/trojan to falsify authentication. It would succeed and run wild, but only for a while. That key would be noticed and revoked. After revokation that key would fail authentication. You'd need to rip open another chip and extract another unique key.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    19. Re:Well... by zaxus-lightmode · · Score: 1

      Actually, if the key is random, the trick would be to get the corporate signature. Then you could sign your own keys. And they couldn't just go and change the signature or invalidate it, since that would invalidate x% of the chips that are already in use.

      --
      Rattle rattle thunder clatter boom boom boom.
    20. Re:Well... by dickens · · Score: 1

      Is that 64 bytes or 64 factorial ?

    21. Re:Well... by AnotherBlackHat · · Score: 1

      In general, no.
      Authentication is based on a random key locked inside each chip which you are forbidden to see. Every chip has a different key. That random key is signed by the manufacturer, and it is effectively impossible for you to forge that signature.


      So I do a "man in the middle" attack on my own computer.

      -- less is better.

    22. Re:Well... by Alsee · · Score: 2, Informative

      this would be the first time I've heard it suggested for use in the wider internet.

      PDF link From the last two paragraphs on page 11 through page 14 is a transcript of Bush's Cyber Security advisor addressing a Gobal Technology Summit in Washington DC in 2001 and directly calling on ISP's to start making plans to make such a system mandatory as part of ISP terms of service. To fight viruses, to secure our National Information Infrastructure, to fight terrorists, to defend our way of life, to fight Osama bin Laden himself! LOL.

      TCPA is a refference to the Trust chip. "Forcing down patches" is done through Trusted Computing, enforcing the use of firewalls, and on and on, all Trusted Computing.

      Obviously ISP's can't start locking out non-compliant systems until most of their customers already have Trusted-capable hardware. Well, they have just started rolling out ordinary PC's with Trust chips embedded in the motherboard. It is expected to become standard on all new motherboards in under a year. No one will specifically buy a machine with a Trust chip, people will simply be handed a machine with a Trust chip when they by any new computer. My rough estimate is that over a period of four years or so the vast majority of machines will have gone throught the normal obsolecence cycle and been replaced. By default they will all have been replaced by a Trusted capable machines.

      So in around 4 years ISP's could fairly safely install these routers and make Trusted Computing mandatory (all in the name of fighting viruses naturally). The few people who do not yet have Trusted hardware will be blamed for having obsolete and non-compatible hardware.

      It's a horrifyingly plausible scenario. Anyone who refuses to submit to Trusted Computing and give up control and ownership of his own computer will be effectively excluded from the internet. Refusal to submit becomes an internet death sentence.

      But it will start creeping in long before it becomes mandatory. First it will be online music and movie stores that require Trusted Computing to be able to access the files. Then you will start seeing software with optional Trusted Computing "enhancements", and software that will not install execpt under Trusted Computing. And you'll start seeing tons of websites that only work with a Trusted browser. On those Trusted websites it will be impossible to run ad-blockers or anything similar. Trusted Computing will enforce it as impossible to view the website without also viewing the ads. Tons of websites will jump at such a chance to enforce ad display. Other websites will require Trusted Computing to prohibit you from copying any of the pictures or text or other content. Website/community logins can be done through Trusted Computing. It can also be used to enforce all sorts of terms and restrictions. For example Slashdot could do all sorts of client-side lamness filtering and karma tracking and troll blocking and post rate restrictions. Oh, and Slashdot could use it with the membership-fee deal.

      Oh, and don't forget that Microsoft has already started touting Trusted Computing based e-mail. You sart getting "secure" e-mail from friends, family, perhaps even your boss. And if you haven't gone Trusted Compliant then you can't read the mail. And according you your friends, your family, and your boss, it's YOUR FAULT for not upgrading to an enhanced and compatible machine. It's YOUR FAULT you can't read their mail. Sigh.

      The only thing that can stop Trusted Computing is if there is a massive public backlash.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    23. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure that Forbes has *ever* had a clue, frankly...

    24. Re:Well... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      the trick would be to get the corporate signature

      Yes, that would be quite effective. However you would need to physically steal their signing computer. That key would also be locked inside a self-destructing tamper-resistant chip bonded to a motherboard (or even inside a CPU itself, which would be bonded to the motherboard). If they felt like it they could embed that machine in the middle of a 12-ton block of concrete.

      And if they were really serious about security they could have that chip time-out at the end of every day, requiring a phone-home to a Trusted Computing Group server for daily reactivation.

      Stealling the manufacturer computer would work for no more than a day, then they'd refuse to issue daily reactivation for the obviously stolen machine. Stealling the Trusted Computing Group daily reactivation server would get you nothing because it is incapable of generating any valid signatures itself.

      In general hoping to snatch any of the critical master keys is pretty unrealistic unless you work for some secret Three Letter Agency for some government [cue Mission Impossible theme song], chuckle.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    25. Re:Well... by megarich · · Score: 0

      i like looking at forbes for stock tips. i dont expect much from them either on the technical front. you either get it or you dont and they obviously dont get it...

    26. Re:Well... by surprise_audit · · Score: 1
      OK, so you spread applications across a number of computers, all linked together by the Internet. Exactly how is this supposed to reduce network traffic??

      Those two consecutive sentences tell you everything you need to know - "XXX predicts downfall of WWW. XXX is pushing new technology."

    27. Re:Well... by puffbunny · · Score: 0

      Yes, the article seems to be total FUD.

      --

      -*-

      hitting bottom never felt so good

    28. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a surprisingly simple logic to this. Competition and technological progress are increasing the world's total bandwidth without any apparent limit. We can reasonably assume that with the increasing effectivity and popularity of both P2P and WLAN, local carpets of well-connected, anonymous clients will soon develop to share files and non-local bandwidth. This further, massive increase in connectivity gives the internet even more power as a medium.

      Now the internet is already considered "out of control" by the big players and an apparent majority of politicians. To them, an increase in the world's total bandwidth mostly means an increase in computer-related crime. It is sad but true that many people cannot think of legitimate uses of the internet beyond HTML-based WWW and email.

      Since the law is obviously not stopping anyone (and with the advent of anonymous, encrypted, de-centralized networks becomes progressively less able to), people are looking for a technological "solution" to the "problem", some sort of control system. Since a system with any possible workaround, at all, is useless, a fully integrated, "trusted" web - and ISPs blocking all other traffic - is the only apparent possibility.

      Of course, this will only happen if there is enough industry pressure. Aside from governments interested in suppressing freedom of speech, most benefit from such a system would go to the "intellectual property" industry. It should be obvious that the best thing you can do to prevent this kind of "new internet" is to deny this pressure group profits and the lobbying power that comes with it.

      Further developing both the technology and widespread use of P2P, and a WLAN P2P network software that allows sharing of uplinks, would help.

    29. Re:Well... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      So I do a "man in the middle" attack on my own computer.

      Doesn't work. You can't impersonate a genuine chip without knowing a genuine chip's unique random key and valid signature. All you can do is listen in on everything each side says, but you still can't decrypt any of it or get at the decrytion key. The only way to decrypt it is to know the secret key locked inside at least one of the chips.

      A full explanation would require a lesson in Public Key cryptography and signatures. The signature defeates man-in-the-middle impersonation attack, and Public Key cryptography defeats man-in-the-middle eavesdropping. I'm too tired to explain it now, but it should be an easy to Google explanations.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    30. Re:Well... by Skjellifetti · · Score: 1

      factorial.

    31. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    32. Re:Well... by Glendale2x · · Score: 1

      Since the article is a dupe, I'll just dupe my response, too.

      "Hey, I know how to fix the internet!"
      "How?"
      "Build a new internet on top of the old one!"
      "Uhh..."

      The internet doesn't need fixing, it seems to run just fine. What it does need are less people running virus magnets and creating all kinds of problems. The lack of security is *not* the internet's fault; it already does what it needs to do. Security should not be the job of the transport. The job of the transport is to transport stuff, be it unencrypted data or the next generation of uber-encrypted VPN for those who want security. (This is my gripe with all these "wireless security" methods. Just build a damn base station with a built in VPN server and be done with it. But then they couldn't introduce "new and improved security" every other month and sell more stuff.)

      Got virus problems? It's not the internet's falut, nor its responsibility. The responsibility for that should be on the client side. I see attempted windows exploits coming to my network all the time: in my denied connections for my firewall. Packets dropped, no harm done. Same with my Apache logs. I scan my incoming and outgoing email for viruses, firewall everything, and make those in my family who use Windows aware of issues like don't click on random shit in your email you know nothing about. And guess what? Everything works smoothly and plays nice.

      The idea is nothing more than buzz to create some interest from people who have money in the hope that they'll part with their money. "Look what we can do, we can fix the internet! Now, we'll just need you to write a check for..." Besides, how long will it be before an internet tunneled over an internet gets overloaded? Then what? Tunnel another internet over the internet tunneled over the internet? If you want a new, faster, better network, you gotta build one from the ground up.

      --
      this is my sig
    33. Re:Well... by HokieJP · · Score: 1

      Well, you can't really blame Forbes for this. According to the sizable disclaimer at the bottom, the article is from a news feed called FinancialWire.

    34. Re:Well... by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      The lack of security is *not* the internet's fault; it already does what it needs to do.

      Just because something isn't your fault doesn't mean it's not your problem.

      Today, the internet is vulnerable to DDoS attacks from hosts, either after a security breach, or just malicious users. It needs a better way to prevent aggressive DDoS, but that can be added simply enough at the level of international ISP blacklists, and won't need any modification to TCP/IP underpinnings.

      However, the majority of "virus" problems only lead to data loss on the client side, and it is truely the client's responsibility to protect itself. Users should be self-sufficient enough to not NEED the Internet to be deleting viruses for them.

    35. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think again...

    36. Re:Well... by zor_prime · · Score: 1

      It should also be relatviely easy to use a brute force algorithm to derive the same key given the key space and a log of a session between the the computer and the Trusted Computer gateway. I believe this would be a "Plain Text Dictionary Attack", since you would know the preencrypted values, and would compare that to the encrypted values, and do a brute force search of the signature used.

      If the chip is used to exchange session keys, the value would take longer to derive, but it would still be possible.

      In all likelyhood though, you would probably just do this a couple of thousand times, and reverse engineer the assignment algorithm used to generate them, since anything with this kind of distribution is going to have a hard time maintaining strict randomness.

      Public Key encryption is breakable, it is solely about how much investment you are willing to throw at it. I can just imagine the open source projects, and challenges on distributed.net ...

      In addition, the cool thing about it being in hardware is that it isn't going to change. Imbuing some central authority with the power of maintaining a registry would just paint a giant "HACK ME" sign on whoever hosted it...

      --
      "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." -Mark Twain
    37. Re:Well... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Using a large enough key makes the cost of a brute force attack ridiculously high, like using pgp with a 4096 bit key. I remember a version of pgp for dos that would use arbitrary key sizes that high and higher back when the pgp binary normally only did what, 1023? 2047? Something like that. No reason you can't use a really bloody huge key, so long as you're not going to be encrypting data with it very often. If all you're using it for is verifying signatures and decrypting occasional binaries, it shouldn't make much difference.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    38. Re:Well... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      This sounds pretty goddamned desirable when it comes to the corporate desktop. Granted I'm more in favor of using network-booting systems with distributed or local storage, or NAS, but if you really must use PCs this sounds like a godsend.

      You could provide a mechanism for users to add their own trusted applications, for example, and if it was later found to be harmful you could not allow anyone else to add it, so you could only have a mistake like that once, and as soon as you found out it was a mistake, you'd be able to solve it across your enterprise.

      I know that this would be an absolutely horrible thing to have in all PCs because it would eventually become mandatory but it's something I'd sure like to see on an add-in card. It wouldn't have to be very complicated.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    39. Re:Well... by tommywho70x · · Score: 1

      You will discover that since the release of Windows 98/NT 4.0, Microsoft and the so-called Big 5E-Online Services have been systematically destroying the distinction between the Internet and the WWW, apparently to take advantage of the common gateways, portals, smart mirror sites, free archived media access and free services built by the DoDoBirds, other USA.GOV agencies, the Educational Institutions, Public Libraries and Computer Hardware OEM(s) Contrary to popular belief, MSFT and the IAP/ISPs had nothing to do with it until the government, in an incredible act of stupidity, auctioned the public bandwidth dynamic channels(0-65,535) off to the greedy MSD-COMMS and Nutscape Partnerds VeriSignATurE Files. (K.I.S.S. ME, LIZARD LIPS!/?Now, don't Dinah sore at me, please.pl) To my understanding of "IT", the Free Public Access Internet Zone was built for free exchange of information(AS)DATA[Reports] using TCP/IP SQL compatible formatting to connect a Remote Host to the inquiree's Local Host terminal location to deliver the requested "Package" for the purpose of the recipient's "workplace enhancement" and "fun". Tim Berners-Lee and the W3C CERN Gang invented HTML and all it's variants as E-Marketing tools. Big difference. Good reason for Forbes and the rest of the controlled media publishers to break down the the barriers between them.

    40. Re:Well... by tanjung · · Score: 1

      Network administrators should have some responsibility on what is actually travelling through there network. Therefore, if I am an ISP, and I notice that some of my client's machines have become zombies, it should be my responsibility to kick them off the network or restrict there usage, until the problem is fixed. If I run a network through which several ISPs are connected, and it appears that the level of "bad" trafic coming from one of those ISPs has reached some kind of threshold, I should be obliged to restrict that ISP's usage until they have dealt with the problem. Responsibility should always be with the owner of the computer from which the rubbish is eminating from, but when that owner has not done something about it, the level of responsibility simply moves up the chain. All agreements between clients-to-ISPs as well as Network-to-Network should follow some kind of model like that.

    41. Re:Well... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      How can these 'random' devices be certified?

      The plan is that over the next couple of years practically every new device will ship with a Trust chip. Any non-trusted device will be denied a connection. Any PC requesting a connection will have to authenticate what software it is running. Any non-PC Trusted device will have to authenticate that it is running manufacturer approved software, and may optionally be checked against some list of trusted and compliant manufacturers.

      The plan is to phase things in over a few years. The vast magority of all hardware connected to the internet has been manufactured within just the last few years. Really, how much of yur hardware is more than 4 or 5 years old? If they spend the next 4 or 5 years simply shipping a Trust chip inside every single newly made product then practically all hardware in use will be Trusted capable. At that point it becomes quite possible to exclude the few rare old peices of non-compliant hardware still in use. The will do so in the name of ensuring security, probably right after a nasty virus outbreak. And they'll say it's not their fault they are excluding you, they'll will blame YOU and your old and incompatible hardware for the problem.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    42. Re:Well... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Whatever's on the inside of your service point (like the cable modem or the gateway) should still be fine right?

      No.
      Well, you could effectively have your own private network and your stuff can talk to your stuff. Of course I assume that's not what you mean, because it if was then it wouldn't matter if your ISP refused a connection.

      The router on the other side of the gateway should just be concerned about what's coming out from the gateway.

      Right. And they will refuse your gateway a connection unless your gateway is Trusted-configured to refuse an internet connection to any non-compliant device.

      The point is that non-compliant devices will be denied the ability to send non-Trusted packets to the internet. The justification will be sucurity and fighting viruses. If your device is non-Trusted then it might be infected, or it might become infected. Obviously that makes it a "threat" to their network because it might send packets attacking other machines on the network.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    43. Re:Well... by KilobyteKnight · · Score: 1
      Well, you can't really blame Forbes for this. According to the sizable disclaimer at the bottom, the article is from a news feed called FinancialWire.


      Sure you can. Forbes published it. If FinancialWire had reported 2+2=5 and Forbes published that, Forbes is still clueless. Whether or not FinancialWire is also clueless is another matter.
      --
      When will Windows be ready for the desktop?
    44. Re:Well... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      given the key space

      The key space of a 128 bit key is:
      340,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0 00,00 0 keys.

      The key space of a 2048 RSA key is very complex, but lets just say it is comparable to a normal 128 bit key.

      It should also be relatviely easy to use a brute force algorithm

      It's not. It's constantly using different random 128 bit AES keys for each communication session and each set of files. It uses 2048 bit RSA keys for authentication and to communicate the 128 bit keys.

      how much investment you are willing to throw at it

      A recent contest winner took 3 days and $50,000 of custom hardware to crack a mere 56 bit key. Barring an unexpected mathematical breakthrough, even using every computer on earth, it would take tens of thousands of years to crack any one of these keys.

      The only plausible attack is to copy a key by physically ripping open a self-destructing microchip using a sophisticated laboratory. Obviously you'll never be able to obtian the hardware holding their top level master keys, and ripping open your chip only helps you. If you give out your key for other people to use then that key will be revoked, making it useless.

      and a log of a session

      A session log is useless with public key cryptography, that's the whole "public" thing. You are welcome to eavesdrop on everything. Public key cryptography is fundamentally different than normal cryptography and you really need to read up on it to be able to competently talk about Trusted Computing. Public key cryptography is capable of things which are impossible with normal cryptography.

      Plain Text Dictionary Attack

      Nope, they have insane levels of security against plaintext attacks. Pretty much the only time you ever to know any plaintext is under some of the 128 bit keys, and never the important ones. Even if you manage to exploit a plaintext attack it still only lets you read that single session or the single cluster of files under that key. The important 128 bit keys and the 2048 bit keys are only used to encrypt internally generated random values which never qualify as "known plaintext".

      a hard time maintaining strict randomness

      Thank you! This is a perfect example of how incredibly paranoid they are! These chips have built in quantum-mechanics based random number hardware!

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    45. Re:Well... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      This sounds pretty goddamned desirable when it comes to the corporate desktop.

      No, because you're missing the fact that in a corporate situation "you" and "the owner" refers to the company. Fron that point of view nothing I wrote is good for the company.

      What you are seeing as a good thing is the company's ability to secure their machines and control what their employees can do. You don't need Trusted Computing to do any of that! You can get every benefit you are thinking of using identical hardware where the owner (the company) can know their master keys. This would be vastly better for the company than Trusted Computing, all of the benefits and none of the problems.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    46. Re:Well... by zor_prime · · Score: 1

      I am sure trust chips could tag outbound request with verification (signature) information.

      I am sure trust chips could verify binaries before installation or execution, and insure that they have a signature from a "known good" provider.

      However, I can't imagine that means a whole lot. Look at it this way: In order to meet the needs of the market, there will still be 1000's of software vendors, all of whom will need to be certified into the scheme above. It seems highly unlikely to me that all of them will implement their apps with exactly the same concept of Trusted Computing. Do you think Apache or Mozilla, for example, would agree to limit functionality in the same way as Microsoft? And I would love to see the amazing lawsuits if either was denied certification.

      In addition, it only takes one Trusted Computing certified VM that will execute unsigned code, to make it possible to run non signed code, and make the whole "signed binary" issue moot.

      Given this, Trusted Computing seems primarily about creating more overhead, and adding provability (but not identity!) to internet communication.

      Whether you can crack the keys or not, unless a trust chip is an entire OS burned into the chip, the trust scheme does not scale. And how do you upgrade an OS burned into a chip, in a trusted fashion?

      --
      "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." -Mark Twain
    47. Re:Well... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      You have many common missunderstandings about Trusted Computing. You have it backwards thinking that Trusted Computers are "less" functional than normal computers. Trusted Computers are actually "more" functional than normal computers, but whenever you step into the that "more" zone it slaps a pair of handcuffs on you.

      it only takes one Trusted Computing certified VM that will execute unsigned code, to make it possible to run non signed code

      ALL Trusted Machines will run any and all code. Well, unless you tell it not to.

      It is the old Embrace Extend and Exterminate tactic. The first step is Embrace. Trusted Computers "embrace" normal computers and all existing software and all existing files by being able to do anything and everything a normal computer can do. All of your old programs will run just fine on a new Trusted Computer. There is absolutely no reason *not* to have a Trusted Computer, it would be like having a computer without speakers. Just as you can pretend the speakers aren't there on a speakered computer and use it as a normal computer, you can pretend the Turst chip isn't there in a Trusted Computer and use it just like a normal computer.

      The Extend step is that Trusted Computers can do things normal computers fail on. New Trusted software will work on Trusted Computer (though you MUST do an online activation/registration and possibly pay a rental fee to reactivate each month), but that new Trusted software fails to install on a normal computer. It is normal computers that are restricted and unable to run the software at all!

      New Trusted music and video files will play fine on a Trusted Computer (though you can't copy them and you may need to pay a rental fee to reactivate them each month), but they will not work on a normal computer. It is normal computers that are restricted and unable to play the files at all!

      New Trusted websites will be viewable just fine on a Trusted Computer using a Trusted Browser (though it will be impossible to run an AD-blocker while viewing the site), but it will not work on a normal computer. It is normal computers that are restricted and unable to view the website at all!

      If in a few years your ISP installs Cisco's announced "virus blocking router" (which doesn't actually block virues) your Trusted Computer will be able to access the internet (so long as you run exactly the software your ISP mandates that you must run, such as a specific firewall and maybe even an ad banner), but a normal computer will be denied any connection. It is normal computers that are restricted and unable to access the internet at all!

      By the way, the Presiden't Cyber Security advisor gave a speech at a global tech conference calling on ISP's to make plans to install exactly this sort of router, to make it a mandatory part of their terms of service. It is to be done in the name of fighting viruses and hackers and securing the "National Information Infrastructure" and protecting us against terrorist Cyber-attack. The Presiden't Cyber Security advisor went so far as to call on ISP's to install these routers to help fight Osama bin Laden himself.

      make the whole "signed binary" issue moot

      There may be some use of signing binaries for some purposes, but in general there is no need to sign Trusted Software at all. When the software runs the Trust chip generates a signature of the binary on the fly. It then uses that signature as part of the step of decrypting data files and authenticating/decrypting communications.

      Any attempt to change a Trusted binary inevitably changes the signature the Trust chip will generate when you run that binary. Since it now has a different signature it can no longer read any of it's encrypted data files. Try to hack your DRM'd music player and it becomes incapable of reading or playing it's own DRM'd song files. You can only play that music with the approves DRM enforcing software that give you, or you cannot play the music at all. (And the music doesn't

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  5. In other news by A1kmm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Intel predicts that it will be able to convince the world to abandon the unscalable approach of following standards, including upcoming standards like XForms and IPv6, and open P2P systems, and instead invent its own propietary system.

    --
    X-Has-Sig: yes
  6. First time I see a story without comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... it has already happened!?

    "The Internet will end when 1 million slashdotters click this link"

  7. Swamped in dupes by BenjyD · · Score: 4, Informative
  8. ... But blind posts are forever by walmass · · Score: 5, Funny

    WWW may be dying, but repeating old stories is forever

    1. Re:... But blind posts are forever by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      Slashdot easily confirms....dupes ARE NOT DYING!!! :-)

  9. Hurray, another XXXXX is dead story. by Biotech9 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'd love to see how much of the nets resources are taken up by spam mail, viruses, worms, and the like. I would imagine (although I am totally uneducated in the arena of 'tech') that if these problems were wrapped up for good, a whole lot of stress would be removed from the Internets shoulders.

    I'm also cynical enough to predict that intel are saying;
    "The net is dying... AND WE HAVE THE SOLUTION! SIGN UP NOW FOR ONLY $5.99 TO GET A STARTER PACK"

    1. Re:Hurray, another XXXXX is dead story. by mog007 · · Score: 1

      Man, *BSD's dead is SOOOO last year. Get with the times. Now it's that interweb thing.

    2. Re:Hurray, another XXXXX is dead story. by ssbljk · · Score: 1

      they announced death of radio after TV is invented,
      then they announced death of TV after www is invented.

      noting was true.

      but this time it could be, because nothing is invented.

      --
      /ss
    3. Re:Hurray, another XXXXX is dead story. by southpolesammy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hmmm...I wonder how much of the Net's resources are taken up by dupes.

      --
      Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
    4. Re:Hurray, another XXXXX is dead story. by Chrax · · Score: 1

      Damn you Nietzsche, you trend setter.

  10. Dvorak behind the scenes? by pixelated77 · · Score: 1

    Is it me, or does it sound like Dvorak cooked this one up?

  11. Dupe by Detritus · · Score: 4, Funny

    Dupe, Dupe, Dupe, Dupe of URL
    Dupe of URL.
    Dupe of URL.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  12. That's not bad at all by gustgr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    WWW may reach the same level Gopher is today, it is not so popular (mainstream) but it's contents can be very interesting if you perform some data mining (geekly speaking of course).

    1. Re:That's not bad at all by grahamlee · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The primary reason that Gopher's contents are so interesting is because it never caught on as a commercialisable medium - i.e. there are no ads, pop-ups etc. Unfortunately there is no Mother Gopher any more, nor is there a reliable VERONICA either, which means that you need to know where in gopherspace something is before you can look at it. [For instance: a NeXTSTEP gopherspace at sdf-eu.]

  13. WWW must be maturing by BinBoy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The end of Usenet/NNTP has been predicted many times as well. It's a stage that every successful protocol eventually reaches. Our baby is growing up!

    1. Re:WWW must be maturing by Kjella · · Score: 1

      It's a stage that every successful protocol eventually reaches.

      Drop "successful". If you use a shotgun, you're likely to make a few hits.

      Kjella

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:WWW must be maturing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BS! Thanks to RIAA and MpAA newsgroups are bigger than ever, when was the last time you needed info on a linux program that only had a newsgroup for answers?

      It happens all the time! I think irc may be dying though, but the pirates and hackers seem to keep it alive.

    3. Re:WWW must be maturing by Lancaibheal · · Score: 1

      But does anyone actually *use* Usenet anymore for anything other than spamming advertisments for pornography of a questionable legality?

    4. Re:WWW must be maturing by BinBoy · · Score: 1

      Yes, the programming groups are active and relevant for example. The various health groups are helpful as well. Search groups.google.com and you'll find tons of interesting reading. It's especially useful for finding solutions to technical problems or for finding comments on a product before you buy it.

    5. Re:WWW must be maturing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Usenet has remained very popular over the years, and continues to be. I predict that usenet will increase in usage over the next few years, and to be frank .. we'll have google to thank for it. more traffic is a good thing, a lot of good resources on usenet. the porn & advertising is a negative, but in any free society there is positives and negatives... the good always outweighs the bad..

  14. Death of the Internet by gowen · · Score: 5, Funny

    Perhaps the internet will be killed by the fact that, with constant breeding of duplicated news stories, one will eventually reach critical mass and overwhelm all other information.

    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    1. Re:Death of the Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that; the duplicated stories start to mutate due to cosmic radiation, and all of the sudden the internet becomes self aware...

    2. Re:Death of the Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Duplicate Story Event Horizon?

      Does anybody have any lemon soaked paper napkins?

  15. Publicity by crull · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They're doing what they can to get some publicity to the PlanetLab project.

    --
    this is not my signature.
  16. Too late for Intel by News+for+nerds · · Score: 3, Funny
    In Soviet Russia, WWW predicts Death Of Intel!
    "Forbes is running a report saying that AMD's CTO claims that Intel's P4 is 'running up on some architectural limitations' that will eventually cause its downfall."
    1. Re:Too late for Intel by secretsquirel · · Score: 0

      In Ashcroft America we usually leave that up to the AMD fanboys.

  17. The Internet is Dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    It is official; Netcraft confirms: the Internet is dying

    One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered the Internet community when IDC confirmed that the Internet market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that the Internet has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. the Internet is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

    You don't need to be a Kreskin [amdest.com] to predict the Internet's future. The hand writing is on the wall: the Internet faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for the Internet because the Internet is dying. Things are looking very bad for the Internet. As many of us are already aware, the Internet continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

    All major surveys show that the Internet has steadily declined in market share. the Internet is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If the Internet is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. the Internet continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, the Internet is dead.

    Fact: the Internet is dying

    1. Re:The Internet is Dying by azaris · · Score: 1, Funny

      It is official; Netcraft confirms: the Internet is dying

      Are you sure? I seem to have trouble bringing up www.netcraft.com...

    2. Re:The Internet is Dying by Dogers · · Score: 1

      i think he meant:
      Intel confirms it, Netcraft (and others) are dying!

      --
      I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
    3. Re:The Internet is Dying by LiMikeTnux · · Score: 0

      in soviet russia, intel confirms netcraft is dying!

      --
      yap
    4. Re:The Internet is Dying by DaFallus · · Score: 1

      Ok, all you did was say over and over again that "the internet is dying". You said it about 8 times in fact. Now, instead of being annoyingly redundant, how about some reasons why its dying? You can't just say "its dying" 12 times and not even give a hint to why that is.

      --
      No one cares what your captcha was

      Houston TX, USA
    5. Re:The Internet is Dying by plover · · Score: 1
      This is a parody of a famous troll here on Slashdot.

      If you start browsing Slashdot stories at -1, you'll see a troll that says something like: "Netcraft confirms: BSD is dying". This post appears to be a word-for-word copy of that troll, with the word "BSD" crossed out and hastily replaced with the word "Internet".

      Sometimes it's literally tears-in-the-eyes funny to read some of these trolls. It's worth doing it maybe once a year; but for the most part, it's mostly wading through pointless offensive slurs. But at least you'll get the jokes when you see them.

      Welcome to Slashdot.

      --
      John
    6. Re:The Internet is Dying by megarich · · Score: 0

      reminds me of one of my fav dilberts ever "i want you to fax me 3 copies of the internet"..."on green paper too.."

    7. Re:The Internet is Dying by Lancaibheal · · Score: 1

      But didn't you hear? The Internet is dying!

  18. waste of time by Docrates · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You know TFA is a load of crap when the excerpt is about the same size as the actual article...and half of the article's page is devoted to promoting some financial news service.

    This is, by far, one of the worst news posts EVER on slashdot.

    In fact, do go to the article and witness the historic event.

    --

    There are two kinds of people in the world: Those with good memory.
    1. Re:waste of time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And whoever designed that press release web backend needs to be fired: The character codes are visible, there's redundant copyright info in the footer, and there's no boundary between PR body and the self-promoting footer. Come on!

    2. Re:waste of time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This is, by far, one of the worst news posts EVER on slashdot.
      Yup, not to mention that it's a dupe of an article from two days ago. It's official: LostCluster has lost his mind. Guess that cluster was important.
    3. Re:waste of time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Presumably the assholes don't want you to see the boundary between content and finance advertisement, so the guy will get promoted instead. That's how the world works. As for the other bugs in the PR, it's probably a result of a bad copy and paste into a textarea, which isn't the fault of the programmer.

    4. Re:waste of time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would be fun to make a poll to find the top ten worst /. articles.

    5. Re:waste of time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol... calling this the worst article on slashdot shows that you hvnt logged on recently!!!

    6. Re:waste of time by gcaseye6677 · · Score: 1

      Considering Intel has been a slashdot advertiser for a long time, me thinks Intel purchased a Slashvertisement.

    7. Re:waste of time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Want information? Read the abstract: http://www.planet-lab.org/PDN/PDN-02-001/pdn-02-00 1.pdf And of course, the official site: http://www.planet-lab.org/

    8. Re:waste of time by jafuser · · Score: 1

      Heh -- maybe the web would survive better if sites would stop putting so much extraneous crap on their pages.

      --
      Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
    9. Re:waste of time by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Well, consider that it's a dupe. A dupe is just a second attempt at a slashdottting...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  19. Very Vague by Manip · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It strikes me that this 'new internet over the existing one' is an extremely vague idea.

    At least to me, they have not said what the problems are to begin with and further more have not said how they are going to address each one.

    All this tells us is 'X Corp is working on an unknown problem with an unknown solution'.

    Adding a network on the existing one doesn't sound like a great solution either because it uses the apparently flied infrastructure to construct a method to make that structure more stable..? Sounds like building on sand to me..

    1. Re:Very Vague by leifbk · · Score: 5, Interesting
      At least to me, they have not said what the problems are to begin with and further more have not said how they are going to address each one.

      The problem, from a financial point of view, is of course that it isn't that easy to make money off the Internet as a lot of investors may have thought. TFA suggests as much when it's said that "the Internet will begin to collapse as millions of new computer users from developing nations begin to sign on." My guess is that most of those new users from developing nations hardly have the potential to generate profit remotely in proportion to their consumed bandwidth. So the Internet as a means to stockpile return on investment may well soon be a thing of the past.

      And that probably sums up Forbes' interest in the case.

      However, as long as the infrastructure of the 'net mainly consist of rather cheap hardware and essentially free software, I can't foresee the imminent death of what we really love about it: The free exchange of information around the globe. It's not the death of the Internet, then, it's rather a full turn of the circle back to Tim's vision. And good riddance to the money hoarders.
      --
      defenestrare necesse est

      --
      I used to be a sceptic. These days, I'm not so certain.
    2. Re:Very Vague by TheSync · · Score: 1

      My guess is that most of those new users from developing nations hardly have the potential to generate profit remotely in proportion to their consumed bandwidth.

      I think this is bad economic thinking. First, the deployment of bandwidth in developing countries for equivalent technologies will be cheaper because of the lower costs of living.

      Secondly, there are a wide range of last-mile options available now that were not widely available as the web ramped-up in the US (such as wireless). Technology has also advanced to make the price of very hefty routers much less than the sunk costs in the US.

      Third, I don't expect that the "average" Internet user in India will spend all day downloading MP3s. They will probably be on a lower-bandwidth connection, and sharing a computer among an entire village. These computers will be used much more for business and learning operations, and much less for bandwidth-hogging entertainment.

      The world's poor represent an incredible market. The concept of having another two billion people plugged into (an equivalent of) eBay is immense. Market information about farmining commodity prices, and increased access to information about advanced farming technology will make farmers more profitable.

    3. Re:Very Vague by antiMStroll · · Score: 1
      "... it isn't that easy to make money off the Internet as a lot of investors may have thought."

      True, but it's because they keep thinking of the Internet as a product in itself instead of as an enhancement or adjunct to more traditional businesses. It makes as much sense of Forbes to say the phone system is dying because companies, other than telcos, haven't found a way to make money from it.

  20. Internet 2 by Icarus1919 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's unfortunate that while a newer, faster version of the internet is in the works, it's supposedly going to be limited to use by scientists and other researchers. Perhaps the system with increased complexity that was previously reported on slashdot is the answer to our difficulties?

    1. Re:Internet 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like the WWW was when it was CERN's intranet?

  21. the Internet is not the WWW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Any article that confuses the Internet with the world wide web can't be taken seriously.

    1. Re:the Internet is not the WWW by NetNifty · · Score: 1, Funny

      anybody who announces that the internet is dying using the internet can't be taken seriously!

    2. Re:the Internet is not the WWW by someme2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the internet really was to die (say, for example due to something or other happening to the way IP works), it would be completely legitimate for publications such as the NYT to make this "death of WWW". Because that's the effect that 90% of their readers would be interested in.

      On the other hand I think it's even worse when they say on TV that some scientist "has invented a computer" that does X - when they really mean someone wrote a software that does X.

      --
      You can attach boosters to anything. It just costs more. -
      Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 07, @12:26PM
    3. Re:the Internet is not the WWW by ajs · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Yep. I was stunned by the lack of research that went into this article. Strike two for Forbes.com recently. I think I'm going to start ignoring them.

    4. Re:the Internet is not the WWW by imroy · · Score: 1

      Reporters, especially TV reporters, are the worst. I once heard a TV reporter refer to "emailing over the web". Obviously popular webmail services confuse the issue a lot. But if the reporters can't get technology right, it makes me wonder about what else they're fudging or getting flat-out wrong. Politics? Economics? Foreign affairs? Scary stuff when you consider that the general population depends on the media to inform them about important and interesting matters.

    5. Re:the Internet is not the WWW by antiMStroll · · Score: 1

      They don't care about e-mail or chat? Doesn't matter, I work with dozens of news people. This is very unlikely to be a conscious effort to package information into easily digestible form, the reporter almost certainly doesn't know the difference.

  22. The experts by shoemakc · · Score: 5, Funny


    Well god bless them. I remember the day vividly when my shiney new Pentium 3 arrived, and i was finally able to browse the internet.

    And why hardware limitation exactly are they refering to; heat from your cpu exhaust instantly melting through your patch cable?

    -Chris

    --
    --an unbreakable toy is useful for breaking other toys--
  23. No its true! by forgotten_my_nick · · Score: 3, Funny

    I looked at the article and it had..

    "Beware of the End of the World (Wide Web), " Says Intel

    Clearly the " the start of the internet corruption. :-O

    On a more serious note, the news story doesn't actually tell you anything except use Intel stuff.

  24. dotCOM by ElDuderino44137 · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't it be nice if dot com meant something?

    Perhaps Intel could build another internet ... and move all the dot coms there. I mean the real dot coms. People with a commercial tax id and a willingness to pay a tax to subsidise this new infrastructure.

    Just a thought,
    --The Dude

  25. Intel Board Meeting Transcript by uberlinuxguy · · Score: 0, Funny

    Intel CEO: "So what can someone suggest as a way of bumping our revenue?" Patrick Gelsinger: "I know, let's go public and say that the WWW is dying and that we have a solution." Person with conscience: "But, but, but, what about IPv6 and such?" CEO: "Who let him in here?!?!"

    --
    The Uber
    http://www.tulg.org/
    http://devurandom.livejournal.com/
  26. WWW != Internet by lazybeam · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I thought that the HTTP protocol was going to die? But no, they are talking about the Internet switches and routers being overloaded. And it will only get worse as more people use broadband - that means ISPs will have to upgrade their equipment! (shock! horror!) The WWW is going to break with all the """ codes in the article, too.

    Gelsinger's solution is to build a new network over the current Internet,

    The WWW is a network over the current Internet... Oh well

    --
    --
    no sig for you. come back one year.
    1. Re:WWW != Internet by ROU+Nuisance+Value · · Score: 1

      Calm down, Chicken Little, it doesn't say that. In fact, the article is almost entirely content-free.

  27. Re:WWW Is Dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    It's official, Inter confirms ...

    'L' is often mixed with 'R' ... in Japan!

  28. "InterWeb" by Scoria · · Score: 4, Informative

    Article summary: FUD.

    However, it is somewhat humorous that the writer often substitutes "World Wide Web" for "Internet." Considering that the number of estimated Internet users increased from 38,000,000 at the end of 1994 to 604,000,000 in 2004, I am somewhat incredulous to the belief that our current architecture is incapable of accommodating expansion. It may not be inexpensive, but it is possible.

    Aside from that, the article contains no other information. A substantial percentage of the article body is actually dedicated to FinancialWire and StreetSignals.

    --
    Do you like German cars?
    1. Re:"InterWeb" by mrseigen · · Score: 1

      Not to mention mangled quotes. I'm starting to wonder why Forbes even exists in this day and age with such quality technology reporting.

      Though perhaps that's where all those failed companies in the late nineties went when the Internet killed them.

    2. Re:"InterWeb" by burns210 · · Score: 1

      Upgrade the core internet backbone. Internet not fast enough? Upgrade the routers and fiber(or lay more) running between the internet hubs, ISPs, service providers and core technology hosting companies. The rest is trickle-down effect...

      That, and maybe put more caching servers in place.

  29. Ahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://gustgr.freeshell.org/before.jpg

  30. Did they hire Bob Metcalfe??? by Your+Average+Joe · · Score: 1

    A while back I thought it was quite ironic that one of the inventors of Ethernet would be proclaiming the death of it.

    I cannot recall if he was always saying the Internet would die or that Ethernet would die... I think it would be great to have Jumbo Frames, but that would no longer be Ethernet!

    --
    Your Average Joe
  31. Corporate boardroom conversation by nysus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Gentleman, the bad news is that there isn't much more money to be made selling Internet hardware. Profit levels in Internet-related hardware are down 300% from 5 years ago.

    The good news? We've just landed a top notch PR firm to help sell our message that we must upgrade and overhaul the whole infrastructure. We'll be monitoring the impact of this message over the next several months. If successful, we expect to see profit levels soar again within 3 years."

    --

    ---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.

  32. Re-architecture by el+americano · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A worthless article to be sure, with no discussion of the web's architectural problems. (bad Slashdot) There is obviously more to the architectural problem than will be solved by IPv6, but allowing for IPv6 and higher capacity routers alone, I'm sure the web could go a long time with no other upgrade. I can only wonder how much money Intel will spend on convincing people that the web will die "sooner than you think." If it's anything like the $300 million they spent on telling people they have the best/only Wi-Fi solution, we'll be hearing this for a long time.

    --
    Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. -Groucho Marx
    1. Re:Re-architecture by Deorus · · Score: 1

      The move to IPv6 will also be another PITA. Daniel Bernstein has an excelent article about this subject with which I completely agree. Due to bad implementation issues, the migranion process isn't easy either.

    2. Re:Re-architecture by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      If they hit with WiMAX before 802.11i hits they might be right.

      But they are right, the web isn't nearly responsive enough to the usage paterns of it's users. It doesn't provide information that you don't query for directly, people are already using summarising software and blog tracking software and websites that sort prices.

      All of these will eventually be seamlessly integrated into the internet, I know we are terrified but there will be a massive unification of services of the internet VERY VERY SOON which is what the bubble of the 90's was all about they thought they could do it then but shoddy software and overbearing marketing lead to other startup's in the same areas which destroyed the unification (ICQ, MSN, AOL, Yahoo, etc anyone?)... The funny thing is that Microsoft is nowhere near mature enough as a company to say, at 1 cent a hit for 1000 years we'll make billions so they are too short sighted to really get it.

      $5 says the chinese beat us to it, they know how to think long term and consider the consumer (at least enough to care about their long term happiness [Call centres are for chumps]).

    3. Re:Re-architecture by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      First of all, not providing information you don't query for directly is a feature, not a bug. Why would I want to be bombarded with shit I didn't ask for? Second, you do get bombarded with ads, which are about as informative as what passes for the news these days, but about commercial crap instead. Er, also? Anyway it's not even true, because you can use an RSS feed. For (simple) example, my Xbox is hacked and I have XBMC (Xbox Media Center) 1.0 on it. There is a little news ticker on the default theme which will spew out stuff from an RSS feed - ever hear of those? If you use an RSS reader you too can get "push" information from websites. In fact you even mention blog trackers, which is basically the same thing, and may even be implemented using RSS.

      In other words, the future is already here, and it's not all that exciting. We have push technology using the web in the form of programs with auto-reloading web content (WiMP, Yahoo! messenger) and programs with RSS (too many to name) so uh, stop complaining about non-problems.

      The only issue about the web not keeping up is that web sites are getting bloaty faster than transfer rates are ramping up. Even if you have fast fiber to your doorstep, everyone between you and what you're trying to get to is in your way to some degree, even if they're there to help you. This will always be true.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Re-architecture by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      Ah but is an RSS reader the web? Is a blog tracker the web?(If you answered yes how about is IRC part of the web?)

      The answer should be no and as you point out these technologies are new (hence you think I might not have heard of them) which is what the article is saying, basically that technologies like these are making the web interface useless.

    5. Re:Re-architecture by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      RSS is carried from web servers and typically relates to web content. Block trackers track stuff on the web - they're web applications. IRC has nothing to do with http or web pages, so clearly, it's not part of the web. Next time, don't use such a specious argument, or an obvious counterexample. The answer to the first two is yes, the answer to the last one is no. They have little to nothing in common. IRC uses a forcibly interactive protocol and deals in messages. http is interactive now but doesn't have to be very interactive (keepalive is a performance hack, it does not provide new functionality and really you can get web content by just connecting, sleeping for a second or so after connection is made, and sending your request) and it deals in files, http is distinctly file-centric and doing anything else with it usually involves mocking a file.

      I'd say nice try, but it wasn't.

      Technologies like these are not making the web interface useless, either. The web is equally well used with a generic browser and a custom application which parses the content. Personally I'd like to see some kind of XML DTD which suggests how data should be presented, and then see more data provided as XML, with a link to the display DTD. This technology might exist, I haven't looked for it. You could then use a web browser to access a proxy which did this for you, or build the functionality right into the browser. But, frankly, doing the display work on the browser side pretty much takes care of things. The only thing missing is the ability to easily construct arbitrary applications. This seems to be a job for .NET/Mono or Java, or something else like them that has yet to be invented. (Well, there's Inferno...)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  33. WWW predicts... by hachete · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...the death of Intel, the rise of AMD, film at whatever

    h.

    --
    Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
  34. terrorism link? by davejenkins · · Score: 2, Funny

    Has he linked his project to the War on Terror(TM)? If not, he won't stand a chance of getting any funding or attention. The virus protection scam comes close, but he needs to throw in a little more doom and gloom...

  35. What?? by ceeam · · Score: 1, Funny

    No more slashdot then?! --shock--

  36. Re:WWW Is Dying by peragrin · · Score: 1

    What's really funny.

    MSFT wants to control the web, and is trying to build tech into longhorn to accomplish that. Embrace, Extend, Extinugish. Now Billy G is going after the world.

    How to Kill MSFT, Kill x86. as a side affect Intel dies as well. Damn, now those brilliant engineers can actually build a better processor.

    --
    i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  37. Intel and AMD by onegear · · Score: 0

    Listen, I'm no fan of Intel, and this article contains no useful information whatsoever. But, if Intel went bankrupt like many have suggested here, I can guarantee the price of AMD chips will increase.

    1. Re:Intel and AMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fine, that's the day Via begins eroding AMD's market. There's more than two in CPUs and there's plenty waiting in the wings. In fact, the fourth most likely player is from China and they're not X86 which means they work with Linux, but not Windows. So, bring it on. It can only be good. And as for price, well without Intel they could rise a little bit for a little while, but not for long.

    2. Re:Intel and AMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think Intel is that important, you obviously don't understand the foundry model of chip manufacturing. Intel is just a brand managed by a marketing team.

  38. I, for one, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    welcome our new Intelnet overlords.

  39. The web sucks by autopr0n · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I really think the future lays in some sort of system that distributes server load to clients. sort of like an interactive bittorent.

    A lot of things that are done these days over the web are extremely simple and could be done on the client side, but can overwhelm a server when it needs to be done for thousands or millions of people. And bandwidth still isn't free.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:The web sucks by burns210 · · Score: 1

      What you are talking about is a peer-to-peer world wide web. Where a client request a page, www.slashdot.org, and the file(frontend, output of the database-stuff) that is sent to it may or may not come from the actual server hosting /., rather it would come from either the server, or one of the clients that are also browsing the site(or have recently) at that given time..

      Smart caching(of the 'end result website). Purgin the cach ever-so-often and doing so efficiently and reliably(not the bogged-down Temporary Internet Files nightmare in Win/IE).
      Timestamps(to be able to retrieve the most recent version, rsync from somewhat stale version (10 minutes old) to the current version).
      Extremely efficient algorithms(for distributing the load quickly, so that 'surfing the web' is as fast or faster).

    2. Re:The web sucks by smagruder · · Score: 1

      Perhaps a new meta tag could suggest the addresses of peer servers or mirrors. And browsers would be updated to take this info into account. Just a thought.

      --
      Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
    3. Re:The web sucks by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      When we're talking about static pages, this problem could be solved with a cooperative network of caches. Each cache would have a combination of what everyone wants and what the local users want, preferrably this would be definable in broad terms (by netmasks, I suppose, and with hard values or automatically using a scoring system - I want both) so you could decide what percentage went where. This is something we could all be running all the time, and eventually it might become a standard service. I think the best way to get there would be to enhance squid, which is already great software.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  40. Intel CEO Lyle Lanley, everyone! by adoarns · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The Web was not created by companies like Intel. It wasn't created by companies at all, only in some cases co-opted by them.

    When companies like Intel pitch these wide-ranging changes, it comes over like some seedy traveling salesman pitching a monorail.

    If we want to make changes to the web, we will.

    --
    Tenemus pyrobolos atqui jacimus cognitiones.
  41. Intel Is Dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The WWW reports that former chip giant Intel is finally collapsing ironically its death is attributed to the marketing scam that made it successful. In order to keep up with their megahertz myth, Intel was forced to crete processors that consumed so much power even when not actually performing any computing functions that they became totally impractical for PC use.

  42. Bill Gates already said this! by NoSuchGuy · · Score: 1

    Bill said in 1995 there is no need for an Internet Explorer because it's too slow.
    You could burn the content of the Internet on 6CDs!

    --
    Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
    1. Re:Bill Gates already said this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No! He said 640 CDs.
      And he added "640 CDs should be enough for everyones."

  43. The scary part is that he's right by Jugalator · · Score: 2, Funny

    The WWW will eventually die, along with other common Internet technologies!

    PlanetLab? Not RTFA, I suppose that's to make a new planet for us?

    Thanks, Intel!

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  44. Pentel Predicts Death Of WWW by tommasz · · Score: 5, Funny

    Pentel, the world's leading provider of 0.5mm mechanical pencils has predicted the World Wide Web cannot continue to function at its present level for much longer. Pentel is offering an alternative, called WSD, or Writing Stuff Down, that is virtually immune to scaling problems currently plaguing the Web. Industry experts have been slow to respond to this proposal but their responses are expected any day now, via another new technology called the Post Office.

    1. Re:Pentel Predicts Death Of WWW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you remember, we tried that, only things kept getting lost.

  45. Re:WWW Is Dying by Gentlewhisper · · Score: 1

    Who are they to confirm anything? AMD will probably crush them into the dirt and the WWW will still be here waaaaay after Intei is gone =)

  46. Alternate means by Cappy+Red · · Score: 1

    That'd suck if they were right... I'd have to go back to reading Slashdot in the newspaper like I used to.

    (things seem funnier at five a.m.)

    --
    This is my sig. It's prescription, I swear. I need it for reading things... on the other side of things
  47. Bah, who cares what they say. by Gentlewhisper · · Score: 1

    Remember Intel are the guys who were trying to downplay AMD's 64bit processor when it first came out?

    They basically say something like "640k is enough for everyone" except that a few months down the road when market forces start acting, who are the ones playing the catch up game now?

    I'd say we'd all be happily surfing the WWW in our subterran bunkers in 2038 when Intel is no more..

    1. Re:Bah, who cares what they say. by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 0
      Remember Intel are the guys who were trying to downplay AMD's 64bit processor when it first came out?

      Wow. A corporation downplayed the product of a rival corporation.

      What other signs of the Apocalypse do you have to share?

      'd say we'd all be happily surfing the WWW in our subterran bunkers in 2038 when Intel is no more.

      Or the bunker might be stamped "Intel Inside".

      --
      --- Ban humanity.
  48. Re:Dupe by dubious9 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    To the music of the Imperial March?

    Hemos: "They will feel the power of the slashdot!"
    timothy: "The slashdot effect is insignificant compared to the ire raised when I dupe."

    --
    Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
  49. Typo found... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    WWW is 'running up on some architectural limitations' that will eventually cause its downfall.

    uh... Windows is spelt with only 1 W and ends in "indows"

  50. and how will they announce the death ? by proudlyindian · · Score: 1

    And the day www goes dead where will they announce it ?

  51. A little piece... by jmcmunn · · Score: 2, Funny

    A little piece of the WWW dies every day. But after it has spent it's 12 hours on the front page of /. it will be back. Don't worry, the death is only temporary...

  52. Where's Cisco? Not having them would be like... by Provocateur · · Score: 1

    ...a Led Zeppelin reunion without John Paul Jones.

    Oh, wait...

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  53. Signs. by Raven42rac · · Score: 0, Redundant

    One of the signs of this impending cataclysm? Random occurences of the string "&#34:"

    --
    I hate sigs.
  54. Forbes = msft shills, tech/investment idiots by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    These are the people who have published a series of pro-scox/msft and anti-linux articles. Not to mention numerous other idiotic articles. There investment advice is just as worthless - Forbes used to praise a medical company called Dynacq (DYII) now that company is in the pink sheets (DYII.PK).

    Forbes is absolutely worthless. I'm amazed anybody considers forbes worth anything.

  55. the ./ dupe stories alone ... by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    ... are bringing it to its knees ...

  56. Re:Dupe by 808140 · · Score: 4, Informative

    No, I think it's meant to be to the tune of "Duke of Earl", which is much funnier, imho.

  57. Re:Dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    Or maybe to the tune of DUKE OF EARL you fucking idiot.

  58. ramblings by KennethSundby · · Score: 1

    The whole story looks like a mistake to be honest. If they would add more info to it, maybe it could be a note or a scrap, but hardly a story.

    --
    -Kenneth Sundby-
  59. the demise of all things that work by opos · · Score: 1

    How long have influential members of the community be predicting the demise of tape and tape systems? When the going gets hard, the community seems to alywas find ways to overcome the obstacles predicted by the experts.

  60. running up on some architectural limitations by tod_miller · · Score: 1

    I got some spam the other day about 'architectural limitations'. I think that is what they mean, they should give it a go, no gadgets and gizmos, no creams, no pumps required!

    Lets reinvent the web and have someone own it, and we all pay them! yes please! here is my credit-card number.

    1337H4X0R696969696

    --
    #hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
  61. What is it with Dvorak? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are people blaming Dvorak for everything?
    He was a great composer. If you don't like his work fine, BUT STOP BLAMING HIM for all of today's problems!!!

  62. Proper information at Intel's pages by igomaniac · · Score: 1

    It seems the author of the article has decided to give it a sensationalist spin. PlanetLab is a platform intended for researchers to experiment with new protocols. It's a world wide network of computers dedicated to research, and a number of interesting research projects are using it.

    http://www.intel.com/research/exploratory/planet la b.htm ...

    --

    The interactive way to Go -- http://www.playgo.to/iwtg/en/
    1. Re:Proper information at Intel's pages by surprise_audit · · Score: 1

      Does the PlanetLab network run on top of the regular Internet, or do they have a completely separate infrastructure??

  63. I for one... by evil_one666 · · Score: 1

    I for one welcome our new intel overlords Its slashdot, its tradition, and somebody had to say it.

  64. standard business practice by consciousmind · · Score: 2, Informative

    Invent a "problem", then offer a solution.

    The history is filled with these types of marketing schemes. In the 1930s there was a product called Listerine, made to treat throat infections. A guy called Gerald Lambert made a marketing scheme, "inventing" a problem ("bad breath") and offered the solution (his product), the birth of mouthwash products.
    Ref: http://chnm.gmu.edu/features/sidelights/whoinvente dbo.html

  65. I'm going to punish Intel for this... by havaloc · · Score: 1

    ...by buying AMD next time I build a computer. Shame on them.

    1. Re:I'm going to punish Intel for this... by mdemirha · · Score: 0

      No person other than an AMD fanboy says something this stupid. And since you are already an AMD fan boy, I dont think that you are a loss to Intel.

  66. I can explain the prediction! by Deorus · · Score: 1

    Intel's prediction makes sence. We won't be able to communicate with Mars most of the time through TCP, the connections will timeout, so we'r gonna have trouble with interplanetary Internet connections.

    However, there is light at the end of the tunnel (and it's not the train comming): Intel has just found the solution for this huge problem and will incorporate it in their Wi-Fi routers, which is undoubltly good news.

    In the other hand, how many people predicted the end of the world before the 21st century?

  67. WWW? by snofla · · Score: 1

    Wasn't this about the imminent breakdown of the Internet??? Btb. What would Al Gore think of this?

    --
    i don't like style guides
  68. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Intel in not known for it's vision lately: RDRAM, Itanium/Itanic, processor's operating frequency as main measure of performance, 64-bit extensions, ... death of the internet...

    Intel wrong again?

  69. Cisco controls the vertical. by nblender · · Score: 1

    So Cisco controls all the switches and routers on the internet? Fools are they who paid Cisco for them!

  70. And here's the code that killed it... by D4C5CE · · Score: 4, Funny
    Whoever wrote this may not have been stood up in front of a firing squad yet, but hopefully he's been sacked by now:
    "Beware of the End of the World (Wide Web)," Says Intel
    Yet bad HTML and childish language are the least of this blurb's problems - even the dot.com bubble in its heyday has probably never produced an article so full of vapor and devoid of the slightest piece of information at all:
    the Internet will begin to collapse as millions of new computer users from developing nations begin to sign on. "We're running up on some architectural limitations," Gelsinger was quoted as saying. Gelsinger's solution is to build a new network over the current Internet, that would monitor and direct traffic and better fight security threats or traffic surges.
    So how does one sum up this little "gem"?
    As "Erm, vaguely, something, some day"?!
    An while they are at it, how about defining the out-of-context "collapse" and "some architectural limitations" for this article to have any meaning whatsoever?
    However, Cisco controls most of the routers and switchers comprising the current web, and it may have other ideas.
    OMG. Aren't we all just stunned by the writer's clarity, precision and thorough understanding of all things technical...

    If there's an "anti-Pulitzer", a prize for the worst misachievements in journalism, Forbes&FinancialWire may just have given us a very promising "Candidate of the Year".

  71. I'm not concirned... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...until netcraft confirms it.

  72. It makes sense... by Akimotos · · Score: 1, Funny

    We replaced our intel boxes by AMD Opteron's and Apple G4's ... so intel will probably see us as another dead customer. So THEIR net indeed is dying.

  73. I've got the gameplan for the new internet. by El+Camino+SS · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Here is how the "trusted internet" will fail:

    1. Claim that the internet, with the advent of widespread broadband, is going to crash. Cause the herd to panic. Bypass your IT manager. Put it right in Forbes and Fortune 500. Make them demand it from the top down.
    2. Speak of adding a new functionality (like a new and improved clippy) and then slide in DRM to prevent "hackers" from getting into your machine. This of course, will never prevent hackers. All it will do is make the hackers get into the BIOS level of your computer when you allow a shell at that level.
    3. Roll out "trusted computing." Pretty soon, your computer won't trust you to let you do what you want on it. You will feel a sudden twinge as millions of Joe Users will cry out in agony, and then suddenly, silence.
    4. Geeks will find and work with corporations that are not on trusted computing. They will be fine. They will know where to get the useful mobos and processors. Their side of the internet will not change at all, ever.
    5. One generation of "Joe User" will find that all of the interesting things that made owning a computer are now blocked and will become frustrated. They will blame the computer instead of the architecture. "My Dell won't let me do what I want!" Gateway, Dell, and other Windows syncophants will start going belly up in the slimmest of markets after they drove all of the profit out of the business. IBM will be fine with Linux for the business market. Comcast will hemmorage profits when people can't get to what they really want, and then suddenly turn on all of the other companies. AT&T will suck it up, those losing more traction in the real world as usual.
    6. The industry will dump DRM and trusted computing while it is still hot, because basically, there won't be any purchases, and people have to sell computers to pay the bills. Word will get out to the common person, quickly, and they will sit on the shelves and rot.

    Why do I think it will happen just like this?

    The whole "trusted drinking" thing worked so well during prohibition. A group of Holy rollers thought that banning things or preventing them would stop bad activity. All prohibition did was make "bad" activity more expensive... and much more aggressive and organized. These "trusted computing" twits are insane. If they think that it is going to work, they're nuts. Go ahead and delay Longhorn or whatever. Simply put, it ain't going to work. Look, if geeks need to get their chips from Burma, or Morrocco, or wherever, rest assured that they will find a way.

  74. More predictions by HomeGroove · · Score: 1, Funny
    Let's see, what other silliness were predicted in the past:
    • Apple will go bankrupt.
    • We'll be in Flying cars by the year 2000.
    • Astronaut food is yummy. Everybody will eat it.
    • The Red Sox will win another World Series.
    If only the last one wold come true. Hmmm, let me make some predictions:
    • The internet will not die, it will evolve (as it has already).
    • The Red Sox will win within my lifetime (I have at least 40 years left, could happen).
    • Kerry will win the election.
      or
      Bush will win and start the apocolypse
    • Related to the Bush win: I will move to Canada.
    --

    ----
    Spam subject of the moment: Offshore account secrets -nashville disrupt

    1. Re:More predictions by HomeGroove · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Also, grammar nazi's will rip apart my post.

      --

      ----
      Spam subject of the moment: Offshore account secrets -nashville disrupt

    2. Re:More predictions by /dev/trash · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      A minor nit. if Bush is gonna bring on the apocolypse. Where does it matter where you live?

    3. Re:More predictions by HomeGroove · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      It'll be more fun in Canada considering they have talking bears pimping beer.

      --

      ----
      Spam subject of the moment: Offshore account secrets -nashville disrupt

  75. Watch out for DMCA by wrook · · Score: 1

    Since the internet is used to transmit copyrighted information (heck, even this post is copyrighted under the Berne convention), reverse engineering such a system would be illegal under the DMCA.

    I have been waiting for this for a while. "Security" measures in hardware on networking that is really used to lock out any new vendors.

    1. Re:Watch out for DMCA by Alsee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      reverse engineering such a system would be illegal under the DMCA

      I've been putting quite a bit of thought into this, but actually no. Cracking the security on your Trusted Computer should technically not violate the DMCA. At east not the generic break itself. The DMCA specificly applies to circumventing the access control system specifically protecting someone else's specific copyrighted work. When you first receive/activate your Trusted Computer it is either protecting nothing, or only protecting your own files. It is perfectly legal to circumvent a system protecting your own works or protecting nothing.

      Furthermore, the Trusted Computing Group and everyone else involved is busy swearing up and down that Trusted Computing itself *is not a DRM system*. They go on and on about how it is merely a platform and all sorts of applications can be built on top of it.

      [sweet innocent voice]
      You see, it's merely a coincidence that people happen to be able to write DRM software on top of Trusted Computing. And if someone were to actually do such a thing, well then it would be their mean nastry software that was the DRM! It's not our fault! We just made a sweet innocent Trusted Computing system and all sorts of wonderful features, there's no mean nasty DRM inside Trusted Computing itself! We are all sugare and spice and everything nice!
      [/sweet innocent voice]

      Chuckle. If you dig around you can find countless rock solid quotes you could cite in court that Trusted Computing is not itself in any way a DRM system, heh heh heh.

      Between those two points, no, there should be no problem cracking the Trust system itself.

      However if you crack your Trust hardware and then proceed to circumvent some DRM software trying to run on top of it then you might well have DMCA problems, but it would be a particularly complex case. It could go either way.

      Oh, and a third point: The DMCA has been around for about 6 years, but there STILL has never been a single conviction for any of the circumvention provisions. Not a single one. I personally think it should be tossed as unconstitutional (I'll skip the explantion), but you generally can't get a law thrown out as invalid until someone is actually convicted and gets a chance to appeal.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    2. Re:Watch out for DMCA by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      The DMCA specificly applies to circumventing the access control system specifically protecting someone else's specific copyrighted work.

      Wrong. The DMCA forbids you from breaking a device which protects copyrighted work. It contains no exception if you happen to own the copyright to that work!

      This has already been demonstrated, when a digital camera company brought suit against photographers who wanted to extract their own pictures.

    3. Re:Watch out for DMCA by crucini · · Score: 1

      I think in practice a court would be largely influenced by the innocent uses of the crack. If the trusted platform is used primarily for copyright DRM, I could see a court finding the cracker guilty. If, however, the trusted platform is needed to read work email and access online banking, and the crack enabled those applications, I think a court would be more likely to find the cracker not guilty. Especially if the crack contains some minor stumbling block to using it in an infringing manner. For example, xpdf by default respects the "do not print" flag in pdfs. You can change it, but it's clearly not a circumvention device as distributed.

    4. Re:Watch out for DMCA by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Wrong. [] It contains no exception if you happen to own the copyright to that work!

      Well, lets see what the law itself says.
      DMCA Sec. 1201 (a) (3) reads:
      As used in this subsection -
      (A) to ''circumvent a technological measure'' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner;


      This has already been demonstrated, when a digital camera company brought suit against photographers who wanted to extract their own pictures.

      Do you have a link? I'd be quite interested in taking a look at that case. I would guess there was actually a different basis for the suit. If that is in fact the basis of the suit the their lawyer is probably an idiot and the case will likely get tossed out on summary judgment and without any trial.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    5. Re:Watch out for DMCA by Alsee · · Score: 1

      I think in practice a court would be largely influenced by the innocent uses of the crack. If the trusted platform is used primarily for copyright DRM, I could see a court finding the cracker guilty.

      You cannot be found guilty of circumvention if you do not violate 1201, end of story. Under 1201 is is only a crime to circumvent something which is actually on a protected work, and only if you do so without authority of the copyright owner. It simply is not a crime to circumvent something which is currently "protecting" nothing, or which is "protecting" your stuff where you are are copyright holder.

      Any court "influenced" by anything else and holding you guilty is acting uillegally and will get smacked down on appeal.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  76. Next up... by Whatthehellever · · Score: 1

    SkyNet

    --

    ---
    IMHO, of course.
    May the SOURCE be with you.
  77. They are not talking about the WWW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the article is actually referring to the limits imposed by IPv4 and the need to move to IPv6 for more addresses. If so, then the World Wide Web is *NOT* dying, only our ability to extend the life of IPv4 is dying (so to speak).

  78. subdomain by kennycoder · · Score: 1

    Heh finally you won't have to type "WWW.whatever.xxx"... just "whatever.xxx" on ANY website.

    "www" is just a dummy default subdomain.

    --
    Fucking a fat girl is like riding a scooter... it's fun 'til someone sees you.
  79. This would be the OFF ramp to the information super highway. Road is closed, biatch!

  80. Intel Predicts... by RotateLeftByte · · Score: 1

    Is this the same INTEL that recently said " If the net grows to 100 billion devices connected to it, our goal is to have a piece of Intel inside in every one of those hundred billion" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3643902.stm IMHO, this is a pure bit or maketing FUD just to promote INTEL. So carry on INTEL and you too could soon become the pariah that Microsoft could only dream about.

    --
    I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
  81. The real point here... by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 1

    ... is that Slashdot needs a a special icon for "X is dead/X predicted to die" stories.

    May I suggest a small tombstone with "R.I.P." engraved on it? Perhaps a black armband?

  82. Internet != WWW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MÖÖP

  83. So I went to the car mechanic by elpapacito · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Because I felt like I wanted my car tuned up to maintain good performance over time ; treat any machine well and it will bring you anywhere.

    The technician was happy to do the cleaning job that he knew well, he was paid for and did a good job. My car felt like new, no Ferrari but hey it was a tune up not a modification ! While I was waiting a car salesman approached me, proposing me to trade in the old car for a brand new one, offering a good deal. I refused as I went in for a tune up and I didn't want to give up a perfectly good car that was OK for my needs.

    The car salesman didn't pressure me much, I later realized. After like a week of traveling I noticed a noise I had never noticed before ..kaching..kaching..kaching. Little, but persistant.

    I was a little alarmed, but the car didn't seem to behave badly. I didn't want to run in trouble, so I went back to the mechanic. The technician said he didn't know, and asked his coworkers..meanwhile the car salesman said that he knew, it was a structural defect of some pump and that to save me time and expenses he would have replaced it for little money. That "kaching" was typical of the problem, which was little known but to insiders.

    I said I would have tought about that, and I went to another mechanic, who didn't know ..but promised me to spend some time thinking about it. The day after he discovered it was just a loose part not fixed well after the tuneup.

    Kaching...you need new hardware or the world will fall apart...kaching..it's a big problem, we don't want you in harm.

  84. awating the spam zombies by denisdekat · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I cannot tell you guys how many spam zombies there are out there. As a Sys Admin for a hosting company, I am finding an alarming rate of increase in regards to infected PCs spamming without the knowledge of their owner... Imagine all the thousands of newbies and the junk those guys will send :( Maybe you better not ;)

  85. and adding another layer on top by HermanAB · · Score: 1
    will make it better?

    Stupid idiot...

    --
    Oh well, what the hell...
  86. It's just an excuse... by ddkilzer · · Score: 1

    ...to take away Intel employees' external web access so they'll work harder.

    1. Re:It's just an excuse... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1
      ...to take away Intel employees' external web access so they'll work harder.
      ... on the problem of circumventing firewalls so they can continue to read slashdot at work. :-)
      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  87. Let me see what killed Unix and like so the Net by Rares+Marian · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A bunch of companies have different solutions which disrupt the original shared code cooperative model and Unix dies.

    A bunch of companies have different solutions which disrupt the opriginal standards based model and the Internet dies.

    I might accept the idea but it does not belong to Intel, Princeton, AT&T, nor Cambridge. It belongs in the bucket with all the other ideas that eventually get implemented. Otherwise the Net will be just like television.

    --
    The message on the other side of this sig is false.
  88. Let's see: by Mr.Surly · · Score: 2, Funny

    1) Flying cars only 10 years away (for the last 60 years).

    2) Y2K will end life as we know it.

    3) WWW now officially dead. Close your browser.

    I guess that sums it up. Forgive me if I don't hold my breath.

  89. "No support for quote marks" by labradort · · Score: 2, Funny

    "No support for quote marks", says Forbes

    "The WWW has never shown that it can consistantly produce the quotation marks we need
    when we need, and for this reason it needs to go back to the drawing board", said an unnamed source with the Forbes web design team.

  90. PlanetLab not ready for prime time either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have a couple PlanetLab nodes in our computer room. They're just Dell Pentium 4 Optiplices running Red Hat under UML. Just the sort of technology you'd want to build a new uber-Internet upon. One of them is is often locked up solid, requiring a power-cycle. Naturally, we'll need a new Internet protocol for power-cycling remote nodes.

  91. Planetlab connection by FU_Fish · · Score: 4, Informative

    As a user of both the WWW and Planetlab I can say that they are totally unrelated. The WWW is a source for finding/exchanging existing data. Planetlab is a testbed for new networking/computing technologies. Planetlab produces data, the WWW distributes data.

  92. What the hell? by BuBu_ · · Score: 2, Informative

    In the slashdot posting we get this: He's pushing a project called PlanetLab that has Princeton, Cambridge, Hewlett-Packard and AT&T on board, but Cisco is notably absent from that team."

    Yet, when we look at the article: It's a vision apparently shared by Cisco (NASDAQ: CSCO), Hewlett-Packard (NYSE: HPQ) and AT&T Corp. (NYSE: T), all of whom are working feverishly, either together or apart to save the World Wide Web, which Intel and others see as becoming so overloaded it will eventually break. Ripping good show, sport!

  93. in other news, the processor will be dead... by holy_smoke · · Score: 1

    due to technological limitations (heat disapation, power consumption) that will cause its demise.

    *rolls eyes*

    --
    Is the juice worth the sqeeze?
  94. Wouldn't suprise me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It makes sense that the web evolve as new requirements are placed on it. Nobody when the web was created predicted how successful it would be. Likewise, nobody thought that companies would start moving their information on the web in droves, or that people would want HTML to have graphics design or motion capablities for the creation of more interactive web pages. People are trying to get the web to do things it wasn't really designed to do.

    I think the biggest push that may cause this revolution (eventually) is companies looking to protect their IP. In the beginning, it was imagined that the web would be the haven for the free flow of information. As soon as companies jumped on to the web, now it's all about security and information control. Making sure some l33t haxor doesn't steal your carefully guarded trade secrets. Or restricting users into doing what you want them to do.

    Me personally, I think the web should be split into two different webs: the commercial internet and the non-commercial internet. Companies have really distorted what the web was supposed to be about: free information. Free information to me does not mean bullshit popup ads or huge banners that make it impossible to find the content I'm looking for. Every website and their brother wants me to register to view anything they have, so they can send me "valuable product information", aka spam. Websites are created daily whose sole purpose is to spam google with websites designed to get people to click through various web pages so they can raise their hit count and please advertizers. If companies want to do all this, by all means, they are allowed to do so. But I think such websites should be segregated off to a different part of the web so users know what to expect from a given site.

  95. Difference between the WWW and the Internet. by Rotten168 · · Score: 1

    Do they know there is one? Or is the WWW going to die but the internet will continue to thrive?

  96. Hmm... Maybe... by babybird · · Score: 1

    If we can just convince enough companies of this, then they'll all get off the internet and let us get back to USING it for things!

    --
    Keith D.
  97. intel's phony predictions by ShakuniMama · · Score: 1

    First it was a move towards the 13 nm EUV lithography crap and now, its death of the world wide web. Intel keeps coming up with propoganda that makes people wanna buy Intel and invest in its technology. Shouldn't they concentrate on their chip making business where currently AMD is kicking their ass both in price and performance? The Opetron's are a few million transistors less and about 3 times as fast.

    1. Re:intel's phony predictions by Hassman · · Score: 1

      "Kicking their ass both in price and performane" ... This isn't entirely accurate. What do you consider performance? There are some things that Intel does much better than AMD. There are some things that AMD deos much better than Intel.

      I don't know much about AMD, but I do know that nothing beats Intel's branch predictor. The Centrino processor is also phenomenal, it was kinda a fluke, but it is pretty peppy.

      --
      -Mark
      Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
  98. Web vs. Usenet by tepples · · Score: 1

    Except here, the problem lies in the WWW architecture. Unlike Usenet newsgroups, which cache information among several providers, web sites tend to have a single point of failure. When too many people try to access a web resource at once, the server's connection to the Internet often becomes saturated, and this congestion can only increase with a larger worldwide audience. Think Slashdot effect 24/7. No, many smaller publishers of information on the WWW cannot financially afford redundant hosting.

  99. death of TCP/IP by peter303 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The ethernet (and mostly internet) protocol was predicted to die 30 years ago. People offered alternatives like ATM and MicroSofts early 90s protocol (failed attempted hijacking of the Net), but none really caught. A mediocre standard used by billions of computers perseveres.

    1. Re:death of TCP/IP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      30 years ago? Impressive since Xerox PARC first came up with Ethernet in 72 (and the blue book dates from 1980) & TCP wasn't outlined on paper until 74 (and not split into TCP/IP until 78.)

  100. Re:You bet by atomic-penguin · · Score: 2, Informative

    Funny you should mention, "...you can forget about using linux on the desktop...". Planet Lab is built on Linux. Since this article is, in fact, about Planet Lab. Linux is a very large part of the picture.

    --
    /^([Ss]ame [Bb]at (time, |channel.)){2}$/
  101. Al Gore... The Failure by dunc78 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Can't Al Gore do anything right? No wonder he is so pissed off now.

    1. Re:Al Gore... The Failure by wine_slob · · Score: 0


      I thought all these new computers in third world countries were anticipated as part of rebuilding efforts after Bush bombs the crap out of 'em...

      --
      I ferment meat and I'll have the food groups wired...
  102. Some links with real information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A better news summary at:

    http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3 406161

    Or the organization itself:

    http://www.planet-lab.org/

  103. Pattern emerging by empaler · · Score: 1

    Keep an eye out on who's posting the dupes, you'll see.

  104. Self-serving predictions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do we even listen to them?

  105. It will never happen by Cokelee · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The entire idea is asinine. To paraphrase who many simply call the inventor:

    The Internet will never be controlled by a single company or a group of companies; Any company that tries to control it will fail.
    -- Sir Tim Berners-Lee
  106. I, for one... by Liquid+Len · · Score: 1

    ... won't believe this until NetCraft confirms it.

  107. Better ideas? by HotGarbage · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I was wondering.. Now, I understand that Intel is trying to drum up some business. Ok, fine..but I also understand that there is a natural progression to evrything, and without getting into religion, there is an evolution to things as well. That being said, was not a major part of the history of the Internet the direct result of a collaboration of Digital, Intel and Xerox (DIX)? If so, (and I could be confusing my facts here), but does it not make sense that such a collaboration be necessary to evolve the Internet into it's next state? Also, it seems to me that the whole other network overtop of the Internet amounts to little more than a bandaid on a sucking chest wound.

    --
    Decaffeinated coffee is kinda like kissing your sister.
  108. I was there by Groo+Wanderer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I was at the IDF Keynote, and I bounced some questions off Gelsinger afterwards. There are two problems with this that make it a non-starter in my opinion.

    First, they are talking about layering another level of obfuscation on top of the net as a fix for the underlying problems. Rather than dealing with the problems, they ignore them, and make a shiny thing. Wow, that's architecture for you!

    Next, with the innovation fom HP lately, and the fact that they are going commercial with it rather than open and standards based, it is doomed to be a niche idea at best. As one questioner afterwards pointed out, the internet was built on open ideas. This is looking to go the opposite way. NEXT!

    Vint Cerf was cool though. They said there would be a special guest, but to my horror, they only meant Vint. No telletubbies in bondage gear this year. I can only hope for spring 2005 IDF....

    I plan to rant about this on the Inq as soon as I recover from last week.

    -Charlie

  109. So now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    It's not just BSD?


    The end is near!!! Save yourselves!!!

  110. umm.. by destiney · · Score: 1


    What exactly is "some architectural limitations" ? The article is very vague.

    Sounds more like marketing than anything else.

  111. If at first you think this may be evil... by D4C5CE · · Score: 4, Insightful
    What it really amounts to is that if you do not "voluntarily" submit to Trusted Computing and turn over control of your computer you will be locked out.
    Intel Outlines Strategy For Making The Internet Smarter, Safer, More Reliable And Useful
    (...)
    This would transform the Internet from a data transmission pipe into a vast platform for hosting a wide array of services available [add: for ________ $ / __ (+ your immortal soul where applicable)?, ed.] to the world's six billion inhabitants. Gelsinger referred to this approach as the ability to provide planetary-scale services.
    (...)
    we are confident that we now can begin deploying and testing revolutionary, planetary-scale commercial services that will change the way business is done on the Internet.
    (...)
    "A planetary-scale overlay of computational services would open the Internet up to a new era of innovation while complementing other Internet initiatives," Gelsinger added. "It would provide a platform on which Web services can run and a way to connect grid computing sites and utility data centers. It sits above the new physical infrastructure supplied by Internet 2 and above the networking layer where IPv6 functions, adding a new stratum of higher-level functionality to the Internet."
    Oh, glad it's only about World Domination! ;-)
    Nothing scary there, just what almost every computer company strives for.
    How reassuring...
    SCNR
  112. GOOD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WWW at the same time it helped proliferate the internet on the level to where common users could "surf", it also ruined the internet. I say party on a telnet server, talk and exchange files in a newsgroup and trade porn via ftp. The web killed the internet, and I want my Internet back.

  113. Pap nonsense by smagruder · · Score: 1

    First, the article confuses WWW with the Internet, so we don't know what architectural perspective they're referring to.

    Then, this doozy: "'We're running up on some architectural limitations,' Gelsinger was quoted as saying." Ummm... which are?? At least give us a friggin' nutshell!!!

    I'm thinking this article should win a "Worst of 2004" award.

    --
    Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
  114. PlanetLab? Again? by MadMorf · · Score: 1

    That's three times in less than a week!

    Is there nothing NEW happening in the World?

  115. Re:Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe he was trying to plug in his cable modem to his phone jack and got upset.

  116. PlanetLab = mobile code. Again by Animats · · Score: 2, Interesting
    PlanetLab is another "mobile code" scheme for running your stuff on other people's machines.

    As an operational model, this fails. Either the system gets take over by hostile code, or there's some central adminstration that controls who runs what. (This last is the 3G cell phone services model. It's not working.)

    This is one of those ideas, like "push technology" and "micropayments", which fail because the people who benefit are separate from those who absorb the costs. Only in a monopoly situation can that work.

    1. Re:PlanetLab = mobile code. Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes PlanetLab a little different is that people want to run code on other machines not because they want the CPU cycles, but because they want to have a point of presence in multiple locations.

      Also, to join the consortium, one must contribute resources. Currently, this means that the ones who want to join are the one who will benefit. Other users can benefit from the services offered by members.

  117. Re:Fulfillment of this prediction :) by HomeGroove · · Score: 1

    Pulling out boot, applying to ass. Man, I hate monday's. Gracias for the grammar correction.

    --

    ----
    Spam subject of the moment: Offshore account secrets -nashville disrupt

  118. What can you expect... by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

    From an article that says Cisco "controls" most of the routers on the Internet?

    "Manufactures", sure. "provides the software used to operate", sure. But "controls"? Yeah, like Ford controls most of the pickups on the streets of North America, all at once, by remote control, without even looking at the roads.

    All those drunken speeders who get busted on the show Cops on TV? Yep, just helpless passengers in vehicles controlled by the auto manufacturers. Because whatever you build and sell, you control after the sale. There's no selling something and turning over control to the buyer. That just never happens.

    1. Re:What can you expect... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      From an article that says Cisco "controls" most of the routers on the Internet?

      "Manufactures", sure. "provides the software used to operate", sure. But "controls"? Yeah, like Ford controls most of the pickups on the streets of North America, all at once, by remote control, without even looking at the roads.

      This is the point and purpose of DRM - to turn all the computers and computer-related devices in the world into remote-controlled terminals. And, with the political bribes from *AA and Disney behind it, DRM is certainly going to win, signalling the end of the Age of Enlightenment and Information and the return of the Dark Ages and ignorance.

      Forbes is just being a bit early, that's all.

      Such a letdown, thought. We always thought that technical civilization would be brought to its knees by nuclear war, meteor strike or alien invasion; but now it seems that the actual killer will be the entertainment industry. How pathetic is that ?

      All those drunken speeders who get busted on the show Cops on TV? Yep, just helpless passengers in vehicles controlled by the auto manufacturers. Because whatever you build and sell, you control after the sale. There's no selling something and turning over control to the buyer. That just never happens.

      It won't, at least not in computer industry, in a few years. Besides, aren't various copyright organizations already trying to achieve this with their various copy prevention schemes and the ridicilous US law that makes it illegal to crack them ?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  119. Monorail! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I hope y'all appreciate this, I had a bitch of a time getting the stupid /. filters to accept this.

    The Monorail Song

    Lyle Lanley: Well, sir, there's nothing on earth Like a genuine, Bona fide, Electrified, Six-car Monorail! ... What'd I say?
    Ned Flanders: Monorail!
    Lyle Lanley: What's it called?
    Patty+Selma: Monorail!
    Lyle Lanley: That's right! Monorail!
    [crowd chants `Monorail' softly and rhythmically]
    Miss Hoover: I hear those things are awfully loud...
    Lyle Lanley: It glides as softly as a cloud.
    Apu: Is there a chance the track could bend?
    Lyle Lanley: Not on your life, my Hindu friend.
    Barney: What about us brain-dead slobs?
    Lyle Lanley: You'll all be given cushy jobs.
    Abe: Were you sent here by the devil?
    Lyle Lanley: No, good sir, I'm on the level.
    Wiggum: The ring came off my pudding can.
    Lyle Lanley: Take my pen knife, my good man.
    I swear it's Springfield's only choice...
    Throw up your hands and raise your voice!
    All: [singing] Monorail!
    Lyle Lanley: What's it called
    All: Monorail!
    Lyle Lanley: Once again...
    All: Monorail!
    Marge: But Main Street's still all cracked and broken...
    Bart: Sorry, Mom, the mob has spoken!
    All: [singing] Monorail!
    Monorail!
    Monorail!
    [big finish]
    Monorail!
    Homer: Mono... D'oh

  120. TCG not (necessarily) evil by Broadcatch · · Score: 1
    I've recently changed my mind (something apparently disallowed in politics) about the Trusted Computing Group (nee Paladium). I've been working with one of TCG's members, Geoffrey Strongin (AMD) who has this to say about privacy and DRM concerns:
    All of us are highly sensitized to this issue and have emphasized that these concerns must be addressed," said Geoffrey Strongin, platform security architect for AMD. Strongin argued that, far from undermining privacy, hardware-based security will improve user protections. "What we are doing here is a tremendous enhancement to privacy. Without adequate security, privacy protections is impossible. ( ZDNet)
    Basically, what we are working on is an open data sharing mechanism called XDI that provides a platform to enable trusted access to and sharing of data. Such a system, if (e.g.) supported by hardware, could enable the owner to define for themselves who they trusted to have access to their hardware or software, much in the way that the PICS could enable parents to decide what content their children should be able to see. Thus, you could choose to trust e.g. Microsoft and load their XDI data sharing contracts, or if you wanted the FSF or the EFF might publish XDI contracts that you'd rather use. Who knows? maybe /. might have it's own "trusted computing platform" suggestions...
    --

    The antidote for misuse of freedom of speech is more freedom of speech.
    -- Molly Ivins

    1. Re:TCG not (necessarily) evil by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Doesn't it bother you that the primary design of the hardware is to attempt to keep secrects from it's owner?

      Doesn't it bother you that the primary function is to restrict the owner's control of his own property?

      Doesn't it bother you that Cisco has announce routers that deny you an internet connection unless you submit to Trusted Computing?

      Doesn't it bother you that the president's Cyber Security advisor has called on ISP's to make plans to install exactly these sorts of routers and make Trusted Computing compliance a mandatory condition in terms of service for internet access?

      Doesn't it bother you that Trusted Computing restictions are only enforced against people who have not made the effort read their key from their chip? You hardware is your property and you have every right to rip it open and look inside. Doing so would certainly be a pain in the ass, but once you do so you regain full control of your machine and you regain full access to all of your files, and you are freed from any and all Trusted Computing restictions.

      maybe /. might have it's own "trusted computing platform" suggestions...

      I have a simple suggestion. My suggestion retains all of the legitimate benefits of Trusted Computing and eliminates every single legitimate objection to Trusted Computing.

      Simply include a printed copy of your private key.

      It's your hardware. It's your key. You have every right to know it if you want to. There is abslutely no legitimate justification for denying him his key. And *NOT* providing that key only accomplishes making it a nuciance to obtain that key, it does not prevent it.

      Knowing your key does not in any way reduces the hardware's ability to protect you against viruses and trojans. Knowing your key in no way reduces the hardware's ability to protect you if your machine is stolen. Knowing your key in no way reduces the hardware's ability secure your files and authenticate their integrity.

      There really really should also be an option to export your storage key, perhaps encrypted to your private key to keep it absolutely secure, but it is possible to manage without it. It takes some effort, but knowing your private key is adaquate to work around an unknown storage key.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  121. If the WW fails... by Bendebecker · · Score: 1

    I'm going to blame it on the GNAA. I knew those bastards' so called harmless fun would come back to bite us all in the ass.

    --
    There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
    most of us won't be able to afford it.
    -- Lemmy
  122. I call bullsh*t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you know how much fiber in North America is not being used right now?

  123. PlanetLab as an alternative for WWW? by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 3, Informative

    If Intel's CTO really said that its time for him to be fired. Except that he didn't. What he really said is this

    Planetlab isn't an alternative to anything. Its not even a network really. Its a research testbed, for people who want to evaluate their protocols on more realistic network conditions than the LAN in their labs. Its a good tool to help design the next generation Internet, but Plantlab in itself isn't going to do anything.

    I know this because I happen to be one of the people who does network research on Planetlab, and one of those 429 happens to sit on a table across the room from me right now.

  124. Re:Watch out for P2P by so1omon · · Score: 1

    [sweet innocent voice]
    You see, it's merely a coincidence that people happen to be able to share illegal content on top of P2P Software. And if someone were to actually do such a thing, well then it would be their mean nastry content that was illegal! It's not our fault! We just made a sweet innocent piece of P2P software and all sorts of wonderful features, there's no mean nasty illegal content inside P2P Software itself! We are all sugar and spice and everything nice!
    [/sweet innocent voice]

    --
    i'm the jedidiahmarkfoster your parents warned you about
  125. itanic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Intel should be predicting the death of their Itanics. Well Intel better have some netcraft graphs showing WWW is dead.

  126. Nothings dieing by genner · · Score: 1

    But just to be sure I'm going to be running the last website on a vax, running bsd, which I installed off a dvd.

  127. Next Generation by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

    We will phase out the WWW and replace it with the XXX. I'm always ready for new technology.

    --
    Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
  128. It'll never sell very well. by blair1q · · Score: 1


    I see a market for maybe five WWW's in the world.

  129. Re:Dupe and Shoop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not Duke, you daft wankers

  130. End of the World? by EmperorKagato · · Score: 1

    That's like Nicholas Carr saying Information Technology will become a commodity and no longer have a creative and innovative form. IMHO, it seems like they want to put fear into people so that they would buy or invest more. I would like to see what are the possible scenarios that can occur and what would be the reasons behind them.

    --
    ----- You know you have ego issues when you register a domain in your name.
  131. my prediction by porky_pig_jr · · Score: 1

    I predict PlanetLab will replace WWW at about the same time IPv6 replaces IPv4.

  132. Relationship to Internet2 effort? by cubicleman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wonder if this has any relationship to the Internet2 academic network that's been going on for a while with nodes at various universities, incl. my alma mater. http://www.internet2.edu/

  133. Re:Dupe by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Should be:
    d, d, d, d o u
    d, d, d o u
    d, d, d o u

    hth, hand

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  134. Smoke and mirrors!!!! by bs_02_06_02 · · Score: 1

    Intel is issuing PR to keep their name in the papers. They are using the media to create artificial "news". Intel has been losing market share, and rather than see their stock plummet, they make baseless claims to lead the public into believing that we can't live without Intel's leadership.

    Frankly, I think Intel should sink more time and effort into R&D, and bring products to market that the public wants to buy.

    When a company is in trouble, they usually do everything they can to focus attention away from their products and performance. It'll be interesting to see what Intel does in the next few months.

    --
    -- No sig for you!
  135. My God! by Pan+T.+Hose · · Score: 1

    WWW has already killed the audio CD, and now it will also die? What next?!

    --
    Sincerely,
    Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
    "Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
  136. more blue sky... by Ogman · · Score: 1

    ...from the "trying to maintain relevance" department.

    --
    But Officer, I DID read the f**king article!
  137. Everything will die eventually by dvhh · · Score: 1

    Well nothing is eternal, and once we're born we already know that all got our ticket to death. The question is who will die first, Intel or the internet

  138. Will it ever end? by MasTRE · · Score: 1

    Is there an insatiable demand for these corny-ass headlines? "Death" of "WWW?" Surely you either don't know that death means, or what WWW is, or, most likely, both.

    Stop sensationalizing
    "WWW is 'running up on some architectural limitations' that will eventually cause its downfall
    into
    Death of WWW
    you cretins.

    And whatever happens, it will not die. It will be extended, sub-classed, XML'd and in general made much more complex than it needs to be and obfuscated and more bandwidth hungry and less us[ful|able], but it will not "die."

    --
    Must-not-watch TV!